<%BANNER%>

Measuring the Effectiveness of Commercial Sponsorships in Intercollegiate Athletics


PAGE 1

MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMERCIAL SPONSORSHIPS IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS By WINDY DEES A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN EXERCISE AND SPORT SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Windy Dees

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to my late father, Tommy Dees, and to the rest of my family. Thank you for making me who I am today. I love you all.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my entire committee fo r all of their knowle dge and guidance. It has been a long, winding journe y, but it has led me to a better place. They have all my gratitude and respect.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................x ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Theoretical Framework.................................................................................................4 Statement of Problem...................................................................................................6 Rationale for the Study.................................................................................................7 Research Questions.......................................................................................................8 Definitions of Terms.....................................................................................................9 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................11 Advertising Effectiveness...........................................................................................11 Sponsorship Effectiveness..........................................................................................13 Sport Sponsorships.....................................................................................................15 Awareness...................................................................................................................16 Favorable Disposition.................................................................................................18 Goodwill.....................................................................................................................20 Fan Involvement.........................................................................................................22 Purchase Intentions.....................................................................................................25 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................29 Setting........................................................................................................................ .29 Pilot Test Results........................................................................................................31 Data Collection...........................................................................................................32 Sampling Procedures and Selection of Subjects.........................................................34 Instrumentation...........................................................................................................35 Operationalalizing the Constructs...............................................................................35 Awareness............................................................................................................36

PAGE 6

vi Favorable Disposition..........................................................................................38 Goodwill..............................................................................................................38 Fan Involvement..................................................................................................39 Purchase Intentions......................................................................................39 Sample Profile............................................................................................................40 Development of Measures..........................................................................................42 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................52 Descriptive Statistics..................................................................................................52 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................61 Research Question 1: Will Participants Who have Higher Levels of Awareness of Corporate Sponsorships Display A Mo re Favorable Disposition than Participants with Lower Levels of Awareness?.....................................................61 Research Question 2: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Awareness Display Stronger Purchase Intentions than Participants with Lower Levels of Awareness?............................................................................................................64 Research Question 3: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Favorable Disposition Display Stronger Purchase In tentions than Participants with Lower Levels of Favorable Disposition?...............................................................68 Research Question 4: Will Participan ts who have Higher Levels of Goodwill Display Higher Levels of Awareness of Corporate Sponsorships than Participants with Lowe r Levels of Goodwill?.......................................................70 Research Question 5: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Goodwill Display Higher Levels of Favorable Disposition than Participants with Lower Levels of Goodwill?...................................................................................74 Research Question 6: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Goodwill Display Stronger Purchase Intentions Than Participants with Lower Levels of Goodwill?..........................................................................................................75 Research Question 7: Will Participan ts who have Higher Levels of Fan Involvement Display Higher Levels of Awareness of Corporate Sponsorships than Participants With Lower Levels of Fan Involvement?..................................76 Research Question 8: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Fan Involvement Display Higher Levels of Fa vorable Disposition than Participants with Lower Levels of Fan Involvement?...............................................................79 Research Question 9: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Fan Involvement Display Stronger Purchase In tentions than Participants with Lower Levels of Fan Involvement?.......................................................................80 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION........................................................................82 Summary of Methods.................................................................................................82 Discussion of Findings...............................................................................................83 Sample Profile.....................................................................................................83 Research Question 1: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Awareness of Corporate Sponsorships Display a more Favorable Disposition than Participants with Lower Levels of Awareness?.....................................................83

PAGE 7

vii Research Question 2: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Awareness of Corporate Sponsorships Display Stronger Purchase Intentions than Participants with Lower Levels of Awareness?.....................................................84 Research Question 3: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Favorable Disposition Display Stronger Purchase In tentions than Participants with Lower Levels of Favorable Disposition?...............................................................85 Research Question 4: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Goodwill Display Higher Levels of Awareness of Corporate Sponsorships than Participants with Lowe r Levels of Goodwill?.......................................................86 Research Question 5: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Goodwill Display Higher Levels of Favorable Disposition than Participants with Lower Levels of Goodwill?...............................................................................................87 Research Question 6: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Goodwill Display Stronger Purchase Intentions than Participants with Lower Levels of Goodwill?...............................................................................................................88 Research Question 7: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Fan Involvement Display Higher Levels of Awareness of Corporate Sponsorships than Participants with Lower Levels of Fan Involvement?...................................89 Research Question 8: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Fan Involvement Display Higher Levels of Fa vorable Disposition than Participants with Lower Levels of Fan Involvement?...............................................................90 Research Question 9: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Fan Involvement Display Stronger Purchase In tentions than Participants with Lower Levels of Fan Involvement?.......................................................................91 Implications................................................................................................................92 Limitations..................................................................................................................96 Delimitations...............................................................................................................96 Suggestions for Future Research................................................................................97 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT............................................................................................99 B IRB PROTOCOL FORM.........................................................................................101 C SURVEY INSTRUMENT........................................................................................103 D UAA LETTER OF PERMISSION...........................................................................108 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................110 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................117

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Awareness Items......................................................................................................37 3-2 Questionnaire Items..................................................................................................38 3-3 Questionnaire Items..................................................................................................39 3-4 Questionnaire Items..................................................................................................39 3-5 Questionnaire Items..................................................................................................40 3-6 Sample Profile for Participants of 3 Intercollegiate Football Games.......................42 3-8 Exploratory Factor Anal ysis Results for Goodwill..................................................46 3-9 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Fan Involvement......................................47 3-10 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Purchase Intentions..................................48 3-11 Recall (Unaided) Results..........................................................................................52 3-12 Recognition (Aided recall) Results..........................................................................52 3-14 Frequencies for the 15 Goodwill (GW) Items..........................................................56 3-15 Frequencies for the 4 Fa n Involvement (FI) Items...................................................58 3-16 Frequencies for the 29 Pu rchase Intentions Items....................................................59 4-1 One-Way ANOVA’s for Question 1........................................................................62 4-2 One-way ANOVA’s for Question 1.........................................................................63 4-3 One-Way ANOVA’s for Question 2........................................................................65 4-4 One-Way ANOVA’s for Question 2........................................................................66 4-5 Correlational Analysis for Favorable Disposition and Purchase Intentions............69 4-6 One-Way ANOVA’s for Question 4........................................................................71

PAGE 9

ix 4-7 One-Way ANOVA’s for Question 4........................................................................72 4-8 Correlational Analysis for Fa vorable Disposition and Goodwill.............................74 4-9 Correlational Analysis for G oodwill and Purchase Intentions.................................75 4-10 One-Way ANOVA’s for Question 7........................................................................77 4-11 One-Way ANOVA’s for Question 7........................................................................78 4-12 Correlational Analysis for Fan Involvement and Favorable Disposition.................80 4-13 Correlational Analysis for Fan I nvolvement and Purchase Intentions.....................81

PAGE 10

x LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Meenaghan’s (2001) Framewor k of Sponsorship Effects..........................................6 1-2 Model of the Process of Sponsorship Effectiveness..................................................8

PAGE 11

xi Abstract of a Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Exer cise and Sport Sciences MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMERCIAL SPONSORSHIPS IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS By Windy Dees December 2004 Chair: Gregg Bennett Major Department: Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management Commercial sponsorship (CS), also known as corporate sponsorship, is currently one of the most utilized forms of marke ting communication. Comm ercial sponsorship has become a preferred and viable force fo r many companies determined to expand and leverage products in today’s lucrative spor ts market. Commercial sponsorship marketing communication is “an investment, in cash or in kind, in an activity, in return for access to the exploitable commercial potential associated with that activity.” The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of CS of an elite intercollegiate football program by analyzing the constructs of awareness, favorable disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase intentions. The resu lts of the study indicated that, with the exception of awareness, all of the constr ucts positively and significantly impacted consumers’ attitudinal and behavioral respon ses to CS. Therefore, corporations and

PAGE 12

xii sports marketers alike can benefit from inves ting in CS. Scholars woul d also benefit from further research in this importa nt facet of marketing communication.

PAGE 13

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Marketing communication takes various fo rms that serve different purposes depending on the product, company, consumer and event. Commercial sponsorship (CS), also known as corporate sponsorship, is currently one of the fastest growing forms of marketing communication (M eenaghan, 2001). CS has become the driving force for many companies determined to expand and leve rage products in today’s lucrative sports market. CS marketing communication is “an investment, in cash or in kind, in an activity, in return for access to the exploitable commercial potential associated with that activity” (Madrigal, 2001, p.147; Meenaghan, 1991, p.36). CS has become an integral part of th e marketing strategy of many companies. Corporations are investing large percentages of their advertising dollars into sporting event sponsorships in hopes of attracting sports consumers to their respective products and services (Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2000; Nicholls, Roslow, & Laskey, 1994). The amount of advertising dollars spent in th e United States on corporate sponsorships increased from $850 million in 1985 to $8.7 bi llion in 2000 (International Event Group, 2000). These amounts only represent the price associated with the purchase of property rights required to secure th e event and do not include the almost equal amount spent on the utilization and development of the entire ac tivity. Clearly, CS has become an integral and strategic investment for many industries seeking to ta rget the sports consumer. A major rationale for the use of corpor ate sponsorships is to connect with consumers and create a desire within those consumers, via the event medium, to purchase

PAGE 14

2 products or services from these corporations Sponsors anticipate that the emotional connection consumers feel toward the even t will link them to th eir company, and the positive feelings will tr ansfer to their products and services (Madrigal, 2001). When consumers make the decision to purchase th ese products and services from a sponsoring company, then that company has produced what is called a Return on Investment (ROI). Daniels and Radebaugh (1998, p.9) define ROI as “the amount of profit, sometimes measured before and sometimes after the pa yment of taxes, divided by the amount of investment.” ROI is an important goal for a commercial sponsor because it means that the marketing message has not only reached the target audience, but the funds invested to produce the message have return ed a profit. The effect an advertisement has on consumers is important to businesses, advertisers, and scholars alike due to the de sire to understand the relationship between advertising and purchase decisions or ROI. Marketing and advertising scholars have made an exhaustive effort to understand the e ffectiveness of advertising on the consumer. Many of these scholars list cognitive, affec tive, and experience effects as central and important effects of advertis ing (Hall, 2002). Recently, scho lars have theorized that sponsorship affects consumers in a distinct ive manner. For example, Meenaghan (2001) suggests the variables of awareness, favorab le disposition, goodwill, and fan involvement can specifically affect consum ers’ purchase intentions. As a form of marketing communications, co mmercial sponsorships are separate and unique from traditional advertising. For ex ample, traditional advertising includes television commercials and print ads in magazines or newspapers. In comparison,

PAGE 15

3 sponsorship typically includes on site ev ent signage, verbal recognition, and media guides. There are four distinct ways in whic h sponsorship differs from advertising (Meenaghan, 2001). First, sponsorship can be viewed as more beneficial to consumers than advertising. When a company sponsors an event, team, or cause, they are seen as a contributor to the community (Meenaghan, 2001). Consumers believe the sponsor is supporting an activity and the in dividuals involved. Consumer s often view advertising as less altruistic because the perceived goal is to generate revenue, whereas sponsorship places more emphasis on the benefits to society. Second, sponsorship can be viewed as i ndirect and subtle, comparatively to advertising, which is usually viewed as be ing more direct and forceful (Meenaghan, 2001). Sponsorship messages are less conspicuous than those found in conventional advertising. The sponsorship communication no rmally consists of the company’s name and logo with a brief slogan to catch the spectators’ attention (Lardinoit & Derbaix, 2001). Advertising is directed at consumer s with the purpose of maintaining their full attention for the duration of the message. Third, the intent to persuade in sponsorship is usually disguised while the intent to persuade in advertising is overt (M eenaghan, 2001). Sponsorship messages or communications often give consumers the im pression that the company is only seeking recognition or affiliation with the event. Advertising openly propositions the consumer to purchase products or services through commercials that ofte n interrupt the flow of the game.

PAGE 16

4 Lastly, sponsorship communications generally create a low state of alertness within the consumer during exposure, whereas adve rtising seeks to grasp the individual’s attention and retain their alertness. Spons orships emerge from the relaxing environment of a social or sporting event and allow the consumer to scan the message on his or her own accord (Madrigal, 2001). This puts th e consumer at ease a nd lowers his or her defense mechanisms (Meenaghan, 2001). Adver tising consistently reminds the consumer why he or she should purchase a product or service, and this repeated persuasion can result in elevated defense mechanisms of the viewer. Sponsorship originated from the fiel d of advertising, a nd although there is extensive research and scholarsh ip on the latter, sponsorship requires further exploration. A need exists to further analyze CS and examine how it affects consumers and their attitudes and behaviors. CS and its effectiveness on consumer s’ purchase intentions is a relatively novel concept, and only within the last decade was a theoretical basis for this process proposed. Theoretical Framework Theories describing how advertising wo rks have been formulated for over a century. The original model was AIDA (Atte ntion-Interest-Desire-Action) which was developed by E. St. Elmo Lewis in 1898 (Vakratsas & Ambler, 1999). This model introduced the idea that consumer s apply previous beliefs, at titudes, and experiences in a hierarchical manner to form their behaviors, including purchase intentions. Consumers receive the message that is pr esented, they recall prior feelings or knowledge of a product or service, and formulate a deci sion about the advertising message. The Persuasive Hierarchy Model is another way to explain consumers’ reactions to an advertising message in a systematic ma nner. In the concept of a hierarchy of effects,

PAGE 17

5 things must take place in a specific order to achieve certain results. The purpose of this type of model is to first inform and then persuade (Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999). This means the earlier effects are precursors to late r effects and are the most important facet of the model (Aaker & Day, 1984; Colley, 1961; Greenwald, 1968; Lavidge & Steiner, 1961; McGuire, 1968; Robertson, 1971; Roge rs, 1962; Wright, 1973). Therefore, a sponsorship activation must inform consumer s what brand, product, or service is being promoted, create a positive emotion within th e consumer, and then persuade them to display a specific behavior, such as intent to purchase. The pattern demonstrated here, which is the foundation for the persuasive hier archy model as well as this research study, is Cognition – Affect – Beha vior. Vakratsas and Ambler (1999) refer to these three facets as intermediate responses. Intermediate responses begin with the mental effects of advertising and move to the behavioral e ffects of advertising. This systematic, hierarchical process also includes two medi ating factors and they are awareness and attitude-toward-ad or favorable disposition. Th ese two factors of individual responses to advertising directly aff ect the outcomes of this hierarchical model (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Sponsorship, like advertising, is a message or input for the consumer, and these modes of marketing communication create various outputs or responses. Accordi ng to Madrigal (2001), “The ce ntral feature of a beliefs – attitude – intentions hierarchy is that beliefs represent the basis for an attitude toward engaging in a specific behavior” (p.150). Building upon the effects of advertising on consumers as described by Vakratsas and Ambler (1999), Meenaghan (2001) describe d the specific effect of sponsorship on the consumer. Meenaghan (2001) identifies goodwill, image transfer, and fan

PAGE 18

6 involvement as the three central variables that differentiate sponsorship from advertising. Sponsorship differs from traditional advertising that utilizes blatant sa les strategies (e.g. television commercials). These sponsorship traits and their relationships to one another create a unique environment where the consum er is subtly introduced to the marketing message. Meenaghan’s (2001) model served as the theoretical foundation for this investigation. Figure 1-1. Meenaghan’s (2001) Fram ework of Sponsorship Effects. Statement of Problem Due to the fact that commercial sponsorshi p has become a major form of marketing communication, it is necessary to continually study this phenomenon in an effort to determine its impact on consumers and thei r perceptions of commercial sponsors and their products and services. Th ere is a plethora of original research, position papers, and theoretical manuscripts explor ing the topic of advertising effectiveness (Vakratsas & Ambler, 1999). While there is a wealth of sc holarship on sponsorshi p, a relative paucity

PAGE 19

7 of original research exists on the effectiveness of CS. An even greater disparity exists regarding the effects of awareness, favorab le disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase intentions as th ey relate to CS. The purpose of this study was to analy ze the effects of in tercollegiate sport sponsorship of an elite intercollegiate foot ball program. Meenaghan’s (2001) framework for understanding the process of sponsorship e ffects served as the theoretical foundation for the study. Thus, awareness, favorable disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase intentions are the independ ent variables in the investigation. Rationale for the Study The review of literature indicates that commercial sponsorship has become an integral part of marketing communications. This phenomenon warrants further research seeking to better understand the effects of sport sponsorship and the advantages it possesses over conventional advertising methods. With additional information and evidence on sport sponsorships, the understand ing of this area and the scope of its effectiveness could be improved. This study will focus on the five construc ts affecting sponsorship effectiveness, namely, awareness, favorable dispositi on, goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase intentions. Because these constructs can impact consumer perceptions of sponsors as well as their products and servic es, more attention and analys is is needed to determine how they can be enhanced within sport s ponsorship. Based upon a review of relevant literature, the following model was modifi ed from Meenaghan’s (2001) model of sponsorship effects to display how the five c onstructs would be examined in relation to one another in this study.

PAGE 20

8 GOODWILL FAN INVOLVEMENT AWARENESS FAVORABLE DISPOSITION Purchase Intentions SPONSOR COMMUNICATION INPUT CONSUMER RESPONSE OUTPUT Q8 Q9 Q7 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q1 Q3 Q2 Figure 1-2. Model of the Process of Sponsorship Effectiveness. Research Questions The following research questions wi ll be explored in this study: Q1 – Will participants who have higher levels of awareness of corporate sponsorships display a more favorable disposition than participants with lower levels of awareness? Q2 – Will participants who have higher levels of awareness of corporate sponsorships display stronger purchase intentions than participants with lower levels of awareness? Q 3 – Will participants who have higher levels of favorable disposition display stronger purchase intentions than participants with lower levels of favorable disposition? Q4 – Will participants who have higher leve ls of goodwill display higher levels of awareness or corporate sponsorships than participants with lower levels of goodwill? Q 5 – Will participants who have higher leve ls of goodwill display higher levels of favorable disposition than particip ants with lower levels of goodwill? Q 6 – Will participants who have higher levels of goodwill display stronger purchase intentions than part icipants with lower levels of goodwill? Q 7 – Will participants who have higher levels of fan involvement display higher levels of awareness of corporate sponsorships than participants with lo wer levels of fan involvement?

PAGE 21

9 Q 8 – Will participants who have higher levels of fan involvement display higher levels of favorable disposition than participants with lower levels of fan involvement? Q 9 – Will participants who have higher levels of fan involvement display stronger purchase intentions than participants with lower levels of fan involvement? Definitions of Terms The terms used throughout th is study are defined below: Awareness is the consumer’s ability to recall or recognize the sponsor communications input, either completely from memory, or with verbal or written cues (du Plessis, 1994). Commercial Sponsorship is “an investment, in cash or in kind, in an activity, in return for access to the exploi table commercial potential asso ciated with that activity” (Madrigal, 2001, p.147; Meenaghan, 1991, p.36). Construct is a theoretical entity; a worki ng hypothesis or concept (Merriam Webster Website). Factor is a number or symbol that divides another number or symbol (Merriam – Webster Website). Fan Involvement “the extent to which c onsumers identify with, and are motivated by, their engagement and affiliation with pa rticular leisure activities” (Meenaghan, 2001, p.106). Favorable Disposition is the consumer’s perception of a sponsorship or attitude toward the sponsorship (Lutz, 1985). Goodwill is the positive attitude that c onsumers convey toward a sponsor who supports and facilitates an event, team, or cause in which they are passionate (Meenaghan, 2001).

PAGE 22

10 Purchase Intentions are the expressed likeliho od of consumers to purchase products or services from the event sponsors (Peyrot et al., 1998).

PAGE 23

11 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this study was to evalua te the effectiveness of commercial sponsorships of an elite inte rcollegiate football program by analyzing the effects of awareness, favorable disposition, goodwill, fa n involvement, and purchase intentions on sport consumers. The manner in which these va riables influence cons umer perceptions of intercollegiate sport sponsorships will be central to this anal ysis. The sections that are covered in this chapter include: Advertising Effectiveness Sponsorship Effectiveness Sport Sponsorship Awareness Favorable Disposition Goodwill Fan Involvement Purchase Intentions Advertising Effectiveness Since CS is a form of advertising, it is im portant to understand the effectiveness of this marketing communication (Percy & Rossi ter, 1997). There are various models and theories that can provide a framework for studying how advertising works. Vakratsas and Ambler (1999) developed a taxonomy that progresses from models with no intermediate effects, to models with one or mo re intermediate effects, then to hierarchical models, and finishes with hi erarchy-free models. There are 7 models in the taxonomy. The first is the Market Response Model a nd it relates advertising and promotional measures to the behavioral patterns of cons umers. The second m odel in the taxonomy is

PAGE 24

12 the Cognitive Information Model. This “t hinking” model assumes that consumers make purchasing decisions based on rational though t rather than feelings or emotions (Bharadwaj, Varadarjan, & Fahy, 1993; Nelson, 1970). Third, is the Pure Affect Model which does assume that consumers base th eir purchasing decisions on feelings and emotions rather than cognitions (Aaker & Day, 1984; Alwitt & Mitchell, 1985; Peterson, Hoyer, & Wilson, 1986). Fourth, the Persuasi ve Hierarchy Model wh ich is central to advertising research, is based on the idea that advertising must inform and then persuade. It introduced the concept of a hierarchy of effects where things must take place in a systematic fashion (Aaker & Day, 1984; Colley, 1961; Greenwald, 1968; Lavidge & Steiner, 1961; McGuire, 1968; Roberts on, 1971; Rogers, 1962; Wright, 1973). The framework of sponsorship effectiveness, the theoretical basis for this study, is encompassed by this category. The framework is a persuasive hierarchy model that also progresses systematically from the spons or communication input to the consumer response output. Low-Involvement Hierarchy Models are the fifth category described in the taxonomy. These models involve consumer s with less awareness of advertisements and less involvement (Vakratsas & Ambler, 1999). Integrative Models are the sixth category. Integrative models use varying hier archies of cognition, affect, and experience depending on the advertising message that is being communicated. The seventh and final category in the taxonomy is the Hierarchy-Free Models. This section includes any other models that do not fall into the previous six se ctions. It is the smallest group of models and places little emphasis on persuasion (K ing, 1975; Lannon, 1994; Lannon & Cooper, 1983).

PAGE 25

13 Sponsorship Effectiveness As opposed to advertising effectiveness wh ich has been carefully and extensively researched, sponsorship effectiveness remain s relatively unexplored, due in part to its close association with advert ising and promotions (Pham, 1991). Cornwell and Maignan (1998) indicated that sponsorship effectiveness research was still in its early stages, and that a theoretical framework to provide a f oundation for this research had not yet been constructed. Until recently, rath er than being systematically studied, sponsorship had been examined on a case-by-case basis and therefore a comprehensive model of its effectiveness was not existent in the literat ure (Lee, Sandler, & Shani, 1997; Crowley, 1991). Meenaghan’s (2001) framework of sponsor ship effects attempts to describe the process of CS in a plausible, hierarchi cal manner that is inclusive of the entire progression from the initial sponsor communi cation, through the filter ing process of the audience, all the way to the consumers’ respon ses to the actual marketing message. In the past, CS research has placed most of its emphasis on the sponsoring companies and their goals and objectives (McDonald, 1991; Meenaghan, 1991; Polonsky, Sandler, Casey, Murphy, Portelli, & Van Ve lzen, 1996; Shanklin & Kuzma, 1992). In early studies of CS, findings suggested co rporate sponsors wanted to focus on media objectives, namely company exposure (Abr att, Clayton, & Pitt, 1987; Waite, 1979). Subsequent investigations not ed that companies involved with CS began to emphasize corporate image and brand awareness as additional objectives of sponsorship relationships and activations (Javalgi, Tray lor, Gross, & Lampman, 1994; Keller, 1993; Nebenzahl & Jaffe, 1991). However, the reason behind this shift in focus and the effects of these marketing endeavors on consum ers were not thoroug hly investigated (McDonald, 1991). According to Lee et al., ( 1997), there have been few experimental

PAGE 26

14 research studies that have analyzed th e effectiveness of CS and how it impacts consumers. According to Cornwell and Maignan ( 1998), the best way to analyze the effectiveness of sponsorship is to determine its commercial impact. In order to do this, researchers say that businesses need to measur e the effects of their CS marketing efforts on targeted consumers (Abratt et al., 1987; McDonald, 1991). Cornwell and Maignan (1998) outline two different ways to measur e these effects: Expos ure-Based Methods and Tracking Methods. In the Exposure-Based Methods, there are tw o separate techniques used to examine CS. The first technique requires that spons ors monitor the quantity and nature of the media coverage they are using at an event. The second technique used in this method requires that sponsors estimate any direct or indirect audiences being exposed to their marketing message. Even though exposur e-based methods are often employed by businesses, Pham (1991) questions the fact that media coverage is still a goal of CS, and believes that these methods are ineffectiv e in producing signif icant results. With Tracking Methods, there are severa l ways in which to evaluate the effectiveness of CS. Awareness and favorable disposition are only a few of the measures used by researchers in their surveys to assess the impact of CS on consumers. Scholars in this area have also “assessed recall of sponsor s’ ads, awareness of and attitudes toward sponsors and their products, and image effects which can be subdivided in terms of corporate image, brand image, and count ry image” (Cornwell & Maignan, 1998, p.7). These methods have been met with more su ccess than the exposure-based methods in CS research. This study will use tracking methods to test CS effectiveness.

PAGE 27

15 Sport Sponsorships Despite the limited research in the ar ea of sponsorship effectiveness, sport sponsorship remains one of the most legitima te and cost effective modes of marketing communication (Kiely, 1993; Sandler & Shani, 1993; Sleight, 1989). Because consumers are constantly exposed to advertising messa ges of many forms, and the environment is cluttered, it has become increa singly difficult for corporations to set themselves apart from the competition in terms of the uniqueness of their marketing strategies (Maloney, 2002). Sport sponsorship has become a dis tinctive approach comp anies use to reach consumers that can benefit from targeting this exclusive market (Meir, Arthur, Tobin, & Massingham, 2001). Advertising campaigns can be extremely expensive and time-consuming to develop, so sport sponsorships provide a simp le and inexpensive alternative to larger advertising investments (Meir et al., 2001). Other benefits of sport sponsorships can include increased brand aw areness and image, hospita lity opportunities, product promotions, and community exposure and influence (Sleight, 1989). Scott and Suchard (1992) found that there were th ree main factors that influe nced a corporation’s decision to allocate a portion of thei r advertising budget to sport sponsorship. Those factors included improved company/produc t awareness, improved market share, and lastly, the cultivation of client rela tionships through hospitality opportunities. Some research has been conducted to determ ine if sport sponsorships are worth the advertising dollars they necessitate when compared to traditional advertising methods such as television commercials (Maloney, 2002). Gupta and Lord (1998) found that prominent product placement was more effectiv e at eliciting a cons umer’s recall response than a TV commercial displaying the same product for the same length of time. In a

PAGE 28

16 similar study on the impact of sport spons orships on NASCAR fans, Levin, Joiner, and Cameron (2001) found that consumers recall ed more brands after viewing only the racecars than they did when viewing TV commercials for the same brands. This phenomenon may suggest that the intrusive or persuasive nature of the TV commercials causes the marketing message to be ineffectiv e, whereas, the subtlety of the sponsorships on the racecars allows them to be more eff ective. Bennett (1999) states that sports sponsorship reaches a large, diverse audi ence which can positively enhance national brand awareness, and it also benefits the lo cal communities where the events take place. It has become apparent that sport sponsors hip is a viable and potentially profitable approach to achieving advertis ing objectives while also bu ilding strong product or brand equity (Aaker, 1991; Marshall& Cook, 1992). In order to determine th e effectiveness of sport sponsorships and how these response outpu ts are elicited, the five constructs of awareness, favorable disposition, goodwill, image transfer, and fan involvement were analyzed. Awareness The first stage in the response phase of Meenaghan’s (2001) framework is awareness. Awareness involves the consumer’s ability to recall or recognize the sponsor communications input, either completely from memory, or with verbal or written cues (du Plessis, 1994; Singh, Rothsch ild, & Churchill, 1988, Turco, 1995). Recall, also termed unaided recall, is a method used to measure a participant’s awareness by asking them to retrieve from memory the names of event sponsors or brands (Bennett, Henson, & Zhang, 2002; Johar & Pham, 1999, p.299). According to Lardinoit and Derbaix (2001, p.171), unaided r ecall is a “two-stage process requiring both retrieval and discrimination tasks and it depends on both the availability and

PAGE 29

17 accessibility of information”. According to Wells (2000), a person’s ability to recall an advertising communication message is an indica tor of the meaningfulness of the message or how well the brand registers in the consumers mind. Although recall scores are generally lower than recognition scores, res earch indicates that they are higher than recognition scores when the ad successfully registers the sponsor’s name (Wells, 2000). Even when other aspects of the message are weak, if brand name recognition is strong, then recall scores are likely to be high (Gibson, 1983). One key advantage recall measures have is that they are object ive (Wells, 2000). If a person is not given a visual aid, like they are with the recognition method, then any information the individual recalls is from memory and not from the message provided. A disadvantage of this method is that high recall scores can be obtained from an ad that is extraordinary or stunning, but relays nothing meaningful about the product, brand, or sponsor (Wells, 2000). Wells (2000) suggests that a person’s ability to recognize an ad gauges his or her interest in the message. Recognition, also re ferred to as aided recall, asks the consumers to correctly identify the sponsors of an ev ent from a list of actual sponsors and dummy foils (false sponsors) (Benne tt et al., 2002). Consumers draw from their available memory in order to distinguish one sponsor from another (Lardinoit & Derbaix, 2001). While recognition scores are generally higher th an unaided recall scores, they can be less indicative of the meaningfulness of the message (Wells, 2000). This method is advantageous for companies who already ha ve a strong corporate image and/or brand recognition and simply want to market a new pr oduct or service. An ad that is appealing or attractive to a consumer tends to generate high recognition scores because it is easier

PAGE 30

18 for the person to identify it when they see it again. An issue with this tracking method is that aided recall scores reveal the level of interest in th e ad, and consumers can often identify a sponsor’s message, though they cannot recall the spons or’s name (Wells, 2000). Therefore, high recognition sc ores can be somewhat misleading when determining and describing consum er awareness levels. Favorable Disposition The second stage in the response phase of Meenaghan’s (2001) model is favorable disposition. Also referred to as consum er perception or at titude-toward-ad (Aad), favorable disposition has been extensively re searched in the fields of advertising and marketing. Within these research disciplines, the importance of attitudes towards advertising in general and to wards a specific ad has long b een researched. Thirty years ago, Greyser (1972) noted that attitude-toward-advertising im pacted the effectiveness of advertising. Attitude-toward-ad has been de fined as a “predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manne r to advertising in general,” (Lutz 1985, p. 53). Later research showed that attitude-tow ard-advertising in general is important because it influences Aad. Attitude-toward-ad has been defined as a “predisposition to respond in a favorable or unfavorable manner to a particular advertising stimulus during a particular exposure situation” (Mackenzie, et al. 1986, p. 130). Attitude-toward-ad, in turn, is important because it is an antecedent of brand attitude (Lutz, 1985; Mackenzie & Lutz, 1989; Mehta, 2000; Shimp, 1981). Research efforts then focused on conditions that impact ad effectiveness, the determinants of ad attitudes, and tests of caus al models of ad attitudes and outcomes (Brown & Stayman, 1992). Research on these constructs was performed using traditional media.

PAGE 31

19 More recently, there have been attempts to research these construc ts in light of new advertising media (Gallagher, Parsons & Fo ster, 2001, Lee & Katz 1993). Most notably, several studies have been conducted on web page advertising. For example, Shamdaani, Stanaland and Tan (2001) found that ad location on a web page does impact Aad, brand attitude, and intent to act. Similarly, Stevenson, Bruner and Kumar (2000) found that simpler backgrounds have significantly more positive impacts on Aad, attitude-towardthe-brand, and purchase intention. Within the context of this general pro cess, sponsorship presents some unique theoretical research questions (Pope, 1998; Pope & Voges, 1994). Ultimately, the advertiser is interested in the issue of ad effectiveness – how well Aad transfers to brand attitude or favorable disposition (Sandage, 1983). Consumers form both positive and negative dispositions about advertising and sponsorships at generic and personalized levels (Reid & Soley, 1982). Following a person ’s experience at a sporting event, he or she will form an opinion of the sponsors of that event. These opinions, whether positive or negative, can reflect the consumer’s fee ling of sponsorship as a whole or of that particular event. If the consumer has fo rmed a decision overall regarding sponsorship, then his or her favorable dis position is generic. If th e consumer’s opinion is only reflective of his or her expe rience at a single event, then the favorable disposition is personalized. According to Madrigal (2001), favorable disposition is vital to understanding sponsorship effects because consumers devel op beliefs concerning a sponsorship, as well as a perceived level of importance of the sponsorship, and the two combined determine how supportive the consumer’s at titude is of the sponsor. Ac cording to attitude theory,

PAGE 32

20 new and old beliefs are combined to form curre nt attitudes about a particular object. The strongest and most consistent beliefs form the attitudes, and these attitudes are what consumers utilize when processing inform ation, forming intentions, and performing behaviors (Boninger, Krosnick, & Berent, 1995; Fishbein & Aj zen, 1975). An attitude is defined here as “a psychological tendency th at is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or di sfavor” (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p.1). These attitudes are said to be linke d to other attributes, outcomes, or goals (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Goodwill Goodwill is the positive att itude that consumers convey toward a sponsor that supports and facilitates an event, team, or cau se in which they are passionate. The first variable and the largest factor distinguis hing sponsorship from advertising is goodwill (Meenaghan, 2001). Sponsorships serve, not only to benefit the contributing organization, but also to promote the ev ent where the sponsorship takes place. Advertising primarily serves the purpose of promoti ng a company’s business and attempting to boost sales. Consumers rec ognize and appreciate when corporations support an activity they enjoy, because they be lieve it is helping elev ate that activity and not just exploit it to prod uce a profit (Meenaghan, 1991). Meenaghan (2001) delineates the concept of goodwill into three different levels: generic category and individual activity The generic level is the initial stage of goodwill. This level includes the positive feelings consumers possess toward sponsorship of any kind. The generic level serves as the foundation of a pyramid or hierarchy that becomes less inclusive, but encompasses much stronger feelings of goodwill, as it reach es its peak. At the generic level, the

PAGE 33

21 feeling of goodwill is broad and spans a variet y of events. The consumer simply views sponsorship as a positive notion in any arena. Whether it contributes to sports, arts, or social causes, sponsorship is seen as some thing beneficial. The individual will exhibit some degree of benevolence toward a comp any for supporting a good cause. Because sponsorship at the foundation of the pyramid is not connected to a specific or emotionally meaningful event for the individual, it is the lowest level of goodwill. The next stage of the pyramid is the called the category level When an activity relates to the consumer and he or she has a di rect interest in it, then the category that includes this activity warrants a greater display of goodwill toward its sponsors. For instance, a sports fan that loves the game of football will display more goodwill toward an NFL sponsor than to a company who spons ors multiple sporting events. Here, the expression of goodwill becomes more apparent in the consumer. The sponsor has tapped into a particular activity in which the c onsumer is engaged. Since consumers have diverse preferences in their social activities, companies must choose the category for their sponsorships wisely. It has been found th at various activities invoke more goodwill from consumers than others. For example, corporations that sponsor social causes are viewed more favorably than those who support athle tics or the arts by some consumers (Irwin, Lachowetz, Cornwell, & Clark, 2002; Meenagha n, 2001). At this stage, the consumer has more invested in the activity or event than at the generic level, and therefore they feel more benevolence toward the sponsor. The upper echelon of the goodwill pyramid is the individual activity level. This is where the greatest amount of goodwill is rewarded to the sponsor. When the activity or event becomes even more of an emotional involvement for the consumer, they

PAGE 34

22 demonstrate the greatest amount of gratitude toward the company that sustains and promotes his or her event. For instance, an individual at the category level may experience goodwill toward a sponsor of NASCAR, but if that same sponsor endorses the individual’s favorite driver, the level of goodwill toward the sponsor will intensify. The more emotionally attached a consumer is to a specific event, team or player, the more receptive and supportive the consumer will be of their sponsor. For example, Pitts (1998) found consumers at the Gay Games were mo re likely to purchase products from corporate sponsors of the event than consumers of similar events. No matter how engaged a consumer is with an event, there is still the possibility that goodwill is not conveyed to the sponsor. Within the construct of goodwill in sponsorship, there is also an understanding that this goodwill is contingent. Contingent goodwill means that, “…goodwill is earned by the to tal behavior of the sponsor toward all aspects of the sponsored activity and this is registered and j udged by fans of that activity” (Meenaghan 2001, p. 109). Even if th e consumer demonstrates goodwill at the upper-most level, this behavior has many diff erent contingencies ba sed on the actions of the sponsor. Some of the contingencies that Meenaghan (2001) lists include the time of entry/exit of the sponsorship, level of commit ment to the event or team, and the amount of caring displayed to the event or team. If corporate sponsors do not properly adhere to these aspects, they will cause consumers to withdraw their feelings of goodwill regardless of their commitment level. Fan Involvement The third and final variable of sponsorship is the concept of fan involvement. The definition of fan involvement is “…the extent to which consumers identify with, and are motivated by, their engagement and affiliation with particular leisure activities”

PAGE 35

23 (Meenaghan, 2001, p. 106). Fan involvement is a central concept in commercial sponsorship, because the various emotional le vels of commitment fans have with the sponsored event will affect how attentive they are to that event’s sponsors. Depending on how involved consumers are with their covete d events, they can establish a range of relationships with the commercial sponsors. Fan involvement is a component of social identity theory (Madrigal, 2001). Similar to personal identity theory, where an individual forms characteristics and ideas of his or her specific personality, social identity theory consis ts of the characteristics and ideas that an individual derives from his or her as sociation with a group. Fan involvement refers to an indi vidual’s level of association, attachment, or concern with a particular sports team or sporting even t (Wann & Branscombe, 1993). Fans who are highly attached to or involved with their sports team often have difficulty distancing themselves from their coveted group or event. Due to their desire to achieve a strong affiliation with the team, highly involved fans often purchase more licensed team merchandise (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998; Wa nn & Branscombe, 1993) and attend more games (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998; Schurr, Witti g, Ruble, & Ellen, 1988) than fans with low involvement. Highly involved consumers are those individuals who are often most knowledgeable about their favored event, te am, or player (Meenaghan, 2001). These individuals are generally aware of the sponsor and whether or not that sponsor is helping or hindering the progress of the sport. Highly involved consumers are extremely sensitive to the behavior of corporate sponsors with respec t to the treatment of their favored activity, and they will react positively or negatively according to this behavior. If

PAGE 36

24 a sponsor is viewed as a partner or supporter of an event, the consumer will exhibit more goodwill toward that company. If, however, the same company is seen as exploiting the event in some way, the consumer will rej ect that company and the purpose of the sponsorship will be ineffective. Highly involved consumers display mo re goodwill or benevolence toward commercial sponsors, depending on the situation, than less involved consumers. Due to this fact, consumers who exhibit high levels of fan involvement are the prime targets of commercial sponsorship. These fans pay clos e attention, not only to the game and the players, but also to advertising and sponsorsh ip. These consumers will be the most loyal to a sponsor if that company positively aff ects their experience at the event. The only disadvantage is that the company can also ruin a potential relationshi p with that consumer if they negatively affect the indivi dual’s experience at the event. Less involved consumers do not have the awareness of sponsor ship that highly involved consumers possess. Because they are not as emotionally attached to their leisure activities as the mo re serious fans, less involved consumers do not respond to corporate sponsors with the same level of goodwill. They may exhibit goodwill to some degree based on the situation, but not in the same scope as the highly involved consumers. Individuals who exhibit lower levels of fan involvement can still be potential targets of commercial sponsorship. It simp ly becomes more difficult to connect with these fans and relay the marketing message. One advantage to targeting these consumers is that they do not have a st rong attachment to their favored activities, so they are less likely to reject a sponsor fo llowing a negative experience.

PAGE 37

25 Purchase Intentions According to Peyrot, Alperstein, Van Doren and Poli (1998), consumers draw on past experiences when forming purchase inte ntions, and their purchasing behaviors are often repeated. Rosenberg and Czepial ( 1984) indicate that marketing to current customers and increasing customer retention is easier than attempting to attract new clientele. A central component of this invest igation is the concept of purchase intentions which are linked to perceived valu e and satisfaction of customers. Previous research has shown that consumer satisfaction can be a re liable predictor of (re)purchase intentions (Patterson & Spreng, 1997). When studying consumer behaviors in a large-scale sporting event, it is important to analyze purchase intentions, because a primary goal of sports marketers is to create customer satisfaction, develop loyal fan bases, and generate repeat purchases (Ostrowski, 2002; Petrecc a, 2000). For this investigation, obtaining data on the likelihood of consumers to purchase products or services from the event sponsors, or data on actual purchases from sponsors, constitu tes purchase intentions and behaviors. Therefore, it is important to understand the pe rceived and actual purchase intentions of intercollegiate football c onsumers at these events. CS not only generates revenue streams that fund sporting events, but it also serves to promote these activities within their re spective communities. Many sports rely on corporate sponsors to finance events and event broadcasts. One such example is the action sports segment of the sport industry (Bennett et al., 2002; Ostrowski, 2002). In 2001, the Summer X Games sold approximately $30 million in corporate sponsorships (Bennett et al., 2002; Petrecca, 2000). Arguabl y, action sports events, like many sporting events, would not be possibl e if it were not for the re venue generated from CS. Corporations not only choose to sponsor sporting events to generate sales, but they also

PAGE 38

26 use these settings to facilita te product awareness and streng then brand image (Lee et al., 1997; Shanklin & Kuzma, 1992). Sponsors first seek to create awareness of their product or brand, then generate sales and produce a profit, and finally, build brand equity and a loyal consumer base (Pope, 1998; Pope & Voges, 1994). Since the sales effects, or return on investment (ROI), are a key concept in CS marketing communication, it is necessary to investigate purchase in tentions and behaviors. As the objectives of CS evolve, so shoul d the research in regard to how these sponsorships affect the sports consumer (Lee et al., 1997). Since ther e is an abundance of studies examining CS through recall and recogn ition rates, or intermediate measures of memory, and a lack of scholarship exists in the area of CS affects on the consumer, it is important to investigate this phenomenon. Scholars have conducted several studies at large-scale events and utilized intermediate measures to examine consumer attitudes and behaviors (Bennett et al., 2002; Cuneen & Hannan, 1993; Johar & Pham, 1999; Pitts, 1998; Sandler & Shani, 1993; Stotla r & Johnson, 1989; Stotlar, 1993). These studies have provided a plethora of information descri bing the ability of c onsumers to recall or recognize commercial sponsors, but there is a lack of empiri cal evidence with regard to the relationship between sports event sponsors and consumer purchase intentions (Lee et al., 1997; Meenaghan, 2001). Even though consumer recall and recognition rates have been successful indicators of sponsorsh ip awareness (Bennett et al. 2002;, 1996; Meenaghan, 1991; Nicholls et al., 1999; Otke r & Hayes, 1987; Stotlar, 1993), they are not necessarily a strong gauge for consumer sa tisfaction or intent to purchase based on event sponsorships. Previous research by conducted by Johar and Pham (1999) suggests

PAGE 39

27 that aided and unaided recall rates serve as better indicators of br and-event relatedness and market prominence. In Meenaghan’s (2001) model of sponsorship effects, he implies that the concepts of contingent goodwill, transfer of image values, and fan involvement each influence consumers to respond to sponsorships of spor ting events. The level of intensity of goodwill consumers possess toward the event sp onsors, combined with the level of intensity of fan involvement with the sponsor ed event or activity, di rectly affects their assessment of the sponsors and their degree of purchase intention. Highly involved consumers display higher awareness levels of sponsorship, and there is a greater chance they will express a preference for the sponsor’s product because of its affiliation with the event (Bennett, 1999; 1985; Meenaghan, 2001). An example of this would be individuals who, have either participated in or enjoy watching intercol legiate football, giving more positive assessments of college football sponsors than individuals who do not follow these activities. The positive perceptions of these highly involved consumers may influence their purchase intentions toward the sponsors of their favored event. Sponsorship differs from advertising because it portrays an altern ative set of values (Gwinner, 1997; McDonald, 1991) Past research indicate s that consumers are more accepting of advertising if it comes in the form of sustaining or promoting an event that they enjoy (Meenaghan, 2001). Consumers who demonstrate an affinity toward a certain activity, and develop a sense of goodwill toward the sponsors of that activity, are more likely to transfer those positive attitudes and beliefs onto the company’s products or brand (Gwinner, 1997; Meenagha n, 2001). Meenaghan (2001) also notes that goodwill is contingent upon the sponsors’ actions within th e realm of the event. For example, if a

PAGE 40

28 corporate sponsor excessively promotes and virtually interrupts the activity, consumers will display negative emotions, and this can produce negative image transfer among consumers which likely affects purchase intent ions. The action sports segment has faced this challenge. In the beginning stages of ac tion sports events and event broadcasts, fans were skeptical of the need for CS (Bennett et al., 2002). Therefore, CS of action sports was initially a risky marketing strategy (B ennett, 1999; Ostrowski, 2002). With the increase in attendance and the emergence of action sports as a popular spectator sport, CS in this segment has flourished and been successful. Fan involvement includes the “extent to which consumers identify with, and are motivated by, their engagement and affiliation with particular leisure activities” (Meenaghan, 2001, p. 106). One significant way to measure th e effectiveness of CS is to evaluate the relationship between event spons ors and purchase intentions. It has been stated previously that highly involved spor ts fans are more likely to demonstrate a preference toward sponsors of their coveted events. The id entification with a preferred intercollegiate team or event can be a pow erful influence for sponsors, as well as connecting with fans through goodw ill. Therefore, it is could be concluded that increased goodwill toward the event sponsors and fan invol vement with the activity will lead to greater purchase intentions.

