Abstract: An empirical investigation based on 222 sports fans of a university basketball team finds that sports enthusiasm and the mere exposure to sponsorship stimuli is positively associated with the awareness of event sponsors. In addition, the findings reveal the negative impact of advertising and sponsorship clutter on individuals' recall and recognition of sponsors.
Keywords: Sports, Promotion, Advertising communications, Sponsorship-linked marketing
This paper presents the development and examination of a theoretical model useful in understanding the various influences that shape an individual's recall and recognition of sponsors of an event. The model suggests that an individual's involvement with a particular sport, their enthusiasm for sports in general and their overall exposure to the sport all have a direct, positive influence on recall and recognition of sponsors supporting the event. The model also suggest that environmental clutter, in the form of promotional communications during the event, will negatively impact the individual's recall and recognition of event sponsors.
Findings from an empirical investigation of the model, based on 222 sports fans of a North American university basketball team, indicate that while involvement with a particular sport does not directly influence recall and recognition, it does have a positive influence on game attendance and resulting exposure to sponsor's messages. Enthusiasm for sports was found to influence both particular involvement and experience as well as to directly influence recall and recognition. Clutter, as expected, had a negative influence on both recall and recognition of sponsors.
While the measurement of most variables was good, the exception was the scale measuring promotional clutter. Although the measurement is in need of improvement it is important to marketers that a negative influence was found. This indicates that it is worthwhile for marketers to attempt to develop new measures of clutter and to include an assessment of the level of clutter expected at a venue and on broadcast events as important in evaluation of sponsorship proposals. However, until an adequate measure is developed no standardized assessment can be made and compared.
The findings regarding the indirect influence of involvement and enthusiasm on attending games, watching games on television and listening to games on the radio suggest that the marketer should seek sponsorship opportunities that increase both involvement with their particular sport and general enthusiasm for sports in the community. This may be accomplished through pre-game activities and communications thematically tied to increasing involvement and enthusiasm.
Understanding Long-Term Effects of Sports Sponsorship
Over the past few years, the sponsorships of sports, events, and causes has increasingly attracted the attention of marketers as both a promotion and a communication tool. Worldwide, sports sponsorships are the most popular and represent three-quarters of all sponsorship activity (Marshall and Cook, 1992; Smith, 1998). Despite this rapid growth, little is known about the effectiveness of sports sponsorship. Historically, corporate sponsors have not been inclined to evaluate the impact of their investments in events or celebrities (Hulks, 1980; McDonald, 1991). This situation is changing and there is a greater interest amongst marketers to quantify their investment in sponsorship. The few scholarly evaluations of sponsorship have yielded ambiguous results regarding the effectiveness of sponsorship: some authors record positive image effects, comparable to that of advertising (Rajaretnam, 1994; Turco, 1995), while other researchers report that sponsorship has little or no effect in terms of recall and company i mage (Javalgi et at., 1994; Otker and Hayes, 1987).
In light of the scarcity of past research and of its conflicting findings, the present empirical investigation examines some of the factors which may explain the differences observed in sports sponsorship recall and recognition. Specifically, it first assesses the ability of individuals to differentiate sponsors from advertisers. Then it analyzes the effects on sponsorship recall and recognition of involvement, knowledge, enthusiasm, and of viewership experience. Unlike previous analyses, this research focuses on the longterm recall of sponsors, and includes both recall (unaided recollection of sponsors) and recognition (aided identification of sponsors from a list). Also unique to this study is the inclusion of two types of audiences: those typically attending games in a stadium and those typically viewing the games at a televised location. A review of past research findings regarding the nature and effects of sponsorship follows.
Background of the Study Nature of Sponsorship
Sponsorship has been defined as "the provision of assistance either financial or in kind to an activity by a commercial organization for the purpose of achieving communications objectives" (Meenaghan, 1991, p.9). The activity sponsored may be an event (e.g. a special art exhibition or the Soccer World Cup), a team (e.g. basketball team), or a person (e.g. tennis players). Many different reasons may lead a company to become a sponsor. Some of the communications goals most commonly mentioned in past research include community involvement, image improvement, and increasing brand awareness (Hoek, Gendall and West, 1990; Polonsky et al., 1995).