PAGE 41

29 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY A cross-sectional, non-experimental, exploratory study was conducted in an attempt to determine the effectiveness of commercial sponsorships of an elite intercollegiate football program. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the effectiveness of CS of an elite interco llegiate football program by analyzing the constructs of awareness, favorable dispos ition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase intentions. The following methods were utilized based upon the purpose of this investigation: Setting Pilot Test Results Data Collection Sampling Procedures and Selection of Subjects Instrumentation Operationalization of the Constructs Sample Profile Development of Measures Data Analysis Descriptive Statistics Setting Data were collected at three football ga mes hosted by the University of Florida (UF), an NCAA Division IA institution. Un iversities competing in NCAA Division IA are considered elite competitors since just ov er 100 institutions compete on this level. Furthermore, UF is a member of the South eastern Conference (SEC) which is one of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) qualifying conferences. These facts make the football program at UF an elite program. Several aspects of the setting at the University of Florida

PAGE 42

30 create an unrivaled atmosphere and distinguis h it from other athletic programs. Some of these aspects include revenue generati on, seating capacity, location, and history. Three home football games at UF were used for data collection. The University Athletic Association (UAA) at UF is one of the largest and most su ccessful in the country annually finishing in the top ten in final Sears Cup standings. The operating budget for the UF’s athletic department in th e 2001-2002 season was $44,234,795 (University of Florida Website). In the 2002-2003 season, ope rating expenses for the football team were over $7.8 million, but the sport created $19,703,486 in revenue. This amounts to almost one-third of the total revenue for the UAA (Florida Football Guide, 2003). UF’s football stadium, also known as “The Swamp”, has existed since 1930. It has been expanded several times and currently holds 88,548 fans (Florida Football Guide, 2003). Recent additions to the venue br ought the total number of skyboxes to 74. Because of its continued expansion and upgr ades, the Swamp attracts new sponsors and fans every season. The size of the university itself is anothe r contributing factor to the paramount feeling of its sporting events. The undergraduate and gr aduate populations combine for a total student population of over 48,000 (Florida Football Guide, 2003). UF has the 4th largest university populati on in the United States. The successful recent history of the football program at UF helps to generate revenue through sponsorships. Since 1990, th e football team has spent the most consecutive weeks (220) in the AP or coach es’ polls (active), ha s been in the most January Bowl Games (10) in the past decade, and has had the most Top 15 finishes in the final poll (12) (Florida Football Guide, 2003). The program is also third in most wins

PAGE 43

31 since 1990 with 130, second in Top 10 finish es since 1990 with 10, and had the most former players appear on NFL rosters in the 2002-2003 season with 39 (Florida Football Guide, 2003). Pilot Test Results The validity and reliability of expected responses to the questionnaire were evaluated using a panel of e xperts, a pilot test, and an internal consistency measure (Cronbach, 1951). The content validity of th e initial survey was evaluated first by a panel of experts who were asked to judge th e items content validity. The panel consisted of three Sport Management professors, one Advertising professor, and one statistical measurement expert in the field of Exer cise and Sport Sciences. Additionally, 12 graduate students in a research seminar cl ass evaluated the instrument for face validity and item construction. The professor of this pa rticular class likewise examined the scale construction of the questionnaire. Each of the experts were asked to comment on the relevance, representativeness, and clarity of items and provide suggestions for improving the questionnaire. After following these steps the questionnaire was modified according to feedback from the experts and students. The survey was then pilot tested prior to data collection on all items. Research participants (N=49) were atte ndees of a UAA sporting event. First, frequency measures were calculated for each of th e three constructs to dete rmine the levels of goodwill, purchase intentions, and fan involvement di splayed by the participants. For the 7 goodwill items (N=47), there was a minimum score of 3.3, a maximum score of 4.4, and a mean of 3.8. For the 7 purchase intentions items (N=46), there was a minimum score of 3.3, a maximum score of 4.1, and a mean of 3.8. For the 10 fan involvement items (N=44), there was a minimum score of 3.5, a ma ximum score of 4.7, and a mean of 4.1.

PAGE 44

32 Frequency measures were also conducte d on the unaided reca ll section of the survey. Of the five major brands studied, the maximum number of times each one was recalled was listed. Coke was recalled by 17 of the 49 participants. Gatorade was recalled by 8 of the partic ipants. Alltel, Publix, and Dodge was recalled by 9 participants. The least number of brands re called by a participant was 0, and the highest number of brands recalled was 5. Next, a reliability analysis was conduc ted on each of the constructs. The 7 goodwill items, which included statements lik e “I think favorably of companies who sponsor sporting events,” had a reliability of = .72. The 7 purchase intentions items, which included statements like “I would tr y a new product or serv ice if I saw it at a sporting event,” had a reliability of = .66. One item, “Companies who sponsor sporting events have a lot of money,” was then re moved in order to create a more reliable measure. After the statement was deleted, the reliability of the remaining 6 purchase intentions items increased to an alpha leve l of .74. The 10 fan involvement items, which included statements like “I see myself as a strong fan of this athletic team,” had a reliability of a = .87. Data Collection The data for this study were collected through an informed consent web-based questionnaire. Mail-out surv eys were not used due to the time allotment needed to receive the surveys back in the mail as well as the cost of postage required for a mail-out questionnaire. Furthermore, the web-based que stionnaire allowed part icipant responses to immediately be stored into a database for an alysis. This advantage was important to the researcher. Permission was received from the University Athletic Association (UAA)

PAGE 45

33 (Appendix D), event coordina tors, and the Institutional Review Board (Appendix A) before data collection began. Data colle ction was conducted at the first three home football games of the 2003-2004 season. Individuals (n=900) were approached at random in pre-game tailgating areas outside the stadium prior to the three footba ll games. These individuals were asked to give informed consent to participate in th e study by providing information on a card that was provided by the data collector. Each indivi dual was given an index card printed with the details of the study, his/her rights as a participant and whom to contact with questions, and spaces for his/her demographi c information including e-mail address and signature. The data collector informed those indi viduals who completed the index card that they would be contacted via e-mail af ter the game and asked to complete a webbased survey. They were then informed that th ey were in no way obligated to participate and that they would be contacted via email af ter the game seeking their participation in the study. There were 300 index cards distributed a nd collected by trained data collectors prior to each game for a total of 900 potentia l participants. The 10 trained surveyors were asked to collect 30 index cards from individuals willing to fill them out before the first three UF football games for a total of 900 possible participants (300 per game). These individuals were trained by an expert in sport management based upon mall-intercept methodologies common to survey research. They were provided with an assent script to read to individuals that they approached. Everyone that wa s approached did not agree to fill out the index card, and no statistics were computed on how many individuals chose not to complete this task.

PAGE 46

34 In order to obtain a random sample, ever y fourth or tenth person was approached and asked if they would be w illing to participate in a study investigating the sponsorship of UF athletics. Spectator flow into the venue, based upon time prior to the event, predicated which sampling technique was uti lized. Every fourth person was asked to participate in the study if game time was mo re than an hour from commencing. Data collectors were asked to solicit responses from every tenth person an hour or less prior to game time due to heavy traffic flow. Immediately following the games, the i nvestigator e-mailed those individuals (n=900) who completed the demographic information and asked them to participate in the study by filling out the attached web-based ques tionnaire linked to the e-mail. Therefore, 900 (300 per game) emails were sent to po ssible participants imme diately following the games. A response rate of 44% was atta ined resulting in a final sample of 394 participants. This number of responses was used to control for sampling error and also allowed for patterns to be seen in the data. Sampling Procedures and Selection of Subjects Random sampling techniques we re employed for the selec tion of respondents. This method of sampling is often used in designs wh en the goal of the research is to randomly select a sample of information rich subjects who can provide an in-depth analysis of the phenomenon being studied. The selection of th e participants was based on their location in relation to the stadium and their willi ngness to participate in the study. Only participants 18 and older who a ttended the football games were eligible to participate in the study. Ten data collectors were trained to randomly sample 30 respondents each prior to three football games. Each data collect or was instructed to count nine people who walked by, then select the tenth person, a nd ask them to be a participant. Each

PAGE 47

35 participant who was selected, and agreed to take part, was asked to sign an informed consent document prior to par ticipating. Once they filled out the informed consent card, they were told that the survey would be se nt to them via e-mail following the game, and they were asked to complete and submit it promptly. Instrumentation The survey (Appendix C) used in this study c onsists of three part s. The first section of the questionnaire measured consumer aw areness of the sponsorships through recall (unaided recall) and reco gnition (aided recall). The second section of the questionnaire asked respondents about their expressed favorable disposition toward the five majo r sponsors of the football program. The second half of this section obtained data relevant to consumer pur chase intentions of the five major sponsors’ products. The third section of the questi onnaire measured goodwill and fan involvement, but included additional items on favorable disposition and purchase intentions. There were 17 total items on favorable disposition, 15 items on goodwill, 4 on fan involvement, and 29 total on purchase intentions. This amounted to 65 items measuring all four constructs. The final section of the questi onnaire included 5 items related to the demographics of the respondents. These responses were coded a nd entered numerically for data analysis. Operationalalizing the Constructs Some of the measures of th e constructs were modified or adapted from previous studies through a literature re view involving all the construc ts. The fan involvement and purchase intention items were modified from Madrigal’s (2001) study of the belief – attitude – intentions hierarchy, which include d the concepts of fan identification as well as purchase behaviors. The favorable disposition items were modified from attitudinal

PAGE 48

36 measures used by Quester and Thompson (2001) in their study of arts sponsorship effectiveness. The rest of the measures were developed specially fo r this inquiry after a review of the relevant litera ture. The majority of the variables in the analysis were measured using a five-point Likert-scale ranging from 5 (Strongly agree) to 1 (Strongly disagree). The following constructs were measured in this analysis: Awareness Awareness was measured using one unaided recall question and five aided recall questions. First, participants were asked to list all the corporate sponsors they could remember from the event (unaided recall). Ne xt, they were asked to select all of the sponsors for that day’s game from a list of correct and incorrect sponsors (aided recall/recognition). This section was used to determine the participants’ levels of cognition which is based on research conduc ted by Bennett, et al (2002) and Wells (2000). These items are listed in Table 3-1.

PAGE 49

37 Table 3-1. Awareness Items Unaided Recall Item As you watched the football game, you may have recognized some of the companies sponsoring this event. These spons orships could have been in the form of signage around the field, logos on clothing, or advertisements over the PA system. What are some of the companies you recall from the game? Aided Recall Items From the list below, please check all of th e companies that sponsored today’s football game. Pepsi____ Mountain Dew____ Coke____ Minute Maid____ Cingular____ Verizon____ Nextel____ Alltel____ Winn Dixie____ Publix____ Kash ‘N Karry____ Albertson’s____ Ford____ Chevrolet____ Dodge____ Jeep____ Gatorade____ Powerade____ Red Bull____ Propel____

PAGE 50

38 Favorable Disposition Favorable Disposition was measured usi ng 15 brand-specific questions and 2 nonbrand-specific questions (for a total of 17 items ). They were all measured on a five-point Likert-scale ranging from 5 (Strongly agree) to 1 (Strongly disagree). The items asked participants about their dispos itions toward the top 5 corpor ate sponsors of the event and about their disposition regarding sponsorship in general. The items in this section were developed based on research conducted by Ma cKenzie & Lutz (1989) and Reid & Soley (1982). These items are listed in Table 3-2. Table 3-2. Questionnaire Items Favorable Disposition Items I think favorably of companies that sponsor Florida football. I think favorably of Alltel because they sponsor Florida football. I think favorably of Coke because they sponsor Florida football. I think favorably of Gatorade becau se they sponsor Florida football. I think favorably of Publix because they sponsor Florida football. I think favorably of Dodge because they sponsor Florida football. Companies who sponsor Florida footba ll provide quality products/services. I like the brand Alltel. I like the brand Coke. I like the brand Gatorade. I like the brand Publix. I like the brand Dodge. Alltel is a very good brand. Coke is a very good brand. Gatorade is a very good brand. Publix is a very good brand. Dodge is a very good brand. Goodwill Goodwill was measured with 15 items base d on Meenaghan’s (2001) theoretical model outlining the Sponsor-Process-Response sequence. A 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 5 (Strongly agree) to 1 (Str ongly disagree), was used to measure consumers’ perceptions of the corporate sponso rs of the event. These items are displayed in Table 3-3.

PAGE 51

39 Table 3-3. Questionnaire Items Goodwill Items Florida football sponsors are involved with their community. Companies that sponsor Florida football are successful. Companies that sponsor Florida football are professional. Florida football sponsors are only after consumers’ money. Corporate sponsorships detract from the enjoyment of this event. Corporate sponsors try to improve Florida football. This sporting event benefits from corporate sponsors. Florida football should not have corporate sponsors. Companies who do not sponsor Florida football are not involved with their community. I do not pay attention to the corporate sponsors of Florida football. Sponsorships of Florida football are better than regular advertising. Corporate sponsors care about the fans of Florida football. Florida football would not be possible without sponsors. Florida football sponsors are only after consumers’ money. Corporate sponsors do not care about the fans of Florida football. Fan Involvement Fan involvement levels were measured usi ng 4 items on a five-point Likert-scale. These items were used to determine how closel y the participants identified with the team they were watching. This was based on work by Madrigal (2001) and his social identity theory and belief-attitude-intentions hierar chy. These items are listed in table 3-4. Table 3-4. Questionnaire Items Fan Involvement Items I see myself as a strong fan of Florida football. My friends view me as a strong fan of Florida football. It is very important to me that Florida football games are played. It is important to me to be a part of Florida football. Purchase Intentions Purchase intentions were measured with 29 items on a five-point Likert-scale, based on research conducted by Peyrot and Van Doren (1998). These items were used to measure consumers’ intent to purchase or actual purchase of the various brands advertised in the corporate sponsorships at th e event. These items are displayed in Table 3-5.

PAGE 52

40 Table 3-5. Questionnaire Items Purchase Intentions Items Whenever possible, I try to purchase products/ services from companies that sponsor Florida football. I do not base my purchasing decisions on the corporate sponsorship of Florida football. I think it is good to purchase products/services from companies that sponsor Florida football. I would consider purchasing products/services from the corporate sponsors of this event. I would try a new product/service if I saw it at a Florida football game. I would definitely purchase products/services from the corporate sponsors of Florida football. I try to purchase products/services from companies that sponsor Florida football. My overall attitude toward purchasing products/ser vices from companies that sponsor this event is positive. I will try to buy at least one product/service from a company that sponsors this event within the next 3 mos. I would consider purchasing products/services from Alltel because they sponsor Florida football. I would consider purchasing products/services from Coke because they sponsor Florida football. I would consider purchasing products/services from Gatorade because they sponsor Florida football. I would consider purchasing products/services from P ublix because they sponsor Florida football. I would consider purchasing products/services from Dodge because they sponsor Florida football. I would purchase products/services from Allte l because they sponsor this event. I would purchase products/services from Coke because they spon sor this event. I would purchase products/services from Gatorade because they sponsor this event. I would purchase products/services from Pub lix because they spon sor this event. I would purchase products/services from Dodge because they spon sor this event. I would buy the brand Alltel. I would buy the brand Coke. I would buy the brand Gatorade. I would buy the brand Publix. I would buy the brand Dodge. The next time I need to purchase a product of this type, I would consider buying Alltel. The next time I need to purchase a product of this type, I would consider buying Coke. The next time I need to purchase a product of th is type, I would consider buying Gatorade. The next time I need to purchase a product of this type, I would consider buying Publix. The next time I need to purchase a product of this type, I would consider buying Dodge. Sample Profile The fans who attended these intercolle giate football games and responded to the questionnaire (n=394) provided a wealth of information concerning their attitudes, beliefs, and experiences with commercial sponsorship. A total of 900 questionnaires (300 per game) were submitted to individuals who returned an index card to data collectors immediately following three UF f ootball games. A total of 394 individuals filled out the questionnaire online resulti ng in a 44% response rate. The socio-

PAGE 53

41 demographic information provided by the par ticipants was useful in determining who attends these sporting events and what their pe rceptions are of commer cial sponsorship. The demographic variables analyzed in th is study were gender, age, ethnicity, marital status and education level. In this study (N=394), the following demographic characteristics of the sample were found. Th e gender of the participants was split almost evenly with 52% males and 48% females. The age groups included 71% in the 18-24 range, 28% in the 25-49 range, and 1% in the 50-74 range. The race of the participants included 77% Caucasians, 8% African Americ ans, 7% Hispanics, 5% Other, and 3% Asians. The majority of the participants in the study were single (81%). The marital status of the remainder of the respondents was married (6%), divorced (1%), and widowed (1%). Most of the respondents ha d some college educa tion (55%), while the remainder reported some high school (.3%), hi gh school graduate (3%), college graduate (20%), and graduate degree (10%). The results are listed in Table 3-6. The results of the demographic information collected indicates that the majority of the sample were college-age students. This may have been due to the fact that the majority of individuals were approached in the Northeast tailgating area outside of the stadium. This area includes one of the two ma jor gates utilized by UF students. Also, the fact that this demographic tends to be more computer-savvy than the other age groups may have influenced the final sample.

PAGE 54

42 Table 3-6. Sample Profile for Participan ts of 3 Intercollegiate Football Games Socio-Demographic Characteristics Frequency Valid Percentage Gender (N=394) Male 205 52.0 Female 189 47.9 Age (N=394) 18-24 278 70.5 25-49 111 28.1 50-74 5 1.2 75 and older 0 0.0 Race (N=394) Caucasian 302 76.6 African American 30 7.6 Hispanic 26 6.5 Asian 13 3.2 Native American 0 0.0 Other 23 5.3 Marital Status (N=347) Single 318 80.7 Married 24 6.1 Divorced 3 .8 Widowed 2 .5 Other 0 0.0 Level of Education (N=349) Some High School 1 .3 High School Graduate 11 2.8 Trade/Tech Degree 0 0.0 Some College 217 55.1 College Graduate 80 20.3 Graduate Degree 40 10.2 The number (N) may vary due to missing values or responses Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding Development of Measures Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the four constructs of favorable disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purch ase intentions were factor analyzed using a principal components technique with varimax ro tation to identify underlying

PAGE 55

43 relationships or factors. The use of factorial analysis for each of the constructs (favorable disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purch ase intentions) developed for this study ensures that the items used create unidimens ional measures of the four constructs of interest. Component analysis is often used when the primar y objective is to identify the minimum number of factors in an instrument that account for the maximum portion of the variance in an original da ta set (Hair, Anderson, Ta tham, & Black,, 1995; Morton & Friedman, 2002). The factor analysis that included the original items for favorable disposition suggested six factors. The firs t factor accounted for 28.83% of the variance. The items that loaded in factor one were regarded as the unidimensional construct of general favorable disposition. The items that loaded in factor two were considered brandspecific favorable dispositions toward Alltel and accounted for 13.69% of the variance. Factor three included the bra nd-specific favorable dispositions toward Publix and explained 11.27% of the variance. Factor four included the brand-specific favorable dispositions toward Dodge and explained 9.91% of the variance. The items that loaded in factor five included the brandspecific favorable dispositions toward Gatorade (8.13% of variance), and the items that lo aded in factor six included the brand-specific favorable dispositions toward Coke (7.10% of varian ce). The results are listed in Table 3-7.

PAGE 56

44 Table 3-7. Exploratory F actor Analysis Results for Favorable Disposition Favorable Disposition Items Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 I like the brand -Alltel .061 .935 .068 .042 -.035 .024 It is a very good brand -Alltel .082 .934 .048 .016 -.045 .022 I like the brand-Coke .120 .006 .095 .004 .123 .932 It is a very good brand-Coke .145 .047 .193 .010 .144 .904 I like the brand-Gatorade .139 -.041 .023 .004 .938 .101 It is a very good brand-Gatorade .112 -.032 .131 .029 .923 .164 I like the brand-Publix .119 .054 .950 .017 .097 .143 It is a very good brand-Publix .122 .082 .953 .053 .059 .142 I like the brand-Dodge .095 .076 .009 .940 .009 -.013 It is a very good brand-Dodge .131 .013 .048 .936 .016 .021 I think favorably of companies that sponsor Florida football. .564 .153 .149 .180 .219 .162 I think favorably of Alltel because they sponsor Florida football. .614 .448 .018 .134 -.014 -.025 I think favorably of Coke because they sponsor Florida football. .864 .035 .055 -.034 .054 .230 I think favorably of Gatorade because they sponsor Florida football. .771 -.049 .045 .000 .197 .007 I think favorably of Publix because they sponsor Florida football. .844 .044 .153 -.028 .006 .038 Companies who sponsor Florida football provide quality products/services. .356 .282 .117 .246 .159 .222 I think favorably of Dodge because they sponsor Florida football. .802 .030 -.022 .259 -.018 .042 Eigenvalues 4.90 2.33 1.92 1.69 1.38 1.21 Cronbach alpha (Reliability) .868 .909 .907 .955 .908 .899 Factor means 3.12 2.68 3.00 4.55 4.63 4.23 Percentage of variance explained 28.83 13.68 11.27 9.91 8.13 7.10 Cumulative variance explained 28.83 42.52 53.79 63.70 71.83 78.93 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Ro tation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

PAGE 57

45 A similar procedure was employed to fi nd the unidimensional constructs of goodwill, fan involvement and purchase intentions. Three factors were uncovered for goodwill, and the items that loaded in factor one, which accounted for 25.34% of the variance, were regarded as the unidimensi onal construct of caring goodwill. The items that loaded in factor two were considered to be the unidimensional construct of negative goodwill. This factor accounted for 11.68% of the variance. The items that loaded in the third factor were regarded as the unidimen sional construct of corporate goodwill. This factor accounted for 9.98% of the variance. Af ter eliminating single items and items that double-loaded, factors four and five were no longer included in the study due to having only one item in each factor. Th e results are listed in Table 3-8.

PAGE 58

46 Table 3-8. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Goodwill Goodwill Items Factor 1 2 3 4 5 Florida football sponsors are involved with their community. .466 .116 .451 .257 .041 Companies that sponsor Florida football are successful. .133 .168 .776 -.054 -.015 Companies that sponsor Florida football are professional. .232 .173 .762 -.085 -.013 Companies who do not sponsor Florida football are not involved with their community. .055 .132 -.099 -.161 .827 Corporate sponsorships detract from the enjoyment of this event. -.073 .741 .261 .117 .137 Florida football sponsors are only after consumers’ money. .152 .204 -.049 .768 .159 Corporate sponsors try to improve Florida football. .688 .172 .209 .079 -.121 This sporting event benefits from corporate sponsors. .537 .227 .171 -.448 .069 Florida football should not have corporate sponsors. .192 .759 .115 -.140 .070 I do not pay attention to the corporate sponsors of Florida football. .134 .588 .094 .165 -.165 Florida football sponsors are only after consumers’ money. -.310 .001 -.019 -.701 .286 Corporate sponsors do not care about the fans of Florida football. .568 .442 -.122 .202 .325 Sponsorships of Florida football are better than regular advertising. .556 -.182 .213 .109 -.077 Corporate sponsors care about the fans of Florida football. .720 .164 .128 .225 -.082 Florida football would not be possible without sponsors. .402 .202 -.208 -.220 -.636 Eigenvalues 3.80 1.75 1.50 1.13 1.02 Cronbach alpha (Reliability) .637 .600 .646 --Factor means 3.11 3.70 4.06 --Percentage of variance explained 25.34 11.68 9.98 7.51 6.80 Cumulative variance explained 25.34 37.02 46.99 54.50 61.30 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Ro tation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

PAGE 59

47 There was only one factor identified for fan involvement, and these items explained 74.46% of the variance. The items that loaded in this factor were considered to be the unidimensional construct of fan involveme nt. The results are listed in Table 3-9. Table 3-9. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Fan Involvement Fan Involvement Items Factor 1 It is very important to me that Florida football games are played. .808 I see myself as a strong fan of Florida football. .929 My friends view me as a strong fan of Florida football. .906 It is important to me to be a part of Florida football. .802 Eigenvalues 2.98 Cronbach alpha (Reliability) .884 Factor means 4.09 Percentage of variance explained 74.46 Cumulative variance explained 74.46 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Ro tation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Finally, there were seven f actors revealed for purchase intentions, and the first factor explained 34.87% of the variance. The items that loaded in this factor were considered to be the unidimensional construc t of general purchase in tentions. The items that loaded in factor two we re regarded as the Dodge purch ase intentions and accounted for 10.81% of the variance. Factor three in cluded the Alltell purchase intentions and explained 8.20% of the variance. Factor four included various other purchase intentions which accounted for 6.78%. Factor five include d the Coke purchase intentions (5.00% of variance), factor six the Publix purchase intentions (4.57% of variance), and factor seven the Gatorade purchase intentions (3.51%). The results are listed in Table 3-10.

PAGE 60

48Table 3-10. Exploratory F actor Analysis Results for Purchase Intentions Purchase Intentions Items Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would buy this brand Alltel 0.01 0.06 0.89 0.07 0.03 0.05 -0.01 I would consider this brand-Alltel -0.02 0.06 0.90 0.15 0.01 0.05 -0.00 I would buy this brand-Coke 0.06 -0.05 -0.04 0.08 0.92 0.15 0.11 I would consider this brand-Coke 0.07 -0.05 0.04 0.10 0.92 0.15 0.12 I would buy this brand-Gatorade 0.12 0.00 -0.03 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.92 I would consider this brand-Gatorade 0.14 -0.01 -0.02 0.05 0.15 0.11 0.90 I would buy this brand-Publix 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.14 0.93 0.10 I would consider this brand-Publix 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.94 0.04 I would buy this brand-Dodge -0.04 0.93 0.05 0.10 -0.01 0.03 0.00 I would consider this brand-Dodge -0.03 0.93 0.10 0.10 -0.02 0.04 -0.01 Whenever possible, I try to buy products/services from companies that sponsor Florida football. 0.66 0.08 0.17 0.24 -0.02 0.04 0.07 I would consider purchasing products/services from Alltel because they sponsor Florida football. 0.58 0.15 0.54 0.15 -0.13 0.00 0.10

PAGE 61

49Table 3-10. Continued Purchase Intentions Items Factor I would consider purchasing products/services from Dodge because they sponsor Florida football. 0.59 0.65 0.15 0.03 -0.07 -0.07 0.04 I would purchase products/services from Publix because they sponsor this event. 0.86 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.10 -0.04 I would purchase products/services from Dodge because they sponsor this event. 0.54 0.70 0.12 0.00 -0.10 -0.06 -0.01 I think it is good to purchase products/services from companies that sponsor Florida football. 0.63 0.07 -0.03 0.36 0.06 0.05 0.16 I would consider purchasing products/services from Publix because they sponsor Florida football. 0.87 0.07 0.05 0.19 0.06 0.09 -0.00 I would purchase a product/service from Coke because they sponsor this event. 0.88 0.02 -0.01 0.11 0.24 0.04 0.03 I would consider purchasing products/services from the corporate sponsors of this event. 0.48 0.07 -0.03 0.55 0.10 -0.04 0.09 I would consider purchasing products/services from Gatorade because they sponsor Florida football. 0.81 0.06 -0.06 0.17 -0.01 -0.04 0.18 I would purchase a product/service from Alltel because they sponsor this event. 0.51 0.26 0.58 0.05 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 I would try a new product/service if I saw it at a Florida football game. 0.26 0.04 0.23 0.60 0.07 -0.10 -0.06 I would consider purchasing products/services from Coke because they sponsor Florida football. 0.84 0.02 0.05 0.20 0.19 -0.02 0.00 I would definitely purchase products/services from the corporate sponsors of Florida football. 0.49 0.14 0.10 0.59 0.05 0.05 -0.05 I try to purchase products/services from companies that sponsor Florida football. 0.70 0.13 0.19 0.32 -0.00 0.02 0.04 My overall attitude toward purchasing products/services from companies that sponsor this event is positive. 0.32 0.09 0.12 0.67 0.04 0.17 0.12

PAGE 62

50Table 3-10. Continued Purchase Intentions Items Factor I will try to buy at least one product/service from a company that sponsors this event within the next 3 mos. 0.48 -0.02 0.02 0.47 0.05 0.06 0.14 I would purchase a product/service from Gatorade because they sponsor this event. 0.75 0.08 0.02 0.24 -0.03 -0.01 0.23 I do not base my pur chasing decisions on the corporate sponsorship of Florida football. 0.65 -0.03 0.04 0.13 -0.19 0.07 0.03 Eigenvalues 10.11 3.13 2.38 1.97 1.45 1.32 1.02 Cronbach alpha (Reliability) .942 .951 .893 .503 .913 .916 .869 Factor means 2.85 2.67 2.46 3.21 4.34 4.66 4.65 Percentage of variance explained 34.87 10.81 8.20 6.78 5.00 4.57 3.51 Cumulative variance explained 34.87 45.68 53.88 60.65 65.65 70.22 73.73 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Ro tation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

PAGE 63

51 Reliability measures were al so calculated for each of the four constructs of the instrument. For the 6 items in the firs t factor of favorable disposition items, = .868. For the two items in factor two, = .909. For the two items in factor three, = .907. For the two items in factor four, = .955. For the two items in factor five, = .908. For the two items in factor six, = .899. For the three items in factor one of goodwill, = 637. For the three items in factor two of goodwill, = .600. For the two items in the third factor of goodwill, = .646. For the 4 fan involvement items, = .884. For the 10 purchase intentions items in factor one, =.942. For the two items in factor two of purchase intentions, = .951. For the two items in fact or three of purchase intentions, = .893. For the two items in factor four of purchase intentions, = .503. For the two items in factor five of purchase intentions, = .913. For the two items in factor six of purchase intentions, = .916. For the two items in fact or seven of purchase intentions, = .869. Therefore, coefficient alpha reliability tests run for each factor, except for factor four of purchase intentions, satisfied Nunally’s (1978) crit erion of .60 or higher as a standard for an exploratory research study. Ho wever, future research on the construct of goodwill should include a confirmatory factor an alysis to test for higher reliability. In order to make statistical comparisons between the means of the constructs being studied, indexes were mathematically create d for each factor of favorable disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase intentions To create these indexes, all of the items concerning each factor were added together and divided by the number of items for that same factor. For example, all of the respondents’ answers for the 6 general favorable disposition items were added together, and that number was divided by 6. This created a mean value for this sample’s level of genera l favorable disposition toward the sponsors of

PAGE 64

52 this event. The same procedure was repeated for the factors of goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase intentions. Data Analysis The data analysis in the study included a fact or analysis, descriptive statistics (i.e., frequencies, means, and standa rd deviations), a correlationa l analysis, and analyses of variance for the research questions involving awareness. Descriptive Statistics For the recall (unaided recall) and rec ognition (aided recall) items, frequency measures were also calculated. The results for the recall question were as follows: Coke 40%, Publix 24%, Gatorade 21%, Alltel 20%, an d Dodge 11%. The results are listed in Table 3-11. Table 3-11. Recall (Unaided) Results The results for the recognition (aided recall) questions were as follows: Gatorade 99%, Coke 94%, Publix 92%, Alltel 78%, and Dodge 76%. The results are listed in Table 3-12. Table 3-12. Recognition (A ided recall) Results Sponsor Missing N Percentage Gatorade 40 350 98.9 Coke 39 334 94.1 Publix 41 324 91.8 Alltel 42 273 77.6 Dodge 41 268 75.9 Sponsors N Percentage SD Coke 158 .40 .491 Publix 96 .24 .430 Gatorade 81 .21 .405 Alltel 79 .20 .401 Dodge 45 .11 .318

PAGE 65

53 Favorable Disposition was measured using 5 brand-specific questions (related to each of the five major commercial sponsors) and 1 non-brand-specific questions (not related to one of the five major commercial s ponsors) for a total of 8 items. Items that loaded in the first factor were considered to be general favorable disposition. The remaining five factors were regarded as favor able disposition toward the particular brand that loaded in each factor. They were all measured on a five-point Likert-scale ranging from 5 (Strongly agree) to 1 (Strongly disagree). The items asked participants about their dispositions toward the top 5 corporate spons ors of the event and a bout their disposition regarding sponsorship in gene ral. The items in this se ction were developed based on research conducted by MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) and Reid and Soley (1982). The results from these 17 items are displayed in Table 3-13.

PAGE 66

54 Table 3-13. Frequencies for the 17 Favorable Disposition (FD) Items FD1 FD2 FD3 FD4 FD5 FD6 FD7 N 352 352 350 350 351 351 349 Missing 42 42 44 44 43 43 45 Mean 2.65 2.70 4.27 4.16 4.59 4.66 4.55 SD .84 .84 .91 1.01 .68 .60 .76 Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Min. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 FD8 FD9 FD10 N 349 347 347 Missing 45 47 47 Mean 4.56 2.97 3.02 SD .76 1.02 1.02 Range 4 4 4 Min. 1 1 1 Max. 5 5 5 1 I like the brand Alltel. 2 Alltel is a very good brand. 3 I like the brand Coke. 4 Coke is a very good brand. 5 I like the brand Gatorade. 6 Gatorade is a very good brand. 7 I like the brand Publix. 8 Publix is a very good brand. 9 I like the brand Dodge. 10 Dodge is a very good brand.

PAGE 67

55 FD11 FD12 FD13 FD14 FD15 FD16 FD17 N 351 351 351 350 346 345 346 Missing 43 43 43 44 48 49 48 Mean 3.91 3.52 3.79 3.11 2.47 2.94 2.63 SD .88 1.25 .811 1.18 1.03 1.18 1.08 Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Min. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Goodwill was measured with 3 factors based on Meenaghan’s (2001) theoretical model outlining the Sponsor-Process-Response seque nce. Items that loaded in the first factor were regarded as caring goodwill. Item s in the second factor were regarded as negative goodwill. And items that loaded in the third factor were considered to be corporate goodwill. A 5-point Likert-scale, ranging from 5 (Strongly agree) to 1 (Strongly disagree), was used to measure c onsumers’ goodwill of th e corporate sponsors of the event. The results from thes e 15 items are displayed in Table 3-14. 11 I think favorably of companies that sponsor Florida football. 12 I think favorably of Gatorade because they sponsor Florida football. 13 Companies who sponsor Florida football provide quality products/services. 14 I think favorably of Publix becau se they sponsor Florida football. 15 I think favorably of Alltel because they sponsor Florida football. 16 I think favorably of Coke because they sponsor Florida football. 17 I think favorably of Dodges becau se they sponsor Florida football.

PAGE 68

56 Table 3-14. Frequencies for the 15 Goodwill (GW) Items GW18 GW19 GW20 GW21 GW22 GW23 GW24 N 351 351 351 350 352 351 351 Missing 43 43 43 44 42 43 43 Mean 3.42 4.06 2.98 3.81 3.04 4.32 4.05 SD .93 .78 1.17 1.01 1.17 .80 .85 Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Min. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 GW25 GW26 GW27 GW28 GW29 GW30 GW31 GW32 N 349 349 349 348 349 349 346 346 Missing 45 45 45 46 45 45 48 48 Mean 4.26 4.26 3.04 3.32 2.99 3.19 3.90 3.46 SD .98 .98 1.07 .95 1.02 1.26 1.01 1.01 Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Min. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 18 Florida football sponsors are involved with their community. 19 Companies that sponsor Fl orida football are successful. 20 Florida football sponsors are only after consumers’ money. 21 Corporate sponsorships detract fr om the enjoyment of this event. 22 Corporate sponsors try to improve Florida football. 23 This sporting event benefits from corporate sponsors. 24 Companies that sponsor Flor ida football are professional. 25 Florida football should not have corporate sponsors. 26 Companies who do not sponsor Florida football are not involved with their community. 27 I do not pay attention to the corporate sponsors of Florida football. 28 Sponsorships of Florida football are better than regular advertising. 29 Corporate sponsors care about the fans of Florida football. 30 Florida football would not be possible without sponsors. 31 Florida football sponsors are only after consumers’ money. 32 Corporate sponsors do not care about the fans of Florida football.

PAGE 69

57 Fan involvement levels were measured using only one factor on a five-point Likert-scale ranging from 5 (Strongly agree) to 1 (Strongly disagree). All four items loaded in the first factor. These items were used to determine how closely the participants identified with the team they were watching. This was based on work by Madrigal (2001) and his social identity theory and belief-attitude-int entions hierarchy. The results from these 4 items are listed in Table 3-15.

PAGE 70

58 Table 3-15. Frequencies for the 4 Fan Involvement (FI) Items. FI33 FI34 FI35 FI36 N 350 350 349 348 Missing 44 44 45 46 Mean 3.99 3.89 4.42 4.10 SD 1.19 1.19 .96 1.12 Range 4 4 4 4 Min. 1 1 1 1 Max. 5 5 5 5 Consumer purchase intentions were measured using 7 factors, and all of the items were measured on a 5-point Likert-scale, ra nging from 5 (Strongly agree) to 1 (Strongly disagree). Items that loaded in the first f actor were considered to be general purchase intentions. Items that loaded in the second factor were Dodge purch ase intentions. Items that loaded in factor three were Alltel purch ase intentions. Factor four included various other purchase intentions. Items that loaded in factor five were Coke purchase intentions. Items that loaded in factor six were Publix purchase intentions, and items that loaded in factor seven were Gatorade pur chase intentions. These ques tions were based on research by Peyrot and Van Doren (1998). The results for these 29 items are displayed in Table 316. 33 It is important to me to be a part of Florida football. 34 My friends view me as a strong fan of Florida football. 35 It is very important to me that Florida football games are played. 36 I see myself as a strong fan of Florida football.

PAGE 71

59 Table 3-16. Frequencies for the 29 Purchase Intentions Items PI137 PI238 PI339 PI440 PI541 PI642 PI743 PI844 N 349 349 350 350 348 348 350 350 Missing 45 45 44 44 46 46 44 44 Mean 2.43 2.50 4.39 4.30 4.62 4.68 4.66 4.65 SD 1.01 1.09 .94 1.01 .74 .64 .67 .70 Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Min. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 PI945 PI1046 Q247 Q348 Q649 Q750 Q1251 Q1652 N 347 347 352 352 351 350 350 350 Missing 47 47 42 42 43 44 44 44 Mean 2.69 2.65 2.86 2.16 2.21 2.95 2.16 3.21 SD 1.18 1.17 1.05 1.09 1.05 1.27 .97 .99 Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Min. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 37 I would buy the brand Alltel. 38 The next time I need to buy a product of this type, I would consider buying Alltel. 39 I would buy the brand Coke. 40 The next time I need to buy a product of this type, I would consider buying Coke. 41 I would buy the brand Gatorade. 42 The next time I need to buy a product of this type, I would consider buying Gatorade. 43 I would buy the brand Publix. 44 The next time I need to buy a product of this type, I would consider buying Publix. 45 I would buy the brand Dodge. 46 The next time I need to buy a product of this type, I would consider buying Dodge. 47 Whenever possible, I try to buy products/servi ces from companies that sp onsor Florida football. 48 I would consider purchasing products/services fr om Alltel because they sponsor Florida football. 49 I would consider purchasing products/services from Dodge because they sponsor Florida football. 50 I would purchase products/se rvices from Publix because they sponsor this event. 51 I would purchase products/services from Dodge because they sponsor this event. 52 I think it is good to purchase products/services from companies that sponsor Florida football.

PAGE 72

60 Q1753 Q1954 Q2155 Q2256 Q2457 Q2558 Q2959 Q3460 N 349 350 350 348 351 346 349 346 Missing 45 44 44 46 43 48 45 48 Mean 2.96 2.86 3.50 3.18 1.86 2.08 3.01 2.85 SD 1.23 1.22 .97 1.27 .99 .95 .96 1.17 Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Min. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Q3561 Q3762 Q3863 Q4064 Q4565 N 348 347 347 347 347 Missing 46 47 47 47 47 Mean 2.92 2.57 3.41 3.17 3.11 SD 1.00 .99 .80 1.24 1.22 Range 4 4 4 4 4 Min. 1 1 1 1 1 Max. 5 5 5 5 5 53 I would consider purchasing produ cts/services from Publix because they sponsor Florida football. 54 I would purchase products/se rvices from Coke because they sponsor this event. 55 I would consider purchasing products/services from the corporate sponsors of this event. 56 I would consider purchasing product s/services from Gatorade because th ey sponsor Florida football. 57 I do not base my purchasing decisions on the corporate sponsorship of Florida football. 58 I would purchase products/se rvices from Alltel because they sponsor this event. 59 I would try a new product/service if I saw it at a Florida football game. 60 I would consider purchasing product s/services from Coke because they sponsor Florida football. 61 I would definitely purchase products/services from the corporate sponsors of Florida football. 62 I try to purchase products/services from companies that sponsor Florida football. 63 My overall attitude toward purchasing products/se rvices from companies that sponsor this event is positive. 64 I will try to buy at least one product/service from a company that sponsors this event within the next 3 mos. 65 I would purchase products/se rvices from Gatorade because they sponsor this event.

PAGE 73

61 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS There were nine research questions proposed in this study. These questions guided the exploration of the effectiveness of commer cial sponsorship, and the results of each of the questions are outlined below. Research Question 1: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels of Awareness of Corporate Sponsorships Display A More Favorable Disposition Than Participants With Lower Levels of Awareness? For each research question involving awareness (Q1, Q2, Q4, and Q7), one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA’s) were conduc ted for the recall and recognition measures of the five sponsoring companies compared to each construct. Each commercial sponsor of the event (Alltel, Coke, Gatorade, Publix, and Dodge) was compared to each factor in the construct being studied for those four research questions. For question 1, only one of the unaid ed recall ANOVA’s was significant. Respondents that remembered Al ltel as one of the commerc ial sponsors demonstrated a favorable disposition toward that br and (F(1, 78) = 6.954, p<.05). While some consumers’ could recall many of the companies sponsoring the event, they did not necessarily form more positive feelings or beliefs about those companies. There were four aided recall ANOVA’s that were significant Respondents that recognized Publix as a commercial sponsor demonstrated a genera l favorable disposition toward sponsorship (F(1, 309) = 4.364, p<.05) and also a favorable di sposition toward that particular brand (F(1, 320) = 3.336, p<.05). Respondents that re cognized Dodge as a commercial sponsor also demonstrated a general favorable di sposition (F(1, 257) = 2.689, p<.05) and a brand-

PAGE 74

62 specific favorable disposition toward Dodge (F(1, 264) = 2.679, p<.05). However, there was not sufficient overall evidence to support Q1 It was partially supported. The results of these ANOVA’s are displaye d in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. Table 4-1. One-Way ANOVA’s for Question 1 Unaided recall for Alltel, Dodge, Publix, Gatorade, and Coke Alltel Yes No Mean SD Mean SD F Value Sig. Factor 1: General Favorable Disposition (n= 72) 3.15 0.92 (n= 265) 3.10 0.85 0.229 .633 Factor 2: Alltel Favorable Disposition (n= 78) 2.47 0.86 (n= 273) 2.74 0.78 6.954 .009* Dodge Factor 1: General Favorable Disposition (n=42) 3.27 0.79 (n=296) 3.08 0.87 1.796 .181 Factor 3: Dodge Favorable Disposition (n=44) 3.23 1.06 (n=303) 2.96 0.06 2.851 .092 Publix Factor 1: General Favorable Disposition (n=88) 3.14 0.77 (n=250) 3.09 0.89 0.213 .645 Factor 4: Publix Favorable Disposition (n=95) 4.56 0.79 (n=254) 4.55 0.73 0.003 .958 Gatorade Factor 1: General Favorable Disposition (n=79) 3.09 0.83 (n=259) 3.11 0.87 0.061 .805 Factor 5: Gatorade Favorable Disposition (n=81) 4.68 0.61 (n=270) 4.61 0.62 0.800 .372 Coke Factor 1: General Favorable Disposition (n=148) 3.09 0.84 (n=189) 3.11 0.88 0.041 .840 Factor 6: Coke Favorable Disposition (n=156) 4.28 0.90 (n=193) 4.17 0.93 1.079 .300 *Significant at the .05 level

PAGE 75

63Table 4-2. One-way ANOVA’s for Question 1 Aided recall for Alltel, Dodge Publix, Gatorade, and Coke Alltell Correct Foil 1 Foil 2 Foil 3 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F Value Sig. Factor 1: General Favorable Disposition (n=261) 3.15 0.84(n=26) 2.81 1.04(n=31) 2.96 0.97 (n=19) 3.21 0.701.600 .189 Factor 2: Alltel Favorable Disposition (n=272) 2.65 0.83(n=27) 2.67 0.72(n=31) 2.82 0.80 (n=20) 2.75 0.550.473 .701 Dodge Factor 1: General Favorable Disposition (n=257) 3.17 0.88(n=48) 2.95 0.80(n=28) 2.75 0.77 (n=4 3.13 0.322.689 .046* Factor 3: Dodge Favorable Disposition (n=264) 3.05 0.96(n=50) 2.84 0.98(n=28) 2.63 1.04 (n=4) 3.63 0.632.679 .047* Publix Factor 1: General Favorable Disposition (n=309) 3.15 0.84(n=18) 2.87 0.94(n=3) 2.72 1.06 (n=8) 2.15 0.764.364 .005* Factor 4: Publix Favorable Disposition (n=320) 4.59 0.71(n=18) 4.28 1.06(n=3) 4.67 0.58 (n=8) 3.88 0.993.336 .020* Gatorade Factor 1: General Favorable Disposition (n=334) 3.11 0.86(n=1) 2.00 0.00(n=3) 3.17 0.17 (n=0) 0.00 0.000.836 .434 Factor 5: Gatorade Favorable Disposition (n=347) 4.63 0.62(n=1) 5.00 0.00(n=3) 4.33 0.58 (n=0) 0.00 0.000.523 .593 Coke Factor 1: General Favorable Disposition (n=317) 3.13 0.86(n=20) 2.82 0.89(n=1) 2.17 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 0.001.846 .159 Factor 6: Coke Favorable Disposition (n=329) 4.23 0.92(n=20) 3.98 0.82(n=1) 3.00 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 0.001.651 .193 *Significant at the .05 level

PAGE 76

64 Research Question 2: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels of Awareness Display Stronger Purchase Intentions Than Participants With Lower Levels of Awareness? For question 2, two of the unaided recall ANOVA’s were si gnificant. Specifically, the respondents that recalled Alltel displayed significantly higher purchase intentions for that particular brand than respondents that did not remember seeing Alltel (F(1, 77) = 5.337, p<.05). Respondents that recalled Dodge displayed significantly higher general purchase intentions than those who did not remember seeing the brand (F(1, 41) = 4.205, p<.05). Therefore, Q2 was partially supported. The results of these ANOVA’s are displayed in Tables 4-3 and 4-4.