Sponsorship is often compared with advertising. However, in contrast with an advertiser, a sponsor does not tightly control the medium and the content of the message it diffuses (Javalgi et al., 1994). The message of a sponsor is embedded in the nature and characteristics of the sponsored activity or individual (Pham, 1992). Further, the nature of the audiences involved can differ significantly. Sport sponsorships are often sought because they have both an event audience and a considerable media audience. For many marketers, media coverage has been shown to be the motivating consideration in sponsorship (Scott and Suchard, 1992) while the event audience is, in comparison, of much less importance. Crowley (1991), in a study of consumer goods companies, industrial firms, small businesses and exporting firms, found media coverage to be the most important promotional tool sought by all.
Past Assessments of Sponsorship Effectiveness
Most of the empirical studies evaluating the impact of sponsorship involvement have used tracking measures (Cornwell and Maignan, 1998). They have recorded the awareness, familiarity, and preferences engendered by sponsorship on the basis of consumer surveys (McDonald, 1991). Overall, the results of these investigations are inconclusive. For example, Javalgi et al. (1994) found that the effect of sponsorship in terms of corporate image varied greatly from business to business. In some cases, sponsorship seemed to have small positive effects, but in others, its impact appeared to be essentially negative. Ambiguous results were also reported by Nicholls, Roslow and Laskey (1994) when they monitored the effects of sponsorship in terms of brand preferences. It should be noted that these studies were concerned solely with the overall measurement of brand awareness and company image. They did not attempt to identify and explain how the tracking measures may vary according to specific audience characteristics.
Pham (1992) examined the effect of three constructs (involvement, pleasure, and arousal) on the aided recognition of sports sponsorship stimuli under controlled conditions. Pham (1992) surveyed university students immediately after the projection of an unaired soccer game with embedded billboards. Involvement was found to have a significant impact on the recognition of sponsorship stimuli.
Specifically, Pham (1992) identified an inverted-U relationship between involvement and recall. Pleasure and arousal were not found to be significantly related to recall. However, the gender of the respondents impacted their recall: males outperformed females on the sponsorship recognition task. Overall, Pham (1992) improved our understanding of the effectiveness of sponsorship by demonstrating the impact of involvement and gender on the aided recall of sponsors.
The empirical investigation reported below expands on Pham's (1992) work in several ways. First, it examines long-term recall and recognition outside of a controlled environment. Second, the present research investigates whether audience characteristics influence long-term recall and recognition of sponsorship stimuli. Finally, the current study attempts to explicitly consider the influence of advertising and sponsorship clutter that may detract from marketing performance in sports venues.
Effect of Viewership Experience
Past research has considered the recall of sponsors only by homogeneous groups of consumers who watched the event in the same context either by attending the event, or viewing it on television. In addition, previous analyses have examined solely the effects of a single sports event on recall of sponsorship. To date, no study has attempted to assess the influence of long-term exposure to an on-going activity such as a season-long sporting event on recall and recognition of sponsorship stimuli. Several information processing theories could help in explaining the effect of viewership experience on sponsorship recall and recognition. First, mere exposure may influence preference for certain stimuli as theorized by Zajonc (1980) and Zajonc and Markus (1982). Therefore, it may be expected that the more an individual is exposed to an event with embedded sponsorship stimuli, whether it be by attending the event or by following the event in broadcast media, the more likely they will be to recall and recognize its spon sors. A second, slightly different view offered by Obermiller (1985) suggests that exposure creates a familiarity which in turn causes liking. Lastly, Krugman's low involvement learning model (1965) suggests that people can learn about marketing stimuli in a very casual way. Krugman likens this low involvement learning to peripheral vision where the viewer looks at but does not attend to all things in view. While the empirical work to be conducted in this study does not seek to determine the exact process of information processing for sponsorship stimuli, these exposure models do help explain the influence of exposure on recall and recognition. The effect of exposure is outlined in hypothesis H1.
H1: Individuals' experience (viewing, attending or listening to games) will have a positive influence on the long-term recall and recognition of sponsorship stimuli embedded in the event.