PAGE 77

65 Table 4-3. One-Way ANOV A’s for Question 2 Unaided recall for Alltel, Dodge, Publix, Gatorade, and Coke Alltel Yes No Mean SD Mean SD F Value Sig. Factor 1: General Purchase Intentions (n=73) 3.00 0.95 (n=264) 2.81 0.91 2.539 .112 Factor 2: Alltel Purchase Intentions (n=77) 2.23 0.98 (n=271) 2.53 0.99 5.337 .021 Dodge Factor 1: General Purchase Intentions (n=41) 3.12 0.82 (n=297) 2.81 0.93 4.205 .041 Factor 3: Dodge Purchase Intentions (n=45) 2.87 1.32 (n=302) 2.65 1.15 1.460 .228 Publix Factor 1: General Purchase Intentions (n=87) 2.87 0.84 (n=251) 2.84 0.95 0.050 .824 Factor 4: Publix Purchase Intentions (n=96) 4.67 0.67 (n=254) 4.65 0.66 0.036 .849 Gatorade Factor 1: General Purchase Intentions (n=76) 2.87 0.87 (n=262) 2.84 0.94 0.050 .823 Factor 5: Gatorade Purchase Intentions (n=81) 4.70 0.60 (n=267) 4.63 0.67 0.689 .407 Coke Factor 1: General Purchase Intentions (n=150) 2.83 0.94 (n=187) 2.86 0.91 0.068 .794 Factor 6: Coke Purchase Intentions (n=157) 4.40 0.91 (n=192) 4.30 0.96 1.030 .311

PAGE 78

66Table 4-4. One-Way ANOV A’s for Question 2 Aided recall for Alltel, Dodge Publix, Gatorade, and Coke Alltell Correct Foil 1 Foil 2 Foil 3 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F Value Sig. Factor 1: General Purchase Intentions (n=260) 2.90 0.93(n=26) 2.47 0.97(n=30) 2.61 0.85 (n=20) 3.02 0.832.717 .045 Factor 2: Alltel Purchase Intentions (n=269) 2.45 1.03(n=27) 2.34 0.89(n=31) 2.50 0.92 (n=21) 2.79 0.750.858 .463 Dodge Factor 1: General Purchase Intentions (n=258) 2.92 0.94(n=48) 2.63 0.87(n=27) 2.57 0.78 (n=4) 2.68 0.472.226 .085 Factor 3: Dodge Purchase Intentions (n=267) 2.75 1.15(n=49) 2.39 1.08(n=26) 2.38 1.19 (n=4) 2.50 0.412.062 .105 Publix Factor 1: General Purchase Intentions (n=309) 2.88 0.92(n=18) 2.68 0.89(n=3) 2.57 0.95 (n=8) 2.23 0.931.630 .182 Factor 4: Publix Purchase Intentions (n=320) 4.67 0.64(n=18) 4.50 0.98(n=3) 4.83 0.29 (n=8) 4.38 0.740.926 .428 Gatorade Factor 1: General Purchase Intentions (n=334) 2.85 0.93(n=1) 1.20 0.00(n=3) 3.03 0.32 (n=0) 0.00 0.001.667 .190 Factor 5: Gatorade Purchase Intentions (n=344) 4.65 0.66(n=1) 5.00 0.00(n=3) 5.00 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 0.000.576 .563 Coke

PAGE 79

67Factor 1: General Purchase Intentions (n=317) 2.87 0.92(n=20) 2.52 0.90(n=1) 2.10 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 0.001.750 .175 Factor 6: Coke Purchase Intentions (n=329) 4.36 0.94(n=20) 4.08 0.99(n=1) 3.50 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 0.001.296 .275

PAGE 80

68 Research Question 3: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels of Favorable Disposition Display Stronger Purchase Inte ntions Than Participants With Lower Levels of Favorable Disposition? A correlational analysis was performed in order to answer the remaining five research questions regarding favorable disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase intentions (Q3, Q5, Q6, Q8, and Q9 ). The results indicated that general favorable disposition was significantly (p <.01) and positively correlated to general purchase intentions (Pearson’s r = .872) a nd other purchase intentions (Pearson’s r = .601). The results also indicated that certain brand-specific favorable dispositions were also significantly and positively correlated to brand-specific purchase intentions, while others were not significant. The results of this correlational analysis are displayed in Table 4-5.

PAGE 81

69 Table 4-5. Correlational Analysis for Favorable Disposition (FD) and Purchase Intentions (PI) General PI Dodge PI Alltel PI Other PI Coke PI Publix PI Gatorade PI General FD Pearson Correlation .872(**) .175(**) .178(**) .601(**) .217(**) .189(**) .227(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 331 334 338 337 336 336 334 Alltel FD Pearson Correlation .130(*) .159(**) .763(**) .254(**) .033 .162(**) -.010 Sig. (2tailed) .017 .003 .000 .000 .538 .002 .848 N 337 346 348 346 348 348 346 Dodge FD Pearson Correlation .104 .784(**) .088 .128(*) -.011 .075 .028 Sig. (2tailed) .059 .000 .104 .018 .834 .163 .605 N 334 343 345 343 345 345 343 Publix FD Pearson Correlation .188(**) .032 .087 .141(**) .306(**) .830(**) .112(*) Sig. (2tailed) .001 .560 .106 .009 .000 .000 .037 N 336 344 346 344 347 347 346 Gatorade FD Pearson Correlation .244(**) -.004 -.100 .134(*) .260(**) .214(**) .857(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .944 .063 .013 .000 .000 .000 N 337 346 348 346 349 349 347 Coke FD Pearson Correlation .214(**) -.008 .030 .212(**) .851(**) .275(**) .232(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .882 .574 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 336 345 347 345 349 348 346 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 82

70 Research Question 4: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels of Goodwill Display Higher Levels of Awareness of Co rporate Sponsorships Than Participants With Lower Levels of Goodwill? Following the results of the ANOVA’s for question 4, it was found that there were ten significant results. The respondents th at recalled Alltel as a sponsor scored significantly higher in the factor of corporate goodwill (F(1, 79) = 7.523, p<.05). Respondents who recalled Dodge’s sponsorship sc ored significantly higher in the factors of negative goodwill (F(1, 43) = 6.308, p<.05) and corporate goodwill (F(1, 45) = 4.194, p<.05). Respondents who remembered Coke’s sponsorship of the event also scored significantly higher in negative goodwill (F(1, 155) = 5.147, p<.05) and corporate goodwill (F(1, 157) = 4.428, p<.05). For the aided recall section, respondents who recognized Alltel as a sponsor scored signi ficantly higher in the factor of negative goodwill (F(1, 268) = 2.836, p<.05). Those who recognized Dodge’s sponsorship also scored significantly higher in negative goodwill (F(1, 265) = 6.684, p<.001). The respondents who recognized Publix as a comm ercial sponsor displayed significantly higher results in the factor of corpor ate goodwill (F(1, 320) = 3.524, p<.05). When Coke’s sponsorship was recognized by the par ticipants, they also scored significantly higher in both negative goodwill (F(1, 326) = 7.084, p<.001) and corporate goodwill (F(1, 329) = 5.349, p<.05) Therefore, Q4 was partially supported. The results of these ANOVA’s are displayed in Tables 4-6 and 4-7.

PAGE 83

71 Table 4-6. One-Way ANOV A’s for Question 4 Unaided recall for Alltel, Dodge, Publix, Gatorade, and Coke Alltel Yes No Mean SD Mean SD F Value Sig. Factor 7: Caring Goodwill (n=77) 3.06 0.76 (n=270) 3.13 0.81 0.403 .526 Factor 8: Negative Goodwill (n=77) 3.77 0.71 (n=269) 3.68 0.78 0.783 .377 Factor 9: Corporate Goodwill (n=79) 4.25 0.64 (n=270) 4.00 0.71 7.523 .006* Dodge Factor 7: Caring Goodwill (n=43) 3.16 0.69 (n=305) 3.10 0.81 0.207 .649 Factor 8: Negative Goodwill (n=43) 3.97 0.63 (n=304) 3.66 0.77 6.308 .012* Factor 9: Corporate Goodwill (n=45) 4.26 0.67 (n=305) 4.03 0.71 4.194 .041* Publix Factor 7: Caring Goodwill (n=94) 3.07 0.71 (n=254) 3.12 0.82 0.273 .601 Factor 8: Negative Goodwill (n=94) 3.79 0.70 (n=253) 3.67 0.78 1.763 .185 Factor 9: Corporate Goodwill (n=96) 4.08 0.64 (n=254) 4.05 0.73 0.203 .653 Gatorade Factor 7: Caring Goodwill (n=79) 3.10 0.74 (n=269) 3.14 0.81 0.032 .858 Factor 8: Negative Goodwill (n=79) 3.70 0.72 (n=268) 3.70 0.77 0.001 .978 Factor 9: Corporate Goodwill (n=80) 4.13 0.67 (n=270) 4.04 0.71 1.003 .317 Coke Factor 7: Caring Goodwill (n=155) 3.13 0.81 (n=192) 3.09 0.78 0.186 .667 Factor 8: Negative Goodwill (n=155) 3.80 0.75 (n=191) 3.61 0.76 5.147 .024* Factor 9: Corporate Goodwill (n=157) 4.14 0.69 (n=192) 3.98 0.71 4.428 .036* *Significant at the .05 level

PAGE 84

72 Table 4-7. One-Way ANOV A’s for Question 4 Aided recall for Alltel, Dodge Publix, Gatorade, and Coke Alltell Correct Foil 1 Foil 2 Foil 3 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F Value Sig. Factor 7: Caring Goodwill (n=268) 3.14 0.78(n=26) 2.90 0.86(n=31) 3.15 0.91 (n=21) 2.97 0.701.008 .389 Factor 8: Negative Goodwill (n=268) 3.75 0.73(n=26) 3.51 0.84(n=31) 3.39 0.93 (n=20) 3.62 0.742.836 .038* Factor 9: Corporate Goodwill (n=271) 4.09 0.70(n=26) 4.02 0.69(n=30) 3.92 0.76 (n=21) 3.90 0.720.975 .405 Dodge Factor 7: Caring Goodwill (n=266) 3.17 0.79(n=49) 2.91 0.83(n=28) 2.90 0.71 (n=4) 3.00 0.272.161 .092 Factor 8: Negative Goodwill (n=265) 3.79 0.73(n=49) 3.31 0.83(n=28) 3.49 0.72 (n=4) 3.5 0.886.684 .000** Factor 9: Corporate Goodwill (n=267) 4.09 0.69(n=50) 3.93 0.78(n=28) 3.86 0.61 (n=4) 4.63 0.482.362 0.71 Publix Factor 7: Caring Goodwill (n=319) 3.14 0.80(n=18) 2.74 0.80(n=3) 2.89 0.69 (n=8) 2.79 0.311.992 .115 Factor 8: Negative Goodwill (n=318) 3.70 0.75(n=18) 3.46 0.94(n=3) 4.56 0.19 (n=8) 3.92 0.852.083 .102

PAGE 85

73Table 4-7. Continued Correct Foil 1 Foil 2 Foil 3 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F Value Sig. Factor 9: Corporate Goodwill (n=320) 4.08 0.69(n=18) 3.92 0.81(n=3) 3.83 0.76 (n=8) 3.31 0.373.524 .015* Gatorade Factor 7: Caring Goodwill (n=344) 3.12 0.79(n=1) 1.67 0.00(n=3) 2.56 0.19 (n=0) 0.00 0.002.428 .090 Factor 8: Negative Goodwill (n=343) 3.69 0.76(n=1) 4.33 0.00(n=3) 4.00 0.67 (n=0) 0.00 0.000.589 .556 Factor 9: Corporate Goodwill (n=346) 4.06 0.70(n=1) 5.00 0.00(n=3) 3.67 0.58 (n=0) 0.00 0.001.359 .258 Coke Factor 7: Caring Goodwill (n=327) 3.12 0.80(n=20) 3.05 0.62(n=1) 2.33 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 0.000.547 .579 Factor 8: Negative Goodwill (n=326) 3.73 0.76(n=20) 3.22 0.59(n=1) 2.00 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 0.007.084 .001** Factor 9: Corporate Goodwill (n=329) 4.08 0.70(n=20) 3.70 0.57(n=1) 0.00 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 0.005.349 .005* *Significant at the .05 level ** Significant at the .001 level

PAGE 86

74 Research Question 5: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels Of Goodwill Display Higher Levels Of Favorable Disp osition Than Participants With Lower Levels Of Goodwill? A correlational analysis was performed to test this research question. All three factors of goodwill were significantly (p< .01) and positively correlated to general favorable disposition (Pearson’s r = .604, .247, and .366). Some of the brand-specific favorable dispositions were also significan tly and positively correlated to certain factors of goodwill while others were not significant. The results are displayed in Table 4-8. Table 4-8. Correlational Analysis for Fa vorable Disposition (FD) and Goodwill Caring Goodwill Negative Goodwill Corporate Goodwill General FD Pearson Correlation .604(**) .247(**) .366(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 338 338 337 Alltel FD Pearson Correlation .158(**) .070 .125(*) Sig. (2tailed) .003 .197 .020 N 346 346 348 Dodge FD Pearson Correlation .135(*) .048 .076 Sig. (2tailed) .012 .380 .157 N 343 342 345 Publix FD Pearson Correlation .094 .122(*) .245(**) Sig. (2tailed) .081 .024 .000 N 346 345 347 Gatorade FD Pearson Correlation .110(*) .105 .232(**) Sig. (2tailed) .040 .050 .000 N 347 346 349 Coke FD Pearson Correlation .176(**) .211(**) .312(**) Sig. (2tailed) .001 .000 .000 N 346 345 348 Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000 N 347 346 350 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 87

75 Research Question 6: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels Of Goodwill Display Stronger Purchase Intentions Than Participants With Lower Levels Of Goodwill? Table 4-9 also indicates that goodwill was significantly (p<.01) and positively correlated to general purchase intentions (P earson’s r = .564). Various facets of goodwill were also significantly and positively correlated to some of the brand-specific purchase intentions. Table 4-9. Correlational Analysis for Goodwill and Purchase Intentions (PI) Caring Goodwill Negative Goodwill Corporate Goodwill General PI Pearson Correlation .564(**) .225(**) .363(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 338 337 337 Doge PI Pearson Correlation .143(**) -.001 .043 Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .986 .422 N 343 342 345 Alltel PI Pearson Correlation .156(**) .008 .124(*) Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .881 .021 N 345 344 347 Other PI Pearson Correlation .594(**) .325(**) .363(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 346 345 346 Coke PI Pearson Correlation .124(*) .146(**) .258(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .021 .007 .000 N 346 345 348 Publix PI Pearson Correlation .077 .212(**) .222(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .155 .000 .000 N 346 345 348 Gatorade PI Pearson Correlation .119(*) .107(*) .179(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .027 .047 .001 N 344 343 346 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 88

76 Research Question 7: Will Participan ts Who Have Higher Levels Of Fan Involvement Display Higher Levels Of Aw areness Of Corporate Sponsorships Than Participants With Lower Le vels Of Fan Involvement? For question 7, two analyses of variance th at were performed showed significant results between fan involvement and awarene ss level. Respondents that recalled Dodge as an event sponsor scored significantly highe r in fan involvement than those who did not remember Dodge (F(1, 44) = 6.155, p<.05). For those respondent s that recognized Publix as an event sponsor, they also scored significantly higher in fan involvement (F(1, 315) = 6.888, p<.001). Therefore, Q7 was part ially supported. The results of these ANOVA’s are displayed in Tables 4-10 and 4-11.

PAGE 89

77 Table 4-10. One-Way ANOVA’s for Question 7 Unaided recall for Alltel, Dodge, Publix, Gatorade, and Coke Alltel Yes No Mean SD Mean SD F Value Sig. Factor 10: Fan Involvement (n=77) 4.18 0.89 (n=267) 4.07 1.00 0.799 .372 Dodge Factor 10: Fan Involvement (n=44) 4.43 0.82 (n=301) 4.04 0.98 6.155 .014* Publix Factor 10: Fan Involvement (n=94) 4.02 0.99 (n=251) 4.12 0.96 .742 .390 Gatorade Factor 10: Fan Involvement (n=80) 4.25 0.76 (n=265) 4.05 1.02 2.776 .097 Coke Factor 10: Fan Involvement (n=154) 4.10 0.99 (n=190) 4.09 0.96 .001 .970 *Significant at the .05 level

PAGE 90

78 Table 4-11. One-Way ANOVA’s for Question 7 Aided recall for Alltel, Dodge Publix, Gatorade, and Coke Alltell Correct Foil 1 Foil 2 Foil 3 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F Value Sig. Factor 10: Fan Involvement (n=268) 4.11 0.97(n=24) 4.00 1.14(n=31) 3.93 0.88 (n=20) 4.24 0.980.543 .653 Dodge Factor 10: Fan Involvement (n=264) 4.14 0.99(n=48) 3.86 0.88(n=28) 3.98 0.99 (n=4) 4.69 0.381.726 .161 Publix Factor 10: Fan Involvement (n=315) 4.13 0.93(n=18) 4.08 0.93(n=3) 4.33 0.38 (n=8) 2.59 1.536.888 .000** Gatorade Factor 10: Fan Involvement (n=341) 4.09 0.98(n=1) 5.00 0.00(n=3) 4.41 0.14 (n=0) 0.00 0.000.602 .548 Coke Factor 10: Fan Involvement (n=325) 4.12 0.97(n=19) 3.64 0.99(n=1) 3.00 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 0.002.857 .059 **Significant at the .001 level

PAGE 91

79 Research Question 8: Will Participan ts Who Have Higher Levels Of Fan Involvement Display Higher Levels Of F avorable Disposition Than Participants With Lower Levels Of Fan Involvement? The correlational analysis also showed that fan involvement is significantly (p<.01) and positively correlated to general favorab le disposition (Pearson’ s r = .419), Publix favorable disposition (Pearson’s r = .234), Gato rade favorable disposition (Pearson’s r = .286), and Coke favorable disposition (Pearson’ s r = .197). The results are displayed in Table 4-12.

PAGE 92

80 Table 4-12. Correlational Analysis for Fan Involvement and Favorable Disposition (FD) Fan Involvement General FD Pearson Correlation .419(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 334 Alltel FD Pearson Correlation .101 Sig. (2-tailed) .062 N 343 Dodge FD Pearson Correlation .063 Sig. (2-tailed) .250 N 340 Publix FD Pearson Correlation .234(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 342 Gatorade FD Pearson Correlation .286(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 344 Coke FD Pearson Correlation .197(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 343 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Research Question 9: Will Participan ts Who Have Higher Levels Of Fan Involvement Display Stronger Purchase Inte ntions Than Participants With Lower Levels Of Fan Involvement? The results also indicated that fan involvement was significantly (p<.01) and positively correlated to general purchase inte ntions (Pearson’s r = .390), other purchase intentions (Pearson’s r = .280) Coke purchase intentions (Pearson’s r = .155), Publix purchase intentions (Pearson’s r = .217), and Gatorade purchase inte ntions (Pearson’s r = .329). These results of this correlationa l analysis are displayed in Table 4-13.

PAGE 93

81 Table 4-13. Correlational Analysis for Fan I nvolvement and Purchase Intentions (PI) Fan Involvement General PI Pearson Correlation .390(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 334 Dodge PI Pearson Correlation -.002 Sig. (2-tailed) .976 N 340 Alltel PI Pearson Correlation .058 Sig. (2-tailed) .284 N 342 Other PI Pearson Correlation .280(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 343 Coke PI Pearson Correlation .155(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .004 N 343 Publix PI Pearson Correlation .217(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 343 Gatorade PI Pearson Correlation .329(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 341 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 94

82 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The purpose of this study was to anal yze the effectiveness of commercial sponsorships (CS) as they pertain to an elit e intercollegiate athlet ic football program. More specifically, the problem included analyzing the cons tructs of CS, which were defined as awareness, favorable disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase intentions. This chapter discusses the result s of the study, their rele vance to the literature and industry and, finally, areas fo r further investigation. The four major sections of this chapter include: Summary of Methods Discussion of Findings Implications Limitations Delimitations Suggestions for Further Research Summary of Methods The data for this study were collected through a web-based questionnaire which was administered following three home footba ll games at the University of Florida during the 2003-2004 season. The partic ipants in the study were ra ndomly selected by trained data collectors and asked to fill out an inform ed consent card prior to participating. At the completion of each game, the investigator distributed the survey via e-mail to all those individuals who completed the index card At the conclusion of the data collection, a total of 394 participants had completed th e 15-minute survey and submitted it. This

PAGE 95

83 web-based questionnaire consisted of 76 to tal items measuring the constructs of awareness, favorable disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase intentions. Discussion of Findings Sample Profile The sample profile in this study was used to provide some insight as to what types of individuals made up the audience at th e intercollegiate football games. The percentages for gender were split almost equa lly, but there were slightly more males (52.1%) than females (47.9%) who responded to the survey. The majority of the respondents were Caucasian (76.6%) and betw een the ages of 18-24 (70.5%) and 25-49 (28.1%). One of the most interesting findings in this sample’s sociodemographic data was that virtually as many females attended th e games as males. In the past, football has often been stereotyped as having primarily a male audience. If this sample was an accurate representation of the population at elit e intercollegiate football games, then the results of the study would indi cate that females are in at tendance at intercollegiate football games roughly as much as males. Research Question 1: Will Participants Wh o Have Higher Levels Of Awareness Of Corporate Sponsorships Display A More Favorable Disposition Than Participants With Lower Levels Of Awareness? According to Meenaghan (2001), consumer s who demonstrate higher levels of awareness of commercial sponsorships s hould also demonstrate more favorable dispositions toward those spons ors. In other words, participants who see and remember more sponsorship messages should also view those commercial sponsors more positively. The results of this investiga tion, however, revealed that pa rticipants’ awareness levels were not consistently significan t indicators of their levels of favorable disposition. None of the companies that sponsored this event created more positive attitudes within the

PAGE 96

84 consumers simply by generating awareness of thei r brands. In fact, so me participants in the survey exhibited negative attitudes towa rd the commercial sponsors for which they were most aware. This suggested that awareness alone should not be the only measure used by sponsors to gauge a consumer’s interest in or favorable disposition toward their brand or their products and services. Other factors, or combinations of those factors, may better determine a consumer’s favorable disposit ion or perceptions of the sponsor. Research Question 2: Will Participants Wh o Have Higher Levels Of Awareness Of Corporate Sponsorships Display Stronger Purchase Intentions Than Participants With Lower Levels Of Awareness? Meenaghan (2001) also suggests that consumers who recall and recognize sponsorships should also display stronger purch ase intentions than consumers who do not recall as many messages. The results of this study were not in support of this suggestion. One ANOVA, comparing the means for awarene ss and purchase intentions regarding the brand Dodge, showed a significant result. In other words, the participants who recalled the Dodge ads were also more likely to purch ase the Dodge brand or indicated that they would consider purchasing the Dodge brand. The results for the remaining sponsors, including Alltel, Coke, Gatorade and Publix, did not reveal any c onsistent significant relationships between the awareness of sponsor ships and the purchase of these specific brands. This outcome supports the litera ture on aided and unai ded recall in that awareness levels are not sole ly indicative of consumer pur chase intentions. They are better suited for revealing brand exposure. Even though consumer recall and recognition rates have been successful indicators of s ponsorship awareness (Bennett et al. 2002; Meenaghan, 1991; Nicholls et al., 1999; Otke r & Hayes, 1987; Stotlar, 1993), they are not necessarily a strong gauge for consumer sa tisfaction or intent to purchase based on

PAGE 97

85 event sponsorships. A person’s ability to recall an ad is an indicator of the meaningfulness of the message or how well the brand registers in the consumers mind (Wells, 2000). Just because the target market recognizes a company or their brands does not necessarily mean they prefer that br and and will purchase it over another. These findings are supported by prev ious research conducted by Johar and Pham (1999) who propose that aided and unaided recall rates se rve as better indicators of brand-event relatedness and market prominence. Research Question 3: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels Of Favorable Disposition Display Stronger Purchase Inte ntions Than Participants With Lower Levels Of Favorable Disposition? According to Peyrot et al. (1998), cons umers develop their purchase behaviors based on past experiences, and they tend to re peat these behaviors. If these previous experiences are positive, base d on Meenaghan’s (2001) model, it is more likely that the consumer will transfer these positive feelings to the sponsors of the event. This means that if consumers develop fa vorable dispositions toward the sponsors of a particular sporting event, and then have the opportunity to purchase products or services that have an affiliation with that previous positive experience, they will generally purchase those same brands. The results support the noti on that a central component of future (re)purchase intentions is the perceive d value and satisfaction of customers. Previous research has shown that consumer satisfacti on can be a reliable pred ictor of (re)purchase intentions (Patterson & Spreng, 1997). Ther e was a strong positive correlation between the feelings and emotions consumers disp layed toward the event sponsors and their purchase intentions and behaviors. Many part icipants indicated that they look favorably upon the companies that invested in their favor ed activity. For this reason, they would also consider making purchases from them (or had already done so).

PAGE 98

86 These results are extremely important because previous theory has indicated that consumers tend to view sponsorships more favor ably than they do tr aditional advertising (Meenaghan, 2001). If consumers also repeat purchases after having positive experiences at a sporting event, as this study has indi cated, then commercial sponsorships may be equal to or more beneficial in produ cing purchase behaviors than conventional advertising methods. Meenaghan (2001) suggests that investing in commercial sponsorships allows companies to promote their brands in a pleasant, entertaining atmosphere, which can generate favorable at titudes and perception within consumers, and, consequently, increase the likelihood of purchas e intentions and behaviors. Research Question 4: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels Of Goodwill Display Higher Levels Of Awareness Of Co rporate Sponsorships Than Participants With Lower Levels Of Goodwill? The model utilized as a frame for this study suggests that consumers who exhibit higher levels of goodwill will reca ll more sponsors from the event. This suggestion was partially supported by the results. The re sults from this study showed no significant difference between the participants’ levels of goodwill toward the sponsors and their abilities to recall, through aided or unaided measures, the brands Gatorade and Publix. However, significant results were revealed when the means for goodwill and the means for awareness of Alltel, Coke and Dodge were compared. The results indicated that consumers who demonstrated higher levels of goodwill recognized Alltel and Dodge sponsorship activations the most. In the literature, Meenaghan (2001) stated that consumers are more aware of and displa y benevolence and ap preciation toward commercial sponsors for supporting an event in wh ich they are passionate. However, this study indicates that th e consumers were not more aware of the commercial sponsors of the event, even though they felt positively a bout the overall idea of sponsorship. Alltel

PAGE 99

87 and Dodge may have been highly identified b ecause they are less prominent or preferred brands, and consumers who appreciated th e sponsors’ contribution to the football program took notice. Another explanation coul d be the combination of this sponsorship and Alltel and Dodge’s involvement with ot her sporting events attended by the same participants, since these two companies sponsor the entire athletic program. Despite the positive outcomes for Alltel and Dodge, the overall results are indicative of the fact that awareness alone does not necessa rily increase levels of goodwill or other variables in the study, which was also determined in Re search Questions 1 and 2. Companies considering sponsorship endeavors should not focus solely on brand recognition, but also incorporate into their strategies other cons tructs like goodwill and favorable disposition in order to connect emotionall y with their target market. Research Question 5: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels Of Goodwill Display Higher Levels Of Favorable Disp osition Than Participants With Lower Levels Of Goodwill? Meenaghan (2001) and the modified model us ed for this investigation both suggest that participants who display higher levels of goodwill will also display higher levels of favorable disposition. The data in this st udy strongly supported this concept. As the means for general goodwill incr eased, the means for general favorable disposition also significantly increased. The participants w ho stated that commercial sponsorship in general was positive for these events also displayed positive feelings and emotions toward the individual spons oring companies and their brands. Not only did the participants demonstrate that commercial sponsors were an important aspect of the activity, they also suggested th at this particular activity’s sponsors were charitable companies. They demonstrated appreciati on toward these businesses for promoting and sustaining their event, and they also highl y rated their products and services. This

PAGE 100

88 outcome is extremely important for commerci al sponsors because it has been noted for years that favorable dispos ition, also known as attitude -toward-ad or consumer perception, is an essential aspe ct in the effectiveness of th e advertising message (Greyser, 1972). Since the consumer can form both posit ive and negative dispositions about the ad (Reid & Soley, 1982), it is crucial for the s ponsor to incorporate a sense of goodwill into their marketing message to enhance the positive emotions within their consumers and improve the overall effectiveness of their sponsorship message. Research Question 6: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels Of Goodwill Display Stronger Purchase Intentions Than Participants With Lower Levels Of Goodwill? The largest factor distinguishing spon sorship from advertising is goodwill (Meenaghan, 2001). Because sponsors are contri buting to the participants in the activity, as well as the local community, they receive goodwill from the consumers of that activity. Throughout this process, event sponsors are also hoping that the goodwill consumers feel will persuade them to make purchases from their companies or brands. This was apparent in the results of the study. When the two sets of means were correlated, there was a strong positive outcome. The means for general consumer purchase intentions rose signi ficantly with the increase in the participants’ levels of general, negative, and caring goodwill. Th is means that the more goodwill consumers convey toward commercial sponsors, the more likely they are to purchase from those same companies due to their affiliation w ith these sporting events. As opposed to advertising, sponsorship aids in the production and promotion of an event that consumers enjoy and in which they can take part. Consumers recognize and appreciate when corporations support an activity they enjoy, because they believ e it is helping elevate that activity and not just exploit it to produce a profit (Meenag han, 1991). The literature

PAGE 101

89 suggests, as do the results herein, that c onsumers will reward commercial sponsors with their business for contributing to their preferred event, team, or cause. Research Question 7: Will Participan ts Who Have Higher Levels Of Fan Involvement Display Higher Levels Of Aw areness Of Corporate Sponsorships Than Participants With Lower Le vels Of Fan Involvement? It was predicted that partic ipants who expressed higher levels of fan involvement would also have higher levels of awareness of corporate sponsorships. It was assumed that if the respondents rated th emselves as strong fans of the team or event that they would be more likely to recognize the commer cial sponsors and remember a considerable number of them. The results of the study were in partial support of this premise. Dodge and Publix were the only brands that show ed significant purchase behaviors by highly involved fans. In fact, many of the respondents who ranked themselves high in the area of fan involvement were not able to recall a ny of the commercial sponsors of the event. The data showed that there was no significan t difference between the participants who rated high in fan involvement and those who rated low in fan involvement in comparison with their awareness levels in both recall and recognition measures for the other four sponsors (Alltel, Coke, and Gatorade). Th is suggests that even though many consumers are highly involved with an event, team, or cause, these consumers are not necessarily more successful at recalling the commercial sponsors surrounding them. These results are in opposition to the literatu re since it suggests that highly involved fans pay more attention to commercial sponsors as well as their behavior (Meenaghan, 2001). Overall, it has been expressed that aw areness measures should not be the only types of items utilized when assessing the effectiveness of the sponsorship message. Even highly vested consumers who are aware of ads may not deve lop positive attitudes or behaviors that will

PAGE 102

90 advance them along the sponsorship effects c ontinuum until other mediating factors such as goodwill and favorable disposition are developed. Research Question 8: Will Participan ts Who Have Higher Levels Of Fan Involvement Display Higher Levels Of F avorable Disposition Than Participants With Lower Levels Of Fan Involvement? It was suggested that as fan involvement increases among consumers, that favorable disposition would also increase. It was predicted that the respondents who stated they were highly vested or involved with the football program would also express high levels of favorable disposi tion toward the sponsors of the event. The results of the study were in agreement with this assump tion. When these two constructs were correlated, the means for general favorable disposition significantly increased as the means for fan involvement increased. This means that the participants who showed loyalty and allegiance to the te am or event were also strong supporters of the commercial sponsors of the activity and their brands. Fan involvement is a central concept in commercial sponsorship, because the various emotional levels of commitment fans have with the sponsored event will affect how attentive they are to th at event’s sponsors. Depe nding on how involved consumers are with their coveted events, they can es tablish a range of relationships with the commercial sponsors (Madrigal, 2001). The li terature proposed that highly involved fans are the most committed and knowledgeable of the event and should be the targets of commercial sponsorship (Meenaghan, 2001). These fans are most likely to purchase from event sponsors and they are also highl y likely to switch brands if a company becomes a sponsor for an activity they follow. These consumers will not only display commitment and constancy to the activity they enjoy, but will also support the companies who assist in its production.

PAGE 103

91 Research Question 9: Will Participan ts Who Have Higher Levels Of Fan Involvement Display Stronger Purchase Inte ntions Than Participants With Lower Levels Of Fan Involvement? The conceptual framework which guided th is investigation suggests that highly involved fans would display str onger purchase intentions than fa ns that were less invested in the football program. For instance, fans who regularly at tend games, buy merchandise, and follow the team in the media, would be more inclined to purchase from sponsors who support their particular team. This was suppor ted by the results of this analysis. There was a strong positive correlation between these two constructs. The means for general purchase intentions significantly increased as the fan involvement means increased. These results are in strong suppor t of previous literature measuring the influence of fan involvement on purchase intentions (Peyrot et al., 1998). However, some of the variances for fan involvement were minimal, as little as 3%. This may have occurred because of the strength of brand image and brand loyalty experienced by certain sponsoring companies. Brands like Coke and Gatorade have such a large share of the beverage market that many consumers will buy their products regardless if they sponsor the consumers’ favorite team or not. Due to their desire to achieve a strong affiliation with the team, highly identified fans often purchase more licensed team merchandise (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998; Wann & Branscombe, 1993) and attend more games (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998; Schurr, eta l, 1988) than fans with low involvement. In this study, highly vested fa ns were willing to purchase products and services from the comp anies associated with the activity. In accordance with previous research, fans who demonstrated high levels of identification were probably the most knowledgeable of th e event and appreciated the commercial sponsorships associated with their team. B ecause of these traits, highly involved fans

PAGE 104

92 make excellent primary targets for sponsors’ marketing messages. They are more likely than the less involved fans to demo nstrate purchase behaviors based on CS. Implications The implications of this study affect more than just the companies seeking to invest in CS. There are four segments, or groups, which are involved in this process and can benefit from the effectiveness of CS mark eting communications. These four segments include the corporations (buyers), mark eting departments (sellers), consumers (purchasers), and academicians (researchers). Overall, the results of this study were encouraging for the first segment, which include corporations seeking to invest in CS of sporting events. Research has indicated that most consumers realize CS exists and view it positively. However, awareness of the brand is not enough to motivate consumers’ pur chase behaviors. As many scholars have previously determined, brand recognition is a key concept in the real m of advertising, but it is not the only concept needed for success in CS. Simply getting one’s company name out in the sports market will not suffice. Sports consumers are extremely knowledgeable and competitive, and this study has demonstrat ed that other factors such as favorable disposition, goodwill, and fan involvement s hould be introduced and/or combined to influence the purchase behaviors of sports consumers. The three key concepts just mentioned (favorable disposition, goodwill, and fan involvement) should be incorpor ated into a sponsor’s mark eting strategy if they are striving to enhance brand image. Favorab le disposition helps a commercial sponsor connect with the consumer on an emotional level, secure them as a customer, and generate purchase or repurchase behaviors. Consumers who have positive experiences tend to make purchases from the companies in volved with their experiences. They also

PAGE 105

93 repeat the behaviors they learned during th ese favorable occasions. The strongest and most consistent beliefs form the attitudes, and these attitudes are what consumers utilize when processing information, forming intenti ons, and performing behaviors (Boninger, et al, 1995; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Goodwill serves to distinguish the CS from traditional advertising messages. Companies who make a point of giving back to the community, providing a civic se rvice, or supporting a local event will generally be regarded as more favorable and appreciated than businesses who onl y advertise in order to produce revenue and generate an ROI. C onsumers tend to purchase brands from event sponsors because they associat e their positive feelings of the activity with these brand names (Gwinner, 1997). Fan involvement provi des commercial sponsors with consumers of different identification levels within an ev ent, and gives them more specific niches in which to target. Highly involved fans displa y more positive emotions toward CS and are more likely to buy from event sponsors. If companies can identify which consumers are the most vested and committed to the event they sponsor, they may have a better chance of selling their product s and services. Corporations like Alltel and Dodge, who may wish to increase brand image or equity, should consider CS endeavors. Th ey not only increase awareness of their brand names, but also demonstrate to consumers th at their businesses help produce and sustain activities the consumers enjoy while giving something back to the community (Aaker, 1991). These added efforts, combined with the conventional advert ising exposure that CS provides, will attract attention from spor ts consumers and elicit positive cognitive and behavioral responses.

PAGE 106

94 Previous research has shown that CS is one of the most rapidly growing forms of marketing communication (Meenagahan, 2001). Th is is an encouraging statistic for the next segment that is involved in this busin ess, which are the marketing departments who solicit CS in order to help fund elite interc ollegiate athletic programs. The marketing departments are in charge of creating wa ys to recruit new businesses to become supporters of their athletic programs, and also servicing existing sponsors and maintaining strong relationships with them so they remain supporters of these programs. In order for either of these two things to happen, marketing dire ctors and their staff must provide sound, reliable reasons why a comp any’s affiliation with their program and its events will benefit them and improve their marketing efforts. Some of these reasons include, but are not limited t o, fostering awareness of th e brand name, promoting the company positively within the community, gene rating revenue via sales, and contributing to the event while providing a philanthropic service. These motives for investing in CS are similar, if not identical, to the ones analyzed in this study (awareness, favorable disposition, purchase intentions, and goodwill). As this study has indicated, with the exception of awareness measures, the rest of these constructs can provide invaluable results to a corporation striving to enhance th eir brand image or equity, build or maintain a loyal consumer base, and generate revenue streams. Continued research on CS effectiveness in intercollegiate and other sporting events could provide marketing departments with ev en stronger reasons why companies should incorporate this type of adve rtising into their budgets. If consumers are accepting and appreciative of CS, if the be nefits go beyond that of tradit ional advertising methods, and

PAGE 107

95 there is at least an equal ROI to advertis ing, then this segment, the marketers of intercollegiate athletics, coul d have a much easier sell to th eir sponsors in the future. The third segment influenced by this analysis includes the sports consumers. This group is potentially the most impor tant of the four, because if the sponsorship message is not effective and consumers do not respond, then the purpose of the message and the overall investment can be lost. The consumer s in this study, and in previous studies, have indicated they are in su pport of CS if it serves more than one purpose. If the sponsorship message is provided, not just to make them aware or spend money, they generally have a positive outlook on the sponsorship process. Wh en the sponsorship also provides a sense of support for the event, or th e consumers feel that someone other than the company is benefiting from the investment, then consumers tend to display favorab le dispositions and purchase behaviors toward the sponsors. Consumers are important for another key r eason – their involvement as fans. As the results have indicated, consumers can be immersed in their favorite activity on a variety of different levels. The highly vested and committed fans are the ones who contribute most to the effectiveness of CS They recognize the contributors to their coveted events and reward them with their loyalty and their business. Highly involved fans provide the sponsors with the brand equ ity and ROI they are se eking, and this, in turn, further promotes the act ivity the consumers enjoy by backing the CS investment. Finally, the fourth segment that is affected by the implications of this research is the academicians. Since research in the area of CS effectiveness is relatively new, scholars need to continually study this phenomenon in various settings and under different conditions. There is a plethora of research on advertising effectiveness, but

PAGE 108

96 little is known regarding CS and whether or not companies are going about this process in the most effective manner. This study i ndicates there are many constructs which shape the process of CS effectiveness. It also indicates that various combinations of these constructs may provide more significant result s than others, depending on what goals the sponsors wish to accomplish. With this study and continued research, academicians can begin to better understand how this complicated process works, and build a research base that will explain how to make it even more effective in the future. Limitations There were several limitations that took pl ace in the course of this study. The most foreseeable barrier was that all surveys th at were administered were not filled out completely. This could have been the result of the length of the surv ey or the nature of the questions, but it was controlled for as much as possible in the design of the survey. In addition, this was a web-based survey and participants must have had access to the Internet in order to complete the questionna ire. Another limitation was that the results from an elite intercollegiate program were not completely generalizable to all intercollegiate athletic programs or other s porting endeavors. Using the brand Gatorade in the study may also have been a limitation. Si nce this sports drink was invented at the University of Florida and contains the word “Gator” in the brand name, it may have been more recognizable and preferable than the ot her brands in the study. Finally, the use of the phrase “Florida football” in some of the survey items may have prompted different responses from the participants than the items that read “this event.” Delimitations The primary delimitation of this study wa s the section of the survey that asked participants to recall commercial sponsors and provide a brief description of the

PAGE 109

97 sponsorship activation in order to gather information regarding cognition and memory. The questions did not ask for specific numbers or examples, however the generality of the answers should have made the results as accurate as possible. Therefore, the cross sectional nature of this study was an accepted delimitation. Although a longitudinal design may more accurately depict levels of ai ded and unaided recall, this section of the survey provided useful data for the purpose of this study. The study was also restricted to consumers who attended the three football game s used for analysis. Only attendees that agreed to complete the survey were selected so this may have also skewed the process of random selection. Suggestions for Future Research This study has provided significant insight in to the effectiveness of CS in elite intercollegiate athletics. It has also unc overed many new research questions that can be investigated and answered in order to enhance scholarship in the field of sponsorship effectiveness. Further analysis is required regarding aw areness and the relationship of awareness to additional constructs. In previous studies, and throughout the literature, it was stated that awareness measures were used to indi cate the level of involvement consumers had with a particular activity, and since these meas ures did not provide any significant results in this study, there is a need to research this in more depth. It is possible that a different sample would score higher in aided and unaided recall measures, or that the scores may also be significant indicators of other cons tructs, even though they were not in this particular study. An additional aspect that requires analysis is that of image transfer. Image transfer is one of the constructs with in the model of sponsorship effects by Meenaghan (2001).

PAGE 110

98 Image transfer serves to strengthen the re lationship between favor able disposition and purchase intentions (Gwinner, 1997). Since th is construct was the only one absent from the analysis, due to the lengthy nature of the instrument, it would be beneficial to give that concept attention in future studies. Future research should also include an in-depth investigati on of highly involved, rabid fans, such as Harley Davidson riders. These types of consumers tend to be so vested that they represent th e pinnacle of fan involvement. Therefore, their responses to CS may differ greatly from the average spor ts or leisure consumer. The study of CS effectiveness in other se ttings is also a suggestion for future research. Other areas where an anal ysis would be of interest include: High school football programs Additional elite intercol legiate football programs Non-elite intercollegi ate football programs Other intercollegiate sports (i ncluding women’s and men’s nonrevenue programs) Professional sports Non-traditional sports (such as NASCAR or Action sports) Since sports at the various levels menti oned above receive different funding, attract different demographics, and pr ovide different forms of ente rtainment, it would be very interesting to study how CS is sold, who buys it, who is exposed to it, and how effective it is in each of these diverse settings. It would also be advantageous to furt her analyze the various constructs with different measurement designs, especially st ructural equation modeling or path modeling to determine more scientifically the relati onships of these constructs. Additionally, a larger sample, increased minority participati on, and further analysis of the constructs’ reliability and validity would ideally need to be addressed.

PAGE 111

APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT

PAGE 112

100

PAGE 113

APPENDIX B IRB PROTOCOL FORM

PAGE 114

102 IRB PROTOCOL FORM 1. TITLE OF PROTOCOL: Measuring the Effectiveness of Commercial Sponsorships in Intercollegiate Athletics 2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Windy Dees Department of Exercise and Sport Science College of Health and Human Performance 100 Florida Gym, PO Box 118208 Phone: (352) 335-4526 Email: wldees@ufl.edu 3. SUPERVISOR: Dr. Gregg Bennett 4. DATES OF PROPOSED PROTOCOL: From 4/9 – 4/15 5. SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR THE PROTOCOL: Unfunded 6. SCIENTIFIC PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION: The purpose of this project is to determine if the aspects of awareness, favorable disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase intentions increase the effectiveness of commercial sponsorships in intercollegiate athletics. This project is also in partial fulfillment of my degree of Master of Science in Exercise and Sport Science. 7. DESCRIBE THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN NON-TECHNICAL LANGUAGE: The methodology includes a web-based survey which will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. A ra ndom sample of fans attending University of Florida football games will be asked to particip ate at the gate. They will be given an index card where they can provide some demographi c information including their e-mail address and telephone number. A web-based survey will be e-mailed to them at the given address. The questions in the survey should not pose any threat to the respondent (See the attached survey instrument). 8. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND ANTICIPATED RISK: The risks are minimal including only a slight chance of discomfort resulting from a few of the topics asked about on the survey. The benefits are that the results of the study will provide a base for the study of commercial sponsorships in intercollegiate athletics. 9. DESCRIBE HOW PARTICIPANTS WILL BE RECRUITED, THE NUMBER AND AGE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, AND PROPOSED COMENSATION (if any): Only respondents over the age of 18 who agree to partic ipate will be used in the study. There will be no compensation provided. 10. DESCRIBE THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS. INCLUDE A COPY OF THE INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT (if applicable): Potential respondents will be made aware that participation is completely voluntary and told to read the in formed consent before starting the web-based survey. All interviewers will have to agree to participate in the study before they can proceed with questio nnaire (See Informed Consent Document). Principal Investigator’s Signature: _________________________ Supervisor’s Signature: _________________________ I approve of this protocol for submission to the UFIRB: Dept. Chair/Center Director: _________________________ Date:_______________

PAGE 115

APPENDIX C SURVEY INSTRUMENT

PAGE 116

104 Commercial Sponsorship Questionnaire As you watched the football game, you may have recognized some of the companies sponsoring this event. These spons orships could have been in the form of signage around the field, logos on clothing, or advertisements over the PA system. What are some of the companies you recall from the game? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From the list below, please check all of th e companies that sponsored today’s football game. Pepsi____ Mountain Dew____ Coke____ Minute Maid____ Cingular____ Verizon____ Nextel____ Alltel____ Winn Dixie____ Publix____ Kash ‘N Karry____ Albertson’s____ Ford____ Chevrolet____ Dodge____ Jeep____ Gatorade____ Powerade____ Red Bull____ Propel____

PAGE 117

105For each of the following brands, please circ le the appropriate box for each statement: Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Disagree 5 4 3 2 1 I like the brand. It is a very good brand. I would buy this brand. The next time I need to buy a product of this type, I would consider buying this brand. a. 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 b. 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 c. 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 d. 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 e. 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

PAGE 118

106Please answer the following questions using this scale: Strongly Somewhat Neith er Agree Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Disagree 5 4 3 2 1 1.) I think favorably of companies that sponsor Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 2.) Whenever possible, I try to buy products/services from companies that sponsor Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 3.) I would consider purchasing products/services from Alltel because they sponsor Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 4.) Florida football sponsors are involved with their community. 5 4 3 2 1 5.) Companies that sponsor Florida football are successful. 5 4 3 2 1 6.) I would consider purchasing products/services from Dodge because they sp onsor Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 7.) I would purchase products/services from Publix because they sponsor this event. 5 4 3 2 1 8.) Florida football sponsors are only after consumers’ money. 5 4 3 2 1 9.) I think favorably of Gatorade because they sponsor Florida foot ball. 5 4 3 2 1 10.) It is important to me to be a part of Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 11.) Companies who sponsor Florida football provide quality products/servi ces. 5 4 3 2 1 12. I would purchase products/services from Dodge because they sponsor this ev ent. 5 4 3 2 1 13.) Corporate sponsorships detract from the enjoyment of this event. 5 4 3 2 1 14.) I think favorably of Publix because they sponsor Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 15.) Corporate sponsors try to improve Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 16.) I think it is good to purchase products/services from companies that sponsor Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 17.) I would consider purchasing products/services from Publix because th ey sponsor Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 18.) This sporting event benefits from corporate sponsors. 5 4 3 2 1 19.) I would purchase products/services from Coke because they sponsor this event. 5 4 3 2 1 20.) Companies that sponsor Florida football are professional. 5 4 3 2 1 21.) I would consider purchasing products/services from the corporate sponsor s of this event. 5 4 3 2 1 22.) I would consider purchasing products/services from Gatorade because they sponsor Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 23.) My friends view me as a strong fan of Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 24.) I do not base my purchasing decisions on the corporate sponsorship of Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 25.) I would purchase products/services from Alltel because they sponsor this event. 5 4 3 2 1 26.) I think favorably of Alltel because they sponsor Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1

PAGE 119

10727.) Florida football should not have corporate sponsors. 5 4 3 2 1 28.) Companies who do not sponsor Florida football are not involved with their community. 5 4 3 2 1 29.) I would try a new product/service if I saw it at a Florida football game. 5 4 3 2 1 30.) I do not pay attention to the corporate sponsors of Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 31.) It is very important to me that Florida football games are played. 5 4 3 2 1 32.) I see myself as a strong fan of Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 33.) Sponsorships of Florida football are better than regular advertisi ng. 5 4 3 2 1 34.) I would consider purchasing products/services from Coke because they sponsor Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 35.) I would definitely purchase products/services from the corporate sponsor s of Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 36.) Corporate sponsors care about the fans of Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 37.) I try to purchase products/services from companies that sponsor Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 38.) My overall attitude toward purchasing products/services from compan ies that sponsor this event is positive. 5 4 3 2 1 39.) Florida football would not be possible without sponsors. 5 4 3 2 1 40.) I will try to buy at least one product/service from a company th at sponsors this event within the next 3 mos. 5 4 3 2 1 41.) Florida football sponsors are only after consumers' money. 5 4 3 2 1 42.) I think favorably of Coke because they sponsor Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 43.) I think favorably of Dodge because they sponsor Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 44.) Corporate sponsors do not care about the fans of Florida football. 5 4 3 2 1 45.) I would purchase products/services from Gatorade because they sponsor this event. 5 4 3 2 1 Please provide the following informati on about yourself by circling an answer: Age ____________yrs. Gender: M F Race: Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian Native American Other Marital Status: Single Married Divorced Widowed Other Level of Education: Some high school High school graduate Trade/Tech degree Some college College graduate Graduate degree

PAGE 120

APPENDIX D UAA LETTER OF PERMISSION

PAGE 121

109

PAGE 122

110 LIST OF REFERENCES Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY. Aaker, D. & Day, G. (1984). A dynamic m odel of relationships among advertising, consumer awareness, attitudes and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (3), 281-86. Abratt, R., Clayton, B.C., & Pitt, L.F. (1987). Corporate objectives in sports sponsorship. International Journal of Advertising, 6, 299-311. Alwitt, L. & Mitchell, A. (1985). Introduction in Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects, Linda F. Alwitt and Andrew A. Mitchell, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1-10. Ambler, T., & Burne, T. (1999). The impact of affect on memory of advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 39 (2), 25-34. Bennett, R. (1999). Sports sponsorship, spectat or recall and false c onsensus. European Journal of Marketing, 33 (3/4), 291-313. Bennett, G., Henson, R., & Zhang, J. (2002) Action sport sponsorship recognition. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11 (3), 185-196. Bharadwaj, Sunder G.,Varadarajan, Rajan P. & Fahy, J. (1993). Sustainable competitive advantage in service indust ries: A conceptual model and research propositions. Journal of Marketing, 57 (10), 83-99. Boninger, D.S., Krosnick, J.A., & Berent M.K. (1995). The causes of attitude importance: Self-interest, soci al identification, and values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 61-80. Brown, S. & Stayman, D. (1992). Attitudes and consequences of attitude toward the ad: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (1), 34-51. Colley, R. (1961). Defining advertising goals for me asured advertising results. New York: Association of National Advertisers. Cornwell, T., & Maignan, I. (1998). An inte rnational review of sponsorship research. Journal of Advertising, 27 (1), 1-21.

PAGE 123

111 Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha a nd the internal stru cture of tests. Psychometrika 16, 297-334. Crowley, M.G. (1991). Prioritizi ng the sponsorship audience. European Journal of Marketing, 25 (11), 11-21. Cuneen, J., & Hannan, M. (1993). Intermedia te measures and recognition testing of sponsorship at an LPGA Tournament. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2 (1), 47-56. Daniels, J.D., & Radebaugh, L.H. (1998). In ternational Business: Environments and Operations. (8th edition). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The ps ychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. du Plessis, E. (1994). Recognition versus recall. Journal of Advertising Research, 34 (3), 75-91. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, atti tude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. R eading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fisher, R.J., & Wakefield, K. (1998). Factors leading to group identification: A field study of winners and losers. Psychology and Marketing, 15, 23-40. Florida Football Guide. (2003). Pa nama City: Boyd Brothers Inc. Gallagher, K., Parsons, J., & Foster, D. ( 2001). A tale of two studies: Replicating Advertising effectiveness and conten t evaluation in print and on the web. Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (4), Special issue: Web advertising. 71-81. Gibson, L. (1983). Not recall. Journal of Advertising Research, 23 (1), 39-46. Greenwald, A. (1968). Cognitive learning, cogni tive response to attitude change in Psychological Foundations of Attitudes. Anthony G. Greenwald, Timothy C. Brock, and Thomas M. Ostrom, eds. New York: Academic Press, 147-70. Greyser, S. (1972). Advertising attacks and counters. Harvard Business Review, 50 (2), 22-28/141-146. Gupta, P.B., & Lord, K. (1998). Product pla cement in movies: The effect of prominence and mode on audience recall. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 20 (Spring), 47-59. Gwinner, K. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship. International Mark eting Review, 14 (3), 145-158. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tath am, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings (Fourth Edition), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

PAGE 124

112 Hall, B. (2002). A new model for m easuring advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 42 (2), 23-29. International Event Group (IEG) (2000). Annua l estimates of sponsorship expenditure. Chicago. Irwin, R., Lachowetz, T., Cornwell, B., & Clark, J. (2003). Cause-Related sport sponsorship: An assessment of spectator beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12 (3), 131-139. Javalgi, R., Traylor, M., Gross, A., & La mpman, E. (1994). Awareness of sponsorship and corporate image: an empirical investigation. Journal of Advertising, 23 (4), 4758. Johar, G.V., & Pham, M.T. (1999). Relatedne ss, prominence, and constructive sponsor identification. Journal of Marketing Research, 36 299-312. Keller, K.L. (1993), Sponsors put pressure on for accountability in Advertising Age, 21 June, pp. S1-S4. Kiely. (1993). Sponsorship: It’s a buyer’s market. Marketing, 2, 9-12. King, S. (1975). Practical progress fro m a theory of advertisements. Admap, 11 (10), 33843. Lannon, J. (1994). Mosaics of meani ng: Anthropology of marketing. Journal of Brand Management, 2, (12), 155-68. Lannon, J., & Cooper, P. (1983). Humanistic advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 2, (7-9), 195-213. Lardinoit, T., & Derbaix, C. (2001). Sponsorship and recall of sponsors. Psychology & Marketing, 18 (2), 167-190. Lavidge, R. & Steiner, G. (1961). A model fo r predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25 (10), 59-62. Lee, M., Sandler, D., & Shani, D. (1997). A ttitudinal constructs towards sponsorship: Scale development using th ree global sporting events. International Marketing Review, 14 (3), 159-69. Levin, A.M., Joiner, C., & Cameron, G. ( 2001). The impact of sports sponsorship on consumers’ brand attitudes and re call: The case of NASCAR fans. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 23 (2), 23-31.

PAGE 125

113 Lutz, R. (1985). Affective and cognitive an tecedents of attitude toward the Ad: A conceptual framework. In Psychology processes and ad vertising effects theory, research, and applications Linda Alwitt and Andrew Mitchell, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Mackenzie, S., & Lutz, R. (1989). An empirical examination of attitude toward ad in an advertising pretest context. Journal of Marketing, 53 (2), 48-65. Mackenzie, S., Lutz, R., & Belch, G. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (2), 130-43. Madrigal, R. (2001). Social identity effects in a belief-attitude-intentions hierarchy: Implications for corporate sponsorship. Psychology & Marketing, 18 (2), 145-165. Maloney, P. (2002). Do sponsorships measure up? Marketing Magazine, 107 (27), 13. Marshall, D.W., & Cook, G. (1992). The corporate sports sponsor. International Journal of Advertising, 11 307-324. McDonald, C. (1991). Sponsorship and the image of the sponsor. European Journal of Marketing, 25, 31-38. McGuire, W. (1968). The nature of attitudes and attitude change in Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed., Vol.3, Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, eds. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 136-314. Meenaghan, T. (2001). Understanding sponsorship effects. Psychology and Marketing, 18 (2), 95-122. Meenaghan, T. (1991). The role of sponsorsh ip in the marketing communications mix. International Journal of Advertising, 10 (1), 35-47. Meir, R., Arthur, D., Tobin, J., Massingham, C. (1997). Professional rugby league in Australia: a case study of sponsor awareness. Cyberjournal of Sport Marketing, 1 (2). [On-line]. Retrieved February 11, 2004 from http://www.cjsm.com/ Mehta, A. (2000). Advertising attitu des and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 67-72. Merriam-Webster Website. [On-lin e]. Retrieved August 3, 2004 from http://www.mw.com Morton, C.R. & Friedman, M. (2002). “I sa w it in the movies”: Exploring the link between product placement belief s and reported usage behavior. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 24 (2), 33-40.

PAGE 126

114 Mullin, B., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W. (2000). Sport Marketing Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Nebenzahl, I., & Jaffe, E. (1991). The effectiv eness of sponsored events in promoting a county’s image. International Journal of Advertising, 10 (3), 223-237. Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78 311-29. Nicholls, J.A.F., Roslow, S., & Laskey, H. (1994). Sports event sponsorship and brand promotion. Journal of Applied Business Research, 10 (4), 35-40. Otker, T., & Hayes, P. (1987). Judging the e fficiency of sponsorship, experiences from the 1986 Soccer World Cup. In Proceedings of the 40th ESOMAR Marketing Research Congress, General Sessions Montreaux, Switzerland, 13-17 November (pp. 563-593). Ostrowski, J. (2002). Gravity Games claims success to fuel expansion. Street & Smith’s SportsBusiness Journal, 5 (17), 1, 31. Patterson, P.G. & Spreng, R.A. (1997) Modeling the relationship between perceived value, satisfaction and repur chase intentions in a business-to-business, services context: an empirical examination. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8 (5), 414-434. Percy, L., & Rossiter, J. (1997). A theory-bas ed approach to pret esting advertising. In William D. Wells (Ed.) Measuring advertising effectiveness Hillsdale, NJ: Erlhaum. Peterson, R., Hoyer, W., & Wilson, W. (1986). Reflections on the role of affect in consumer behavior in The Role of Affect in Consum er Behavior:Emerging Theories and Applications, Robert A. Peterson, Wayne D. Hoyer, and William R. Wilson, eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 141-59. Petrecca, L. (2000). Going to extremes, excess of X’s: Marketers are te sting the limits of hot teen buzzword. Advertising Age, 71 (1), 30-32. Peyrot, M., Alperstein, N. M., Van Doren D. & Poli, L. G. (1998). Direct to consumer ads can influence behavior. Marketing Health Services Vol. 18, p27. Pham, M.T. (1991). The evaluation of sponsor ship effectiveness: A model and some methodological considerations. Gestion 2000, 47-65. Pitts, B. (1998). An analysis of sponsorship recall during Gay Games IV. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 7 (4), 11-18.

PAGE 127

115 Polonsky, M., Sandler, D., Casey, M., Murphy, S., Portelli, K., & VanVelzen, Y. (1996). Small business and sport sponsorsh ip: The Australian experience. Journal of Promotion Management, 3 121-39. Pope, N. (1998). Overview of current sponsorship thought. Cyberjournal of Sport Marketing, 2 (1). [On-line]. Retrieved September 12, 2004 from http://www.cjsm.com/ Pope, N., & Voges, K. (1994). Sponsorship evaluation: Does it match the motive and the mechanism? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 3 (4), 37-45. Reid, L.N., & Soley, L.C. (1982). Genera lized and personalized attitudes toward advertising’s social and economic effects. Journal of Advertising 11, 3-7. Robertson, T. (1971). Innovative Behavior and Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of Innovation. New York: The Free Press. Rosenberg, L., & Czepial, J. (1984). A ma rketing approach for customer retention. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1 (2), 45-51. Sandage, C. (1983). Advertising theory and practice Homewood, IL: Richard Irwin, Inc. Sandler, D., & Shani, D. (1993). Sponsorshi p and the Olympic Games: The consumer perspective. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2 (3), 38-43. Schurr, K.T., Wittig, A.F., Ruble, V.E ., & Ellen, A.S. (1988). Demographic and personality characteristics associated with persistent, oc casional, and nonattendance of university male basketball games by college students. Journal of Sport Behavior, 11, 3-17. Shamdaani, P., Stanaland, A., Tan, J. (2001) Location, location, loca tion: Insights for advertising placement on the Web. Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (4), p7-21. Shanklin, W.L., and Kuzma, J.R. ( 1992). Buying that sporting image. Marketing Management Spring, 59-65. Shimp, T. (1981). Attitude towa rd the ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice. Journal of Advertising, 10 (2), 9-15. Singh, S., Rothschild, M. & Churchill, G. (1988). Recognition versus recall as a measure of television commercial forgetting. Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (1), 72-80. Sleight, S. (1989). Sponsorship: What is it and how we use it London: McGraw-Hill.

PAGE 128

116 Stevenson, J., Bruner, G., & Kumar, A. (2000). Webpage background and viewer attitudes. Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (1-2), Special issue: Study replication issue & In ternet issue. 29-34. Stotlar, D., & Johnson, D. (1989). Assessing th e impact and effectiveness of stadium advertising on sport spectators at Division 1 institutions. Journal of Sport Management, 3 90-102. Stotlar, D. (1993). Sponsorship and the Olympic Winter Games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2 (3), 35-43. University of Florida Website. (2004). [On-line]. Retrieved June 15, 2004, from http://www.ufl.edu./ Vakratsas, D. & Ambler, T. (1999). How a dvertising works: What do we really know? Journal of Marketing, 63, 26-43. Waite, N. (1979). “Sponsorship in context,” unpublished PhD thesis, Cranfield Institute of Management. Wann, D.L., & Branscombe, N.R. (1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with their team. Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1-17. Wells, W. (2000). Recognition, recall, and rati ng scales: Measuring the sales effects of advertisements. Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (6), 14-20. Wright, P. (1973). Cognitive processes mediating acceptance of advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 4 (2), 53-62.