Effect of Involvement
Pham (1992) hypothesized and observed that involvement had an inverted U effect on the short-term recognition of embedded sponsorship stimuli. Pham explained that "at low levels of involvement, little attentional capacity (effort) will be allocated to the event as a whole" (p.86). Since sponsorship stimuli are an integral part of the event, they are likely to attract low levels of attention too. However, "as involvement increases, more overall attention is devoted to the event, and also, as a result of their embeddedness, to the sponsorship stimuli" (Pham, 1992, p.86). Examples of embedded sponsorship stimuli include sponsorship announcements made during the event, signs present during the event or activities related to sponsorship involved in the event. When the level of involvement becomes high, the individual is so absorbed in the event itself, that he/she is unlikely to pay any attention to the surrounding activities. Consequently, after a certain level of involvement, the recall of sponsorship stimuli st arts declining.
Whereas Pham (1992) evaluated the involvement of respondents with the specific game they had just watched (e.g. "Watching this game was important/unimportant to me" p.88), the present study is concerned with the involvement of consumers with a typical game (Watching a game totally absorbs me). This general assessment of involvement with a game does not reflect the felt intensity of the event. It is likely to remain quite stable over time, and thus to affect the consumer's interest in sponsors in a consistent manner. Accordingly, one could expect a continuous positive relationship between the level of involvement with a game and sponsorship recall and recognition. Additionally, Pham saw involvement as only a moderator variable with no direct influence on recognition. Because our measure of involvement is more general it is expected to have a direct influence on recall and recognition as emphasized in hypothesis H2.
H2: Individuals' involvement with an activity (basketball) will have a positive influence on the long-term recall and recognition of sponsorship stimuli embedded in the activity.
Effect of Enthusiasm
While the construct of involvement captures the degree of personal importance ascribed to the particular sport by the individual, there is a more general sports enjoyment aspect that may also significantly contribute to an individual's recall and recognition of sponsors. Pham (1992) evaluated how the recall of sponsors was affected not only by involvement, but also by arousal and pleasure. As with involvement, Pham assessed the arousal and felt pleasure of respondents with the specific event they had just watched. Respondents had to evaluate statements such as: "While I was watching the game, I felt happy/unhappy," and "During the game, I was jittery/dull."
Just after watching a game, one might feel jittery or dull, happy or sad, but this response should dissipate over time. Given the long-term orientation of the present analysis, the concepts of arousal and pleasure as defined by Pham (1992) are not appropriate. Instead, the notion of enthusiasm for sports in general was preferred. It represents the interest and enjoyment of individuals for a class of activities. For example, a person showing enthusiasm for a sport over time may read about it or have conversations with others regarding the sport. An individual who is enthusiastic about a certain type of activity may pay attention to the identity of the companies which facilitate its organization. Subsequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: Individuals' enthusiasm regarding sports will have a positive influence on the long-term recall and recognition of sponsorship stimuli embedded in the sports event.
Effect of Clutter
Articles in the business press have discussed the declining value of sponsorship as a communications tool. Clutter and confusion are commonly cited as detracting from any one sponsor's ability to present a strong image (Levine and Thurston, 1992; Marketing Week, 1996; Miller, 1996). The term clutter was originally associated with television advertising and was coined to reflect the crowding of allowed commercial pods within programs with an increasing number of short advertisements. The application of this concept to the crowding of the sport spectator's experience is appropriate both in stadium and for the televised audience when scoreboards, backboards, promotion mini events (e.g. half-time free-throw contests) and freestanding communications (e.g. motorized blimp floating above spectators) convey advertiser and sponsor messages.
H4: Individuals' perception of advertising and sponsorship clutter during games will have a negative influence on the long-term recall and recognition of sponsorship stimuli embedded in the event.
All the relationships hypothesized above are presented in Figure 1. The Figure also incorporates the relationships that can be expected between independent variables.
Thus, Figure 1 shows a positive relationship between the level of enthusiasm for sports and the degree of involvement with any basketball game. Similarly, individuals who are involved with a given type of event or activity are likely to view it on a regular basis; hence, a positive association between involvement and experience is expected.
Sports fans were surveyed before a university basketball game played in the South Eastern United States during the Spring of 1995. This timing was near the end of the North American basketball season but before Conference Championship games. No games were played earlier that day or the previous night, so respondents had no exposure immediately preceding data collection. Questionnaires were distributed in two types of locations: in the stadium where the game was about to take place, and in sports cafes airing the game (three different cafes were included because of their small size). Data collection was organized in cafes to ensure that a diversity of viewership experience could be obtained: the individuals present at the stadium were assumed to be more likely to attend games, while the respondents at the cafes were assumed to be more likely to watch the games on television. The distribution of the questionnaires started one hour before the beginning of the game. At the stadium, people were asked to complete a questionnaire as they entered the arena and before taking their seats or viewing any in-arena communications. In the cafes, the televisions were not set on the channel of the game until game time, and respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire before the game started. These precautions were taken to ensure that respondents were not influenced in their responses by the activities and billboards presented in the arena of the stadium, or by the advertisements released on television just prior to the game.
Respondents required between five and seven minutes to complete the three-page questionnaire. Teams of trained interviewers worked simultaneously, which enabled the collection of 222 usable questionnaires: 99 at the cafes and 125 at the stadium during a brief period of time. As expected, respondents at the two venues had differing ranges of experience with stadium attendees having, on average, more experience. Given the potential importance of gender and age in sponsorship recall of sports sponsorship stimuli (Pham 1992), these variables were analyzed as possible covariates. No significant differences in gender distribution were found for the two venues but stadium respondents were found to be older than cafe respondents. Additional analysis showed that age and gender were not significant covariates for the dependent variables in this study and were therefore not included in further analysis.
The following sections describe the instrument employed to measure the different constructs presented in Figure 1.
Viewership Experience. Respondents were asked to provide the number of games involving the local basketball team that they had attended in person, watched on television, or listened to on the radio during the current season. A summary variable which adds games attended, games watched on TV and games listened to on the radio gives a measure of total past experience for the basketball season. The Cronbachs alpha was .570. Chronbach's alpha (Chronbach 1951) gives an indication of how well the items in a scale come together in measuring the construct of interest. Larger numbers are associated with better reliability.
Long-Term Recall. Respondents were asked to list the names of sponsors of the basketball team. Six spaces were left open for answers. The number of correct answers provided by each respondent yielded an estimation of recall. Recall was measured before recognition and on a separate page of the questionnaire to reduce contamination from the listed recognition alternatives.
Long-Term Recognition. Later in the questionnaire, 12 company names were proposed to assess recognition. Respondents were asked to identify whether each company was a "sponsor", "advertiser", or "neither". A "don't know" alternative was also available. Each of these answer alternatives was defined in the instructions. Two of the corporations mentioned were solely sponsors of the event. Three companies were advertisers only. Four businesses were both sponsors and advertisers. Three additional names were employed as foils; they were included in the list offered to the respondents to assess their propensity to guess the correct answers. The number of sponsors correctly recognized provided an estimation of recognition.
Involvement. The last part of the questionnaire consisted of a series statements associated with six-point Likert scales ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". The degree of involvement in basketball games was measured using a scale developed by Unger (1981). This five-item scale measures the degree to which a person would willingly engage in an action, without coercion or obligation. It included statements such as "Watching a game totally absorbs me", and "Watching a game helps me forget about the day's problems". The Unger scale was preferred because it measures specifically involvement with an activity. We also favored Unger's (1981) scale to the 20-item scale adopted by Pham (1992) in order to keep the questionnaire short (three pages). The involvement scale was reliable, since the Cronbach's alpha obtained was .895.
Enthusiasm. The sports enthusiasm scale developed by Dickerson and Gentry (1983) was also included in the survey. This four-item instrument assesses a person's interest in watching, talking about, reading about, and attending sporting events, but not necessarily in participating in sports. It included statements such as "I usually read the sports page in the newspaper", and "I thoroughly enjoy conversations about sports". A Cronbach alpha of .825 was obtained for this scale.
Clutter. Three statements were developed to evaluate perceptions of sponsorship/advertisement clutter. The three-item scale did not adequately capture the domain of the clutter construct and therefore the Cronbach alpha for this scale was very low. A reduced two-item scale with a Cronbach alpha .365 was included in the remainder of the analysis. These items estimated the likelihood of respondents to ignore promotional messages and to feel overwhelmed by promotional messages.