PAGE 129

117 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Windy Dees is originally from Arcadia Florida, and graduated from Rollins College with a Bachelor of Arts in psyc hology and communications. She received her Master of Science in Exercise and Sport Sciences from the Un iversity of Florida. Windy is pursuing her Ph.D. in the same field at the University of Florida and plans to continue her research in the area of commerci al sponsorship effectiveness.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110114_AAAADK INGEST_TIME 2011-01-14T18:23:09Z PACKAGE UFE0008267_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 41505 DFID F20110114_AACBNG ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH dees_w_Page_112.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
16248d475599eb87044274547e094769
SHA-1
5b0fd32ec584399d055635cae1528d796f340791
85490 F20110114_AACBMS dees_w_Page_097.jpg
00aa11b364edd897691d7a49dae984ea
6bac36a22b7aaacbff2b99f512c9e4706519e9ba
10240 F20110114_AACBNH dees_w_Page_113.jpg
77d97076f4ac182a65a27fba25aba2a9
0180e9dbff35408ed68753994774e528f52a9f61
78816 F20110114_AACBMT dees_w_Page_098.jpg
d1190325305f668d355ee1d656b9fdd3
de49c2e9fc579fbee7070b4a97396c9812b1f8a9
90593 F20110114_AACBNI dees_w_Page_114.jpg
d1d3342ff4d819f1f389ccaa2af1b163
658b33596da41a6a097941299376b3f2456008af
77764 F20110114_AACBMU dees_w_Page_099.jpg
e4ca4069526161ca2f1bf3aaf5cf488e
b3ff9da41d0d5a76bebdf04e71de1982f2a7ab7f
10227 F20110114_AACBNJ dees_w_Page_115.jpg
4302aaa0d093d7ef7d5115977d71cecc
825dbf92b712d86ff50795d79596a83d15d475fd
76408 F20110114_AACBMV dees_w_Page_100.jpg
cf421561bc7243a6b683bfe2331ea23c
0f198f6fcd216fd3a5696665a4f98b11cae108b0
32398 F20110114_AACBNK dees_w_Page_116.jpg
d23f81b4103f67fe16d7db28126d8bf2
22303234709e0d5727e2dc96929a55e3027db3cb
27927 F20110114_AACBNL dees_w_Page_117.jpg
d11aad5ef8a7f07ceecce541a304bd52
82b72c97f5867b99e62024e0f04781feb24d9954
76723 F20110114_AACBMW dees_w_Page_101.jpg
51c1d093fedcf20de94cba228391d733
c04fde62d0e21c589316701ac0a1e5ee564f9833
51572 F20110114_AACBNM dees_w_Page_118.jpg
debbda05c0f36b3a65ea03f6fd87e685
96f5eab322d37c20613a572f2232ecc7531a0095
73630 F20110114_AACBMX dees_w_Page_102.jpg
7f7b99b7742c245397f358e970be0293
3f889a7e0c98e5f7d958f536d53298b5012802ec
1051986 F20110114_AACBOA dees_w_Page_005.jp2
957c3e25fca086a2cf0c90f7d4d9103e
41f3e34b3b28888f3811fcf64e662187fbb3783f
45053 F20110114_AACBNN dees_w_Page_119.jpg
322f9c840143a2cdf84e55b2b3623fb7
47f7af773d6b0897236cf6c0d0ee85005955c63e
77766 F20110114_AACBMY dees_w_Page_103.jpg
3c4e346e1a8df401914567e4d7ff0b15
a9844ffb24549e247389f0287519c4894169ead6
1051974 F20110114_AACBOB dees_w_Page_006.jp2
16f10658ad5f294f64691cd7dd6fae37
0f1c74aea39a8429309c1e1fa5fd5b304a786f68
10525 F20110114_AACBNO dees_w_Page_120.jpg
4e80132c53110a2a967fa28e132ef017
c93ecb731cd55ae23183215d00b2ab0a1304634b
72022 F20110114_AACBMZ dees_w_Page_104.jpg
55847bc889caa459083440855384b00b
7bfb89411cf480079473cf509d500cb1bccfcddb
1051978 F20110114_AACBOC dees_w_Page_007.jp2
54aa7f767f5a6cb98e65bb8d12031a54
6ad4b151486b24b912b8f954be71d1fd409cbd57
25077 F20110114_AACBNP dees_w_Page_121.jpg
6ebcac559f9841448753c3213dd1684f
1d9067b2362bcaeb350ef1df6c06fea913b0a4d6
678826 F20110114_AACBOD dees_w_Page_009.jp2
2a2a6c6a03959db0d725029a08a9bec6
b99f682e66b510c0ba425da23b0798aa23a1226a
72906 F20110114_AACBNQ dees_w_Page_122.jpg
448c60e21d3865fd795643c2ae18b52f
10505d4022286718d548a7b0e8e25ccf6584f205
228649 F20110114_AACBOE dees_w_Page_010.jp2
c9655708abfd7530bc33cc1422cf0eef
4b746a594bc9173824c40685fb7b791222d133ed
81082 F20110114_AACBNR dees_w_Page_123.jpg
8b4c777dea4ff990d6b1cb17f7088190
4de9b47b879e286951dc261b920386b408f764bb
79909 F20110114_AACBOF dees_w_Page_011.jp2
df59d64ed54dfdcfc28d64a91a0e65ef
91e5ecdc4dbc3e000cd4eae23773cbf39f9fd4c0
73641 F20110114_AACBNS dees_w_Page_124.jpg
b95dc04dc0357699fa5123fad9b625f1
d23c2e1966203d790f96da7c2852d36c1e6d9b3b
12794 F20110114_AACBOG dees_w_Page_012.jp2
8c731e5606c1c90eb4243df37a7c75d4
be30feaa63d934e58822c198b89541f2712de31d
91564 F20110114_AACBNT dees_w_Page_125.jpg
f05a1de8b56b0927de966a7e9e81f53c
de5afeec109d36dfeb5b93a0a00f451b5bc471f2
99142 F20110114_AACBOH dees_w_Page_013.jp2
654de206a1a2e0d94eb570ab189d1c24
ffd40505f211f8f4e141f3f6e8506ca6526770b6
77804 F20110114_AACBNU dees_w_Page_126.jpg
6635444e8aa68468937bdb8705043019
548e5c928a85bbc703b7cade53cac741df735a05
105352 F20110114_AACBOI dees_w_Page_014.jp2
2195a310b7a1085dce1f7218c2417dc3
2d4ae1a8a51366f5483dafdb783f33b7b01e45fe
92534 F20110114_AACBNV dees_w_Page_127.jpg
5e29fb8f150aae0711fdd71d5329462f
619727164ad90fe4b6f9fd8cdd35f60bc18fcdbb
96164 F20110114_AACBOJ dees_w_Page_015.jp2
66252920e490f84ee9d682e2d93db0b8
c9b665d48b7ee379832cb6f05325e242daeba0fb
56366 F20110114_AACBNW dees_w_Page_128.jpg
6a2bca836b96f9201d9940e1c83a2e4f
e05aa675e379a0261424a9508afef42f252c4a99
1051954 F20110114_AACBOK dees_w_Page_016.jp2
a89490403e81caf6bd9f2131f728f3f0
4f0ebf8373843d214b8cea8fa3d6b92d7bbbe3a7
1051970 F20110114_AACBOL dees_w_Page_017.jp2
7036ce4cbe169a3b88ae9a4a71d15521
4ebac9019056a3d9754e54450f75c9441ce6c9a0
24068 F20110114_AACBNX dees_w_Page_129.jpg
bb40a3edde47898bb2ebb2289b3955be
f995b3fa3de12d34c042b9b21c530b4374543444
109444 F20110114_AACBPA dees_w_Page_034.jp2
06ac5941dee64183c451b6fec62bd396
37875c37b60d65403a8f7f1f373c9b864e4392de
1051957 F20110114_AACBOM dees_w_Page_018.jp2
e238a8fabaa303e3443685f9ade898b0
be75e1f84ed644ec4ca839ab601a4a2bb755e977
5413 F20110114_AACBNY dees_w_Page_002.jp2
5c8866989887bb93b053f7d358432f65
cfb6115a0e79ffc5a9b7b13011a41d81240aed53
106698 F20110114_AACBPB dees_w_Page_035.jp2
cf01f8fa6afa418d2aaf714447ec4d24
b59a89cebbf80b4e6bbabf2c913e1481ce0c24c6
101190 F20110114_AACBON dees_w_Page_019.jp2
d8800cdf2943a3be9f5f0a9ab06d9d7b
944317eec89df334d94acee2298449286ec0c30c
11414 F20110114_AACBNZ dees_w_Page_003.jp2
42dfd2ae70d9366b1e1c942e4471c170
a4b057053420e07121ca41f0e44814b4bc9e7d9d
103256 F20110114_AACBPC dees_w_Page_036.jp2
40e6dd1f13370863b6d39c0356b18505
efc9682cac6ee6f99f784d78491adc047ffd1e49
91291 F20110114_AACBOO dees_w_Page_020.jp2
034e77823f6cd79b6a143b01152ee0b8
65391f7d3fde23cf84c6143619ca6dab53407a3a
1051985 F20110114_AACBPD dees_w_Page_037.jp2
bd86394b0d8ecfca750dec726897459d
9f51d67f060f3bff97fc5de356fac96be8ebeb15
86238 F20110114_AACBOP dees_w_Page_021.jp2
de7fd8598bdaf2137489bdc9e477e7ea
b4c1b57bf95a0ba287d959c7862d27500a6c19ab
1051977 F20110114_AACBPE dees_w_Page_038.jp2
4b87efdf1cb93cc91f9eb3fe5f64c58e
bfb680908a051ac5475f399e3679ebe63093ebf6
80170 F20110114_AACBOQ dees_w_Page_023.jp2
aef6ebe181b4ad2e99269fd366f00b0b
4e2c6b7fb71aa60999c3523c15f30dfd51e3cd3b
867505 F20110114_AACBPF dees_w_Page_040.jp2
afadfa59d130afa02ced4d37e629a6ea
525fadeeaa3263877ac36b6f7c7aa71994036c59
1051982 F20110114_AACBOR dees_w_Page_024.jp2
cf743926a877010285f787c0893b8c59
d584e2b251577bf6b9bb16451d9ac5fae03e1fc9
77331 F20110114_AACBPG dees_w_Page_041.jp2
912a1031a023264cb3c6c1664b930363
70d8ce0a3a99bca3678b25f77e2913bcb1b81f17
105156 F20110114_AACBOS dees_w_Page_026.jp2
f985d4b2f7f54e881ac70eb932b11fac
fdb6fc2649997cb6e8870bd0e253ab8a0b2b032e
106894 F20110114_AACBPH dees_w_Page_042.jp2
9174ff3fd57151b76efa0eeb356ea99e
eb3c277c50af7444b68b45dd12a7ed9a9700f545
1051959 F20110114_AACBOT dees_w_Page_027.jp2
013f3e5b2917bab9df4a5136ed51ed8c
8586b1c3b8c6cf1849afc2640f2cfef0379880c1
107379 F20110114_AACBPI dees_w_Page_043.jp2
fee1bbb6f288b86292628ef5de1dc295
2d650d6b0e127876d8609d4e268ab93db1f23115
1051966 F20110114_AACBOU dees_w_Page_028.jp2
c41dc9578597504aea02a99320ae767e
8f78e762bf668e4e3539ca5b306edf07e58851c8
1032480 F20110114_AACBPJ dees_w_Page_044.jp2
b7a7fb414ee92a6215eae660de94adcd
8ada746efc0515d2a5f2b1c8b341f211878ed18b
110265 F20110114_AACBOV dees_w_Page_029.jp2
19449a7a68def4f81938dc32b296927b
9f2cca3cfdd3f5c1d03329079404e71fff882766
1051916 F20110114_AACBPK dees_w_Page_045.jp2
b19877c6a5ef2a0b67d7db2af84d4b3b
6448840ff0859bf0df53d0f9ba5cef14c8817ff9
107540 F20110114_AACBOW dees_w_Page_030.jp2
72343faf0dd7f0483a65a09b140d4bd7
4099c03a9a98cd9c00d081a4624a63ab8f25da1d
F20110114_AACBPL dees_w_Page_046.jp2
b4774f23611686b13acf781c0203445d
78abc150ab99ed621096164874d18196857a3eba
107737 F20110114_AACBOX dees_w_Page_031.jp2
5fc28bd85794bbea5ccaf47bae5004ca
0ed69479a12e178fb3bab2b55511c2ef5143c0c9
111660 F20110114_AACBQA dees_w_Page_063.jp2
6d14f598c6b3ab4a3c0467233d91916e
967ae40443eb4c1d94049d4f4547d30d27f6ebea
F20110114_AACBPM dees_w_Page_047.jp2
0dad53a81c6bedb3d6487b543079a476
079dcae56fe1061fcb0314df250c787f1cb038c8
55335 F20110114_AACBQB dees_w_Page_065.jp2
c01e01ea08ffa0edf664536083ebeae6
e49fcbf1e5a84c6d0a74a96e5fbbd633c3cc48db
58832 F20110114_AACBPN dees_w_Page_048.jp2
a99fd25678673c0f0e350ab510f45152
4b7f9bc20706d81d7ef5b8f30a3de8f4aebd1124
106426 F20110114_AACBOY dees_w_Page_032.jp2
d81f5efea4a12680ed0594a9a21097b2
d0989fdf1184cb32665ee7ca12a96874760dfb24
42487 F20110114_AACBQC dees_w_Page_066.jp2
8755c125d1f2aef4fba7b6fb7717ca90
d52432f7ec1d9d8e01634f2fb483ac7e4c254652
432723 F20110114_AACBPO dees_w_Page_049.jp2
598266909a3ed0a16bea0815c7e754da
fdcb7bfc43aaeea72ed134bd5edd7d56f3cd3304
110199 F20110114_AACBOZ dees_w_Page_033.jp2
4d552260874e10f20dadddb1b121c7ec
abf2be37b3bdcf8f00a6e07a12a8e816af28ef29
96646 F20110114_AACBPP dees_w_Page_050.jp2
39db0392abaa603874a0873a049c89a0
7d25e05f5fd106289e80c9682a6e85f64fa39172
72942 F20110114_AACBQD dees_w_Page_067.jp2
9582354e10162fe1c8488e67ae60beed
7e8b1b60300e6f0b36d9d15c6675ce720921c677
104612 F20110114_AACBPQ dees_w_Page_051.jp2
e088bb27d25e9b5ada87c3d17357830c
305f08fcc8e283422cbc27a921db4f0dd08e11b6
29788 F20110114_AACBQE dees_w_Page_069.jp2
122c34edc3f13758dce714717c6b3073
0542607e68eb3f35dd539560778c939a45153383
144518 F20110114_AACBPR dees_w_Page_052.jp2
ab425df3e6064ca48e1c1fdda4d48c1e
924c5754c2589b760c73970f78ae444c03a89c32
70768 F20110114_AACBQF dees_w_Page_070.jp2
fcc6ba48b379f9951383fefb4647662b
e1681e5be9c41275729acd54300dcd038866ff06
92555 F20110114_AACBPS dees_w_Page_053.jp2
2474a758ef128c5f7118ff454b229faa
f45c7532225f7ba5b3c998fb875d38f280468d68
90538 F20110114_AACBQG dees_w_Page_071.jp2
d9f01d81ea17a2ffdf78f55f71c9eac3
4b60008898153fa735fc8ed682be6c8a767f8f63
67113 F20110114_AACBPT dees_w_Page_054.jp2
7c1421840a234cd7dc3cf25bf2921f35
b2f0c57fdd721b5af5c6b3b4ca4cc1a993f2a849
87358 F20110114_AACBQH dees_w_Page_072.jp2
01b64153055fddb22f5b6c8a858dc0b0
b8f3f89cf56e04c57e596cc1f3457a9929465bea
86787 F20110114_AACBPU dees_w_Page_055.jp2
00ac47505d6d47a1647a0aedd9ffff6d
8fa42b9e1487ed5e049841f348cbdf7238fa114a
1013007 F20110114_AACBQI dees_w_Page_073.jp2
9c4e97025c71cdf01edb58ff36603b7f
57fd0053e440b92430278634623e23abf8c1226b
83420 F20110114_AACBPV dees_w_Page_056.jp2
5ff3ccebdba26ec542aa42878ad1b1b5
5c8451cdf85156fe6c8ab2c65c5d0d8a1d3c061e
85540 F20110114_AACBQJ dees_w_Page_074.jp2
c360bb7e65b319c739bce7f157646087
b360c81bec9829eafb613e8832910f7e9daadba9
50574 F20110114_AACBPW dees_w_Page_057.jp2
2a2b8f693ff407d1813d64f9a54f5f4a
9b90b08b37e33d65b27b966cb2e559ff692ff92e
91821 F20110114_AACBQK dees_w_Page_075.jp2
cc88d1bc00e9736ec2df958ab576e5a0
87e0540ca21ce8b30879973bc92b19ce3a8248d3
75826 F20110114_AACBPX dees_w_Page_058.jp2
a34407d6d369f6142e55c4a1769d5ac4
fcbb6f254de0ed2b58761b49455c0dac3f0d9668
44079 F20110114_AACBQL dees_w_Page_076.jp2
cd2d9d83f9e02c07d8f78f28437e8f69
802bc971cadc03f6395e2b3ae0b69a91e1d9d3f6
80893 F20110114_AACBPY dees_w_Page_061.jp2
63cd5d704d53405f222f2c13e366ecd4
065c7980e24ade382e39e8f2fd4b4b5c104b1d8c
78057 F20110114_AACBRA dees_w_Page_094.jp2
e91b490628494014daf788cd11646247
8fbf8f016ba40344b140b550694f7ffccebd4170
68453 F20110114_AACBQM dees_w_Page_077.jp2
79424498b64169ec4300737134e558f2
d8239e6b2f1054d2ddecfa76522900694a57e025
110450 F20110114_AACBRB dees_w_Page_095.jp2
870110f88bc12efadab940d11df220b4
5055202060a07cafee2c3dc9cd3cfe93f5162603
19241 F20110114_AACBQN dees_w_Page_079.jp2
643ea94b6c4d007b97a61e7f6dc5e2d9
aab5516d2ae027b21c72098c9b8f5198bea19580
41961 F20110114_AACBPZ dees_w_Page_062.jp2
31a4bc5d3cf51b4595692a2b6069dd8d
6f25da545a6c9446c5ccb9fd6448d9aabdc10ab5
116480 F20110114_AACBRC dees_w_Page_096.jp2
0e3ea52b113b38c96b3d63ff582f45d0
859e92c48c5abac84b40e6b5d96b548580a31f9e
53063 F20110114_AACBQO dees_w_Page_080.jp2
23f0a6077ca62917aa6ee596ff3ad7fc
4da9d3d5573c22cb10dafdfb23fda5aeeffa5aab
1051980 F20110114_AACBRD dees_w_Page_097.jp2
8d0127afff6251ae5b31681ef9240394
30ef591d6fe9c85e2497867524ff3fd7f2bdf835
76962 F20110114_AACBQP dees_w_Page_081.jp2
9ddf6ae462a97d2475ec1b609f7a01cd
f097a19a80deeb686ebd88fb56248ac2aac1ed72
118229 F20110114_AACBRE dees_w_Page_098.jp2
34697610132f13560d1661be6eebb264
3242e435b484d2df316120ea126dc3a2da427488
89841 F20110114_AACBQQ dees_w_Page_083.jp2
01af84fb92f94ff493f9daf09b7b323e
943c0cef45f48c33c8639dbccb60db08e8ca8eca
117381 F20110114_AACBRF dees_w_Page_099.jp2
fd487f54ce31ccc15a3fc736354a07a4
9d5c76a3680c2b06021a8f647b82d1ab520fa5e1
70605 F20110114_AACBQR dees_w_Page_084.jp2
a0f985490804d97d66c72e0129ac67f0
a0ebae2f01cd7968b9d6ee1a58461a52d2e8c8f7
115599 F20110114_AACBRG dees_w_Page_100.jp2
77fb34958c28839ad5dcee67af2fac61
453f13a74bf101c8afe72b0f8c8819591b1c0572
62758 F20110114_AACBQS dees_w_Page_085.jp2
6af644319dc45234d227307847cb7825
81407de9b69702d5d9cd6680ff5e44e0876b123a
115257 F20110114_AACBRH dees_w_Page_101.jp2
4e29f5a83827cf413679b0a089125576
b2481f2f6721302d0cb18a62c0e7f5a34cef1ec1
87229 F20110114_AACBQT dees_w_Page_086.jp2
fb15dcee1a75c329a26571a51252688e
fe0be9b08ced9d4c518c2f42b3bdb132409184cb
111345 F20110114_AACBRI dees_w_Page_102.jp2
d196891e7793f0892fcf6c402f8a8db5
983e262068f0f0122f3fd4025174348e4ef8ad4d
80823 F20110114_AACBQU dees_w_Page_087.jp2
241382f0f7c9b0ef6d6aef3e15493619
b2849b5c24d5c8c0438b397575b78809398beabc
110122 F20110114_AACBRJ dees_w_Page_104.jp2
390f4f69c92e74efd7b0d5013117d22d
e92db9dc032a377c5577cde759f78b3c3e2167b2
46602 F20110114_AACBQV dees_w_Page_088.jp2
ffc18774f40624128de1567d4dcccd3a
84ffea468079881b19be512d6bd70df01d67ef2e
104600 F20110114_AACBRK dees_w_Page_105.jp2
186d9669355b0f4a034007e3a7b1f706
40803206a76f2d397a61d5b9614a244b37ece853
41970 F20110114_AACBQW dees_w_Page_089.jp2
d42b2e7d009f833beed09aab40cce6b2
b462dab97bddcceb7452cad11341488ccd1b15bf
107637 F20110114_AACBRL dees_w_Page_106.jp2
3b432426b2c868b27e7cc49d0eecf967
028f8817d81dfcfd8bf3a4c4bc6d52dfcb2339a8
54155 F20110114_AACBQX dees_w_Page_090.jp2
b54735b91096d347d769e9956f8c6d2d
c491957b22f523fee5b870bd361ddec9f8bf2438
1051960 F20110114_AACBSA dees_w_Page_125.jp2
a505d10b434362ff71cb0438a1341d13
6c73ac29e9a4420223cdd589213e974c5ca28f5c
109624 F20110114_AACBRM dees_w_Page_107.jp2
565af051c0f10e817620c8ef2b97a01a
388723628f7d0a5ee8b9d58c6f27df87dc49e4a7
34258 F20110114_AACBQY dees_w_Page_091.jp2
17c3f9683090b780dea1d876206bd416
786d0db406507ae98e879c6123f4fbc08ce0f192
123708 F20110114_AACBSB dees_w_Page_126.jp2
a160045719615bb3027da14f9025bd66
fb00c74519ffb6a901e88e8de5d6433001a7af60
107542 F20110114_AACBRN dees_w_Page_108.jp2
42efabf6357ee3b7d22897727fe90b93
6920862933c2b44322bdfe1d81f8f8d8522a42fb
70206 F20110114_AACBQZ dees_w_Page_092.jp2
cbfb1715baee3a697cc2e422d1d5bf83
89ee3f3ed6bd635323472ff4ef0710804a3aab70
F20110114_AACBSC dees_w_Page_127.jp2
e0e5c9a209d51a84ded5ab46dca1b491
6fb23f9d5617d196534afa6b0861fdb9426f6257
5453 F20110114_AACBRO dees_w_Page_111.jp2
64565a2490f8d9e99e97203f2e5be9b3
21ca027e0dce20ce0132114564709a0a87a9b86b
760622 F20110114_AACBSD dees_w_Page_128.jp2
7a104cb1d9a2e31c809667fe4d5b4530
492250cb986d47b2b73212c004807621b8d15d2f
1051983 F20110114_AACBRP dees_w_Page_112.jp2
fddce9cec06d625f0b24a2ddbe4be0b5
c438a49029219adcc7d18072086f361466470be2
28502 F20110114_AACBSE dees_w_Page_129.jp2
b84a686fde3d4b7083b6721c0893fb38
d3311b987dab9ccba0b923dd1641c6eefa6f4d56
5548 F20110114_AACBRQ dees_w_Page_113.jp2
45e087ad7b41e7e97ba0b6387a0115c7
9701867c2d7ececfde4f3b855cf9a15a4cfb7c7c
1053954 F20110114_AACBSF dees_w_Page_001.tif
cbe3aee40872b7529ef6440a9cc10aa7
44cd4483a2905d50af1cb6c5940d80963a2c04b3
132005 F20110114_AACBRR dees_w_Page_114.jp2
9e1235c36ba8d4b7520b95bf209aeacc
e5c64719aff3019c02c349fa41d7fd99e2c5aea6
F20110114_AACBSG dees_w_Page_002.tif
a7d5e801426c58c9b8a70fa969ae0af7
60ba5e85e4403bac88e3e6c47e427d71c18957e8
5470 F20110114_AACBRS dees_w_Page_115.jp2
5e6a4932232ca37f865ec81cf24f3a08
26a791c57b699a24220e5ed258a14a45cd087775
F20110114_AACBSH dees_w_Page_003.tif
9d83135828439f57ca3215da42999ec1
13d522b5d7c5d78bc10aeeff84654d3c23896ebb
41850 F20110114_AACBRT dees_w_Page_116.jp2
fe5061a4db243ddad08ffb81f962a143
7b96b40a3fd51b580d4c6819e09f64e1396de11d
25271604 F20110114_AACBSI dees_w_Page_005.tif
54254c41b64267bf05680443c1988237
ef249c4d6f5bcabe00e11a1b335176f31786d955
512390 F20110114_AACBRU dees_w_Page_117.jp2
08b19ba22b5db86b35f1b12ed4e68e16
8135cea9b9088dd6ecc41be325c02b43964b3909
F20110114_AACBSJ dees_w_Page_006.tif
8e6739bc54f3cffbd250f79ede5fb51e
8144d3e7b3dbf647ea2670d4ca65500b00f68ab4
119603 F20110114_AACBRV dees_w_Page_118.jp2
ca55fd42d4947841bdad836a18b6af1e
2815ca53ed0eb15670a560b3358e85d8defa4990
F20110114_AACBSK dees_w_Page_007.tif
a031eb8cd895887ab70a60c9b9a5c2c2
6fecd8e81a5b044e3c7d47ea07a570a5712f604d
105844 F20110114_AACBRW dees_w_Page_119.jp2
97eb440e0569240408dc52ac80bf0f90
4947a236c7fee9e14fcfd4edba1981afe9442f51
F20110114_AACBSL dees_w_Page_008.tif
34b347efdedcceba93b433b47b9e67eb
0b81df153d6cad15497cd5040ebe7554d9bc4912
6002 F20110114_AACBRX dees_w_Page_120.jp2
799fc51e54b01ac3d5e0c84f5443df5c
2c8c232d15f2500cd5ecb5581c2b45a8682f676c
F20110114_AACBSM dees_w_Page_009.tif
275c1f98ce1c08ba9fdc8036e66e1141
1045fe131e21abc1fc9d88c29c067d649caaf749
545218 F20110114_AACBRY dees_w_Page_121.jp2
3d380795dcbc4c9fe6e9a2720edde515
caac65a652cb8c69629fdb06c443bc3a0cbbc797
F20110114_AACBTA dees_w_Page_025.tif
867d847f6bef91a36c3854de70c85107
cede1972ef19d9cd6dc06762ed2b3b9f339dbc7d
F20110114_AACBSN dees_w_Page_011.tif
fcae7f52f52db240c32c395db3c7c91c
bb4008f5c44c09fe7077658881500733407f1569
126238 F20110114_AACBRZ dees_w_Page_123.jp2
0a0a0e34eb93c1a8ce9bc949d6146669
55c0195bbea33450a3f525d818e1dfeadb56205c
F20110114_AACBTB dees_w_Page_026.tif
0011eab6cb1a1b4b23b9186faa0473d6
d1c634cfbb4503fb7f5774cd3a45cb222839721c
F20110114_AACBSO dees_w_Page_012.tif
54868fa0e454188e7152098032ca3b36
1a1435eb3ae9ee2d9e4a808a8861288510775fdd
F20110114_AACBTC dees_w_Page_027.tif
5a064a5955448fae1cf4c8267e29fac3
482b34da501ffd415e01a2f03d4414798ee5eca5
F20110114_AACBSP dees_w_Page_013.tif
2d89aade0f968840848b9d127f7cd6ee
f09d7ab96f87266fb2976e3cc2fa6b7189d3a335
F20110114_AACBTD dees_w_Page_028.tif
83638717a4b63277e9595126b007ee37
10a20ada0c2e3d34f315f0feea73d306ea6e91ea
F20110114_AACBSQ dees_w_Page_014.tif
6b6cbc7519cd08ab7e3385cff1c8d594
43a3d7a99ab50d2e990676fcffbb9b1f83ddcfba
F20110114_AACBTE dees_w_Page_029.tif
798a80a8babedf625da471b62d57c378
cb51ce37339a9a3313d780242ed8bfee680ed166
F20110114_AACBSR dees_w_Page_015.tif
4bd3be6f975c8dc6eb3e2f947f3bf1a4
7a7b3609640bb17be08602556d57b85e68edb948
F20110114_AACBTF dees_w_Page_030.tif
f0b5bd246f24fda62e2d204df9d5767c
b40d0df9b7784a8f7b54b928016111d8eb450af3
F20110114_AACBSS dees_w_Page_017.tif
5561d993ac0813301421c47d4db9c108
6029679011ef6c5cbf689022c1c2eb09dcec6d14
F20110114_AACBTG dees_w_Page_031.tif
a039e0d21b97049991d3b3e6af49ba76
0ff75f177727d54ecc5834c3cbeec32b42a82ee7
F20110114_AACBST dees_w_Page_018.tif
c780871c9d8c93c6fff0d81e277fdde9
f5751c9f9075f7f3e44f005b3ac4991601d94ec7
F20110114_AACBTH dees_w_Page_033.tif
73a99c66c50cea75d93d9a2d293730ae
7ad8c0e3433ebc795a3b0023fb73eb8259d364ba
F20110114_AACBSU dees_w_Page_019.tif
f3a4a390ffa355a8ae0bd8bb51583987
cc79b84517cb62f110484b2494dc72baf90a051c
F20110114_AACBTI dees_w_Page_034.tif
8005ae2bdc7c5b0f5edd1ea51756abc1
632aac0b41d7ab1a576bb83ed3c1b070a1552e4e
F20110114_AACBSV dees_w_Page_020.tif
07e9b2abba30e95205f9b4041f20b280
4e0ba7f17e7a070f2719a39a98789c2a55c3f656
F20110114_AACBTJ dees_w_Page_035.tif
cc8e4a5f5529c6358616c71cd1fada65
6be6accea2d236259bbeffdd2827430390320b17
F20110114_AACBSW dees_w_Page_021.tif
c37d5fa6312cdf861ce7939546db76e8
757538cfe288313ffb7515addde6da7e658d9ec7
F20110114_AACBTK dees_w_Page_036.tif
c55698ffced6eb2f240c018f32776f6c
559ac256f67f165a2c91082285939962530b9be5
F20110114_AACBSX dees_w_Page_022.tif
1907f5bcb6d4bde6f5dda31a51eeccbd
4bb320cd3f0860c78c3284c1aaf7bf730059e2a2
F20110114_AACBTL dees_w_Page_037.tif
044d105360232a89d624ca4c3786999a
0713fb382149437e57faa0ce0aefd91def19b7fe
F20110114_AACBSY dees_w_Page_023.tif
a6d5c465f4b3e39677b9d9d4c01161bf
b52079fb3c4394ace55e4d2d216db05a8cb7eec6
F20110114_AACBUA dees_w_Page_055.tif
89059e7344fdaa2be912a649a065d1c6
7d195536098e94b8feff560b847ba31423c41b3b
F20110114_AACBTM dees_w_Page_038.tif
eef31e307c15f811311f4eccb4050d11
d8b51d1b622130fae8605f3515112944c16d3ec8
F20110114_AACBSZ dees_w_Page_024.tif
1a15cda6df8df3837141dd2fa3623665
b611066743bf96caa67ff3eb30b0d2482fad8f8e
F20110114_AACBUB dees_w_Page_056.tif
06ca4d00dd37c76612cae314f4f9f801
898493477434f54690e651e45b7a18f081c80e9d
F20110114_AACBTN dees_w_Page_039.tif
38efc0c7fa25add56537a2b3b3bde558
db8d0ca7ed25791ac1aa7f9d9bfae9e8d658b9f7
F20110114_AACBUC dees_w_Page_057.tif
d2c323e376dbf8706dd4e0a6d03a7862
f63c3b8dccadda4c2503d5dd2caa22aa25750f89
F20110114_AACBTO dees_w_Page_041.tif
c08bbcf6092f85489dcd9aceca0a121c
c05898660385cf66048b5c388a08ecd82d47fe4e
F20110114_AACBUD dees_w_Page_058.tif
65419e063370251da98b07ea63cffa84
1ed8519bc44c5157a4e205dc33249c432a501aaf
F20110114_AACBTP dees_w_Page_042.tif
313bf0f0fb29a6aeb911b97fd208f66f
ce8b8255a3ce8c47ee55b11e08c49d44fbc11e3f
F20110114_AACBUE dees_w_Page_059.tif
ce79af8910ff0dfd215ba4ea87c98bff
cff93c20ef52dee2e9f036deade3620b43808a51
F20110114_AACBTQ dees_w_Page_044.tif
15ec48d37718ffcd1a640bd699fdc5c0
c9f43198f47208d06f007e1f5ae7bc977d849fe1
1054428 F20110114_AACBUF dees_w_Page_060.tif
51227ab26157f26894b25138a5d6def9
1a36e1e2eda75c9a60a027190dcee4ada14c5618
F20110114_AACBTR dees_w_Page_045.tif
7f36c57d4dd0058d0a8e472c35e7be71
1acaa330e8867a99593b5b5f3a63f77cb76ffa35
47174 F20110114_AACCAA dees_w_Page_105.pro
8207bc311ddab8e0f4e056e9d783ea43
0d8504297b884e223f1fc13adf55d10a4194c865
F20110114_AACBUG dees_w_Page_061.tif
ceb051ebd0b79d02fc0a8cd61de1f3b2
cb2c3db0832201df6f9cc4a3b80a36d1c5efcaab
F20110114_AACBTS dees_w_Page_046.tif
9aa2d93c228535189e2db0f80aa82570
bbc7ad42b0c74f0e42bb14b6e9988524208eac99
49576 F20110114_AACCAB dees_w_Page_106.pro
d7df306f41871ec1992fcf8e54ad03f8
e934504dae1d3ec1b759efad902cafa06b06a0c3
F20110114_AACBUH dees_w_Page_062.tif
abe44f66428c0f8e6596cfb4da339946
88e46abae46680ead1012c0bd0a2de791219d1ce
F20110114_AACBTT dees_w_Page_047.tif
6f4b06858e1a80f34a6305d7bd3b2b2c
c0de269ce5f6310cc6d6a22012609551b443d130
51524 F20110114_AACCAC dees_w_Page_107.pro
21f87acbef1916d837904ffcd506a652
dacfc4ff9a00d8fdcae7b4a8bc0600fd44e9fffc
F20110114_AACBUI dees_w_Page_063.tif
38be56e87eb27295e00b2227b07c719d
e567954380508b70ee473db83eb864379b7fd8c5
F20110114_AACBTU dees_w_Page_048.tif
48475f10ebffb43911d951a7ab7f76f1
da39dec735970ec30dbf47d989ec294de20f8d2c
50537 F20110114_AACCAD dees_w_Page_108.pro
924c1b264cae4d82cedcae597124b7c6
3305c9beb1fa67c30436e2a39c3ae40aff7efb0f
F20110114_AACBUJ dees_w_Page_064.tif
346d390ad8856bb6d6dbcc6d2028e478
6fe61f49f00b07adcd2fb0952345a5a9b10ee2f3
F20110114_AACBTV dees_w_Page_050.tif
6c3a7c44e8168d923b5555e0ba02972b
ba2d77017485393c38410b00d846efba1c41b465
49008 F20110114_AACCAE dees_w_Page_109.pro
1ae31f1e9a5d0ce735d043d48da94b03
74c16acdfd6cd29184f8ae30f7e337166bdd826f
F20110114_AACBUK dees_w_Page_065.tif
1c3627a5990638cf2b77a1af2951b65d
db1e99aa1d1f202c6d6d97a83c4ab9a5a78d37a8
F20110114_AACBTW dees_w_Page_051.tif
bc7a413433f8b8c411572f29a771429d
54c671473164b2ad20e403fde74fe69b33e7fff3
47652 F20110114_AACCAF dees_w_Page_110.pro
4a79ea36fea41d5bb7540c18ad56f401
461c5509adaf844222903e802bb21321033984d8
F20110114_AACBUL dees_w_Page_067.tif
e648ebfb323510fd87efbd8695b25579
97c1f7147249aa754e0f1243f949b360a30b8808
F20110114_AACBTX dees_w_Page_052.tif
77824247d6623f52e5e7d27f0ac05879
6112ee5897a9a7c5cab43b79aa98483ee9c8a6b4
1002 F20110114_AACCAG dees_w_Page_111.pro
c7380f9951b239147ed27d4e1a1eb4d2
463a3959b25ab458aabe50092d1f7ad696d9a5f5
F20110114_AACBUM dees_w_Page_068.tif
f28ffdb408d239ce7971321b5e95c94c
ba2bae295a36299036f302e14b58181420d1c677
F20110114_AACBTY dees_w_Page_053.tif
266c57cf878cb1b79c6c8b2787514094
3871fe79e578bc8e5952513c4a778241df5f46af
69782 F20110114_AACCAH dees_w_Page_112.pro
75d67f9248120c3eaeb335742adf5380
4063202802071a98063c70419223a1520cff600c
F20110114_AACBVA dees_w_Page_086.tif
2ff723ab759dd37e4de6a726fd932a63
493dd4613d5d581c300375658b94746a5cc01e26
F20110114_AACBUN dees_w_Page_069.tif
0f101fc2896f7d1fbf0715e4f5e1410e
92c2d198af026ab767b79d943724d6faf2f22127
F20110114_AACBTZ dees_w_Page_054.tif
57296e6995ef557efcdfde237959eb11
480c69cf36843e2ac8bb6b8b1b3a7ed9fa58ca9f
1028 F20110114_AACCAI dees_w_Page_113.pro
58cd9b4d1d491888699b40f4260ecb18
1e96e62d97ab3d6d01cd8b357cfe90a4347024da
F20110114_AACBVB dees_w_Page_087.tif
6bb20ee278d586afd16172999ab85356
a52050a9cc8888b8b9a86474f4eded89d3be2a41
F20110114_AACBUO dees_w_Page_070.tif
dc3f115e2afef319462cf8fd66458b76
54e857549655f3534bf218a630c355aff21b4d03
F20110114_AACBVC dees_w_Page_088.tif
d6d01b1e27044eafcfcb3f6ef2671e6f
33d1c8fa850961281e28c677dbd4c60ff9ac86b5
F20110114_AACBUP dees_w_Page_071.tif
cdd656641ecdc528c0391954f4fba0b2
b204e4d7ff588ebf285c37b109f267472003fdc8
67861 F20110114_AACCAJ dees_w_Page_114.pro
5287a046598d9b7d2259ab32733e19ea
3d6c19316623ed383cb4c4373bbdde6be0bd57f3
F20110114_AACBVD dees_w_Page_089.tif
33c878adce0fe4e6cb3bc6824c8c6fbf
917226f9b5c83b48b5d94e7767fe495f477e4db9
F20110114_AACBUQ dees_w_Page_072.tif
08a696dc98117ec1aabba9486f48143b
fd0cd4b44bde8bc8250c67c0ed8fab748a8d7a59
F20110114_AACCAK dees_w_Page_115.pro
6a225f5d784306a32bbaa8235748ff85
25e2e05d419a92309e686bb0121dfb3e0979637f
F20110114_AACBVE dees_w_Page_090.tif
fbe6d9c692541ee69af40c166a90c308
5d0fb2b36fc66cc5af52f7fea3ea5a75b28a07e2
F20110114_AACBUR dees_w_Page_073.tif
79a1914b75439fae332993e3f8f6906e
4decad22f45e258c911ed85b6a954ed66b40db5e
4267 F20110114_AACCBA dees_w_Page_006.txt
d1cc4ae6c13773fc5c98ea518306ac76
c9252e449723e4a4288d3b5cc3e15e21582b3ddb
17506 F20110114_AACCAL dees_w_Page_117.pro
741cade8f21d9822075d57200f8c672a
8afdc5d2a00bc5e0a5f3a06a6def70ba4dc4c200
F20110114_AACBVF dees_w_Page_091.tif
b32248c31760e116005b351030c720ee
da427668512c19ef65560b108833e586bf9125dc
F20110114_AACBUS dees_w_Page_075.tif
4bcaccb0ac1753df870af6a5cdad9861
19cd492de85a5cd4ca77488fc8bc42ec2d39b9f7
3388 F20110114_AACCBB dees_w_Page_007.txt
2b452aa778be701895c6afba47caf752
ee58c0a7ff79a5a6795889b0ad7fb16292ea6254
80317 F20110114_AACCAM dees_w_Page_118.pro
bfbd929ee5da96a32af3b30e292546ec
26870956c9deb60c991494820a82af4c63eb2617
F20110114_AACBVG dees_w_Page_093.tif
61d4234c36397bf42b2847fed585a452
d1a3d5116fabfc7c35eade2701f9501cce62b758
F20110114_AACBUT dees_w_Page_077.tif
57753442d4e5fcb157159b7f5ac954b3
c2a441e5e6c777e5c7b50c2c6e89b8e4409b4595
748 F20110114_AACCBC dees_w_Page_009.txt
073015c25e5d90fdea81e6e21a5f5174
f21e9d65e938c60208c3eb563907bab73ed93422
17080 F20110114_AACCAN dees_w_Page_121.pro
1696decbb0b231b2c1f1ba103ff608b8
9d635e79f5182ea90d24eda4fd4891d8adbeea84
F20110114_AACBVH dees_w_Page_094.tif
3c402fdaa79b2feec31473293bf4e779
67619bc5c38ffef563130540d32202748b7bff0e
F20110114_AACBUU dees_w_Page_078.tif
a042bb2dcb79db65969086c9f427487e
4b3221baaa65af69ad55ac6ee84a6ec09f337e61
336 F20110114_AACCBD dees_w_Page_010.txt
66ffb4809ed1d6ec06901bb4a74fd9d3
d424dbab9ac63b7109484565ff56110e0e392858
58830 F20110114_AACCAO dees_w_Page_123.pro
725f5dadb4bc05dccdc5bc9b8f545afd
dd8a9c3d23aefeaad3533c057665b4437c9bf160
F20110114_AACBVI dees_w_Page_095.tif
bc2ce1594f9f16e41c2e8f309be19db9
2e00de760e3741a98fa5c0997d65e3bc1146e569
F20110114_AACBUV dees_w_Page_079.tif
34ffdd03499f5094f254f1bb48a777ca
5dd697e0189162a5134775720ca86f88c431cad6
1623 F20110114_AACCBE dees_w_Page_011.txt
8631c5630e8fb5d2ae7a67303058fe0c
1b050ce81f7b1481086072b34e34e754c7e977cd
50427 F20110114_AACCAP dees_w_Page_124.pro
ba65c2ab193a1f93b790a129ee28dc6a
681d5c6466279caa28c24227c8b6a4d91eaa6e85
F20110114_AACBVJ dees_w_Page_096.tif
07a19159a999ee76e0aa292f30d01dbe
34eba3df370c5503c604553a919d13e97c577996
F20110114_AACBUW dees_w_Page_080.tif
8d87d0b809b6e2877730ef41a6447463
93ef5a4fc3c55e3ddf4283b50dbe05f5b940dcf7
178 F20110114_AACCBF dees_w_Page_012.txt
3b1e8b72dc1c4789526a96036387f1aa
9eefeebf7d1ebafbe6d443f610dd81ff1bdf1375
57367 F20110114_AACCAQ dees_w_Page_125.pro
56c60e24f948abf105924fc3474d0e52
24d8143bae7cc9834d3a1398b9c1d3fca4a4adb4
F20110114_AACBVK dees_w_Page_098.tif
0ea0e1e16c28dd358ab0f9ae541c7c81
703d2ee33eeaefa8fa2c45d88d19f28ef3685b59
F20110114_AACBUX dees_w_Page_082.tif
6e5665acf15eff026204b85f2d2df93d
06e8f1437177aad74ebf0546e69778d1b50dd236
1854 F20110114_AACCBG dees_w_Page_013.txt
13c98a5692766193052c2ee767d4f0ee
f71c8dec730e73da01878abba8353ebc7e716a88
56873 F20110114_AACCAR dees_w_Page_126.pro
1c90a12303d4e3851bc4c3809c272701
bc5f61b1849d710be37147eae22939cabf17242f
F20110114_AACBVL dees_w_Page_099.tif
ee79434babe331432a41012bdf555bd4
081420406c4815121b438e9efad3370067645f71
F20110114_AACBUY dees_w_Page_083.tif
d397af0a5e3ec283847cc711f6f9874e
834934648d97b6a226c6c6215d4c009e5b894858
1883 F20110114_AACCBH dees_w_Page_014.txt
d490ff2e69a4c1062345573d0ad78645
e2e17788725cad6d20ad650dcd673c4f35a92233
F20110114_AACBWA dees_w_Page_118.tif
725bb53d2f618bd1c9ef7bfefb5bedec
4894c4d9b5a1c05b9b102a13c5c51ad74cb20138
55493 F20110114_AACCAS dees_w_Page_127.pro
9e32f24f40d3fe4c81120a911ec5e481
de5950b3f0b606722e731623366fbf92633b023a
F20110114_AACBVM dees_w_Page_100.tif
00825011f6f31d7beddf8a3c5a27863d
94bdab74ba94d42e9c29fe775f63734b64744186
F20110114_AACBUZ dees_w_Page_085.tif
08bd750f24388c2d0bf7ef5cfd38e36d
a8358fcddf534e004e21974aece0bab509db4b11
1710 F20110114_AACCBI dees_w_Page_015.txt
ac5424c80460ae11e11a7d322b259e22
0837f9c5a513c4ec32b6bf69a47b321d1ef125c6
F20110114_AACBWB dees_w_Page_119.tif
a613db29024ba07bc52bfaa0da1ff1e5
cc2958e282d3bf0d815d31fbfbe5deab8766c536
32271 F20110114_AACCAT dees_w_Page_128.pro
a93307d52d10b5a622f89d0411333d31
70e325bbf67b11fbfc9d71d6d2c3d4bd6b056e80
F20110114_AACBVN dees_w_Page_102.tif
8a4434bbd66f8b70cec0b0687e02e4bc
9a5a4be922d884860b00b21e921dd0bf2abf1204
1996 F20110114_AACCBJ dees_w_Page_016.txt
282a9aa1d9ca4a4a46ed1336b5d2cf2d
014bb828ca88d9de19a65fa4f124f9813aabd097
F20110114_AACBWC dees_w_Page_120.tif
9057d9354315caef3021e15341e6077e
cabb09c0e708474b673ebbd5460aaed28a719b78
11306 F20110114_AACCAU dees_w_Page_129.pro
89d24190711d7545d06316a7741cb816
68ffa31dc04442297c8c985e65c119cde458794c
F20110114_AACBVO dees_w_Page_103.tif
8127c47d64fde60d399c13a0e7b5a9a3
f053251fb21dc43e3ab8c42382e0f330e35657f1
F20110114_AACBWD dees_w_Page_121.tif
befb2ce20362481d24f9ad7553cbb9dd
fc83482b0174aa87a737682cfb6fac9479b59d20
487 F20110114_AACCAV dees_w_Page_001.txt
6d67c95265aaa21c933a0c690dc49376
8f69ffd83c39c25d637fbfacde27b1c27fb05f1c
F20110114_AACBVP dees_w_Page_104.tif
974d03ff103e9b4dc6de02d1edc59978
00e7c02e7778284dd9b4e6c369889d55430ac87e
2011 F20110114_AACCBK dees_w_Page_017.txt
b964af090c1c6c06d0b6abfded0f7ed6
1befc7e3dd93f488c8fd29eab6154f2ec27912b1
F20110114_AACBWE dees_w_Page_122.tif
1904460b90a690ed1816ad5a22103237
ebc47780ac2662b29013ea55b9d00c973493c2ad
105 F20110114_AACCAW dees_w_Page_002.txt
093949e7e0d67e2cb4322575a5d6b536
5a8c8096fe066f53d8aecbbb966625c09ddbf0da
F20110114_AACBVQ dees_w_Page_106.tif
950883d6d9688fa734d1e695ed32375c
f5191983c3c4f60ee5fb440dec30a01b5cfd1987
1228 F20110114_AACCBL dees_w_Page_018.txt
f7ee7fc7ed9611381376c1b48cd48a7a
3cf23a296fb8147a3836c35155fd2eff81477116
F20110114_AACBWF dees_w_Page_123.tif
28d07d827feef6293bb4709257dca38d
4f2cce53f608d2cbb26e55c5c7a8830ac83879da
211 F20110114_AACCAX dees_w_Page_003.txt
6f51de41c7858cbb694717e18ade3052
b800ac8de689babf2a6284ae7a8ce0544f9abd12
F20110114_AACBVR dees_w_Page_107.tif
262a9ebf2cc3ace6b435230039f0ab99
03260f916c9b19a743e10a434379ae9e001c3255
1879 F20110114_AACCCA dees_w_Page_036.txt
aa52b1802e2a5d72fe948378c4d40af7
154fd8d27ec155bb7d5c720b8f79fc524f01446a
1844 F20110114_AACCBM dees_w_Page_019.txt
4d6a1a06d250e968365b9071f7cf3fdc
9bbba9589d76ec716258917fbe13a5a1c7eddf09
F20110114_AACBWG dees_w_Page_124.tif
b66984275e8ad3c0ec7c1aabb8a0f784
658f5d170fbba70529d7ca6977ac3ea9af4dcb18
282 F20110114_AACCAY dees_w_Page_004.txt
bfe750294bbfcf3acc1f755184ac6d13
0ce9419dffdc8a74282a817161e2274f38c809ad
F20110114_AACBVS dees_w_Page_108.tif
d5fc32aa769b7b568f3aaa64a1c271fe
d38ab0b78e820ae57de732901493d182e0e0fbfd
1954 F20110114_AACCCB dees_w_Page_038.txt
b2d60c9cabe21b8c734506fbeb22f46e
541b800ec458a1185830826837964be562e03acf
1887 F20110114_AACCBN dees_w_Page_020.txt
7b88836204d46d850a5389f652e14cb7
66b054081935142d98bc0248a1aa227de29541c4
F20110114_AACBWH dees_w_Page_125.tif
c3a3e70579a5adfcb32b704b51237b59
d01e627ca920c982502e434b35af947eba882358
3367 F20110114_AACCAZ dees_w_Page_005.txt
1c65c12fe0a7c05b09bbe09f0a5fa163
ba8f730bbe4c7b2612fe3089d2582624671027fa
F20110114_AACBVT dees_w_Page_109.tif
743a9ce591a4b51f5e16dd8a35b4252c
3b7cd921025b45ff44d104b4c742fa1e291d54c9
2003 F20110114_AACCCC dees_w_Page_039.txt
f43b3f535c84bb0dc8b63831d3682605
4854405d6f0633d3a25a06f41e4fd9925fd121af
1639 F20110114_AACCBO dees_w_Page_021.txt
ed33d5c416f442fbde1ea8891b4b957e
ef39173c42d8f3dd3799da505bb548162dafb005
F20110114_AACBWI dees_w_Page_126.tif
3431f37d3d606c1d6667e4d784b051e0
94d5070d3b3a2a1973698664a834c08d5624dda7
F20110114_AACBVU dees_w_Page_110.tif
3e81d4b6cd461e1f5a90969ceaa0b0e4
5d4ea03da4318e16a912b68fd03a23974b4890d1
1535 F20110114_AACCCD dees_w_Page_040.txt
542709a2467e6fa28ff0cc18db7c5f4d
b806ade6d152dff5b5a26327198876a934fbd0f4
210 F20110114_AACCBP dees_w_Page_022.txt
7b902ef837d05d4349523263ffa10baf
ecb47edd023528509d8786a5c8a7dd137e8c9422
F20110114_AACBWJ dees_w_Page_127.tif
d776ddae1f19335479894e9a5619560e
51522d178759cf5daf1ba7fabb702bcd7fec740d
F20110114_AACBVV dees_w_Page_111.tif
8d8667b59268294f23c2769466b46390
2cba895040c3e9496d68b585386a638f51ab1eaa
1524 F20110114_AACCCE dees_w_Page_041.txt
d73aa8eb0abfd3d96e11e8c268576c3a
a77911d579f792f6666a1900b6db78ce853c9e3d
1859 F20110114_AACCBQ dees_w_Page_024.txt
f409e8edc1b4be321d004471a0d68078
06c6a40b31721f2a959ce53f542eaa4e2b6227a2
F20110114_AACBWK dees_w_Page_128.tif
b3e960122be5b16b70f96628ecf68223
301f11e6ac8aa9b1c54165447cb2b5ea079ffad2
F20110114_AACBVW dees_w_Page_112.tif
62d2f97a605a56295a2bbe70c6a64670
e3b2a0270c17ac31787ad6d952bf435fc2969d62
1946 F20110114_AACCCF dees_w_Page_042.txt
10fda7f9726af7b2b3f2064b31025ac8
b061deef06d5ddfc0fac0d4859460ab9ee71d5f8
49689 F20110114_AACBXA dees_w_Page_016.pro
133c2ad963c57aa3421e65ac3c076add
24494e59bca7fa0302eea428a643394aec9ab1a0
2082 F20110114_AACCBR dees_w_Page_025.txt
4d16d3c564f92889b187bba994cd2ee6
6146ea83141ac7b1af85b79fc175b1e1719d4393
F20110114_AACBWL dees_w_Page_129.tif
c4bfee68e471ddedb5db876edce8f1b4
9a6d5fec00753e6ba566e2dbd4a2824a2161137f
F20110114_AACBVX dees_w_Page_114.tif
b3107db4dbe7a3d676fc1654b27c12e4
da45d76bb5fa47778fcf7fc7b6137a60577b7391
F20110114_AACCCG dees_w_Page_043.txt
b19ae6c37281f8d91167cb78e07120f8
3122ebf09760dc4e79e1716387634c2d70498c0a
1869 F20110114_AACCBS dees_w_Page_026.txt
ac036c3da49e9f76c8cdbce57383b40d
38eb83902c429efc89d41a6160caf53875cef3b1
8761 F20110114_AACBWM dees_w_Page_001.pro
00236157e4fe49056f090b16cad456bc
25bb1960bdc2fa2f8a87db30e808f1d9f5fc6037
F20110114_AACBVY dees_w_Page_115.tif
3d489cb20e2f4d12359cd85a6c3bd18b
0efc582eb9ede7e0165e878d24ee8f823b466b99
1893 F20110114_AACCCH dees_w_Page_044.txt
ecb1cade9daa8369eea886e5ab9c691d
41083b45914e6ab4c0bac5e6835c0c3828e6a126
51140 F20110114_AACBXB dees_w_Page_017.pro