Results and Discussion
The direct linkages proposed in the hypothesized model shown in Figure 1 were tested using linear structural equations analysis (LISREL 7.16 Joreskog and Sorbom). Correlations for all variables are shown in Table 3 and the covariance matrix used in the analysis is presented in Table 4. The maximum likelihood structural parameter estimates for the hypothesized model are shown in Table 1. This model had a Chi-square value of 19.11 with four degrees of freedom and was significant at the .05 level. If the model provides a good fit, one expects to see a small value of chi-square and a large p value. The results here suggest that the model does not offer an "acceptable fit", meaning that the theoretical model does not successfully describe the actual relationships observed in the sample data. However, other statistics suggest that the overall model is not without merit. The model had a goodness of fit index (GFI) of 0.969, an adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) of 0.838 and a root mean square residual (RMSR) of 1 0.130. The GEI indicates the degree to which the input matrix is predicted by the estimated model (with zero indicating a poor fit and 1.0 indicating a perfect fit). AGFI is the goodness of fit adjusted by the ratio of degrees of freedom for the proposed model to the degrees of freedom for the null model. (Recommended acceptance level is greater than or equal .90). The RMSR measures the discrepancy between predicted and observed correlations. (The smaller the value, the better the fit of the model.) In combination, these statistics suggest that the model is capturing some important relationships and is worthy of modification.
The modification indices, which suggest ways to modify the model and improve its fit to the data, were examined and three changes to the original model were made. First, enthusiasm showed a positive influence on experience. Because the enthusiasm scale measured enthusiasm for sports overall, it is reasonable that this would influence experience directly in that enthusiasm for sports in general would encourage basketball game attendance, viewing and listening.
Second, in the modified model, involvement was seen to be a moderator variable between general enthusiasm with sports and actual experience with basketball games through attendance, viewing and listening. Therefore, the direct influence of involvement on aided and unaided recall was removed. This actually follows Pham's findings that involvement influenced pleasure and arousal but not recognition directly.
Lastly, the modification indices also suggested that aided recall is a predictor of unaided recall. Instead, this relationship is better accounted for by correlating aided recall and unaided recall errors which implies no causation. This modified model was tested using the same data. The results of the modified model, shown in Table 2, had a Chi-square value of 1.36 with four degrees of freedom and a p value of .852. These non-significant results suggest that the model offers an acceptable fit. In addition, other statistics show that the overall model performs well. The adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) was 0.988 and the root mean square residual (RMSR) reached 0.134. The modified model with path estimates is shown in Figure 2.
While the above results fit well with the hypothesized constructs, the poor performance of the clutter measure suggests that a model omitting this variable should be considered. Therefore, an additional model, omitting the influence of clutter was tested. This model offered a .95 drop in the Chi-square statistic (with df=2) over the modified model discussed above and shown in Figure 2. This change in the Chi-square statistic is not significant which indicates that dropping the influence of clutter from the modified model does not offer a significantly improved model.
Overall, these results provide strong evidence to support hypothesis H1: the level of experience with an event emerges as a clear predictor of sponsorship recall and recognition. Accordingly, the exposure to messages linking the event to its sponsors significantly impacts individuals awareness of sponsors. Repeated exposure plays a crucial role in understanding the recall and recognition of sponsors. The strong positive influence of experience on recall and recognition suggest that positive exposure experiences (Zajonc, 1980) and perhaps low involvement learning (Krugman, 1965) are building individual's sponsor awareness over time. This finding endorses strategies of marketers that aim to increase attendance, viewing and listening. If the communications objective of the marketer is awareness, simple exposure through sponsorship may accomplish this task. However, sponsorship may be inadequate when it comes to communications objectives such as attitude change or purchase facilitation.
At a practical level, one strategy of corporate sponsors might be to select properties which already have a loyal base of support. For example, NASCAR fans are known to be very loyal, both to the sport and to the companies sponsoring it (D'Orio 1997). Although this approach may be expensive, selecting only properties with known high fan loyalty increases the probability of regular exposure to sponsor communications.
Contrary to the expectations of hypothesis H2, individuals' involvement with a sport does not influence their awareness of sponsors directly. Instead, a higher level of involvement with an activity induces individuals to attend the sport event on a regular basis, and thereby increases their likelihood of sponsor awareness indirectly. It is entirely reasonable that involvement with the sport would not directly influence awareness of sponsors. It is also possible that a different measure of involvement might show a more direct relationship. As Cornwell and Maignan (1998) have noted, theoretically grounded research with good measurement has been lacking in sponsorship research. While the measure of involvement with an activity employed in this study performed well, researchers and marketing analysts may want to consider some of the newly-developed measures specific to sports involvement in future studies (see Lascu, Giese, Toolan, Guehring and Mercer, 1995; and Shank and Beasley, 1998).
Hypothesis H3 is supported since enthusiasm for sports in general is found to be positively associated with individuals' awareness of sponsors. Overall, it appears that the recall and recognition of sponsors is affected by their general level of interest for sports as well as their specific interest in basketball. In that enthusiasm for sports in general and involvement with basketball games in particular have a positive relationship with attending, viewing, and listening to games on the radio, it seems that sport property managers have several routes to increased experience. Engendering enthusiasm and involvement for games through pre-game activities and communications may be more important for securing sponsors than repeated sponsor identifications which may increase clutter.
Finally, the revised model provides support for hypothesis H4 in that the perception of advertising and sponsorship clutter negatively affects individuals' recall and recognition of sponsorship stimuli. However, the findings of the analysis regarding the notion of clutter have to be interpreted with caution given the poor psychometric properties of the new measure employed. It appears that the domain of the construct clutter may not be fully captured with the two-item scale used in this study. However, it is encouraging that the relationship between clutter and the dependent variables sponsorship stimuli recall and recognition are in the expected direction. Future research should seek to develop a better measurement of clutter that would be useful in a variety of sports-related venues.
If clutter does indeed have a negative impact on the sponsor communications then benefits to be expected from sports sponsorships in terms of awareness are likely to be greatly impaired in the presence of promotional clutter that results from a large number of sponsors and advertisers. This finding has important implications for both event organizers and sponsors. On the part of the event organizer or venue, the selection of a few major sponsors emerges as the best strategy to keep the long-term commitment and participation of sponsors. As far as sponsors are concerned, the present research indicates the need to ensure sufficient visibility at the event along with minimum competition from other sponsors and advertisers in the venue. At the minimum, this research strongly endorses future researchers to investigate clutter and practitioners to be wary of the potentially detrimental effects of clutter on sponsor communications. At the time of this study, clutter in sponsorship was just beginning to be problemati c, no doubt this problem is increasing.
Short-term responses to sponsorship as measured in a laboratory setting often depend on the individual's short term working memory. People recall or recognize what they just saw or heard. Responses to sponsorship of interest to marketing managers will more often involve long-term memory. Unless the product is being sold on site, people must be able to recall or recognize the brand days or weeks later. Long-term responses to sponsorship have been largely unstudied.
This research has shown that exposure over the basketball season does contribute to recall and recognition of sponsors. Managers seeking to understand the long-term effects of sports sponsorship should seek to measure awareness and sales on a continuous bases and furthermore to tie measures of awareness generated through sponsorship to sales or other outcome measures.
An important shortcoming of the methodology employed is that the study did not employ an independent verification sample with which to test the revised model. Although modifications to the model were made, the three changes did not make a drastic departure from the hypothesized model. The only change to a hypothesized relationship was to remove the direct influence of involvement on recall and recognition and resulting indirect relationship was more in keeping with prior literature.
This research also does not specify how the type of viewership, attending, viewing on TV, or listening on the radio influences individuals' awareness. Future research could investigate whether the recall and recognition of sponsors is similar for those who are present at an event and for consumers who follow the same event through diverse media.
In conclusion, the present research provides insights into the variables that impact sponsorship's effectiveness defined in terms of recall and recognition. It calls for more research aimed at understanding optimal approaches melding sports and marketing.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