71c0ee06eef0aa0b8a9fe8c3e68bcd10
a46a1c8dfb3de3ed0555b4bd5061bd266420ddce
2010 F20110114_AACCBT dees_w_Page_027.txt
c0693bdd7c4ec8fea7927097d4f0ef2d
86731c129351a1325622b9cf84727a41f202eaeb
1043 F20110114_AACBWN dees_w_Page_002.pro
be5f1f241761b745e9a3be5d06243512
f475f5e78350ccee539b972135d51bc3b334a6ed
25265604 F20110114_AACBVZ dees_w_Page_117.tif
2a108420484b4db065e6ee5d3bc5b96a
8cde8931601847c8f4e70b36c169b9c9a732af36
1890 F20110114_AACCCI dees_w_Page_045.txt
5b981485dbafe89b980466da14ebafe9
d157db6f5c17c0a2a32c3a2e7fabb30ea0f219c7
29930 F20110114_AACBXC dees_w_Page_018.pro
782a46b421147bb1964a27e774c23029
76ec87d80e67e16314c589b8763d64a873b8852c
1995 F20110114_AACCBU dees_w_Page_028.txt
6915e43aa2cef58f4d567f6ea10ca9ad
313cb7f0b3b7c019fee1debf75ff609aadd01a78
4018 F20110114_AACBWO dees_w_Page_003.pro
2bd7f37c61bf23f491c0d9b754ed9f6d
f8e4bb59f4e3397d5a03ca0d553b18ef6c220673
2042 F20110114_AACCCJ dees_w_Page_046.txt
5301480371e54fc919aaaca02ce97e6e
dfa92eed0c8d2e0257cee48176f73a434e48e7bb
45684 F20110114_AACBXD dees_w_Page_019.pro
55a77d17c92a119678be8ca658e4bf99
dec5ccb037557cea6824a00c1602a202e5083300
1966 F20110114_AACCBV dees_w_Page_030.txt
d741d29c5b644f05a0a3b5ef29d53478
2eb7b8a0ddcf063409c7392d8cc61c65f3401af9
5842 F20110114_AACBWP dees_w_Page_004.pro
e8f1b68a626822f068acfec62d96f46d
1acb04a494bde932dbb50aa28eb4d7c4fb212d08
1983 F20110114_AACCCK dees_w_Page_047.txt
f8ffc1a39006c625459a4be0590898e9
690563f5f8e60b658e64c22ba1ebce825b8cd930
41172 F20110114_AACBXE dees_w_Page_020.pro
fb6b4ee24cbb286d1e0d2ee10f34fdcc
ae4730c3c895a1c0f90aa3fd44b249c0d0c22bb9
1943 F20110114_AACCBW dees_w_Page_031.txt
ed6544a217a6df4adde3114ca65037c5
6e8add0e065631f2a26340076ef0a4a81899f2f3
83741 F20110114_AACBWQ dees_w_Page_005.pro
e14019d623f2df8e5663319747867c37
4cc3f9c28b49f2414d709af17e78291743fd7cdf
39072 F20110114_AACBXF dees_w_Page_021.pro
43f0d99b1e5967ecb07d28ef042c3cd5
54951f01f548aa5397fe850a3aa8125a22f80db2
1947 F20110114_AACCBX dees_w_Page_032.txt
3eff1c15a3ded1d331376b7865be902a
4c217ceec761bc50cafbbc4e1861eac460a3e3a1
104685 F20110114_AACBWR dees_w_Page_006.pro
36fa4995e28bf99e14da6b294e081af5
1c9bd3eb09d8c2d1ec05bfc55cd30d004de0aabf
2480 F20110114_AACCDA dees_w_Page_068.txt
54ecb5ec7672952ec3ae35f6710153af
f2df981968a73fb1ea487cd33eb1a33341058336
1822 F20110114_AACCCL dees_w_Page_050.txt
630b4a2077ec374abba56687088520ca
d5ee2606093ae1f01f3e49e766af9e0d7b2c6c4d
4052 F20110114_AACBXG dees_w_Page_022.pro
fb53dabdb6dc1bd73067d58d3ec4062c
be6a917bf3eeb265976dc22fe75e0714b0214a4a
2013 F20110114_AACCBY dees_w_Page_033.txt
5736d7dc8f8d7be572e0cc5852c36953
b816031e8756caaaabd14dd8fd85463a58a1e5ec
83557 F20110114_AACBWS dees_w_Page_007.pro
066428139b3f2cb4aa24693a199badfa
efedaf00d535e2587f8c48540733ea0f8638a277
551 F20110114_AACCDB dees_w_Page_069.txt
5fbda5439b31e1b7c216fa09aa5f6826
3370ab26f66ec9488efd48bf6c87155f2714445f
F20110114_AACCCM dees_w_Page_053.txt
aff6e11f89873d32567694bc51601b00
f9e0bb74b552a6d6ca06aa60d77825eaeb242c63
52253 F20110114_AACBXH dees_w_Page_025.pro
68d12a9725af9f03b47cda0ed792b51a
1a8b65b925b0c95b69c4f5c53f066eb004207a48
1920 F20110114_AACCBZ dees_w_Page_035.txt
9a0081c05f3371f5954b0a0db306be2c
60ac75de6db4c55424dca039906015f7d9889b74
58680 F20110114_AACBWT dees_w_Page_008.pro
fc52c83e00ef5479b86beceda33a6063
ee08b339b7c099a6edbc70dc66074356824579b6
1597 F20110114_AACCDC dees_w_Page_070.txt
d6ae3a3be6848eb48a34345745e0d3d6
6453c6950fee44c3c6e80e8005013c0184286579
2347 F20110114_AACCCN dees_w_Page_054.txt
dcc52522d528b303f068f9b6ed00a4af
9727bd496c2674946babbcdc9625f9778ba0dacf
47204 F20110114_AACBXI dees_w_Page_026.pro
084b39c9335cf0787e3307496255de49
ddf18f4de4d0ad24128ea0f384ed5c9563ab10da
18953 F20110114_AACBWU dees_w_Page_009.pro
ad79c5c50486d38d8071079f00679495
57866ac7db5a8ebff6d34aaae6bc1eb23f08f5e2
2552 F20110114_AACCDD dees_w_Page_072.txt
e1e8abde86009bdde7b4709da381d83c
c1f303dad883c3506a71007b4889e45d50b13d8f
1544 F20110114_AACCCO dees_w_Page_055.txt
dcef7168afac72939d786be6b44ed328
60591c5cf533a26ef3109b531902b396d9b989be
50173 F20110114_AACBXJ dees_w_Page_027.pro
844cb4e3b1f26e129baca87d0e426108
4585cda86aa7a63dd90a3e8c5df1e7e6d9d606f7
7439 F20110114_AACBWV dees_w_Page_010.pro
d649a0e7c04331d76b79fd72a8207577
a1100b1aeb96b48fcba859a304a1c56f559d0bf7
1843 F20110114_AACCDE dees_w_Page_073.txt
7b8efcc0a039244bbc078ee3eadc96c3
834930a4f0c0e9da7ba0ddf3756ca40f10241878
2361 F20110114_AACCCP dees_w_Page_056.txt
b09e05eb949e83f5664f35c0c82a0bdb
87be5369c68bfc509a901bc858f741b6c8daef5f
49632 F20110114_AACBXK dees_w_Page_028.pro
fc83e71975f9e2643b7b036196cf1a17
64cb7612464a689c90aac9af661c676ffb2d435f
35536 F20110114_AACBWW dees_w_Page_011.pro
774fa9e4a1ddfb7e0ad6d3bd7d20994d
a5bd7009331b39ece4c3c9ae17b668394d059467
1991 F20110114_AACCDF dees_w_Page_074.txt
434634193d100467c7fe4a605a540349
e74fcccf1abd8033da55c381d032cc001da3ba7e
889 F20110114_AACCCQ dees_w_Page_057.txt
6b120c3b239d8c6dd87dbe54b74c2c12
c81a7f6f7f320e56746c2fc9b8c34c1866f637d8
49023 F20110114_AACBXL dees_w_Page_030.pro
34e233ca0001b462d12157506d26feac
4f1b6f6c9011d6582d8c610aa2e60f03ac3e9ac3
4408 F20110114_AACBWX dees_w_Page_012.pro
75591ff1fcbca86ac7be9358dbfddca7
3902f7ca8c907729f52add65c990a493a639ea95
2272 F20110114_AACCDG dees_w_Page_075.txt
a2b538284fea643d550685fac8523fc5
e95e576a55c22e63a95ad465e6e6367efccbcd75
47846 F20110114_AACBYA dees_w_Page_045.pro
65d68fc846925feb60508dcbb21c7431
5a3350ea289bbc3697c5bfe81316b6d9f1778269
2460 F20110114_AACCCR dees_w_Page_058.txt
15fe033c881aa9631adbddb0b2146fb0
2740625d9ae7f873b1d1fb135f3130115cce96e7
49150 F20110114_AACBXM dees_w_Page_031.pro
42a8e42c75416a7b6327923981528351
6a3fba9804b22c435ff952fc9aae7c11a235e166
47640 F20110114_AACBWY dees_w_Page_014.pro
5965ed0bfbe9462e22ff5b922b0fb93d
a20715ceebb46bdc5290bd4ff7f9b334089cf0a9
793 F20110114_AACCDH dees_w_Page_076.txt
5504aa4adf94d79ba6d29ff633ac4341
90a18d03d502c36ea4bb9744785851d3b9c8639c
51349 F20110114_AACBYB dees_w_Page_046.pro
4eb872c8ced7f1d51192ce0fc2e5e6c1
624953e693e8e3a51a38cd848fa3750188fab55b
2014 F20110114_AACCCS dees_w_Page_059.txt
9b85235ad6c37148aecf90bf1c4a7bd9
32502448db7cde62d29bd7f2085e7ed486a0a79d
48444 F20110114_AACBXN dees_w_Page_032.pro
6878453ff1bedb0111888e3b486f248c
cf8f598ccf4f326ad17a0da477ea9d10333b3b54
42862 F20110114_AACBWZ dees_w_Page_015.pro
663ced39d4fff777061414feb0a0df57
0cf356248afafbcd6b25f3049a90981395ee63ba
1913 F20110114_AACCDI dees_w_Page_078.txt
9fe9c3f7a779fc6c005035ce02eed856
fc8ea5ba54d34d8c6b19c2f7bf2cc2a150c26593
2524 F20110114_AACCCT dees_w_Page_060.txt
0ed59136cf2d86e506f37954bfe31192
33e5ce2560dbe6b1c9f50fa6db48ba76028e3ba9
51046 F20110114_AACBXO dees_w_Page_033.pro
46460d89f453a5bad9a11acbf9da2a65
830f784a4afaaca101f79bf678f06832bd182078
361 F20110114_AACCDJ dees_w_Page_079.txt
d8e842d2c97aa6659983c5010ffe9c0b
e1d775f87080563cac79150075481d55bf5befbf
48601 F20110114_AACBYC dees_w_Page_047.pro
dd4735ff264684fc18d2e2e69f000955
1733b975ec8ec27128c1903afb3fa554679b4d84
2782 F20110114_AACCCU dees_w_Page_061.txt
9b9e168d06bc1ff1533a02e26d7d56b6
808c2c8a943855c98ca654e2ec57452930d096bf
51091 F20110114_AACBXP dees_w_Page_034.pro
e1a4fa01cfb413554f21e927e098c6d3
33999ed45dcbbce9b4c4675acb37fc1a3e1abeec
960 F20110114_AACCDK dees_w_Page_080.txt
7ae25888049cdf9ad4642f21e36c8e69
838f95a92a15eb44ec92ff50f45ebef890983631
25582 F20110114_AACBYD dees_w_Page_048.pro
4d4793ff8f5708b304f96ef63a3e6f1a
7f96dafced016a672fa232325b9d69669b94e5ee
1454 F20110114_AACCCV dees_w_Page_062.txt
a591de750c3ac5ac150eca6209d631ee
6f812ea51bc08106e3e2f956b5ede9befc783fab
48749 F20110114_AACBXQ dees_w_Page_035.pro
9b143506c47bec32c5e2f2bd8c33bf3c
50655897a896c9dcd28a0746f5962095ee34e465
2856 F20110114_AACCDL dees_w_Page_081.txt
fbe101d98dc3011de0bf18e6bc61451a
0de03ffd3fbda5a21dd70a0b9a9fe69e64b42a31
46355 F20110114_AACBYE dees_w_Page_050.pro
fbc22ea75e08640f37b175f4740ea1b4
00597d57afb8b755c7919f26fcb008f22c999d59
1764 F20110114_AACCCW dees_w_Page_064.txt
a72e4c5d59d7722c7ca4c00b00b93c0c
7733d1701ff1ffaeaf8977e1388d3a0e811e5d6a
47469 F20110114_AACBXR dees_w_Page_036.pro
bc1e07eefdf805a9c8ad9281c8bb6ed8
4e3d5fc5310ff4d178b1e84003adb988de3ee9a5
2109 F20110114_AACCEA dees_w_Page_096.txt
6b6cf3706e628e4a21fe42bff96baf63
d54ad754b5f4eed0bf450c6b7540297ee17b9dab
52313 F20110114_AACBYF dees_w_Page_051.pro
77b8e21ed20c24fc01eb1acfa18dd476
cabdcd770199d12c2b895906ea565336f1d56193
968 F20110114_AACCCX dees_w_Page_065.txt
fc5a67211b762da15cddce30d0018fdd
f7b4d68b713984785f9e4a4e68b0502ac0e6f63e
52650 F20110114_AACBXS dees_w_Page_037.pro
f41b7c890c5e113832476302126a3387
bc13e5da9d32281a1f65081e06d8aa2d9be7c59e
2118 F20110114_AACCEB dees_w_Page_097.txt
aea7be477887894f1ef051612bba35ca
c946cd3d149ff2c7037ca540209d1d9b87e5050e
1677 F20110114_AACCDM dees_w_Page_082.txt
656a8e32cec671743db271c7f1bd06fc
0b026818b0590a65a9b158f6da36ceb6e0d68d6c
76634 F20110114_AACBYG dees_w_Page_052.pro
298bb720bc879fea7bf39e9f7c1da18d
d0c7187ac9b13d87cb665f87eb38630155a4fe5a
1221 F20110114_AACCCY dees_w_Page_066.txt
3f2c34f0390b335b86b6902ee077ea8d
7eb40849975b8e8228a319cd3469cab3395f050d
49655 F20110114_AACBXT dees_w_Page_038.pro
8398d5c3e06ad051932c52d99f3e1d55
5de73cb9175418130aad06cb19b46365c973085c
2152 F20110114_AACCEC dees_w_Page_098.txt
023463eae2fafa29e4ddf52ceb225a26
59b28f9c6df40bd9762b6b2fe1e1ebc00b390690
2302 F20110114_AACCDN dees_w_Page_083.txt
682b78dedabb17ad59025b659a4dcf8c
ea0c0d9beb4ca7ed7511c40d4f792b72ec89b583
40596 F20110114_AACBYH dees_w_Page_053.pro
698fab09ce4283fb478d589ce863a7ad
008171a8fd139fbbceac619ae85b0e098e675122
1848 F20110114_AACCCZ dees_w_Page_067.txt
e77b2704a1abbee8c106afd0115442bf
dfe41092a2faf35a81351d0f206e1e46dd297d67
50900 F20110114_AACBXU dees_w_Page_039.pro
fc3ab2230e6e7479221bc27153dcea32
c5bfda7ab360ab67fbec6e351894ace75c95e599
2147 F20110114_AACCED dees_w_Page_099.txt
db3733e7780d465f25ecfbfae403ac3a
6bff06e823c53e7b7e867b60652bbe4b4dd45f04
1670 F20110114_AACCDO dees_w_Page_084.txt
49e8f7cdc3848e6f5032c248a22116f7
8c3434b4313983193dcbed08ac2c91f59e12e50a
43690 F20110114_AACBYI dees_w_Page_054.pro
e4b439e184e0f51aa26f539f45492aa6
f91053c952e29c8766b18da712bac43d6e6f0f84
38527 F20110114_AACBXV dees_w_Page_040.pro
c266adb1376add774e202cca5418d12b
1978e29276bdbe0bb8ab997e406a6d78a662614d
2135 F20110114_AACCEE dees_w_Page_100.txt
a067b786d8cc10db2b6ea64351c1c6e3
635f24e39216f6ef57922dcff1ae89ee11716c9f
1500 F20110114_AACCDP dees_w_Page_085.txt
d9ce565249d7559561abb871be271150
ab399a8576e14087ea6dcfff9d0f78e087991cbe
38980 F20110114_AACBYJ dees_w_Page_055.pro
da94f43891220958f99efa273c8b6979
c67dc123dbd260325116db5ccf5e711fce3b2d9d
35194 F20110114_AACBXW dees_w_Page_041.pro
8e8100c7975dfa3dd473f6e663e5a818
d3e683c2e3f19c8e52f90d12d7ddaf02a1ad1702
2110 F20110114_AACCEF dees_w_Page_101.txt
2e1c23b7a23910efb5fb5fde759a0f1f
e59b93e9d6a22080c1d3c3274162f45d0697b431
2733 F20110114_AACCDQ dees_w_Page_086.txt
9a78b62d2250d27db7a7febe2b841828
0b5a7510843bf8499210b21325a2efb79e2024ed
48182 F20110114_AACBYK dees_w_Page_056.pro
9a5979e6a8473b67986a6a6b2c33fd43
75f899c8d364283d789395e781568fc2736de482
49086 F20110114_AACBXX dees_w_Page_042.pro
6b8c81e539ee5d80a40d51e19b54ba2f
5d4cd1f15e7aa22a58088cddcff3de4e838073e3
2126 F20110114_AACCEG dees_w_Page_103.txt
35945801c760e6889be272c2a3aee0a9
404eea96fccf00b8a471038226531f418c53c7a3
18855 F20110114_AACBZA dees_w_Page_076.pro
b877607db28524008d3d771560348e0b
5122e43a4da44e41404b00a32f2450f876d7623d
2785 F20110114_AACCDR dees_w_Page_087.txt
03daa70ab85f50dccc75cc9c6edd7bee
622760c551b198f77fef130eb3fc53a09e2be292
22209 F20110114_AACBYL dees_w_Page_057.pro
c890bbf3352c4991c31948f53b8988b5
aec2e0d265cfd1e81a0db8864145d44c9de426d3
49936 F20110114_AACBXY dees_w_Page_043.pro
341e44bea9a2116e745ba5a7c84bf837
7673075be8c655700a5ae9a4e03bd148ec2785ae
2015 F20110114_AACCEH dees_w_Page_104.txt
06bc40cbcb683f2f16e466412d8b540f
b2b81ddffa2cb0395d1dae534acab67bdac1cccb
26502 F20110114_AACBZB dees_w_Page_077.pro
34373f3442b74cf6a029d984afeed360
d88f988892288c0ba987e4621bd1008de572535c
817 F20110114_AACCDS dees_w_Page_088.txt
28ea2dae11345fbfab38c54d125edcc3
1b7ec871f946e3b783f2af4a076405c887828136
50470 F20110114_AACBYM dees_w_Page_058.pro
88b0e8bc8b1aef5a5556efc875781b87
2f0a4547cc4924eb6e89b5b3fac53aba65c816bb
1962 F20110114_AACCEI dees_w_Page_106.txt
f9d761abbd1379285643f94853123416
40d7ffff7435d8ae9cf31ad24c188f5d41ee2b44
35509 F20110114_AACBZC dees_w_Page_078.pro
7f7b7e5b79a913e1fff0c08c654adba3
ce35243c8bfc68db2578ba0e9d2df8447e7e1b8e
1068 F20110114_AACCDT dees_w_Page_089.txt
5890e85b2b35bbcdba2779eb0ca664a3
042f945535da010cca6693051a47c6b759d8b9e3
35528 F20110114_AACBYN dees_w_Page_060.pro
7f168ecdf4af6d69d18530cd1e1c46c9
c17ab27a02942b574dfee3e2d2326e295aa2df1a
47055 F20110114_AACBXZ dees_w_Page_044.pro
2075cc2f57bdbf2d4b71387c141191e3
36bfba4641c9c9987348748f30daafc7f20626ad
2034 F20110114_AACCEJ dees_w_Page_107.txt
994b4c28e177906eda497f92cb2abddb
d8bf3e1cfdbb3787a4580e85be617c05d46f1767
1405 F20110114_AACCDU dees_w_Page_090.txt
8f6991a3ec35b0631814134638dc35ab
3c868e8051bc7f0ac46350216cf9efe48d408b01
56201 F20110114_AACBYO dees_w_Page_061.pro
cb0414cae2de33371cad4a15602b5f8a
51592b8efc4e7ff66215f87fedf43e9668c35e28
2064 F20110114_AACCEK dees_w_Page_108.txt
70a4248f1548ff5ad9cec2b02794732e
cf70cef8494e9497656f3aca322365da26fc824b
7460 F20110114_AACBZD dees_w_Page_079.pro
2c87284d880696761ad7514ee6327478
b7601ce81bbcf95f956e81aea8b55d81fe4dc29f
658 F20110114_AACCDV dees_w_Page_091.txt
a3b7c48cc6c14a8bda34b56c6349c754
d7033445d1f94d0313f95ecddd408e71686c8fe7
27855 F20110114_AACBYP dees_w_Page_062.pro
9de1c45046d842bae475b373e03c22a9
083da58936a949dd5197c787c4a4be4210864fd3
1964 F20110114_AACCEL dees_w_Page_109.txt
3848d59b34af6ca3186bc0348efdb274
baddc8e2d645604e613e0bb7e416c8e25c6f9ba8
23253 F20110114_AACBZE dees_w_Page_080.pro
9eb779dd2026db5ef5a4bf70fb7c71e0
f2ef1f9dc3d65ea4a5d76d71c45342a2e8522c6b
2140 F20110114_AACCDW dees_w_Page_092.txt
670a3e793ae90ecb3f90d3c83eacb97a
fa309f9c0dae8910e161a9d2f40948bd7e2505dc
54303 F20110114_AACBYQ dees_w_Page_063.pro
a68f72b72214ff6717f2e958c2023a18
eb74d2d48af38449ea0d0b8b66df1fba75027997
F20110114_AACCEM dees_w_Page_110.txt
39a00b3ec5757cf221b37e57c385e06f
4f5fdc979459954ac000cfc263ad2f0dd7097c26
49564 F20110114_AACBZF dees_w_Page_081.pro
eb428df334b0096492af8fff1dfc9398
86649446f993630b658f6dc6162ea565db0cf712
1863 F20110114_AACCDX dees_w_Page_093.txt
489856c42a86dc335fdc85caa3deac4b
f8b96c82ca5bc9e216f032e4af09e20a33bfef11
35876 F20110114_AACBYR dees_w_Page_064.pro
261e6a6ab9bcfccf39ce65078b19699a
1fe0b76176fa78361287ea313dab38b40574439b
2314 F20110114_AACCFA dees_w_Page_126.txt
58ed9c4578cd43d6824c666aab4a55da
91dd65a118a7df578f12b875b730e98336ce7476
41443 F20110114_AACBZG dees_w_Page_082.pro
d436e3dc6e498657cf807542171d7e23
774c86b8de595068d7b7fec9b92d48bea145910d
1528 F20110114_AACCDY dees_w_Page_094.txt
fb619aebeb9dcd4f11def2951e49fad9
eff9ee9c3bc88b9bfb5e521e18dffaf1a619c567
24226 F20110114_AACBYS dees_w_Page_065.pro
86c7060a012bba37c6f738a2c2f1ca56
d8365d00ca16e336efbf06e99f51399da5c374c7
2243 F20110114_AACCFB dees_w_Page_127.txt
284a4dfc396d914b3894314ba3766ab5
1972504718914a1f363825a90374fbb1a748186f
60 F20110114_AACCEN dees_w_Page_111.txt
a066218243fb2506c50baaaea52b9b64
a4bbbccc5eaca980a634f1abbf2415d95f1892d8
44199 F20110114_AACBZH dees_w_Page_083.pro
850f0755ed47d9696a30f2fabbf3bd8a
09ecad35ce491f597dacd139b6b81810c6ee1e30
F20110114_AACCDZ dees_w_Page_095.txt
4d04a6c327a0a09168bbe586162391ad
a46cd51ea237678a8774ec1b6606e9166ee1bafb
24073 F20110114_AACBYT dees_w_Page_066.pro
e9b5263180bd7b46fff77c20dbbde9ef
ca24364a0d8475ac16c75e5fe035316549024250
497 F20110114_AACCFC dees_w_Page_129.txt
e9410740c850a79ce92b6c50c4093e8d
03170dc803b98c0642308b98f9645d37785946c7
2872 F20110114_AACCEO dees_w_Page_112.txt
b4743aa5419b498f7b41ee449a2405c1
b6b5e7014d3fa91822de5a69315ea4c29f32865c
33282 F20110114_AACBZI dees_w_Page_084.pro
3d2974796e394b18ada228b9fd81d8fd
ee6d5434bc39f057fdf8daae0a1712fad5f22499
52155 F20110114_AACBYU dees_w_Page_068.pro
8e27527e55d641d971860bab6c4b7ab7
7686f87f9f5a4440317660a899686a4fddfd07e9
941131 F20110114_AACCFD dees_w.pdf
c48703947fe2a4526fb7a5775d77587c
3149d60001a2e0ccad1009c3c382afd95fe7845e
F20110114_AACCEP dees_w_Page_113.txt
b16c7968e3a4e639e130bbbf0f7ccee8
20cf62f14c6ec7ce77d6d558f271bec0ef956fa4
29680 F20110114_AACBZJ dees_w_Page_085.pro
08d320877ca0f8537a8f30bb28f296f6
80c46befef04967e7edc03be44e47f9afc4b5b3a
12640 F20110114_AACBYV dees_w_Page_069.pro
b28d198c0c7ae8cdc8134423f398cc83
2c8cb38e4ed832a281b0496bf81081a04c2da9d7
12171 F20110114_AACCFE dees_w_Page_119.QC.jpg
f90295252f3dfc5d48cfaf20a9dcfd07
9efc093fcc0a549ed35fad5c0cd68cec96733a7f
F20110114_AACCEQ dees_w_Page_114.txt
e5a80ec78e5855342b448e5c8b7b1703
d01ea9aeade11aadecfe6a05e1647f68492bc3ea
48780 F20110114_AACBZK dees_w_Page_086.pro
40611971c861ebecd75d3ba9cc2093bc
2141fc9ed9fec56d7df160544ada165f2462e1b8
36625 F20110114_AACBYW dees_w_Page_070.pro
da5575d321afb88abf486ba551522b71
93c4aac63f4b207a6706e224df98f1eeb2b9be25
6828 F20110114_AACCFF dees_w_Page_127thm.jpg
036d8870534fb4ae327dddc969201581
6636c8ade038a121ba7f7f4acd49d8e643209680
62 F20110114_AACCER dees_w_Page_115.txt
c17c9020ccce944f826b0fd36ec268c3
23807a08337f448f9d388b424e9a5568a5de4664
19999 F20110114_AACBZL dees_w_Page_088.pro
432a6b134ada7626b05958c8edddbe0c
9f5a6c0836b6687df6aa003f87530364e5ce6285
58128 F20110114_AACBYX dees_w_Page_071.pro
b36f84592f38acf117faaf2a4395c0e4
3b76be3addc520a6247a34d2b0f55ff4fa84e97d
23941 F20110114_AACCFG dees_w_Page_034.QC.jpg
bd241e585ef245ed5c8e99773c6ece3f
258e8ae029547d8748419bf034f1e493908b189f
729 F20110114_AACCES dees_w_Page_116.txt
923a75e59bb0e73aa633aa0ed7e5ab64
178d70f57e4537b761516fb159f88757b0f955cd
18386 F20110114_AACBZM dees_w_Page_089.pro
bac21ce9d68d0bab2ffcc6f0d55e5eaf
256da7df7a62581124bdca46011786109240b62c
44168 F20110114_AACBYY dees_w_Page_073.pro
acee64b28ff88188cfc815a6e2b8776a
373758219e8fa497453789b181c050854fe50b6c
1365 F20110114_AACCFH dees_w_Page_120thm.jpg
c898def8ac8d7f5ec7f7211c02006141
d539bc0a7f841cb9bb773c4df53c2917cad1cfcb
3742 F20110114_AACCET dees_w_Page_118.txt
7d79d24ce4d092342825401b3b71d18f
f38598365ea05f1ddb268aa64fb8b55630d242b6
24774 F20110114_AACBZN dees_w_Page_090.pro
27dd3f627039e786d7840a514e6d8f03
7d7621f686849410fe31f494c8980100067a579b
44060 F20110114_AACBYZ dees_w_Page_075.pro
f89b916472f139256ca8b4643529ef77
73568700b022d49be1048500adb9e8b6eb9655cf
11832 F20110114_AACCFI dees_w_Page_057.QC.jpg
e990ed82eab469004a36a8ee29373a54
8dddf1c479b1b9d1c26282f1bf5bec3cdfc7931b
2404 F20110114_AACCEU dees_w_Page_119.txt
047005d671a1fd12539638f0bc704603
ce1708f6e668b40e08c596161036cecb814040e6
26906 F20110114_AACBZO dees_w_Page_093.pro
5e084d2558a376571f82a02fcc43f0b2
7fee16fcddb088d531cca2f73dd925b03190f5ca
4209 F20110114_AACCFJ dees_w_Page_005thm.jpg
3512a2a5487268cac115b1fb057007c7
4fc0523992593b262e01c277b8f50bbb2c19316c
70 F20110114_AACCEV dees_w_Page_120.txt
1dee6e1ba9c57032feee4db56975e1d6
eca36a60bff6703bf217e550064ac6f1202e5008
35741 F20110114_AACBZP dees_w_Page_094.pro
24d35e6498b9dbfaf6cebea498d8ac05
0cf8f798f9f391756c3434a21f16f4832741bca2
24438 F20110114_AACCFK dees_w_Page_063.QC.jpg
1bb05e29afba0d4709498738f6811cf0
b6794117e48c42c3c08e9c545213552e86348127
49908 F20110114_AACBZQ dees_w_Page_095.pro
f7ac7abab9d015915b4b6404cf7a8191
5cd93e125f4d94d417225feafe61a45c1e8d89c7
3374 F20110114_AACCFL dees_w_Page_112thm.jpg
2712687f71f05b9e5086a5a553f4c99f
538d417b4dcaac5f4872a5ea7adc3850b63aa832
838 F20110114_AACCEW dees_w_Page_121.txt
9d9ab5acebda39d59ab7c1c9f708483b
3991b0612a5a32d38bc245a9b5d6eac00f655f5d
53127 F20110114_AACBZR dees_w_Page_096.pro
0e8d049b09ab7b423dec8cc034a150a0
42624da3dce21f01ef80e871d4db7f25e6ba44d8
3322 F20110114_AACCGA dees_w_Page_116thm.jpg
dee7ee93756e8a5e941594f62214cb4e
a5ebe1c2ca7f8eae476cd248f3c34364193b9fd4
6799 F20110114_AACCFM dees_w_Page_047thm.jpg
968848973d0b58394333357389e5cb85
0e8d3321b8d5ca435bc0aa5cdb08e44dcf21566b
1959 F20110114_AACCEX dees_w_Page_122.txt
5c3939a8b22cd01aa1855aefe3c5cad0
43a6bdfa140b1768f873d2e4ffd44e5151f7e4f4
53333 F20110114_AACBZS dees_w_Page_097.pro
6ab0d3028bbc59a34d4b4ec5ae38aeef
99de4d69572b5d926d79198638b5700c64fe1763
11384 F20110114_AACCGB dees_w_Page_084.QC.jpg
7305c23b4c3a1cf3bd145b79b2de66c3
7dd02b502ca357a55e313dcbeb7f3522817e9aaa
22614 F20110114_AACCFN dees_w_Page_031.QC.jpg
ae3114dc082dacf9379b311f3c460f7b
1de7a513fea6fb65c593f5b1f9e41cbcc4aabb67
2368 F20110114_AACCEY dees_w_Page_123.txt
da570c6c7522295c5e7821588fc113ee
1de0a76f080b348a32dde9d9ee03322ddaf166d8
54125 F20110114_AACBZT dees_w_Page_098.pro
b33cdfd73447c0852abbaa13e3b08580
ecffc72ce95af20b3c002bec976c9cd68fd4b4d5
6311 F20110114_AACCGC dees_w_Page_114thm.jpg
cf9d15c17c6a92e1a8813678f276fbc5
8b55095c9aad536246587d7f10d0d72b6f28a4fd
2331 F20110114_AACCEZ dees_w_Page_125.txt
d104ba99f335079494b4490edaf73f6e
9fa932d4516f3fa40c4b6650d0c193a52f07c02b
53938 F20110114_AACBZU dees_w_Page_099.pro
501d07fe888b353889c3cd261b7ef81e
f7c882f953b3919b72e8011fd350f2eb911af230
6673 F20110114_AACCGD dees_w_Page_006thm.jpg
20a4994c37ca7033b9bc74aa38454cdf
a5f6e5a4a9b5be0aa9f5e44b3d34e1ba60984813
6749 F20110114_AACCFO dees_w_Page_100thm.jpg
51a3b9e8999fc9360ad49e277fc9c2e7
9dcd4b5f2d642aa53cec6c6ebd513fb7544f9994
53524 F20110114_AACBZV dees_w_Page_100.pro
a6de39d52124e5d08e8fa0295862bd69
e5df0ef8998f17e49ad5d8741407620cf8ed2dfc
20522 F20110114_AACCGE dees_w_Page_082.QC.jpg
e729ccc73ced20a458f68c1413c96317
9e09c75cbda050876b7f9fea3c55b4640dfc906c
3234 F20110114_AACCFP dees_w_Page_117thm.jpg
46c5360bd42dba99da99cf6097f100e4
76b6076635207ac640663b3d2d62cdefa746bd51
53354 F20110114_AACBZW dees_w_Page_101.pro
e1a086f4833a29ebc16822ffd92d40a4
bec2865752c9bae982943fa50ef387096803f6db
3785 F20110114_AACCGF dees_w_Page_089thm.jpg
fc34e40b4f0d0408f4a7b114fa7f6efc
2f270fbead5a85717f0c113cf5c65b96e59df726
5376 F20110114_AACCFQ dees_w_Page_004.QC.jpg
f600b62cb01bed78abd2f7c1bf96c4e7
93cca854fa58be6ce267715e77be3984cef9286d
50931 F20110114_AACBZX dees_w_Page_102.pro
bd23cb9c7af1a38c6c050298ea9bb920
59487dbaa520c8e7c6670e895daf37ec83fb900a
10805 F20110114_AACCGG dees_w_Page_076.QC.jpg
64af89115e2f5b0130d5ed4273ea4235
388576eb06881f89a878e338017dab2bebeef615
6384 F20110114_AACCFR dees_w_Page_110thm.jpg
800f241d7d7ec0111ab5e327b7e81ced
565c21326c563bcffd744cec5a413661b421e8dc
53331 F20110114_AACBZY dees_w_Page_103.pro
9cf168ec7f2d9536af0e0a15cd95722c
bd28bfbb5ff1ffc9b5feaa4461c72c363c113008
10558 F20110114_AACCGH dees_w_Page_116.QC.jpg
eb8844194646206ecd7d26bb91d24c62
193bba354525409a7c95a2e5de6e74ad66a7c9c3
23886 F20110114_AACCFS dees_w_Page_102.QC.jpg
b8b4102df95ed5de37f501fd23776fe6
03b58b17006516291543188474fa02d22f302d95
50209 F20110114_AACBZZ dees_w_Page_104.pro
99a8910482d9b4ea3888ba2f0706c769
b23c92cbd63148ffc8741c2b328548e4b2f50ea6
5922 F20110114_AACCGI dees_w_Page_124thm.jpg
c49a9ddfe44b513c84150f0f2f87fa1b
f6c6620e9fccc123f7272f2f7719a270dc3dd315
12469 F20110114_AACCFT dees_w_Page_078.QC.jpg
d0373ce267833fd683a57014487856af
a02a91e156b19bd0711be4dd2d491903b0384c11
6244 F20110114_AACCGJ dees_w_Page_036thm.jpg
72707482dee472280328f96c35eb23b7
4928310b3f90e4a031cfacf838eab8a110a8c76c
24726 F20110114_AACCFU dees_w_Page_096.QC.jpg
82b9468b740797e894e05696adb24420
a38c18abed2a779cd160e5f2982f6a927e0b43ee
23580 F20110114_AACCGK dees_w_Page_095.QC.jpg
2c67e24259b0a25b3ad5ab33ac6757ed
920801372c9b9d9fd788b5ac81be1220c2e15624
2332 F20110114_AACCFV dees_w_Page_062thm.jpg
20a44a2edc431cf6b7b3c6b9e9a9d26d
eff29841c0eae43c34830357c3401568ba065ec3
3777 F20110114_AACCGL dees_w_Page_118thm.jpg
d08eb09ae296d86123ffb3f51a3af919
db7dd3a7f07be387c5cc5e4ca2665d4a461ccc66
3636 F20110114_AACCFW dees_w_Page_080thm.jpg
7cc30e2c90ae480be55ee5dd4f90cd23
a5a880b4e5a09a7adfed7138b09d8890d8ef7960
6481 F20110114_AACCGM dees_w_Page_035thm.jpg
adac42e4400ea218ce9886b3747fc89a
7537e07cac93858b370dc6b309bc0ef43769e40a
3612 F20110114_AACCFX dees_w_Page_078thm.jpg
84dc7ac304c65bafbcde4100718de371
a810503e8dd5fbf5d08920afa9016e4cc3b47a4d
6572 F20110114_AACCHA dees_w_Page_102thm.jpg
004604675a0bba294f0046f29117d76d
4415e428b50fd1fbf0ce7915b6a67f41650cadf7
25230 F20110114_AACCGN dees_w_Page_099.QC.jpg
e7732dd063426eec2facf0117d34fcd8
ce63f61469d69aba13de485c051cf69b352af8db
5040 F20110114_AACCFY dees_w_Page_020thm.jpg
fcdc0b44a01244c36d15a6c4861135ae
de70b78f7a56f74f7f39eb8ae5b925f2596261f4
1362 F20110114_AACCHB dees_w_Page_002thm.jpg
4b9e1881fe37f04611f677ed61d5a1a9
90743cc3441099bd53e62178b928246fc0e30169
8628 F20110114_AACCGO dees_w_Page_060.QC.jpg
5ab95d817fdc03a95a8e732ea19b0544
07f4db41349e9dee509673418d874a21f3930f76
5058 F20110114_AACCFZ dees_w_Page_067thm.jpg
feb02e9407b99933faf35760adb2d634
4b586768696ea3723232fa69b483b4e7389b7361
24682 F20110114_AACCHC dees_w_Page_028.QC.jpg
5da90d7cc9578d7858128adcb98f259d
6b135a927f43a991e6bbbd4c03444e77fd6146d7
6645 F20110114_AACCHD dees_w_Page_123thm.jpg
2f54418273c482040c45dd8c529f7b2d
f3f8c60cba2a070d62afdbb9663240091f8b660a
9679 F20110114_AACCGP dees_w_Page_061.QC.jpg
35fdffb342d1aed1009c2745ec0cb08c
69c56ac35689d819e0bcc4202cc23e7db9aeff6e
3834 F20110114_AACCHE dees_w_Page_049thm.jpg
a7862da9d008f5428684e662e3e51812
44a6bd5ac0fea57a3bdd8c9a7aace86085f99541
6856 F20110114_AACCGQ dees_w_Page_039thm.jpg
0e0980e4aed824aa25b81c9f62276802
b8d7315e18b852665248aca81d4bee7db2def5cf
19714 F20110114_AACCHF dees_w_Page_050.QC.jpg
874b17a64d30fe69c80203fc75d5535d
0b07cfc5d2099765edabdaefa0275f1b6d09765c
5006 F20110114_AACCGR dees_w_Page_094thm.jpg
4ff687e2f1ac390f5efcc424c162422b
3d2bc8758bea8096c649d71d811e6d0f18633ade
6410 F20110114_AACCHG dees_w_Page_030thm.jpg
297663414629b7b7efea0e1c7dcc6eb5
92cb6d22df15d1909a96ab6a73116182b4758123
1721 F20110114_AACCGS dees_w_Page_022thm.jpg
42a5d34dfc1fc268e3188c265780e235
8e9038789fcb9cee8719aa39cf64ea6f255eceb2
7115 F20110114_AACCHH dees_w_Page_037thm.jpg
397c902a319b3f8086aac39ad7168de5
518c3d058fb34e4677574d7b7e2dc73521a66fe8
13435 F20110114_AACCGT dees_w_Page_075.QC.jpg
90f12d5ab57ea6050362e3ba56126f25
4d51ddf18b4c0754e2449bcf6cc1c459d682ea9b
20080 F20110114_AACCHI dees_w_Page_087.QC.jpg
1975be262ef03c0095ca2a66ea36bcad
d9f7c827e77e6b76d60ad21a1c4ebc8a7580f0d8
4711 F20110114_AACCGU dees_w_Page_022.QC.jpg
6f1f4c331bb9d2dc9ffd8a07ee313469
4b160f69e88d061c98c34f25ee6d8665bd4a8b0d
20446 F20110114_AACCHJ dees_w_Page_086.QC.jpg
9c9b0dac15f7fd5409b872ace4ca0927
e47fe5b8b0970c27446b60eb80c3c431b17dc9a8
5301 F20110114_AACCGV dees_w_Page_055thm.jpg
963f53e23767bc3bd46301e801e2f5b6
c1f235a3d6ff5e84f1eef80b08b1528b2ac73894
6339 F20110114_AACCHK dees_w_Page_032thm.jpg
5b0effc681bc1644ed6fc12c17454966
f39edcbb438cd7c87948205dac45b36838b27e1a
6628 F20110114_AACCGW dees_w_Page_034thm.jpg
edc7eec22885024a696270823845bc72
83e070e6aab39adb0ab0562e0363796f1b7ff2cc
6669 F20110114_AACCHL dees_w_Page_043thm.jpg
89670f740dc398889d0750941b739ca3
3b73e134d76600236de1badf0755157e2c591f39
2576 F20110114_AACCGX dees_w_Page_129thm.jpg
df769ee33db6a07b60bfce145ebd947a
e4a65cffe061e2827b2381fc36c0a6d4e053223c
5381 F20110114_AACCIA dees_w_Page_059thm.jpg
22211c08731548bf6d982066777ac55c
528e7424a43999963191b27245c8a391744d4ec8
20684 F20110114_AACCHM dees_w_Page_122.QC.jpg
87907818c3247178d947a041c78c7fc7
1b664362544e62ea2c685ea67825813eb05915ea
7155 F20110114_AACCGY dees_w_Page_097thm.jpg
a9c5588ee506baafc8df5682a68215ae
eb45725e1db1f77a4aa76b42b2a40fb39051c5bc
20066 F20110114_AACCIB dees_w_Page_053.QC.jpg
87a2a0b22146c93e403567e91f895643
b53ecb4dd0aaeb2a50c1630e89ae69e153879d5d
6400 F20110114_AACCHN dees_w_Page_083thm.jpg
a8db61886fde9aedf4282fe42a414d22
d208801510d60c33bd86add78afcd3e7f393d425
6337 F20110114_AACCGZ dees_w_Page_029thm.jpg
3641e0e727c65a6edc7d2d8880ccbb5e
e57884493cd6919593d7e25bd988ac3e9d892c76
F20110114_AACBFA dees_w_Page_105.tif
28ef4ce0b24f7d43e67fc3b8c7bcab7e
f89f16b39df34f037e2bed8044b94b9e606e5f13
17616 F20110114_AACCIC dees_w_Page_094.QC.jpg
ccb2a06538121b7818db721884c4e7f7
6152f89c71448304a8c041d33143691db68f52eb
24386 F20110114_AACCHO dees_w_Page_038.QC.jpg
f34d16a20e2c0421a7b3e6426c034bb4
2236cda932a8731842aa5f1ecf239a9886c751e1
F20110114_AACBFB dees_w_Page_092.tif
540752b04d7216bd5e1122eda7f93f0a
a3ec75af81703045caccdc93577d98a73d9beae9
22736 F20110114_AACCID dees_w_Page_032.QC.jpg
8d9bda2f0ae1727fc169b586882e22ba
345d2e71b11f89da4134ba8399ba6a89be6927a5
24269 F20110114_AACCHP dees_w_Page_027.QC.jpg
ee7409033b1b16e7d6eac25280932276
29fa69a05de5c13a16e7fb9302d2d9d2facb5c50
23555 F20110114_AACBFC dees_w_Page_029.QC.jpg
b1e01cd6715f8a4410227e0c2ce9bad8
400d8a184472f087842c530b17fbe94590b8c0c4
7815 F20110114_AACCIE dees_w_Page_129.QC.jpg
d0205d7432e4da4c688166b4bb46e4e8
d60497ff1f18b2b9eeba8bcc32c3306098bca42e
115962 F20110114_AACBFD dees_w_Page_103.jp2
71f47e0b06ed97b579813798ba30e37c
346f62595517b695c992efce73a2fe8d07979b7b
24175 F20110114_AACCIF dees_w_Page_047.QC.jpg
f6ec6be9a3b5c5dbc523ab18c3a59b26
3d9c3611a3be63b47a8ae6abdeca8506f7bac837
6772 F20110114_AACCHQ dees_w_Page_024thm.jpg
7d239e5946a4db34619f8bcd33f5d8e6
f21c2437af9594430a3022c2eb43a0d944c44dd6
17532 F20110114_AACBFE dees_w_Page_011.QC.jpg
8da16baf2e47c4750ba207bde34f05b5
3a45bb7cebcfc3d3f01e3c5b3d65e7aed190d9f3
20817 F20110114_AACCIG dees_w_Page_018.QC.jpg
37f63d923afe57c4b7d4c9b30952d489
1ba8cc4aedf8ba68c7130000c56d08e9901570b2
2489 F20110114_AACCHR dees_w_Page_069thm.jpg
11f9fdf87b936c60d8b9a45d66e0bfef
42880a80ebb1cfd0f3b1462f7d2388c72878378b
F20110114_AACBFF dees_w_Page_101.tif
de544c45eb0d0e039ef7e06e42ec5d7d
3ffef76c312f3e6c809fb83a3f4157cd6a8eca22
21770 F20110114_AACCIH dees_w_Page_110.QC.jpg
0b05ce3c5cf23cd822cb5cfd5f71614f
351b019f9aebe489ce6d8b2cc21b100d6df278f7
25099 F20110114_AACCHS dees_w_Page_101.QC.jpg
c1685477ab2977aaee62d7a60cb1a98e
d20be01e21362cdcfbb2e0c16fa77fe22968e1e6
86723 F20110114_AACBFG dees_w_Page_059.jp2
d54f22e2f803d17712eefc38886ac19c
9518b04290a540d30a366a040c76381358dde713
25638 F20110114_AACCII dees_w_Page_017.QC.jpg
ccc457b597190edd5c01f2acf23f5319
be938f2cb1bdb3763a4124e81f66f7d58f27057c
3726 F20110114_AACCHT dees_w_Page_075thm.jpg
184bb3907cf9d05285871c877431cf0d
e4fa44936cd0ff445a913def636a4cee6c0f712a
39513 F20110114_AACBFH dees_w_Page_080.jpg
1987f5750d9d3a29f7cb89d3973cd6ef
6fbebbbcd6717389dea2e2bf09310cfb3e6c9dc0
23832 F20110114_AACCIJ dees_w_Page_083.QC.jpg
2f85b92812b2e110798d91b1c94f1706
8d041f346a77b55255bcd7ae0f717f028e1cc042
6651 F20110114_AACCHU dees_w_Page_025thm.jpg
404637878eba916f6db0687042713c83
554aea3a240c08e9326959f1efc23d650f05aaa2
1051975 F20110114_AACBFI dees_w_Page_008.jp2
6c8ed289173853b15c8e06135bd6c3cb
d31d0e4c7e2f4247ff62a78e9a0e08073f4f6500
5643 F20110114_AACCIK dees_w_Page_082thm.jpg
4dda0a130b7e83469828c64c602389ca
3db93f822a92391dcb40c13845129cfdbd13ca6d
3331 F20110114_AACBET dees_w_Page_119thm.jpg
64f53be8f7963f9e99c66516e3e25eb6
37056248929cc18bdce223d8efa5d7e1961a4fd0
17668 F20110114_AACCHV dees_w_Page_041.QC.jpg
a57ddfb26d2ad1b27ede0c2bad695a79
55ef5600068c55fb63b1076fdc7169af5ebf3e03
50512 F20110114_AACBFJ dees_w_Page_029.pro
1e3dfdb91ad3049bd8b7e11861ab7224
9ee5a1fdc1bb3f2dedfcfd87947c3e5daa0aea4a
23161 F20110114_AACCIL dees_w_Page_126.QC.jpg
d85d06ad9c42fe0dfe659074cc291111
b4ec87a5c13c80c1d01a93aff11bce90cf565852
F20110114_AACBEU dees_w_Page_097.tif
a01412d035b85e300aa70046ea67178c
3b6bf15a01c2083696a81af91ca302b5df4e557b
5089 F20110114_AACCHW dees_w_Page_008thm.jpg
09ca5206571a2b7e53fa997a0463b9f0
3b6bb795852c45134e48b872a9b1b15195b145b2
8023 F20110114_AACCJA dees_w_Page_069.QC.jpg
1511db07efedec1a02f83c1404ce61ba
9472f427154f443d9b8a7b54fb546138087780e5
102139 F20110114_AACBFK dees_w_Page_110.jp2
d5d8602fbf6bae38579c0725635b3dfd
f1b93956943fa5ccb07416a1da128c7f02764646
6876 F20110114_AACCIM dees_w_Page_027thm.jpg
d39ad9c00443d58d3c9f5dcbb110cb5c
1d5555beab8db2e1c5fc9ef51253d1fc4271b7e5
39233 F20110114_AACBEV dees_w_Page_092.pro
b0f5f02a5ddf93d3f22b89c75cfc96d3
06bd3976317c6c683b4209dcb3ad2149c5560b80
12207 F20110114_AACCHX dees_w_Page_049.QC.jpg
c8e6f254e8de29a6f9b857933f1804f4
65a781df41af76567a616435598c83709f302cac
7000 F20110114_AACCJB dees_w_Page_096thm.jpg
afa1f506f518fae5bd82bcd3735ca528
d13526b999e697f707124fac899784fb1bc0734c
2999 F20110114_AACBFL dees_w_Page_052.txt
a45fb3d9b44f3b8cd24c9658e8270215
f8bb0d62c7cf818a9e9653d166a5863f1230d054
20085 F20110114_AACCIN dees_w_Page_015.QC.jpg
4e73cbc48c1af96015c8b6da9b702186
cb6d13e8478e77d8f563ab9b23581942e5051c3e
10151 F20110114_AACBEW dees_w_Page_002.jpg
75c909c91e658479f338ee74e813cc8b
cca3d2ef8ba65f8eff6582c77806318f37d0d71a
6867 F20110114_AACCHY dees_w_Page_028thm.jpg
5f92ed5c28a6321df48e34330e8ca05f
4d862eef190181775a985e98776b79e0676f6a7a
5042 F20110114_AACCJC dees_w_Page_077thm.jpg
e8c3f0e4b7db20a13320c57771251355
e390de1db6147da163ebe70800a340892eb4435c
18782 F20110114_AACBGA dees_w_Page_055.QC.jpg
dc8f8ef274060a2f29f1af06b915b420
633b46d93a4ca6d4c9d869345648972773f1c68e
48669 F20110114_AACBFM dees_w_Page_087.pro
1da93f48884e6c59e460867775b987ec
871f6fe424c201daa8e760b00a649085b267be7c
10125 F20110114_AACCIO dees_w_Page_117.QC.jpg
04590ed5cb4b12c0c7ca882d8b9c8df6
794dfc0a4ae9a7fa7583cf9df306db6a3da2cbb2
1309 F20110114_AACBEX dees_w_Page_115thm.jpg
fbde8a99b11ce5449f39fdb7a2ed5bf7
1d12a95631119f983a35e13a87e5440d5e2fd5be
16445 F20110114_AACCHZ dees_w_Page_005.QC.jpg
381ad88d4a8a6471472eb081db064e86
19e0cdd00517adf11049999eb61d149e9f62f4d7
11310 F20110114_AACCJD dees_w_Page_088.QC.jpg
3236c5feb75abf880538f04b06cefe9f
6d236547955336bbeb216475231ce94882575107
5944 F20110114_AACBGB dees_w_Page_013thm.jpg
a566e252d27e3c48128dd62344ae8589
d1baefd4ae18e5c53513cac48fe9a05f162d62dd
74479 F20110114_AACBFN dees_w_Page_063.jpg
c9287d4f433d5395243e9b398c259f43
5259cbbb77b250b8144fb51035b22a71dab4dd15
22679 F20110114_AACCIP dees_w_Page_073.QC.jpg
844148f4992854b8ee37513c435456ea
f0d438d021922e8cdee5235ea115155228a604bf
5890 F20110114_AACBEY dees_w_Page_015thm.jpg
fa7a067de8b6a9f11f653398dded4a94
eb218fd3f32a1c789fb1e45c9ed38fc4ca067d1d
4870 F20110114_AACCJE dees_w_Page_056thm.jpg
a89a42ac0611bfb054817da4b63ca133
a39ab29b3cd07165a135adac7eb6811b60d8aa2c
18913 F20110114_AACBGC dees_w_Page_049.pro
0c2ab71379e8b9c84f7e590634890be9
c6e0b7899efcc08a40eafb7e5a532d830d8da871
93069 F20110114_AACBFO dees_w_Page_082.jp2
27b7f3761998d7c4d4a80268aef7cc11
5c209def11267d8539a912d8be3a1a292e77c039
8677 F20110114_AACCIQ dees_w_Page_009.QC.jpg
298d1783f4995b0c1c41ae2622897633
faf7993c47772b82362e678a0b85d887349298e0
F20110114_AACBEZ dees_w_Page_016.tif
71e3ab9c3005b6db0f428969787bf5df
c1f582a1a2dca4ec16a4f9d3d4975bad900bb358
25267 F20110114_AACCJF dees_w_Page_037.QC.jpg
e60cdea4fb821ee0ed17a4d5b0f8af35
3e9ff95a0b14795d72ff4004b3bef661ead85a08
2098 F20110114_AACBGD dees_w_Page_124.txt
4129f1798410f38fb7e3eb1c4a6380f3
ff4b89d997e7098dc768ff0edd0ee3c53762e031
5373 F20110114_AACCJG dees_w_Page_087thm.jpg
0b48aea56387ba0f9a7b94a7c3b63afc
db9e3b119b8a6ec27762dbd64610069b3d93b614
3714 F20110114_AACBGE dees_w_Page_066thm.jpg
b2f1bb75eade2c674247040fa9a42ba7
6a8af127f94a800b602cb7ae1cd810202d0eb8cd
69020 F20110114_AACBFP dees_w_Page_109.jpg
cd5e9f194a8015845638d7560b857861
185bb8375a6e1441990caa0272722f2d6209e0fa
4827 F20110114_AACCIR dees_w_Page_012.QC.jpg
3a7235d706c4ff11541e277524d42a23
5fc44993d75861c930adeb217e6e08fa9e78fed9
6089 F20110114_AACCJH dees_w_Page_007thm.jpg
0b05ae04be52c3a939663e8ad887fed3
e85f2fd869050f8608ed782a9467347b99e98672
1210 F20110114_AACBGF dees_w_Page_120.pro
8d5aa922bd14663d09bddfeeaa3fb83f
cd553ae9c849f4f3a1573cb8f8734af205bc24a8
67428 F20110114_AACBFQ dees_w_Page_036.jpg
0d38c7f329e106ef574370ce946dfcd3
bbd2ec7e372b91bbbd7af8a2584fda74dbaf4fb6
24842 F20110114_AACCIS dees_w_Page_039.QC.jpg
0be81324553f3344a91796d2772a3f18
29c873126f8d0196c93348ddf0110dabcc5df476