Table 1 Path Analysis Results Path Estimates T-values Enthusiasm [right arrrow] Involvement 0.576 6.453 Enthusiasm [right arrrow] Aided Recognition 0.301 0.913 Enthusiasm [right arrrow] Unaided Recall 0.442 1.999 Involvement [right arrrow] Experience 16.024 5.654 Involvement [right arrrow] Aided Recognition -0.032 -0.125 Involvement [right arrrow] Unaided Recall 0.091 0.524 Experience [right arrrow] Aided Recognition 0.008 1.408 Experience [right arrrow] Unaided Recall 0.007 1.920 Clutter [right arrrow] Aided Recognition -0.292 -3.059 Clutter [right arrrow] Unaided Recall -0.056 -0.882 Chi-square = 19.11 df = 4 p = .001 GFI = 0.969 AGFI = 0.838 RMSR = 10.130 Table 2: Path Analysis Results Path Estimates T-values Enthusiasm [right arrow] Involvement 0.576 6.453 Enthusiasm [right arrow] Experience 11.212 2.942 Enthusiasm [right arrow] Aided Recognition 0.287 0.902 Enthusiasm [right arrow] Unaided Recall 0.482 2.254 Involvement [right arrow] Experience 12.494 4.436 Experience [right arrow] Aided Recognition 0.008 1.289 Experience [right arrow] Unaided Recall 0.008 1.986 Clutter [right arrow] Aided Recognition -0.291 -3.051 Clutter [right arrow] Unaided Recall -0.059 -0.916 Chi-square = 1.36 df = 4 p = 0.852 GFI = 0.998 AGFI = 0.988 RMSR = 0.134 Table 3: Correlations Matrix Involvement Experience Aided Unaided Recognition Recall Involvement 1.0000 Experience .4187 1.0000 Aided Recognition .1746 .1179 1.0000 Unaided Recall .1468 .2067 .2277 1.0000 Enthusiasm .4723 .3475 .1143 .2245 Clutter -.0695 .0119 -.2183 -.0726 Enthusiasm Clutter Involvement Experience Aided Recognition Unaided Recall Enthusiasm 1.0000 Clutter -.0592 1.000 Table 4: Covariance Matrix Involvement Experience Aided Unaided Recognition Recall Involvement 0.200 Experience 3.197 306.064 Aided Recognition 0.047 2.881 1.950 Unaided Recall 0.071 3.402 0.299 0.885 Enthusiasm 0.063 2.007 0.053 0.070 Clutter -0.033 0.216 -0.315 -0.071 Enthusiasm Clutter Involvement Experience Aided Recognition Unaided Recall Enthusiasm 0.109 Clutter -0.020 1.069
Final draft received: 3rd May 2000
Cornwell, T. B., and Maignan, I., (1998), "Research on Sponsorship: International Review and Appraisal". Journal of Advertising, 27 (2), pp.1-21.
Cronbach, L.J., (1951), "Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests". Psychometrika, 16 (September), pp.297-334.
Crowley, M.G., (1991), "Prioritizing the Sponsorship Audience." European Journal of Marketing, 25 (11), pp.11-21.
Dickerson, M.D., and Gentry, J.W., (1983), "Characteristics of Adopters and Non-Adopters of Home Computers". Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September), pp.225-235.
D'Orio, W., (1997), "Setting the Pace". Promo, (10) 20-23, 136, pp.139-140.
Hoek, J.A., Gendall, P.J., and West, R.D., (1990), "The Role of Sponsorship in Marketing Planning Selected New Zealand Companies". New Zealand Journal of Business, 12, pp.87-95.
Hulks, R., (1980), "Should the Effectiveness of Sponsorship be Assessed, and How?" Admap, December, pp.623-627.
Javalgi, R.G., Traylor, M.B., Gross, A.C., and Lampman, E., (1994), "Awareness of Sponsorship and Corporate Image: An Empirical Investigation". Journal of Advertising, December, pp.48-58.
Johnson, K., (1995), "The Selling of The Special Olympics: Charity and Pity are Out: Marketing Tie-Ins are in". The New York Times, June 23, B1.
Krugman, H.E., (1965), "The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning without Involvement". Public Opinion Quarterly, pp.349-356.
Lascu, D., Giese, T., Toolan, C., Guehring, B., and Mercer, J., (1995), "Sport Involvement: A Relevant Individual Difference Factor in Spectator Sports". Sport Marketing Quarterly, 4(4), pp.41-46.
Levine, J.B., and Thurston, K., (1992), "The Real Marathon: Signing Olympic Sponsors". Business Week, August 3, 30.
Marketing Week (1996), "Global Sponsors Need IOC Support". August 9, p.5.
Marshall, D.W., and Cook, G., (1992), "The Corporate (Sports) Sponsor". International Journal of Advertising, 11, pp.307-324.
McDonald, C., (1991), "Sponsorship and the Image of the Sponsor". European Journal of Marketing, 25(11), pp.31-38.
Meenaghan, J.A., (1983), "Commercial Sponsorship". European Journal of Marketing, 7(7), pp.5-73.
Meenaghan, J.A., (1991), "Sponsorship -- Legitimizing the Medium". European Journal of Marketing, 25(11), pp.5-10.
Miller, C., (1996), "Scoring the Olympics; Games Over for Athletes, Marketers Await their ROI". Marketing News , August 26, 1.
Nicholls, J.A.F., Roslow, S., and Laskey, H.A., (1994), "Sports Event Sponsorship for Brand Promotion". Journal of Applied Business Research, 10 (4), pp.35-40.