11308 F20110114_AACCJI dees_w_Page_112.QC.jpg
f9e33326c7528bc047796efc0723aa37
10d3bdbbf66a2704211785dd40ec60db7a3a2661
104779 F20110114_AACBGG dees_w_Page_122.jp2
2be1df40c6b804e1351e3082fed8d38a
2c471e6e8f9579af10f21accd35429b5e131177d
25373 F20110114_AACBFR dees_w_Page_001.jp2
8b58e57d9b887f6367bfb27e5a1bad09
8e4e2e0c8f8b17affbe89370b5c5daef82d5461d
22689 F20110114_AACCIT dees_w_Page_106.QC.jpg
e5244078157b5815e5e785473576d8e2
0b57e258d52040735ddba4f541604c3aa116cfe1
21740 F20110114_AACCJJ dees_w_Page_014.QC.jpg
f598f874551c3a2914e826e9cb732ad6
00fd43f8e9ad7858365e153bd080259231115033
11471 F20110114_AACBGH dees_w_Page_093.QC.jpg
8b6e2d4eefa151f63f2182f4dfdf57cb
6d0beda51b2e9cfda5dabcafd571c7db31e921db
2048 F20110114_AACBFS dees_w_Page_034.txt
376b3d41b727648b9746625549bec150
11c7a92c830ceb32c8e7aa03328297517bfb23a4
23542 F20110114_AACCIU dees_w_Page_104.QC.jpg
abbfebd98c3ac6ab0d5b559836f18153
28be74ee26f16aa04813646c0efcfd199c6276bd
23681 F20110114_AACCJK dees_w_Page_107.QC.jpg
efda5638ab9acf8f17f29c4aabfb689c
d661ba8fb4381791b97ec57d5c5bd5e3b88c2f6c
9105 F20110114_AACBGI dees_w_Page_091.QC.jpg
9dcb4423aae0bffa5688285a5ce668fe
dd56d41e62acd9defebfe1c94cd01fa606d36565
2033 F20110114_AACBFT dees_w_Page_102.txt
8ad3a2bb65bb3a897d57b32d7b6cf50d
90a97c80f471c24e45db0f148edf5c7ee18cb48f
6941 F20110114_AACCIV dees_w_Page_016thm.jpg
11dc472198bab2e7853187649fe85b3e
955801ac7be857abf21684404dfdf49446094289
22787 F20110114_AACCJL dees_w_Page_042.QC.jpg
62f3b2fd417912d5f5cbea63684a7487
13eb2441e6a3d36f2a5e5f53f055ded70c8ba321
36747 F20110114_AACBFU dees_w_Page_023.pro
f32691a91bd396a6b96c992d9b223dec
13fca94451cae57a99bcda191c5db334faddf1f2
1906 F20110114_AACCIW dees_w_Page_010thm.jpg
ac8c5c0433b3be7ccf652a5528eaafa3
8e5987083a749e7303af46166ee8c16d06f810c5
F20110114_AACBGJ dees_w_Page_032.tif
504d558f138e5d17533ef38749239605
de4a4c99b2ec30c83eb1ee47f610dd3df26aac62
1746 F20110114_AACCKA dees_w_Page_012thm.jpg
3499395cb67a5e653b8f2a5ecfc23430
7c87189cddf26323524271f86972cbdde4eb571e
6297 F20110114_AACCJM dees_w_Page_019thm.jpg
3e4afdce5b9d5144d945b87d2fc0325c
14101dab8e981f3970dad02ca38fa47d21568558
F20110114_AACBFV dees_w_Page_116.tif
5cd6307c71ed3264991884eca69c446e
6c3fb7fb4d7ee5856b503d6b5d2ba7696188cd52
2983 F20110114_AACCIX dees_w_Page_091thm.jpg
537b89014d8886ea372c8f696262cd4b
175ce086dd41f03f0062ab880abd2dab7b1e40b1
1025 F20110114_AACBGK dees_w_Page_048.txt
726b8974b0fa87b6afc735cc9d30db95
6b2747f2ef3a658e6f6b08216cd710c6c7636e0c
21220 F20110114_AACCKB dees_w_Page_013.QC.jpg
77d980d09157153c31d4b2a84c3460b4
8be08add6f5d7dffe30932ea9407ad8976ef5a6f
16303 F20110114_AACCJN dees_w_Page_070.QC.jpg
b6dbc0ca294649b87213a1f9f58f369a
9c7aace638bb223ba1e6903c039924d2567ca61f
3456 F20110114_AACBFW dees_w_Page_088thm.jpg
5a22e933a5d4f33ba9b4069fb38d2cb3
03797ae1a12710e82790aee3c82189b123fa67f6
6206 F20110114_AACCIY dees_w_Page_062.QC.jpg
b7115fc003d7156b6e5eedaeed30951f
a91cfa92d7e078686faa13ba450469933750add7
17667 F20110114_AACBGL dees_w_Page_020.QC.jpg
c6e02e189da4b931451ea3fe470db3e8
57092af1e47b00c026839b26e5dcdb92ee6a423c
6361 F20110114_AACCKC dees_w_Page_014thm.jpg
30cbb9ffdc3d762861852ee6f14c73b3
5faca4d9cf8f0532d98175a671601129165b69f5
2523 F20110114_AACCJO dees_w_Page_121thm.jpg
35e07ae761aa2dede71abc511d4886fb
e51dc65014a6eb18f1b2ee2c001e7c52a70077d1
13063 F20110114_AACCIZ dees_w_Page_065.QC.jpg
16bec1ea3a350a7015f9d663697144ac
0e8494e29d98aa2e7647eed975067989928d7120
45458 F20110114_AACBFX dees_w_Page_059.pro
8ca7335fd9308faea435c85c71a85229
7786af41b5b7d81d83ae22fca432d34e5be3ecbd
24455 F20110114_AACBHA dees_w_Page_123.QC.jpg
31339695f2096e60cea3a71d9c27c887
46e903679838a8042977ae7737202310dab86966
12745 F20110114_AACBGM dees_w_Page_079.jpg
40bd1cb6a0c3a141f4b2d1f98e6a4b36
d5d900fdded00b282843c8f4c234aa051e14dcce
24771 F20110114_AACCKD dees_w_Page_016.QC.jpg
5fbfa51f2f7922b2e81912c275c27f9f
0af798612dc379e30d64c77da294be3283373f27
191454 F20110114_AACCJP UFE0008267_00001.xml FULL
3fe0f7090953e894a4d427163a86f1f2
a4785fa008629c85897d9d313aa376ac7d470467
10050 F20110114_AACBFY dees_w_Page_090.QC.jpg
dacd9c78688b6363452430aa113ee294
3f5e7b688756fe0f0ddee646f52dfa55c9caa3ff
844 F20110114_AACBHB dees_w_Page_049.txt
4766a985716524a2d15fefb6439fffc2
b9b3e7cf734ece1b1725273a48c7fb707bffb6b7
6307 F20110114_AACBGN dees_w_Page_105thm.jpg
c37453698634c5b9edc9dc0399fea334
8cd96f19d8e04b2e9d2fb0cf1836db0d5098a0fb
6943 F20110114_AACCKE dees_w_Page_017thm.jpg
07af2a5c8b5b69dfcd3e5480cacd846d
4a4e7a2dd143e2079d0414c861ef5e6c8481c0cb
7735 F20110114_AACCJQ dees_w_Page_001.QC.jpg
37a5c3eba4f6acd7a74b129531c396ec
c637f64ec35597f8f7564e2bc346784b7bb99198
F20110114_AACBFZ dees_w_Page_049.tif
9f97c1a691f615609f263b078ea1032a
402130c5471fa28fe63391f7913ff2e2bcdfe502
105830 F20110114_AACBHC dees_w_Page_109.jp2
aae681b92e5e4a57bbfb03c39aaddecc
697e8c8fd48fbd226d526c621ec8fd8a69178baf
73589 F20110114_AACBGO dees_w_Page_064.jp2
92361c21478b274e820c78e74f91f12d
4b87a5f725be84b34b1c443f0580497d18281e06
6061 F20110114_AACCKF dees_w_Page_018thm.jpg
d74db7bcdb307435340f505eafe80685
eee3f1cea6cf0cf1444fc902f83bbcf8b8521099
3224 F20110114_AACCJR dees_w_Page_002.QC.jpg
f79fa4ce31d24ab79622e5a2288fc186
0d77d6f490e01eefb6d65f3a70b5843d1c379ce5
54066 F20110114_AACBHD dees_w_Page_060.jp2
cb060a09b8691caa83c1dc165da49ec0
c68d89ab18517ae204b0de44c34fd863ac412b3a
55203 F20110114_AACBGP dees_w_Page_072.pro
4a1b4a866b2c4ee1f6ad472e46607a58
866e83e4947f02aff2161a19ff75c4e6d5e93c15
21568 F20110114_AACCKG dees_w_Page_019.QC.jpg
c2681cf0a8c724b315fc2db4e1f9ccc5
b95be18abe1facb1485b45320a126a6613f14c7d
F20110114_AACBHE dees_w_Page_084.tif
cba9fa09be9c35a2c7bfa83a57d6584e
bb87976fa7f5ef5b9eb8906d72d73346d726ea5c
17969 F20110114_AACCKH dees_w_Page_021.QC.jpg
869921ec6f56f0f6238c3208222484a2
f8cb490890981a083298f8a554bfe57df4f229d2
4078 F20110114_AACCJS dees_w_Page_003.QC.jpg
3f93d06c0d7596ec6174960acb40eae3
6c0c2b266cb854d082e4720abf1da0138a203bac
6436 F20110114_AACBHF dees_w_Page_107thm.jpg
9dcb9904611a9e46a9ed698a3fae95c3
8441203d181e2e413cf1d3e068b72552c492a47f
946 F20110114_AACBGQ dees_w_Page_117.txt
d6b3f0a514ed507bea7293b8dc34931a
4eefd3b32431790dca6e01d65da71794210754e4
5458 F20110114_AACCKI dees_w_Page_021thm.jpg
39bedfd711a20fb69b2308cd54029d2d
cd3bd65761f554089ecf55ea33b48b9cb5f49248
1772 F20110114_AACCJT dees_w_Page_003thm.jpg
c65395bb86067855908131fc188f0041
e40c5d087681d337f1785b6f272bedf6a4b0d953
1477 F20110114_AACBHG dees_w_Page_077.txt
5e8feab8289a5d3b717546225f1f00b5
ac3a7f05bf56530cab019580b43fce2ceb5254ed
45099 F20110114_AACBGR dees_w_Page_013.pro
8804d3e4aa5b06bfe73f4e207565a22a
0434d915f58df6c98c5d11cc28cec3b3b25df6ac
17819 F20110114_AACCKJ dees_w_Page_023.QC.jpg
f1b0fe61ec1f53e7b07d58cb0786bb98
b3b92df64288d4e71be991e5e1d346d8f2be8c99
1931 F20110114_AACCJU dees_w_Page_004thm.jpg
545e5238ebd493a021a7bc2d3f309c33
045736fb223e0acbc15bde6321c7be85919f405f
16133 F20110114_AACBHH dees_w_Page_004.jp2
ec84d30981668d7e56946fe5c310a175
7cf5a43ae792c862c2d8c0f20c54bbe2afad9c2b
111105 F20110114_AACBGS dees_w_Page_124.jp2
4b952423bfeff3df83cf44a2d168353d
b121b2f44d2854f165653ddbb312702f0b0a0826
24185 F20110114_AACCKK dees_w_Page_024.QC.jpg
c7dca0b68cd6e962aa4ae01f16245012
df35094310c2feda6e95ac9a5f05a23740c37939
28126 F20110114_AACCJV dees_w_Page_006.QC.jpg
7f803f91e1988d6f1010dce4c51bc512
234765a772ab7fd7449578d44f6b35be60acd934
57702 F20110114_AACBHI dees_w_Page_055.jpg
f98122a08c27299e581916b8e4bb5a25
bd5e72177d315d74925321cdb0e999cc2a7615d8
3235 F20110114_AACBGT dees_w_Page_084thm.jpg
28dd48524f5ab5e1ed9d56541c6ab7c5
a8aef27bea765510435b6432ddf8ebe1857a1371
24312 F20110114_AACCKL dees_w_Page_025.QC.jpg
1491ecadac557a63640f4cbc610b1035
c1f757bf0c55e0134a7a06803117e44e60005651
24047 F20110114_AACCJW dees_w_Page_007.QC.jpg
db11c6ef22a296daea9b7fab88de296e
7798b1956b43cda9cb9a598f474007453e1e4826
1319 F20110114_AACBHJ dees_w_Page_113thm.jpg
56d87ac43ec20821acd0c014db692ee5
f43e42cdfb4d34257541c4e3f42da7345dfac51b
3792 F20110114_AACBGU dees_w_Page_065thm.jpg
247aecaa857c38ceb9468c2745afa139
70aedd542d25f8276f0ccdaebdab1ba5e80fc428
7016 F20110114_AACCLA dees_w_Page_046thm.jpg
506acce6432ea87535951b982c685b7c
7830747ca955c4ce63ed84735909acbb12e961f3
22233 F20110114_AACCKM dees_w_Page_026.QC.jpg
1c5cb372f0a687c0a8f194bc2a4c0f38
da1de5fcfdb638b64cfd9d1ee1ce6a035995cdb5
18767 F20110114_AACCJX dees_w_Page_008.QC.jpg
8578accf162368b4653c3d5441a9c1fa
333d075c174046dde79daec27224322ac1e77107
55981 F20110114_AACBHK dees_w_Page_119.pro
bc2fc86e867e5f6cfbd393dd5f8bc716
96d803d8359af64126c29778dbae8be8eefa80b0
2046 F20110114_AACBGV dees_w_Page_051.txt
26dff534dfbbb1c3da887996e50b3e7a
69b7645abe4a0b91cdf11f91a27e5b646b49f115
12947 F20110114_AACCLB dees_w_Page_048.QC.jpg
dae122b86614c9df77e37ba881e8b624
300fec502b2fe0322cd0e605ab525997a29c066f
6104 F20110114_AACCKN dees_w_Page_026thm.jpg
bcf054ce59314d6b60ea61ab379e330e
4ab047c221d424089d139fa30abdc788af3eb2b4
2805 F20110114_AACCJY dees_w_Page_009thm.jpg
8b78a91e7e1986e49c15aeb127b4a3d7
6dd94b78c7c049b25db3b2da3ce49bda80404230
22150 F20110114_AACBHL dees_w_Page_036.QC.jpg
225ff385dbd384b5605f5af3bd48e85f
9aeab8cfe949625e69a89a5bf6764a67afc42876
41002 F20110114_AACBGW dees_w_Page_067.pro
f095daddeb7a47f803acb2d4dd3f903b
d337032e64bc220e239d3ef6696d5844cf1fa244
3900 F20110114_AACCLC dees_w_Page_048thm.jpg
83601f4e9270e2ea1396c7fea2146410
73c2218d72f09fa603d181bb55dc79e82e50a7e6
6281 F20110114_AACCKO dees_w_Page_031thm.jpg
d2f5413dee940c4c0db5bd8777a3c10b
e4cbadae2cde4eb813a58e9134ba2d1f79f7d8f8
5046 F20110114_AACCJZ dees_w_Page_010.QC.jpg
f51697660084862c12d9ae1f796a684e
56d15caa365a0644b3b7198c9f45dfc274d1b241
11570 F20110114_AACBIA dees_w_Page_066.QC.jpg
587e89e45d75f1b9384b79e9338c13f3
eaf3606cd97de8b5a4d40cbe01b1f60bbdb3a0c1
5142 F20110114_AACBHM dees_w_Page_023thm.jpg
54978844f218e245f07a123160fa9932
ae629e19edfd91d1af2ab1ab469afb8c45cea6b0
21549 F20110114_AACBGX dees_w_Page_071.QC.jpg
729dc316c9b7b3cc90d2d43a2845b448
9eee81f8a3ac3a8508122af11eba83187aa97158
5603 F20110114_AACCLD dees_w_Page_050thm.jpg
e3c9b036eb80f6f4eb77e54873e08505
5e055aed9721e032a8ce343c09fed5fc21f7b94e
23494 F20110114_AACCKP dees_w_Page_033.QC.jpg
ac3671694b76f34e8516f85524255bfc
ae4494d820d9a4573ad1d2f15ec081cba2b8a9d7
F20110114_AACBIB dees_w_Page_040.tif
9fefaa506b23e2392d65c7c99b8502f3
4d425a685abf9d028df5522c699d601b04ab9eae
4916 F20110114_AACBHN dees_w_Page_041thm.jpg
ccf7614ea7a5441307b0c03e154d7643
cd369dea361bccc49ee7cc637f68268bea74c6b4
1369 F20110114_AACBGY dees_w_Page_128.txt
476515b35878581d048c4a7242eb8ba4
b2328c9fe1041d6919ee05b1368eee4704bf3b5a
6024 F20110114_AACCLE dees_w_Page_051thm.jpg
e8726b1efbbff6deaa1da392b5ceb986
9147334beea4c0e9f47a15d69d75467e9543166f
6432 F20110114_AACCKQ dees_w_Page_033thm.jpg
bdd07160aded62dffeb249c0831055bb
962f88f11f2709079a02ad26f286e01be9bb4b96
2486 F20110114_AACBIC dees_w_Page_001thm.jpg
4d33024db4153cffb9a37bbda5576f10
f59ed59d13268278be49f65961daee23568be156
77076 F20110114_AACBHO dees_w_Page_045.jpg
532c1a41c8bd283579b554a77ceb0aff
4d43a9f9ce97436e50a7f17c52f1112f76a55922
F20110114_AACBGZ dees_w_Page_113.tif
b65da78f6f1b59b347e3b295041e8620
c1b5dfc5c2c5c3b7c9c5b931ccf5a2ab04604059
25907 F20110114_AACCLF dees_w_Page_052.QC.jpg
dfa8a919813aaa2800f51088fb5768c4
54aaaaf0f5f66d4426854979f9c264c508d26cf8
22887 F20110114_AACCKR dees_w_Page_035.QC.jpg
36c18df64e03f0c935f0fc67b8bad85e
39a1145fa4a1370c54f099a70f4458a84bca095f
12743 F20110114_AACBID dees_w_Page_080.QC.jpg
e2a13a5cb8da0ad83536a8d73c1e6ccd
483e79a5957bc8f8779c84c38141e107c8b68147
3190 F20110114_AACBHP dees_w_Page_061thm.jpg
45b50b0a852ab2f7cc48ce3e4a8faac1
319559f808a7f29cf35209e92a6cd8a3ac97596a
6457 F20110114_AACCLG dees_w_Page_052thm.jpg
4f17cd155e818972e59826f8da711bd7
52372b342ad53070a1ab2a53a2604b78bef3e0f4
6809 F20110114_AACCKS dees_w_Page_038thm.jpg
0728cf1c5997e9720b3c2af508504046
6523b2d539471286b012a8967b7a57469987182b
62852 F20110114_AACBIE dees_w_Page_005.jpg
dd9087c5d9c8265ff48dd6486fe633e0
0628a47f1d0b5ccd0cd77be7a4d6818d9225824c
6857 F20110114_AACBHQ dees_w_Page_103thm.jpg
34c17dcf4aeae1a0d91dd537db2418b0
472b7d00f2ab3f799dbb165dd18024ab4ff60091
5542 F20110114_AACCLH dees_w_Page_053thm.jpg
76c62ccf945f8346ef917f1d9eea9f8c
234859b9beca9b3d6a165442aa87816364fa1884
F20110114_AACBIF dees_w_Page_066.tif
f016cdd375ae78af5575589e7a1db904
4f6aa71a9e16998e6f1acb8e5c094cc03d614f2a
14674 F20110114_AACCLI dees_w_Page_054.QC.jpg
902e6c3ad1d47b8579d7a9d9d398066a
22a1b20196d1f88dcdf687fe8e2c089a0938180b
19863 F20110114_AACCKT dees_w_Page_040.QC.jpg
9d8e6ce2054c617b91a7e5af6422d921
e0bedd6431980c0cdda74f9b5e424babf742fd17
1989 F20110114_AACBIG dees_w_Page_029.txt
7a5ff658ddb202e481afeecb72353e61
46cf60a8a1c5b1fde47282dd3052367857522ba8
1505 F20110114_AACBHR dees_w_Page_079thm.jpg
0b1d9ecebaf8588dd49c405642305c33
e68a24c3b3e27fafc26a197aeb6de5a1fc39db85
4502 F20110114_AACCLJ dees_w_Page_054thm.jpg
061a7e0889a5bf6a3dadc4df84da582c
8b08aa3c96f49ae2fd3b6aa7055a949a56ef638d
5611 F20110114_AACCKU dees_w_Page_040thm.jpg
ae83db9cbc3df5657208376b436bdf4f
5ff07bb9b48ce9748f41990a0b5a08b49e15fb29
F20110114_AACBIH dees_w_Page_076.tif
2d96b5f53721a6da46af5ba749824d1e
8b6c25cd157b509ba4d676c1c474714bf8770824
1051924 F20110114_AACBHS dees_w_Page_039.jp2
97efcdfe4771483c7499f309017d12d4
b84fe164c33e98070cfff91c5793095c4e450cba
17590 F20110114_AACCLK dees_w_Page_056.QC.jpg
5aa04060d099eaf6710bf4b11eaa174d
40b32eed8a5cb61dbd13dd6133534403c6fbb865
6304 F20110114_AACCKV dees_w_Page_042thm.jpg
7b2ef2d2c437115ce53d6880df48eedf
06172e4629e13878c11a584d3f880e66954a8f62
56160 F20110114_AACBII dees_w_Page_056.jpg
fe087165710a957842a4c59f4dfd6b60
ef5d7ff8cf66b0a575a25c9f19c09d08cb8dbdbb
25761 F20110114_AACBHT dees_w_Page_046.QC.jpg
c1aadece1123a0f5a9d5085dda772c5c
eb48ab67e3fa4342a71d3b76c115bd07d717b5bb
3647 F20110114_AACCLL dees_w_Page_057thm.jpg
37dd95721ed8bf8e5a166d28bf0146c5
76469d9a5514e2cf565f38b4f1c616967dd0752e
23237 F20110114_AACCKW dees_w_Page_044.QC.jpg
cb319ab221363403bd8dbb6b1341865c
6e54dec36553787693ce2fa736706fd039b4cfa3
22672 F20110114_AACBIJ dees_w_Page_030.QC.jpg
d19f23b6a7a2de42cde56e6dba72709b
2da9340fa20be863f0577bf73be7092d83ea1709
40516 F20110114_AACBHU dees_w_Page_093.jp2
1eaa37a610294712b5715d91ec7bd718
cb4245b4efef03068d81f4b9b149e24f554fd3e1
6318 F20110114_AACCMA dees_w_Page_073thm.jpg
69af1cc5f531b7919bbe4f8ef0ac799d
3990db868ba97deda1d8108feda994538e1d6482
15645 F20110114_AACCLM dees_w_Page_058.QC.jpg
db5cf9608e8d32d4d437ca7e639f7d13
bf638da5c966bf7d80b6d5916b0cd5183eb90ed0
6726 F20110114_AACCKX dees_w_Page_044thm.jpg
0aab8753c991fe384dd11b90bad19931
286c69598a79a245a68d31ecb99962e2e3a83102
23452 F20110114_AACBIK dees_w_Page_108.QC.jpg
433da81ddfeacbd877bb2581fa9cea6d
1739bc33e2c3e0523e018fad63924ea8ffe1580d
1572 F20110114_AACBHV dees_w_Page_023.txt
aa3b3e08321d1da43c33ef8360f2ade8
2191ac89af169144226d581f1d4c9576a755d9a9
22281 F20110114_AACCMB dees_w_Page_074.QC.jpg
f182e6a2c38db91cea3829a427cb14a5
19cf9b6c2ee9c6dcec98492f7085db8bc19695fc
4415 F20110114_AACCLN dees_w_Page_058thm.jpg
c6ac9285b040bb0572be65c97a9c53ab
a1b0e739d62c8597bf2da4bc3e463039060343e6
24000 F20110114_AACCKY dees_w_Page_045.QC.jpg
56ede3c61c38d4b9b3050883b908c9fa
38f6d7511b407728a5ea2f8b80d9b453e73f753e
F20110114_AACBIL dees_w_Page_081.tif
dc90fda927f33770f4cb05cda8ef3a4d
f6f9397661d657843a8517fc83eb11ec96f885c2
11806 F20110114_AACBHW dees_w_Page_022.jp2
6c5683945b2ade6e975d6055f507a516
0b860515b94d7dc976b760bdc1e11d72a7683f39
5909 F20110114_AACCMC dees_w_Page_074thm.jpg
76130da53ffe64b71bf5dbb9068e37a4
80774b190871c0c7b42004af9225239c07c4d548
18975 F20110114_AACCLO dees_w_Page_059.QC.jpg
69a798b575c24b0a69ecaa010b5b9f67
590759e0d6c2523fe8d709a0747f9dee19df9b99
6662 F20110114_AACCKZ dees_w_Page_045thm.jpg
c94c4073c5c75f44c3b7018d84c142e0
856b7c956a81925e473718751d1c9dc8a9cc73b5
F20110114_AACBIM dees_w_Page_010.tif
53737a64a68699aa83d7ac3d7de1752f
340fcc28b0232ae22a378d527eb16d95d70101b4
5078 F20110114_AACBHX dees_w_Page_011thm.jpg
8d6a4dbc885d3f0f868cc19ae81c5063
a9ce062ab124b62308ca4d2d4565505fe6ba7323
2132 F20110114_AACBJA dees_w_Page_063.txt
3d142e89b769df0ee409ee61a7ed8bcc
8d3c48f21f949c1d0fab33f8677aa075cadc3523
3253 F20110114_AACCMD dees_w_Page_076thm.jpg
558570ec5515f77d249cc001c8a99c82
08054b4d1cbdcc1a26c92a1850251abad4f094e7
2896 F20110114_AACCLP dees_w_Page_060thm.jpg
53946f866b3ea64618c3c04ce70edf03
a7f32fa68d0f3bb90b4c0711fd912131bf165d5f
80973 F20110114_AACBIN dees_w_Page_068.jp2
c4cdf9359b5b12874365d9de6a59ef46
248ab3140056d6c4c5aa9bac1f98374e8fc6d81c
47295 F20110114_AACBHY dees_w_Page_122.pro
c5ea3b95b9304de8e688d97e4d955e52
fcb52a0af68c8726c027784396b837289b4ecee6
75769 F20110114_AACBJB dees_w_Page_025.jpg
a933fefb3df7dad4817122e8fa92d885
eb039a8be2785edbdf556f98443ee606d8b674ef
18950 F20110114_AACCME dees_w_Page_077.QC.jpg
d4e47afb5b9d0c9c3e6e70c4d68321e2
9d9abdfce23baa9fd2c186738c8206f65fd9fda0
6656 F20110114_AACCLQ dees_w_Page_063thm.jpg
d7b6ac7d0745a7f614032a00e4b962d7
5184e48969447f0817bc72d12b673806dbc219f5
47200 F20110114_AACBIO dees_w_Page_024.pro
416c4dfe6514976e7cab51516323778a
f737a8286c429a05825a662fd1155b071f067e6a
12614 F20110114_AACBHZ dees_w_Page_081.QC.jpg
45258685b1049985467bf71d9bf327bf
62e47a49c3e2f8664af9d9e7f9c8c37212d6200e
2305 F20110114_AACBJC dees_w_Page_008.txt
ae249bfb634581ac1935f92329b22446
b5793527af0b6fed06d0e3613175dcdc3bbe7716
3444 F20110114_AACCMF dees_w_Page_081thm.jpg
206af00166dc286090942e21b1934d99
a3f5721568c110fcf13429cc14de7420b72a94e6
17186 F20110114_AACCLR dees_w_Page_064.QC.jpg
6003836a04400f76b0e0dfc9cecdded8
98c3c12e3156edbe9d9cb5fcf2777cc89c866d87
F20110114_AACBIP dees_w_Page_105.txt
52d9d2d4fac147f57f7183eaf5da50d8
2fce445e10cb30441a7728e353ee77f047c550ec
115610 F20110114_AACBJD dees_w_Page_025.jp2
0844ebf84d8c2b9f29ad0f8690d83acb
d9115276f3be743ed62e21d9f04144b7903f19cd
10348 F20110114_AACCMG dees_w_Page_085.QC.jpg
e3c9aef8d9a04ace75f95afea5831446
7283e0f57ab8ad2fe08d2e514ce30ef96208bf52
5153 F20110114_AACCLS dees_w_Page_064thm.jpg
3abc12d4861c0331f4fe28ca288cea3c
9f744c03e6c1be8b28278c5cad76ece22b1772e6
23501 F20110114_AACBIQ dees_w_Page_043.QC.jpg
0d6aebd9805a3e960f176214f98a58bd
484263c53fa7bba88b7b819ab8cb24050fa5b52b
17457 F20110114_AACBJE dees_w_Page_116.pro
974ab97c0089276669620cdd2bbd3a61
0734554371d4b1d78236a23d0b1be5f964f6abee
2940 F20110114_AACCMH dees_w_Page_085thm.jpg
e12b90898279a9366018160fb6b1a184
3147c20e3d96023290eca46696be2f0da0726eee
17344 F20110114_AACCLT dees_w_Page_067.QC.jpg
73df4a714b9dfa817480ed2ba24bad7e
6d88a67fc9a44c048d4677299fa77b3e6485de0d
81353 F20110114_AACBIR dees_w_Page_046.jpg
17b9685c3a95803f3305520c31dddfd2
4a61e9bd6ac68a6bbd505acab40b2eeea44790af
14698 F20110114_AACBJF dees_w_Page_091.pro
ef25a6f838d1973a25dbe7311993f5f0
c1c30b801b64c13dd8d1a751af52e0eafda3cdc1
5463 F20110114_AACCMI dees_w_Page_086thm.jpg
1314bd36c743a8650fd894863ece7c79
2db6802f60db7f0ddc6a73794eececd245dc4691
76612 F20110114_AACBJG dees_w_Page_078.jp2
b30f71b858df9c9b3389fb0fb69b8850
8301b5a3ef5f301a592fa496bf740cf9ea47811c
2965 F20110114_AACCMJ dees_w_Page_090thm.jpg
9a99eb15924ae08ad4e0bf0162c63e89
4d24bf9ef94da7cf58d026587c5ee056ccc17058
19201 F20110114_AACCLU dees_w_Page_068.QC.jpg
7110b20c17d27ca5498355fb56b9e7e5
91fced1ab1ccf029152c860d0f8a9cbf11118966
71297 F20110114_AACBIS dees_w_Page_029.jpg
12bd58372f21a9983d09cf128d8a4415
d8144f1527d892e11bbe2bab87c52deac7c04a04
4200 F20110114_AACBJH dees_w_Page_079.QC.jpg
12f8b3d0556350b282d40abf77a417ad
643b2a75e96cab17fe1d31ab5ce8988e3c36d88d
17174 F20110114_AACCMK dees_w_Page_092.QC.jpg
0abc896485acaa7a15149ac45b6096f3
b8fda867f24209bcdb364a37f146add59668b819
5564 F20110114_AACCLV dees_w_Page_068thm.jpg
660e2f652b2b6cf62951de5bba7ac01f
ca63180870b37448d9952cd0ef94c80d374be911
2099 F20110114_AACBIT dees_w_Page_037.txt
f742d801625913dc8927faf699c6b045
80b36e25cce42fb962e8499b93509855d1149d1c
2664 F20110114_AACBJI dees_w_Page_071.txt
ac1d5262d3fcbbb669f1ee0dbaaad437
0fbb455b2869cfaf0f07201e6b2cefaaf5d87468
4818 F20110114_AACCML dees_w_Page_092thm.jpg
faa1477245f25c0a789b6809c5d377ab
4b1878d0ac43f98f0cbb8f39cf9cf7b53da19779
4831 F20110114_AACCLW dees_w_Page_070thm.jpg
6cb0de4e2b6b48a9ecb7587c944dc1c8
3057b44c6b03b7577d23a304439f924076a91e6d
39288 F20110114_AACBIU dees_w_Page_074.pro
de8281b4170587368c5304e45a6a19bb
95583eaacaa86f01175e7078cf5b4e6bb3d891da
147982 F20110114_AACBJJ UFE0008267_00001.mets
6b40bd82253c49d244d3d167618dd4b9
46aa489be5d9a58b2e9264443765ba438e684788
6540 F20110114_AACCNA dees_w_Page_109thm.jpg
8a70cfc3ee0ae7772b55cf9a9ee33724
7cefc8150d4be5f70a3ca2fe497b63d80416a279
3270 F20110114_AACCMM dees_w_Page_093thm.jpg
dd290dfa8a3c573d1563be404320483d
9221530521dedbd50c598ec66e36b19747771f20
6114 F20110114_AACCLX dees_w_Page_071thm.jpg
73a1332a2be964c34ae6fd58c209d2e3
4e51505e59f339ab7db4ff798d1a9aefa85bec5f
21581 F20110114_AACBIV dees_w_Page_051.QC.jpg
998d2a3cf065911712f7275bfa103a27
dc5bb30343f3b2ad8f8ccb95cdcaf6ee8e9d2cc6
3215 F20110114_AACCNB dees_w_Page_111.QC.jpg
bf0b1657597868a67ce5e0cd3c1516cf
4977c8f914f01ff39d98aeed777cc3b5de3cfd7c
6773 F20110114_AACCMN dees_w_Page_095thm.jpg
dcf2a52ba6be8b6907b416a38a9c27cb
91890f257b6abacf6214a8c4694c21fa1eb6b691
19545 F20110114_AACCLY dees_w_Page_072.QC.jpg
b06aa4f00169d658125fd987f7d43e6a
165f907bcee8f33cf06f50bdac6f4ee83d45f4e0
13257 F20110114_AACBIW dees_w_Page_089.QC.jpg
613c94e81c98c2f0682e5101aeade992
c59ef48bf5480fd082ceb500efb19a44ada34fd5
1318 F20110114_AACCNC dees_w_Page_111thm.jpg
1fef6a46b55c895baf2cde288b9b5092
804127ab7001bba2a04b39f71889c3b5371b9de4
26335 F20110114_AACCMO dees_w_Page_097.QC.jpg
c293c25d9d957d7f1c32a06cac81a72f
537064da4085e8b66d641a8d9aaba6922d232069
5772 F20110114_AACCLZ dees_w_Page_072thm.jpg
bcaa5893e54ae14413bf20f171d38338
891ffe7c1c7a1dd9e820e30afdc774b06c8258e2
F20110114_AACBIX dees_w_Page_043.tif
847040e5c4c044af2972ce8e3829e774
cd6a339ac3ae61d27faa17f1ac531a44bc287881
81074 F20110114_AACBKA dees_w_Page_017.jpg
1da7b0b3d3c634a1a02afac766bf0b1c
d24cadcb52d22e2b84c390cb24a184ece9fda4e1
24974 F20110114_AACBJM dees_w_Page_001.jpg
047929bb26837895f53f7a6e35a5ea64
fa07c119d83f05fc9cf54e6bb047fdf18918e33f
3243 F20110114_AACCND dees_w_Page_113.QC.jpg
0d9104acfe22ca277b01066fb0094874
1d6ed55f4795e5098bd8b81d3fd9b017140cd544
25288 F20110114_AACCMP dees_w_Page_098.QC.jpg
210ba1f3f7aba3250067c5eb096377c8
60d1f16885b6d83223fbabb81c690dd8d96001d8
F20110114_AACBIY dees_w_Page_074.tif
fcca1d5cc15dda41f6cbf59e71b9d803
7ab35904b13dee7716c9237b3ae142949952bccd
66360 F20110114_AACBKB dees_w_Page_018.jpg
049c6bab34ce23de1a7bf33e2b375db2
277caeaab93587d73ef83a6b95b6fd7558b74a9c
13295 F20110114_AACBJN dees_w_Page_003.jpg
764960e1530d64c1b2336123bdd0ce9c
29ce48e802d505d0685658198d07f78230599849
25115 F20110114_AACCNE dees_w_Page_114.QC.jpg
5864f0b0ba5b0d446ae33401228baa0f
b6b7aaf24b22540eb7e15acbc6438577598563de
6875 F20110114_AACCMQ dees_w_Page_098thm.jpg
37b0f87a3f8242ea4e2f2ce579479a73
3aa5af5621c56433dd65320db6f056d22a649f04
F20110114_AACBIZ dees_w_Page_004.tif
98a92fa9fa0a2f166a114c4e43c71a37
220dc06d0a3efa90f5937c45522b7d4b40d40705
65521 F20110114_AACBKC dees_w_Page_019.jpg
c83c7f03cd71fc7e33607e11da4097cc
ad2c3fe1a350e89312d0fbab4b0fd78a07cd38a5
16370 F20110114_AACBJO dees_w_Page_004.jpg
e4e7e720556c33d862f9e7af96af03e1
39a5ee9a769b9d3ad63632c07a5333c75e72e268
3262 F20110114_AACCNF dees_w_Page_115.QC.jpg
25acad851f6d8d7e48a6150167d22b9e
c7a5f5e815d1012ed010ffd73ffaf81ffa6a9046
6949 F20110114_AACCMR dees_w_Page_099thm.jpg
79966cce9896d8cc3c1409d1ccf1e966
6f3a9924c785f3e5e30197ea2890fcc963571791
60597 F20110114_AACBKD dees_w_Page_020.jpg
7f26d5ce93ee2118fb3737d928d6489e
f2cf9c738f977f2e730e7751549d26da0cbcdace
117191 F20110114_AACBJP dees_w_Page_006.jpg
494751a25351ef8f756bb471dc6d33ca
c9ba762e7b8adee1eff51861d40fa859db3fcd68
14087 F20110114_AACCNG dees_w_Page_118.QC.jpg
9ba20f83c03f5d8642c0da1ac8b07a4b
d37adcf61cfe392cfe01ed9066fa7aa47bb593c1
24699 F20110114_AACCMS dees_w_Page_100.QC.jpg
df13172486dc6a6cb01ee671eb25cf72
6c3c12aaea3c26ff8758eb0988499663d48fb7f6
57435 F20110114_AACBKE dees_w_Page_021.jpg
5762ca4e320f7bd641ce1c11a90935af
7a6553e7fbb0e2b037ae7be7ddc75a7290565eba
95351 F20110114_AACBJQ dees_w_Page_007.jpg
65859cc2e7835a97877b0c9fd6090025
84296ec0467af1a6d82dd4f31a192445e74aebeb
3390 F20110114_AACCNH dees_w_Page_120.QC.jpg
3a1b732ad652a6725cd97cd9f1450e10
81efcbacdddc92473580c08659aa6efcb47a0a7f
6705 F20110114_AACCMT dees_w_Page_101thm.jpg
b96353aaeda17f2a5198425ee9494377
32e0a49619cb20e22e892540586e0bbf9202f1e8
13590 F20110114_AACBKF dees_w_Page_022.jpg
12cbccf1055b93c204dbacf67f6a047f
c9f862f8d73546130fe60dc8d07de3bdf0b97996
63998 F20110114_AACBJR dees_w_Page_008.jpg
ca77ae332d088caf39323777c75382fb
87efdd21b9e370d4ac460b1f866dc300de4f7186
7447 F20110114_AACCNI dees_w_Page_121.QC.jpg
92176b6b61cf6334bf899584427554bc
a7c85631788b829edc1448866b3fad9fd21bfdae
25085 F20110114_AACCMU dees_w_Page_103.QC.jpg
3dfc1f6c3c5f55bfae7dfe5528509d3a
da81b56a2bc11ccad4e8b1e6b8f0e3fc9e284237
55220 F20110114_AACBKG dees_w_Page_023.jpg
729a06d7435ac2258c2eb335e0414739
b8fff3619e05069389385ddacf03ea7f0a6b44fb
29688 F20110114_AACBJS dees_w_Page_009.jpg
1513e6e1239710b9447826b6ce554110
a5d38a0ab2fa646134b2257752b5a7a90dc17441
5573 F20110114_AACCNJ dees_w_Page_122thm.jpg
a206115e552857bf5631be5143d9c7e8
c7b8b6b5ae866532e7d60327057a004d04027b77
77411 F20110114_AACBKH dees_w_Page_024.jpg
fe95a6d970cdf99eb2e3469b322ac562
8f895b5f0c83f99214eef944ec91c66effdacf34
21718 F20110114_AACCNK dees_w_Page_124.QC.jpg
7ef9eea7ceb6e7400cfb09be49304601
1a8a9352a49933d299710678c62138d7a367bf31
6479 F20110114_AACCMV dees_w_Page_104thm.jpg
e4b7d8e735caa5df410fde61c6d3861d
397558e7b747e2fbf2c2a34e9d2ecb23aab054b9
68179 F20110114_AACBKI dees_w_Page_026.jpg
e046cc06e40a81b038b1a36ccee5df61
b222dfcd97ed84b0d0682bc4280e67c9fabebe6d
15615 F20110114_AACBJT dees_w_Page_010.jpg
6dcc78f9133673d36d2e4ce816b923ab
bb925c7e0e017405b91e6c81d6e8f3832fb98a33
26078 F20110114_AACCNL dees_w_Page_125.QC.jpg
195b8e0d06b4b9e0b62cdf7e6eac012e
7100310dce2b14eb1ab926dd368e848fae1a20ea
22109 F20110114_AACCMW dees_w_Page_105.QC.jpg
4e5b6813ea73a41cbac2c2894a2bdc6b
93df82612d30f6e59d35bee8a5a0faf33c9f2011
79012 F20110114_AACBKJ dees_w_Page_027.jpg
e148857693cd91a1388bb4d4aab5e154
7037921aeb6975e8c898ee9250d238991bc983ae
56028 F20110114_AACBJU dees_w_Page_011.jpg
6edb95edf63784a210ff688aa671463c
156202cd39df0f6d13b047bc7a01ca66b8f2f64d
7132 F20110114_AACCNM dees_w_Page_125thm.jpg
7b5011d8265b19a3776f388271d7947f
4c6fb4735e1a642be0dbdc58c13e25c8dfceb1b6
6414 F20110114_AACCMX dees_w_Page_106thm.jpg
4419ed8b0ed38fc71c4c8bd3b52068ac
6ad93e3de7a9b0a1f8ccce9e5a86302b33c42ae6
78742 F20110114_AACBKK dees_w_Page_028.jpg
cbea0403ddfbb3aad405c37699d79de7
6f95ec8b6d7dbf398f535b9b4c8cdf6c49bdcea6
14104 F20110114_AACBJV dees_w_Page_012.jpg
35a6232b7c05bd016436a1294e0a4ae0
4fc24dd4f31baa8b2bdf81e95b8ed0e0375d7d25
6365 F20110114_AACCNN dees_w_Page_126thm.jpg
6572d2f67c2dc111ffac6cdcbd38ed8b
497d630e86782645e66eab2b28ec197ce8ebdf19
6538 F20110114_AACCMY dees_w_Page_108thm.jpg
df8705eddc54e7cf051ddd42431255c1
c013c9890ae649a6e94049de94d894fa18555758
68795 F20110114_AACBKL dees_w_Page_030.jpg
17af08159202c63198ac6a9c788a6d19
36bd087169d9a2b0a39305a191bf4a479ac359c8
65976 F20110114_AACBJW dees_w_Page_013.jpg
e1bb4ea65870a32c243b5e5b49cc51d0
f9d72a585b0b4dcf9b5cc0585349a48545e840d2
25022 F20110114_AACCNO dees_w_Page_127.QC.jpg
067504c0ab855e69219d63c5a69225c6
74109a0e9f03dcff0d8e7e1d309f58908e552d67
22159 F20110114_AACCMZ dees_w_Page_109.QC.jpg
0e5f76a33273579a44442d7df9437283
b78001e3daf3ccb6131df90f8e36db897b3f245e
39688 F20110114_AACBLA dees_w_Page_048.jpg
0fee5e7da6f67cd83b6de01ba99d6ad6
e55c46dd33f6cc5faeaeb55f2ee6fa309e6a22cc
69502 F20110114_AACBKM dees_w_Page_031.jpg
0838612d3d4477fd1d2c4a3579407746
85ac234c83deea61ecfd98106d2d7b03e939359f
69337 F20110114_AACBJX dees_w_Page_014.jpg
f8de2ac058ba56c78f4f0a53ec54cc01
53daff1b1474fde4c5b2cd000cbc7a3474194e77
16384 F20110114_AACCNP dees_w_Page_128.QC.jpg
4702f40763bb77d7c8f65acd665e898d
7b98c4986548003f153f78190f07eae2a04bf044
40101 F20110114_AACBLB dees_w_Page_049.jpg
24583d3458402a8023c22b390e473a94
00aad699bf62582ee5d9488b723327facefc5ed4
69207 F20110114_AACBKN dees_w_Page_032.jpg
43818a54cb401211f5cb66e88e83f66e
6c141258ee947ee50d353aac1922ef52441f7c12
62562 F20110114_AACBJY dees_w_Page_015.jpg
8a022877c4242556912123d07eb45027
1036ba018550082ac5b11a75975669cb9df6cbea
4700 F20110114_AACCNQ dees_w_Page_128thm.jpg
b026fd51ad12d24a0e0ae3c2a3b52aee
424c1058a7eaef81589fd2cabe5c549878c52c99
65294 F20110114_AACBLC dees_w_Page_050.jpg
8f76a14b84ccc39a762cb0c4ffa7d26c
8678744ff40433cdfafc488758f25289be587663
71426 F20110114_AACBKO dees_w_Page_033.jpg
91ad3de431b12286a48823876e277c3e
b5f949ee0f9c667a26775085f29e7ff0fe97b444
78606 F20110114_AACBJZ dees_w_Page_016.jpg
604e675dcbc9ebc8cd403f29af130d38
bc47fd34ff943192015973d1cdd327e09df5c5f7
71312 F20110114_AACBLD dees_w_Page_051.jpg
4618caa358583983c3b46651d89a6d7c
12c166d4fcc06d033c32cbdbd4eb6556f5cc8106
72074 F20110114_AACBKP dees_w_Page_034.jpg
f1fe87493d8937f20638f679de754272
84f1c2d7983155040f23a65ce3677838f8e17f4a
93508 F20110114_AACBLE dees_w_Page_052.jpg
48b35e12df0f849502959032e1c9ca4a
6245c154a61fee3e312ca8ce541e035c4fb3b6e3
70068 F20110114_AACBKQ dees_w_Page_035.jpg
dd12d66a7c2627c3df20e4ae56f6c94d
27e2c75ea3680396c43ba9df6f797a2e6fed664a
61086 F20110114_AACBLF dees_w_Page_053.jpg
59c06db619515977b92dbbb2b77c410a
ae6299dec05aa74debcb09207a3c7adbef592aae
81890 F20110114_AACBKR dees_w_Page_037.jpg
86dc3e5831f001dbe5909e6f83e1686a
d2298e386d303de051c2f63af3624084aa16bd85
78979 F20110114_AACBKS dees_w_Page_038.jpg
7ae35b63903bfcadbdbb9efbd0513f15
49bc0c18a7065824ac2b7976932751c44d4d2559
47171 F20110114_AACBLG dees_w_Page_054.jpg
7eb62ae675558f3d96090a908c19355f
c08a1f48c79b7d931557519551a99af66c5c4294
79715 F20110114_AACBKT dees_w_Page_039.jpg
3e023c97c04fba9387f3538100632d2d
0649f0e5dbc2049d7e63c4e8f556b5c984424e5f
36588 F20110114_AACBLH dees_w_Page_057.jpg
9d027acc9c8cbe6a77de3cd3e237f11e
7de004f9116e4b9f3e6692c72907c05950a6e35f
48979 F20110114_AACBLI dees_w_Page_058.jpg
252986d94243b9f36d78dddf35717105
7e8de009bf2262a28085f2ff4ac3d7a97f68e9e5
62301 F20110114_AACBKU dees_w_Page_040.jpg
4cc3bda907a2f0b5671d4a2981186395
0f3d5c6e33f7fd6ebf98feb65f201fbf600221c8
58993 F20110114_AACBLJ dees_w_Page_059.jpg
da812db785f66889cbdc8370f8bf1c50
07d36a6e330915a96aeaad67d76f3c58d560bf0a
52682 F20110114_AACBKV dees_w_Page_041.jpg
d41300ed8f9c6dec3198d45008d71e4c
06f6b4e4c873950e550a94eaeef13bc40b8a8ab3
24526 F20110114_AACBLK dees_w_Page_060.jpg
c8f921c372961528ffdf651c2e2da556
a765d3aaf0e4ba2ab8b72e9d517a82503cf0687a
71028 F20110114_AACBKW dees_w_Page_042.jpg
535495cf74532da8bda8fe98864fa24c
efc38910f144f7a4055892325788ea1007f92a2f
31883 F20110114_AACBLL dees_w_Page_061.jpg
25b2fcd742970c8ba32d9b700cd0c133
01cfd09490e5dd9fd8cd06b8ce417f2f0985fc5b
71225 F20110114_AACBKX dees_w_Page_043.jpg
6062ec8857ac1a024e8dfc2f643555f3
7deed5892d472f92c8324ed6a38122d889e23538
61018 F20110114_AACBMA dees_w_Page_077.jpg
c3d61dbf95d9c3d542b6d9ba41fd0106
367dab2b7ce5e9b6ccbd78a7ec39d77d41a367af
19861 F20110114_AACBLM dees_w_Page_062.jpg
98235bd85d848d1898a82069724f5ec5
4aee61477ca6c91063b798127ebf09cb8ab389e5
74233 F20110114_AACBKY dees_w_Page_044.jpg
e2624c492819f53a0f6d45cf621d7c87
c5e36094b068431e88065354c4d70191fff8b19c
43244 F20110114_AACBMB dees_w_Page_078.jpg
a66a05502e1e4326dd7e85c04669e0b2
195bc0d511a69fc02608b5c64c1dd9629962f312
52292 F20110114_AACBLN dees_w_Page_064.jpg
72e81e9ef6f1fcad596b158c850a8498
19576d6b92d4e76aae3e4afd6b7137a0fcc622f8
75809 F20110114_AACBKZ dees_w_Page_047.jpg
e0540d5013ed0cd93b0451a36c58c345
c1ec85d5e6e64174567d4ad5b5fb175be171d042
42691 F20110114_AACBMC dees_w_Page_081.jpg
490fa43c1410f8089c6abf1bb5ce9bb0
7a30185da03449f7ae7e82fb5f7ebca771194575
39664 F20110114_AACBLO dees_w_Page_065.jpg
21d2f0a95df19ead0f6caf0e44fd07ee
943353b17466584e6d8efa2e254aa01029d69c31
64148 F20110114_AACBMD dees_w_Page_082.jpg
2f09ef8a025cd6b7a0a8625567da5482
fd38f9966f267b61d71d06724625761a9d98d374
34660 F20110114_AACBLP dees_w_Page_066.jpg
dd443c77add8749a41430924a78a3110
e8c7fd3ed59f044d2e1d75543e34e78ecc7a3920
77280 F20110114_AACBME dees_w_Page_083.jpg
e51312e4927f8fa0c3bd856c30fb5c6f
fc893e7cbf5e62317fd747c24041261044c52730
50871 F20110114_AACBLQ dees_w_Page_067.jpg
e49a990d9a677f960bf766ad7b895306
b1e328257d7cdbe2afb9a4ebaf707819b221a5df
39892 F20110114_AACBMF dees_w_Page_084.jpg
f889520faf672dc28838c52eb9dc9c60
fe383b7b933c7a5e17ed1c186ed111e919c91fc2
58618 F20110114_AACBLR dees_w_Page_068.jpg
4a4c222e16028ed6dc72db7151bb036d
8b3080d29e19f0016ee05391f0994604742f72bb
35291 F20110114_AACBMG dees_w_Page_085.jpg
f67ce5bd7eb83840005ad503479653a3
33bbb4d24edf8ac857392fa2491288e817e6dff7
24037 F20110114_AACBLS dees_w_Page_069.jpg
4df9d3653ccad85f6262e408c9e5b247
7ab6a93797b571b7ebf76671ac70472d3ad1fcd1
67059 F20110114_AACBMH dees_w_Page_086.jpg
bd95608be7270db2eef3d1184fee0963
02241a713f4621e0bf6795c1fedfecf0029a7650
49968 F20110114_AACBLT dees_w_Page_070.jpg
43ef9a33de049da9fd8fd408d364e508
646b14cc9461a77b3e140029be69fe0e18a70f3a
65372 F20110114_AACBMI dees_w_Page_087.jpg
419acab1747568d553f2565cc5585d33
a1e7a0c38f9442c3bf4c168b99014b84b1fea20a
63050 F20110114_AACBLU dees_w_Page_071.jpg
2bf9c9e7553c7277aa7d4184b4a9720a
3eecf8aab67975beb9e4429bf3c334dfe4c6f770
36324 F20110114_AACBMJ dees_w_Page_088.jpg
28301c26eecf2409c869d30050637379
7bcd4422053033b818a9b127eee14acec418c5c1
41776 F20110114_AACBMK dees_w_Page_089.jpg
48efa23f8113b18dd76bdbd836ebf1b4
315e6117c98708c8dcc8e2cd099d905e6bc6fca5
58902 F20110114_AACBLV dees_w_Page_072.jpg
b17a6fe7894b07593d6d5e8756a1bf44
632e63617def6137666d0ad20daf221a551c1b2b
34587 F20110114_AACBML dees_w_Page_090.jpg
161821faf80b0ca2b7b1bab30c707ef0
585746ac5b7e8fe38a8de59a6cbbefdee2ec33a8
73453 F20110114_AACBLW dees_w_Page_073.jpg
35fd306edf00bceeebc6d19b87161733
eed6ad939a594840a5e506de0dd7c0d7fde9edb2
68620 F20110114_AACBNA dees_w_Page_105.jpg
416fbf76e475b5893ab7d5b0ec5137c0
65c1631a1c380deeb082bcf19d1e59019d678b61
28563 F20110114_AACBMM dees_w_Page_091.jpg
8a6da89ed75f73740688972813813b84
7b22c264a949f04e4ea534e64a8695df07ac16e5
70583 F20110114_AACBLX dees_w_Page_074.jpg
bd359d4d75fac2061d9d8927bcc19b7a
c46a653c53910f4ac95d1170eb1c561bbbf50256
70391 F20110114_AACBNB dees_w_Page_106.jpg
2aa8dc3443671149b5e96b2e2dcc6ed2
f34594d61e235f44ddea388850333e799b639cde
55359 F20110114_AACBMN dees_w_Page_092.jpg
e4de401c2285a21decfa81f7e7e8346f
5c88baf2e662d90d54b5e2dca2371da52393b3b6
48085 F20110114_AACBLY dees_w_Page_075.jpg
a549192e334e613938954403888753b3
70913103820afb1e3c09adbd6216897e7386543f
72564 F20110114_AACBNC dees_w_Page_107.jpg
2a7b843ca0a0c1153977a02814d569e1
7b10f6915a78d5ef26b6ec34037ea438af0dda0a
36977 F20110114_AACBMO dees_w_Page_093.jpg
7c9455bff3ccf1c92b556092a2665a81
5f891f6cf67fec0222407bf4d9dd34cbdb822e05
34266 F20110114_AACBLZ dees_w_Page_076.jpg
db6b29657bbf130aeadf5eda7a1914ed
bb4ebaac0f9df71afb84556bc32b26c0fa37fc5e
70363 F20110114_AACBND dees_w_Page_108.jpg
24c326836d72d67dfd7b1a170ed8914f
5f21b3c23c031a144c5e5c48eea111fc6a1d0fe4
53668 F20110114_AACBMP dees_w_Page_094.jpg
b100e46a2c63e7f4e67cca5aa3e5c8a2
650fd0a01b0ad8fc7331e798ea4d297e0ecd98a1
67317 F20110114_AACBNE dees_w_Page_110.jpg
6f694b7266de14fb7ac33455304926c6
65aaa8645d02cb91da87159beee2577c924deb9d
73274 F20110114_AACBMQ dees_w_Page_095.jpg
6b2361bd75fae0d32b3a455dca35990a
e8f3663af71ec71272b25cd8f922ed11a0e05506
10189 F20110114_AACBNF dees_w_Page_111.jpg
61edf9be2d7c9b0e4370b11e53fbd39f
0b001f87416b1469999c3df290cdda9d797503ed
76884 F20110114_AACBMR dees_w_Page_096.jpg
353a77aff6dd857263a27c6c5aefc607
6666f6943e2f0cac834349215e97de0a50849a25