Obermiller, C., (1985), "Varieties of Mere Exposure: The Effects of Processing Style and Repetition on Affective Response". Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (June), pp. 17-31.
Otker, T., and Hayes, P., (1987), "Judging the Efficiency of Sponsorship: Experience from the 1986 Soccer World Cup". Esomar Congress, 3-8.
Pham, MT., (1992), "Effects of Involvement, Arousal, and Pleasure on the Recognition of Sponsorship Stimuli". Advances in Consumer Research, 19, pp. 85-93.
Polonsky, M., Sandler, D., Casey, M., Murphy, S., Portelli, K., and Van Velzen, Y., (1995), "Small Business and Sport Sponsorship: the Australian Experience". Journal of Promotion Management, 3 (1/2), pp. 121-140.
Pope, N.K.L., and Voges, K.E., (1995), "Short Term Recall and Recognition of Advertising and Signage in Telecast Stadium Sporting Events". World Marketing Congress Proceedings, 11.11-11.18.
Rajaretnam, J., (1994), "The Long-Term Effects of Sponsorship on Corporate and Product Image: Findings of a Unique Experiment". Marketing and Research Today, February, pp. 62-74.
Sandler, D.M., and Shani, D., (1993), "Sponsorship and the Olympic Games: The Consumer Perspective". Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2(3), pp. 38-43.
Scott, D.R., and Suchard, H.T., (1992), "Motivations for Australian Expenditure on Sponsorship -- An Analysis". International Journal of Advertising, 11, pp. 325-332.
Shank, M.D., and Beasley, F.M., (1998), "Fan or Fanatic: Refining a Measure of Sports Invovlement". Journal of Sport Behavior, 21(4), pp. 435-444.
Smith, K.E., et al. (1998), "The 1998 Annual Report on the Promotion Industry". Promo Magazine's SourceBook.
Turco, D.M., (1995), "The Influence of Sponsorship on Product Recall and Image Among Sport Spectators". World Marketing Congress Proceedings, 7(3), pp. 116-1110.
Unger, L.S., (1981), "Measure Validation in the Leisure Domain". Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati.
Unger, L.S., and Kernan, J.B., (1983), "On the Meaning of Leisure: An Investigation of Some Determinants of the Subjective Experience". Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (March), pp. 381-391.
Zajonc, R.B., (1980), "Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences". American Psychologist, 35, pp. 151-175.
Zajonc, R.B., and Markus, H., (1985), "Affective and Cognitive Factors in Preferences". Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), pp. 123-131.
T. Bettina Cornwell (PhD, The University of Texas) is a professor of marketing at the Fogelman College of Business and Economics at the University of Memphis in the United States.
Her research focuses on promotion and consumer behaviour, especially with regard to international and public policy issues. Other articles on the topic of sponsorship-linked marketing have recently appeared in the Journal of Advertising, Journal of Consumer Affairs, and Sport Marketing Quarterly.
George Relyea, MA, MS, is manager of Academic Systems/IS at the University of Memphis. He provides statistical consulting for research and dissertations and also teaches statistics in the College of Business and the Department of Mathematical Sciences. His research has been published in a number of different disciplines.
Richard L. Irwin joined the University Department of Human Movement Sciences & Education faculty in 1994 following four years as an assistant professor at Kent State University. In addition to serving as coordinator for the Recreation, Leisure & Sport Studies Unit, he is also the director of the Bureau of Sport & Leisure Commerce at the University of Memphis.
His research has typically focused on sport and leisure marketing management as reflected by published works on the topics of sport sponsorship and licensing, as well as consumer behaviour and servicing.
Dr Irwin serves as a member of the North American Society for Sport Management Executive Council, the Editorial Boards for Sport Marketing Quarterly and The International Journal of Sport Management, the Memphis/Shelby County Sports Authority Board of Advisors and the AXA/Equitable Liberty Bowl Board of Directors. In addition he is co-principal of Audience Analysts, a sport market research company which has provided research consultation to several professional sport properties.
Isabelle Maignan received her PhD in Marketing from the University of Memphis in 1997 and is currently an Assistant Professor of Marketing and International Business at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Her work has been published in The Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, The Journal of Business Ethics, The Journal of Business Research and Enterprise et Ethique, as well as other journals and conference proceedings.…