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0008267/00001

Material Information

Title: Measuring the Effectiveness of Commercial Sponsorships in Intercollegiate Athletics
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0008267:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0008267/00001

Material Information

Title: Measuring the Effectiveness of Commercial Sponsorships in Intercollegiate Athletics
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0008267:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMERCIAL SPONSORSHIPS IN
INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS














By

WINDY DEES


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN EXERCISE AND SPORT SCIENCES

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004

































Copyright 2004

by

Windy Dees


































This document is dedicated to my late father, Tommy Dees, and to the rest of my family.
Thank you for making me who I am today. I love you all.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my entire committee for all of their knowledge and guidance.

It has been a long, winding journey, but it has led me to a better place. They have all my

gratitude and respect.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS



A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES .......................................... viii

LIST O F FIG U RE S ............... .......................................... ...x.... .. .... .x

A B S T R A C T ........................................................................................................ ........... x i

CHAPTER

1 IN TR O D U C T IO N ........ .. ......................................... ..........................................1.

T heoretical F ram ew ork .. ....................................................................... ...............4...
Statement of Problem ..................................... ...........................6
R ationale for the Study ............... ................. .............................................. 7
Research Questions ................................. ...............................8
Definitions of Terms ........................ .. ............ ...............................9

2 LITER A TU RE REV IEW ................................................................................... 11

A advertising E effectiveness .......................................... ...................................... ..... 11
Sponsorship E effectiveness ...................................... ......................... ............... 13
Sport Sponsorships .............................. .. .......... ............................. 15
Aw areness ........................ .................. ............. .................. 16
F favorable D isposition .... ... ......................................... ....................... . ........... 18
G o o d w ill .....................................................................................................................2 0
Fan Involvem ent .......................................................................................... . 22
P u rch a se In ten tio n s .....................................................................................................2 5

3 M ETH OD OLO G Y ............................................................................................... 29

S e ttin g .........................................................................................................................2 9
P ilot T est R esu lts .. ............ ......................... ....................... ............... .. ..... .3 1
D ata C collection ........................................................................ ............... 32
Sampling Procedures and Selection of Subjects.................................... ................ 34
In stru m en tatio n ........................................................................................................... 3 5
O perationalalizing the C onstructs.......................................................... ................ 35
A w areness ................................................................................................. 36


v









F av orable D isposition .......................................... ........................ ................ 38
G oodw ill ............................................................................................. . 38
Fan Involvement ..................................................................... 39
P purchase Intention s ....................................... ....................... ................ 39
Sam ple Profile ............................................................................................................40
D evelopm ent of M measures ......................................... ......................... ................ 42
D ata A analysis ....................................................................................................... 52
D descriptive Statistics ............... ................ .............................................. 52

4 R E S U L T S ................................................................................................................... 6 1

Research Question 1: Will Participants Who have Higher Levels of Awareness of
Corporate Sponsorships Display A More Favorable Disposition than
Participants with Lower Levels of Awareness?................................ ................ 61
Research Question 2: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Awareness
Display Stronger Purchase Intentions than Participants with Lower Levels of
Aw areness? .......................... .. ... ......... ... ... .. .. ................. 64
Research Question 3: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Favorable
Disposition Display Stronger Purchase Intentions than Participants with
Low er Levels of Favorable D isposition?........................................ .................. 68
Research Question 4: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Goodwill
Display Higher Levels of Awareness of Corporate Sponsorships than
Participants with Lower Levels of Goodwill? ............................... ................... 70
Research Question 5: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Goodwill
Display Higher Levels of Favorable Disposition than Participants with
L ow er L evels of G oodw ill? ........................................................... ................... 74
Research Question 6: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Goodwill
Display Stronger Purchase Intentions Than Participants with Lower Levels
of Goodwill? ......................... ....... .. .... ....... . ... ............... 75
Research Question 7: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Fan
Involvement Display Higher Levels of Awareness of Corporate Sponsorships
than Participants With Lower Levels of Fan Involvement? ..............................76
Research Question 8: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Fan
Involvement Display Higher Levels of Favorable Disposition than Participants
with Lower Levels of Fan Involvem ent? .......................................... ................ 79
Research Question 9: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Fan
Involvement Display Stronger Purchase Intentions than Participants with
Low er Levels of Fan Involvem ent? .................................................. ................ 80

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................................... 82

Su m m ary of M eth o d s .................................................................................................82
D discussion of Findings ............. ................. .............................................. 83
Sam ple Profile ................... ....... ................................ ............... 83
Research Question 1: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Awareness
of Corporate Sponsorships Display a more Favorable Disposition than
Participants with Lower Levels of Awareness?................................ ............... 83









Research Question 2: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Awareness
of Corporate Sponsorships Display Stronger Purchase Intentions than
Participants with Lower Levels of Awareness?............................... ................ 84
Research Question 3: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Favorable
Disposition Display Stronger Purchase Intentions than Participants with
Low er Levels of Favorable D isposition?....................................... ................... 85
Research Question 4: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Goodwill
Display Higher Levels of Awareness of Corporate Sponsorships than
Participants with Lower Levels of Goodwill? ............................... ................... 86
Research Question 5: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Goodwill
Display Higher Levels of Favorable Disposition than Participants with Lower
L ev els of G oodw ill? .................................................. .. ........ ............. .. ........... 87
Research Question 6: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Goodwill
Display Stronger Purchase Intentions than Participants with Lower Levels of
G oodw ill? .................... .... ................ ...... .. ............... 88
Research Question 7: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Fan
Involvement Display Higher Levels of Awareness of Corporate Sponsorships
than Participants with Lower Levels of Fan Involvement? ..............................89
Research Question 8: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Fan
Involvement Display Higher Levels of Favorable Disposition than Participants
with Lower Levels of Fan Involvem ent? .......................................... ................ 90
Research Question 9: Will Participants who have Higher Levels of Fan
Involvement Display Stronger Purchase Intentions than Participants with
Low er Levels of Fan Involvem ent? .................................................. ................ 91
Im p lic atio n s ................................................................................................................ 9 2
L im itatio n s ............................................................................................................... .. 9 6
D elim itatio n s............... ... ........................................................................................ 9 6
Suggestions for Future R research ........................................................... ................ 97

APPENDIX

A IN FO R M ED C O N SEN T ........................................... ......................... ................ 99

B IRB PROTOCOL FORM .......................................................... 101

C SU RVEY IN STRUM EN T..................................... ........................ ................ 103

D UAA LETTER OF PERMISSION...... ........ ...... ......................108

LIST O F R EFEREN CE S .. .................................................................... ............... 110

BIO GRAPH ICAL SK ETCH ................. ..............................................................1...... 17
















LIST OF TABLES

Table page

3-1 Awareness Item s ........................... .. ........... .....................................37

3-2 Q questionnaire Item s... ....................................................................... ................ 38

3-3 Q questionnaire Item s... ....................................................................... ................ 39

3-4 Questionnaire Item s.... ................................................................................. 39

3-5 Questionnaire Item s.... ................................................................................. 40

3-6 Sample Profile for Participants of 3 Intercollegiate Football Games....................42

3-8 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Goodwill .............................................46

3-9 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Fan Involvement................................47

3-10 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Purchase Intentions...............................48

3-11 R ecall (U naided) R esults.......................................... ........................ ................ 52

3-12 Recognition (Aided recall) Results ................................................... 52

3-14 Frequencies for the 15 Goodwill (GW ) Item s..................................... ................ 56

3-15 Frequencies for the 4 Fan Involvement (FI) Items..............................................58

3-16 Frequencies for the 29 Purchase Intentions Items...............................................59

4-1 One-Way ANOVA's for Question 1 ..........................................................62

4-2 O ne-w ay AN O V A 's for Question 1 .................................................... ................ 63

4-3 One-W ay AN OVA 's for Question 2................................................... ................ 65

4-4 One-W ay AN OVA 's for Question 2................................................... ................ 66

4-5 Correlational Analysis for Favorable Disposition and Purchase Intentions ............69

4-6 One-W ay AN OVA 's for Question 4................................................... ................ 71









4-7 One-W ay AN OVA 's for Question 4................................................... ................ 72

4-8 Correlational Analysis for Favorable Disposition and Goodwill..........................74

4-9 Correlational Analysis for Goodwill and Purchase Intentions...............................75

4-10 One-W ay AN OVA 's for Question 7................................................... ................ 77

4-11 One-W ay AN OVA 's for Question 7................................................... ................ 78

4-12 Correlational Analysis for Fan Involvement and Favorable Disposition..............80

4-13 Correlational Analysis for Fan Involvement and Purchase Intentions..................81















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 Meenaghan's (2001) Framework of Sponsorship Effects....................................6...

1-2 M odel of the Process of Sponsorship Effectiveness. ............................ ...............8...















Abstract of a Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Exercise and Sport Sciences

MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMERCIAL SPONSORSHIPS IN
INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

By

Windy Dees

December 2004

Chair: Gregg Bennett
Major Department: Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management

Commercial sponsorship (CS), also known as corporate sponsorship, is currently

one of the most utilized forms of marketing communication. Commercial sponsorship

has become a preferred and viable force for many companies determined to expand and

leverage products in today's lucrative sports market. Commercial sponsorship marketing

communication is "an investment, in cash or in kind, in an activity, in return for access to

the exploitable commercial potential associated with that activity." The purpose of this

study was to evaluate the effectiveness of CS of an elite intercollegiate football program

by analyzing the constructs of awareness, favorable disposition, goodwill, fan

involvement, and purchase intentions. The results of the study indicated that, with the

exception of awareness, all of the constructs positively and significantly impacted

consumers' attitudinal and behavioral responses to CS. Therefore, corporations and









sports marketers alike can benefit from investing in CS. Scholars would also benefit from

further research in this important facet of marketing communication.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Marketing communication takes various forms that serve different purposes

depending on the product, company, consumer, and event. Commercial sponsorship

(CS), also known as corporate sponsorship, is currently one of the fastest growing forms

of marketing communication (Meenaghan, 2001). CS has become the driving force for

many companies determined to expand and leverage products in today's lucrative sports

market. CS marketing communication is "an investment, in cash or in kind, in an

activity, in return for access to the exploitable commercial potential associated with that

activity" (Madrigal, 2001, p.147; Meenaghan, 1991, p.36).

CS has become an integral part of the marketing strategy of many companies.

Corporations are investing large percentages of their advertising dollars into sporting

event sponsorships in hopes of attracting sports consumers to their respective products

and services (Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2000; Nicholls, Roslow, & Laskey, 1994). The

amount of advertising dollars spent in the United States on corporate sponsorships

increased from $850 million in 1985 to $8.7 billion in 2000 (International Event Group,

2000). These amounts only represent the price associated with the purchase of property

rights required to secure the event and do not include the almost equal amount spent on

the utilization and development of the entire activity. Clearly, CS has become an integral

and strategic investment for many industries seeking to target the sports consumer.

A major rationale for the use of corporate sponsorships is to connect with

consumers and create a desire within those consumers, via the event medium, to purchase









products or services from these corporations. Sponsors anticipate that the emotional

connection consumers feel toward the event will link them to their company, and the

positive feelings will transfer to their products and services (Madrigal, 2001). When

consumers make the decision to purchase these products and services from a sponsoring

company, then that company has produced what is called a Return on Investment (ROI).

Daniels and Radebaugh (1998, p.9) define ROI as "the amount of profit, sometimes

measured before and sometimes after the payment of taxes, divided by the amount of

investment." ROI is an important goal for a commercial sponsor because it means that

the marketing message has not only reached the target audience, but the funds invested to

produce the message have returned a profit.

The effect an advertisement has on consumers is important to businesses,

advertisers, and scholars alike due to the desire to understand the relationship between

advertising and purchase decisions or ROI. Marketing and advertising scholars have

made an exhaustive effort to understand the effectiveness of advertising on the consumer.

Many of these scholars list cognitive, affective, and experience effects as central and

important effects of advertising (Hall, 2002). Recently, scholars have theorized that

sponsorship affects consumers in a distinctive manner. For example, Meenaghan (2001)

suggests the variables of awareness, favorable disposition, goodwill, and fan involvement

can specifically affect consumers' purchase intentions.

As a form of marketing communications, commercial sponsorships are separate and

unique from traditional advertising. For example, traditional advertising includes

television commercials and print ads in magazines or newspapers. In comparison,









sponsorship typically includes on site event signage, verbal recognition, and media

guides.

There are four distinct ways in which sponsorship differs from advertising

(Meenaghan, 2001). First, sponsorship can be viewed as more beneficial to consumers

than advertising. When a company sponsors an event, team, or cause, they are seen as a

contributor to the community (Meenaghan, 2001). Consumers believe the sponsor is

supporting an activity and the individuals involved. Consumers often view advertising as

less altruistic because the perceived goal is to generate revenue, whereas sponsorship

places more emphasis on the benefits to society.

Second, sponsorship can be viewed as indirect and subtle, comparatively to

advertising, which is usually viewed as being more direct and forceful (Meenaghan,

2001). Sponsorship messages are less conspicuous than those found in conventional

advertising. The sponsorship communication normally consists of the company's name

and logo with a brief slogan to catch the spectators' attention (Lardinoit & Derbaix,

2001). Advertising is directed at consumers with the purpose of maintaining their full

attention for the duration of the message.

Third, the intent to persuade in sponsorship is usually disguised while the intent to

persuade in advertising is overt (Meenaghan, 2001). Sponsorship messages or

communications often give consumers the impression that the company is only seeking

recognition or affiliation with the event. Advertising openly propositions the consumer

to purchase products or services through commercials that often interrupt the flow of the

game.









Lastly, sponsorship communications generally create a low state of alertness within

the consumer during exposure, whereas advertising seeks to grasp the individual's

attention and retain their alertness. Sponsorships emerge from the relaxing environment

of a social or sporting event and allow the consumer to scan the message on his or her

own accord (Madrigal, 2001). This puts the consumer at ease and lowers his or her

defense mechanisms (Meenaghan, 2001). Advertising consistently reminds the consumer

why he or she should purchase a product or service, and this repeated persuasion can

result in elevated defense mechanisms of the viewer.

Sponsorship originated from the field of advertising, and although there is

extensive research and scholarship on the latter, sponsorship requires further exploration.

A need exists to further analyze CS and examine how it affects consumers and their

attitudes and behaviors. CS and its effectiveness on consumers' purchase intentions is a

relatively novel concept, and only within the last decade was a theoretical basis for this

process proposed.

Theoretical Framework

Theories describing how advertising works have been formulated for over a

century. The original model was AIDA (Attention-Interest-Desire-Action) which was

developed by E. St. Elmo Lewis in 1898 (Vakratsas & Ambler, 1999). This model

introduced the idea that consumers apply previous beliefs, attitudes, and experiences in a

hierarchical manner to form their behaviors, including purchase intentions. Consumers

receive the message that is presented, they recall prior feelings or knowledge of a product

or service, and formulate a decision about the advertising message.

The Persuasive Hierarchy Model is another way to explain consumers' reactions to

an advertising message in a systematic manner. In the concept of a hierarchy of effects,









things must take place in a specific order to achieve certain results. The purpose of this

type of model is to first inform and then persuade (Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999). This

means the earlier effects are precursors to later effects and are the most important facet of

the model (Aaker & Day, 1984; Colley, 1961; Greenwald, 1968; Lavidge & Steiner,

1961; McGuire, 1968; Robertson, 1971; Rogers, 1962; Wright, 1973). Therefore, a

sponsorship activation must inform consumers what brand, product, or service is being

promoted, create a positive emotion within the consumer, and then persuade them to

display a specific behavior, such as intent to purchase. The pattern demonstrated here,

which is the foundation for the persuasive hierarchy model as well as this research study,

is Cognition Affect Behavior. Vakratsas and Ambler (1999) refer to these three

facets as intermediate responses. Intermediate responses begin with the mental effects of

advertising and move to the behavioral effects of advertising. This systematic,

hierarchical process also includes two mediating factors and they are awareness and

attitude-toward-ad or favorable disposition. These two factors of individual responses to

advertising directly affect the outcomes of this hierarchical model (MacKenzie & Lutz,

1989; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Sponsorship, like advertising, is a message or

input for the consumer, and these modes of marketing communication create various

outputs or responses. According to Madrigal (2001), "The central feature of a beliefs -

attitude intentions hierarchy is that beliefs represent the basis for an attitude toward

engaging in a specific behavior" (p. 150).

Building upon the effects of advertising on consumers as described by Vakratsas

and Ambler (1999), Meenaghan (2001) described the specific effect of sponsorship on

the consumer. Meenaghan (2001) identifies goodwill, image transfer, and fan









involvement as the three central variables that differentiate sponsorship from advertising.

Sponsorship differs from traditional advertising that utilizes blatant sales strategies (e.g.

television commercials). These sponsorship traits and their relationships to one another

create a unique environment where the consumer is subtly introduced to the marketing

message. Meenaghan's (2001) model served as the theoretical foundation for this

investigation.



Sponsor Process Response


Figure 1-1. Meenaghan's (2001) Framework of Sponsorship Effects.

Statement of Problem

Due to the fact that commercial sponsorship has become a major form of marketing

communication, it is necessary to continually study this phenomenon in an effort to

determine its impact on consumers and their perceptions of commercial sponsors and

their products and services. There is a plethora of original research, position papers, and

theoretical manuscripts exploring the topic of advertising effectiveness (Vakratsas &

Ambler, 1999). While there is a wealth of scholarship on sponsorship, a relative paucity









of original research exists on the effectiveness of CS. An even greater disparity exists

regarding the effects of awareness, favorable disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and

purchase intentions as they relate to CS.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of intercollegiate sport

sponsorship of an elite intercollegiate football program. Meenaghan's (2001) framework

for understanding the process of sponsorship effects served as the theoretical foundation

for the study. Thus, awareness, favorable disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and

purchase intentions are the independent variables in the investigation.

Rationale for the Study

The review of literature indicates that commercial sponsorship has become an

integral part of marketing communications. This phenomenon warrants further research

seeking to better understand the effects of sport sponsorship and the advantages it

possesses over conventional advertising methods. With additional information and

evidence on sport sponsorships, the understanding of this area and the scope of its

effectiveness could be improved.

This study will focus on the five constructs affecting sponsorship effectiveness,

namely, awareness, favorable disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase

intentions. Because these constructs can impact consumer perceptions of sponsors as

well as their products and services, more attention and analysis is needed to determine

how they can be enhanced within sport sponsorship. Based upon a review of relevant

literature, the following model was modified from Meenaghan's (2001) model of

sponsorship effects to display how the five constructs would be examined in relation to

one another in this study.





















SPONSOR FAVORABLE Purchase CONSUMER
COMMUNICATION AWARENESS 01 R RESPONSE
INPUT DISPOSITION Intentions OUTPUT



Q7 Q2
Q8
Q9
FAN
INVOLVEMENT



Figure 1-2. Model of the Process of Sponsorship Effectiveness.

Research Questions

The following research questions will be explored in this study:

Qi Will participants who have higher levels of awareness of corporate sponsorships
display a more favorable disposition than participants with lower levels of
awareness?
Q2- Will participants who have higher levels of awareness of corporate sponsorships
display stronger purchase intentions than participants with lower levels of
awareness?
Q 3 Will participants who have higher levels of favorable disposition display stronger
purchase intentions than participants with lower levels of favorable disposition?
Q4- Will participants who have higher levels of goodwill display higher levels of
awareness or corporate sponsorships than participants with lower levels of
goodwill?
Q 5 Will participants who have higher levels of goodwill display higher levels of
favorable disposition than participants with lower levels of goodwill?
Q 6 Will participants who have higher levels of goodwill display stronger purchase
intentions than participants with lower levels of goodwill?
Q 7 Will participants who have higher levels of fan involvement display higher levels of
awareness of corporate sponsorships than participants with lower levels of fan
involvement?









Q 8 Will participants who have higher levels of fan involvement display higher levels of
favorable disposition than participants with lower levels of fan involvement?
Q 9 Will participants who have higher levels of fan involvement display stronger
purchase intentions than participants with lower levels of fan involvement?

Definitions of Terms

The terms used throughout this study are defined below:

Awareness is the consumer's ability to recall or recognize the sponsor

communications input, either completely from memory, or with verbal or written cues

(du Plessis, 1994).

Commercial Sponsorship is "an investment, in cash or in kind, in an activity, in

return for access to the exploitable commercial potential associated with that activity"

(Madrigal, 2001, p. 147; Meenaghan, 1991, p.36).

Construct is a theoretical entity; a working hypothesis or concept (Merriam -

Webster Web site).

Factor is a number or symbol that divides another number or symbol (Merriam -

Webster Web site).

Fan Involvement "the extent to which consumers identify with, and are motivated by,

their engagement and affiliation with particular leisure activities" (Meenaghan, 2001,

p.106).

Favorable Disposition is the consumer's perception of a sponsorship or attitude

toward the sponsorship (Lutz, 1985).

Goodwill is the positive attitude that consumers convey toward a sponsor who

supports and facilitates an event, team, or cause in which they are passionate

(Meenaghan, 2001).






10


Purchase Intentions are the expressed likelihood of consumers to purchase

products or services from the event sponsors (Peyrot et al., 1998).














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of commercial

sponsorships of an elite intercollegiate football program by analyzing the effects of

awareness, favorable disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase intentions on

sport consumers. The manner in which these variables influence consumer perceptions of

intercollegiate sport sponsorships will be central to this analysis. The sections that are

covered in this chapter include:

* Advertising Effectiveness
* Sponsorship Effectiveness
* Sport Sponsorship
* Awareness
* Favorable Disposition
* Goodwill
* Fan Involvement
* Purchase Intentions

Advertising Effectiveness

Since CS is a form of advertising, it is important to understand the effectiveness of

this marketing communication (Percy & Rossiter, 1997). There are various models and

theories that can provide a framework for studying how advertising works. Vakratsas

and Ambler (1999) developed a taxonomy that progresses from models with no

intermediate effects, to models with one or more intermediate effects, then to hierarchical

models, and finishes with hierarchy-free models. There are 7 models in the taxonomy.

The first is the Market Response Model and it relates advertising and promotional

measures to the behavioral patterns of consumers. The second model in the taxonomy is









the Cognitive Information Model. This "thinking" model assumes that consumers make

purchasing decisions based on rational thought rather than feelings or emotions

(Bharadwaj, Varadarjan, & Fahy, 1993; Nelson, 1970). Third, is the Pure Affect Model

which does assume that consumers base their purchasing decisions on feelings and

emotions rather than cognitions (Aaker & Day, 1984; Alwitt & Mitchell, 1985; Peterson,

Hoyer, & Wilson, 1986). Fourth, the Persuasive Hierarchy Model which is central to

advertising research, is based on the idea that advertising must inform and then persuade.

It introduced the concept of a hierarchy of effects where things must take place in a

systematic fashion (Aaker & Day, 1984; Colley, 1961; Greenwald, 1968; Lavidge &

Steiner, 1961; McGuire, 1968; Robertson, 1971; Rogers, 1962; Wright, 1973). The

framework of sponsorship effectiveness, the theoretical basis for this study, is

encompassed by this category. The framework is a persuasive hierarchy model that also

progresses systematically from the sponsor communication input to the consumer

response output. Low-Involvement Hierarchy Models are the fifth category described in

the taxonomy. These models involve consumers with less awareness of advertisements

and less involvement (Vakratsas & Ambler, 1999). Integrative Models are the sixth

category. Integrative models use varying hierarchies of cognition, affect, and experience

depending on the advertising message that is being communicated. The seventh and final

category in the taxonomy is the Hierarchy-Free Models. This section includes any other

models that do not fall into the previous six sections. It is the smallest group of models

and places little emphasis on persuasion (King, 1975; Lannon, 1994; Lannon & Cooper,

1983).









Sponsorship Effectiveness

As opposed to advertising effectiveness which has been carefully and extensively

researched, sponsorship effectiveness remains relatively unexplored, due in part to its

close association with advertising and promotions (Pham, 1991). Cornwell and Maignan

(1998) indicated that sponsorship effectiveness research was still in its early stages, and

that a theoretical framework to provide a foundation for this research had not yet been

constructed. Until recently, rather than being systematically studied, sponsorship had

been examined on a case-by-case basis and therefore a comprehensive model of its

effectiveness was not existent in the literature (Lee, Sandler, & Shani, 1997; Crowley,

1991). Meenaghan's (2001) framework of sponsorship effects attempts to describe the

process of CS in a plausible, hierarchical manner that is inclusive of the entire

progression from the initial sponsor communication, through the filtering process of the

audience, all the way to the consumers' responses to the actual marketing message.

In the past, CS research has placed most of its emphasis on the sponsoring

companies and their goals and objectives (McDonald, 1991; Meenaghan, 1991; Polonsky,

Sandler, Casey, Murphy, Portelli, & Van Velzen, 1996; Shanklin & Kuzma, 1992). In

early studies of CS, findings suggested corporate sponsors wanted to focus on media

objectives, namely company exposure (Abratt, Clayton, & Pitt, 1987; Waite, 1979).

Subsequent investigations noted that companies involved with CS began to emphasize

corporate image and brand awareness as additional objectives of sponsorship

relationships and activations (Javalgi, Traylor, Gross, & Lampman, 1994; Keller, 1993;

Nebenzahl & Jaffe, 1991). However, the reason behind this shift in focus and the effects

of these marketing endeavors on consumers were not thoroughly investigated

(McDonald, 1991). According to Lee et al., (1997), there have been few experimental









research studies that have analyzed the effectiveness of CS and how it impacts

consumers.

According to Cornwell and Maignan (1998), the best way to analyze the

effectiveness of sponsorship is to determine its commercial impact. In order to do this,

researchers say that businesses need to measure the effects of their CS marketing efforts

on targeted consumers (Abratt et al., 1987; McDonald, 1991). Cornwell and Maignan

(1998) outline two different ways to measure these effects: Exposure-Based Methods and

Tracking Methods.

In the Exposure-Based Methods, there are two separate techniques used to examine

CS. The first technique requires that sponsors monitor the quantity and nature of the

media coverage they are using at an event. The second technique used in this method

requires that sponsors estimate any direct or indirect audiences being exposed to their

marketing message. Even though exposure-based methods are often employed by

businesses, Pham (1991) questions the fact that media coverage is still a goal of CS, and

believes that these methods are ineffective in producing significant results.

With Tracking Methods, there are several ways in which to evaluate the

effectiveness of CS. Awareness and favorable disposition are only a few of the measures

used by researchers in their surveys to assess the impact of CS on consumers. Scholars in

this area have also "assessed recall of sponsors' ads, awareness of and attitudes toward

sponsors and their products, and image effects which can be subdivided in terms of

corporate image, brand image, and country image" (Cornwell & Maignan, 1998, p.7).

These methods have been met with more success than the exposure-based methods in CS

research. This study will use tracking methods to test CS effectiveness.









Sport Sponsorships

Despite the limited research in the area of sponsorship effectiveness, sport

sponsorship remains one of the most legitimate and cost effective modes of marketing

communication (Kiely, 1993; Sandler & Shani, 1993; Sleight, 1989). Because consumers

are constantly exposed to advertising messages of many forms, and the environment is

cluttered, it has become increasingly difficult for corporations to set themselves apart

from the competition in terms of the uniqueness of their marketing strategies (Maloney,

2002). Sport sponsorship has become a distinctive approach companies use to reach

consumers that can benefit from targeting this exclusive market (Meir, Arthur, Tobin, &

Massingham, 2001).

Advertising campaigns can be extremely expensive and time-consuming to

develop, so sport sponsorships provide a simple and inexpensive alternative to larger

advertising investments (Meir et al., 2001). Other benefits of sport sponsorships can

include increased brand awareness and image, hospitality opportunities, product

promotions, and community exposure and influence (Sleight, 1989). Scott and Suchard

(1992) found that there were three main factors that influenced a corporation's decision

to allocate a portion of their advertising budget to sport sponsorship. Those factors

included improved company/product awareness, improved market share, and lastly, the

cultivation of client relationships through hospitality opportunities.

Some research has been conducted to determine if sport sponsorships are worth the

advertising dollars they necessitate when compared to traditional advertising methods

such as television commercials (Maloney, 2002). Gupta and Lord (1998) found that

prominent product placement was more effective at eliciting a consumer's recall response

than a TV commercial displaying the same product for the same length of time. In a









similar study on the impact of sport sponsorships on NASCAR fans, Levin, Joiner, and

Cameron (2001) found that consumers recalled more brands after viewing only the

racecars than they did when viewing TV commercials for the same brands. This

phenomenon may suggest that the intrusive or persuasive nature of the TV commercials

causes the marketing message to be ineffective, whereas, the subtlety of the sponsorships

on the racecars allows them to be more effective. Bennett (1999) states that sports

sponsorship reaches a large, diverse audience which can positively enhance national

brand awareness, and it also benefits the local communities where the events take place.

It has become apparent that sport sponsorship is a viable and potentially profitable

approach to achieving advertising objectives while also building strong product or brand

equity (Aaker, 1991; Marshall& Cook, 1992). In order to determine the effectiveness of

sport sponsorships and how these response outputs are elicited, the five constructs of

awareness, favorable disposition, goodwill, image transfer, and fan involvement were

analyzed.

Awareness

The first stage in the response phase of Meenaghan's (2001) framework is

awareness. Awareness involves the consumer's ability to recall or recognize the sponsor

communications input, either completely from memory, or with verbal or written cues

(du Plessis, 1994; Singh, Rothschild, & Churchill, 1988, Turco, 1995).

Recall, also termed unaided recall, is a method used to measure a participant's

awareness by asking them to retrieve from memory the names of event sponsors or

brands (Bennett, Henson, & Zhang, 2002; Johar & Pham, 1999, p.299). According to

Lardinoit and Derbaix (2001, p. 171), unaided recall is a "two-stage process requiring

both retrieval and discrimination tasks and it depends on both the availability and









accessibility of information". According to Wells (2000), a person's ability to recall an

advertising communication message is an indicator of the meaningfulness of the message

or how well the brand registers in the consumers mind. Although recall scores are

generally lower than recognition scores, research indicates that they are higher than

recognition scores when the ad successfully registers the sponsor's name (Wells, 2000).

Even when other aspects of the message are weak, if brand name recognition is strong,

then recall scores are likely to be high (Gibson, 1983).

One key advantage recall measures have is that they are objective (Wells, 2000). If

a person is not given a visual aid, like they are with the recognition method, then any

information the individual recalls is from memory and not from the message provided. A

disadvantage of this method is that high recall scores can be obtained from an ad that is

extraordinary or stunning, but relays nothing meaningful about the product, brand, or

sponsor (Wells, 2000).

Wells (2000) suggests that a person's ability to recognize an ad gauges his or her

interest in the message. Recognition, also referred to as aided recall, asks the consumers

to correctly identify the sponsors of an event from a list of actual sponsors and dummy

foils (false sponsors) (Bennett et al., 2002). Consumers draw from their available

memory in order to distinguish one sponsor from another (Lardinoit & Derbaix, 2001).

While recognition scores are generally higher than unaided recall scores, they can be less

indicative of the meaningfulness of the message (Wells, 2000). This method is

advantageous for companies who already have a strong corporate image and/or brand

recognition and simply want to market a new product or service. An ad that is appealing

or attractive to a consumer tends to generate high recognition scores, because it is easier









for the person to identify it when they see it again. An issue with this tracking method is

that aided recall scores reveal the level of interest in the ad, and consumers can often

identify a sponsor's message, though they cannot recall the sponsor's name (Wells,

2000). Therefore, high recognition scores can be somewhat misleading when

determining and describing consumer awareness levels.

Favorable Disposition

The second stage in the response phase of Meenaghan's (2001) model is favorable

disposition. Also referred to as consumer perception or attitude-toward-ad (Aad),

favorable disposition has been extensively researched in the fields of advertising and

marketing. Within these research disciplines, the importance of attitudes towards

advertising in general and towards a specific ad has long been researched. Thirty years

ago, Greyser (1972) noted that attitude-toward-advertising impacted the effectiveness of

advertising. Attitude-toward-ad has been defined as a "predisposition to respond in a

consistently favorable or unfavorable manner to advertising in general," (Lutz 1985, p.

53).

Later research showed that attitude-toward-advertising in general is important

because it influences Aad. Attitude-toward-ad has been defined as a "predisposition to

respond in a favorable or unfavorable manner to a particular advertising stimulus during a

particular exposure situation" (Mackenzie, et al. 1986, p. 130).

Attitude-toward-ad, in turn, is important because it is an antecedent of brand

attitude (Lutz, 1985; Mackenzie & Lutz, 1989; Mehta, 2000; Shimp, 1981). Research

efforts then focused on conditions that impact ad effectiveness, the determinants of ad

attitudes, and tests of causal models of ad attitudes and outcomes (Brown & Stayman,

1992). Research on these constructs was performed using traditional media.









More recently, there have been attempts to research these constructs in light of new

advertising media (Gallagher, Parsons & Foster, 2001, Lee & Katz 1993). Most notably,

several studies have been conducted on web page advertising. For example, Shamdaani,

Stanaland and Tan (2001) found that ad location on a web page does impact Aad, brand

attitude, and intent to act. Similarly, Stevenson, Bruner and Kumar (2000) found that

simpler backgrounds have significantly more positive impacts on Aad, attitude-toward-

the-brand, and purchase intention.

Within the context of this general process, sponsorship presents some unique

theoretical research questions (Pope, 1998; Pope & Voges, 1994). Ultimately, the

advertiser is interested in the issue of ad effectiveness how well Aad transfers to brand

attitude or favorable disposition (Sandage, 1983). Consumers form both positive and

negative dispositions about advertising and sponsorships at generic and personalized

levels (Reid & Soley, 1982). Following a person's experience at a sporting event, he or

she will form an opinion of the sponsors of that event. These opinions, whether positive

or negative, can reflect the consumer's feeling of sponsorship as a whole or of that

particular event. If the consumer has formed a decision overall regarding sponsorship,

then his or her favorable disposition is generic. If the consumer's opinion is only

reflective of his or her experience at a single event, then the favorable disposition is

personalized.

According to Madrigal (2001), favorable disposition is vital to understanding

sponsorship effects because consumers develop beliefs concerning a sponsorship, as well

as a perceived level of importance of the sponsorship, and the two combined determine

how supportive the consumer's attitude is of the sponsor. According to attitude theory,









new and old beliefs are combined to form current attitudes about a particular object. The

strongest and most consistent beliefs form the attitudes, and these attitudes are what

consumers utilize when processing information, forming intentions, and performing

behaviors (Boninger, Krosnick, & Berent, 1995; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). An attitude is

defined here as "a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular

entity with some degree of favor or disfavor" (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p.1). These

attitudes are said to be linked to other attributes, outcomes, or goals (Fishbein & Ajzen,

1975).

Goodwill

Goodwill is the positive attitude that consumers convey toward a sponsor that

supports and facilitates an event, team, or cause in which they are passionate. The first

variable and the largest factor distinguishing sponsorship from advertising is goodwill

(Meenaghan, 2001). Sponsorships serve, not only to benefit the contributing

organization, but also to promote the event where the sponsorship takes place.

Advertising primarily serves the purpose of promoting a company's business and

attempting to boost sales. Consumers recognize and appreciate when corporations

support an activity they enjoy, because they believe it is helping elevate that activity and

not just exploit it to produce a profit (Meenaghan, 1991). Meenaghan (2001) delineates

the concept of goodwill into three different levels: generic, category, and individual

activity.

The generic level is the initial stage of goodwill. This level includes the positive

feelings consumers possess toward sponsorship of any kind. The generic level serves as

the foundation of a pyramid or hierarchy that becomes less inclusive, but encompasses

much stronger feelings of goodwill, as it reaches its peak. At the generic level, the









feeling of goodwill is broad and spans a variety of events. The consumer simply views

sponsorship as a positive notion in any arena. Whether it contributes to sports, arts, or

social causes, sponsorship is seen as something beneficial. The individual will exhibit

some degree of benevolence toward a company for supporting a good cause. Because

sponsorship at the foundation of the pyramid is not connected to a specific or emotionally

meaningful event for the individual, it is the lowest level of goodwill.

The next stage of the pyramid is the called the category level. When an activity

relates to the consumer and he or she has a direct interest in it, then the category that

includes this activity warrants a greater display of goodwill toward its sponsors. For

instance, a sports fan that loves the game of football will display more goodwill toward

an NFL sponsor than to a company who sponsors multiple sporting events. Here, the

expression of goodwill becomes more apparent in the consumer. The sponsor has tapped

into a particular activity in which the consumer is engaged. Since consumers have

diverse preferences in their social activities, companies must choose the category for their

sponsorships wisely. It has been found that various activities invoke more goodwill from

consumers than others. For example, corporations that sponsor social causes are viewed

more favorably than those who support athletics or the arts by some consumers (Irwin,

Lachowetz, Cornwell, & Clark, 2002; Meenaghan, 2001). At this stage, the consumer

has more invested in the activity or event than at the generic level, and therefore they feel

more benevolence toward the sponsor.

The upper echelon of the goodwill pyramid is the individual activity level. This is

where the greatest amount of goodwill is rewarded to the sponsor. When the activity or

event becomes even more of an emotional involvement for the consumer, they









demonstrate the greatest amount of gratitude toward the company that sustains and

promotes his or her event. For instance, an individual at the category level may

experience goodwill toward a sponsor of NASCAR, but if that same sponsor endorses the

individual's favorite driver, the level of goodwill toward the sponsor will intensify. The

more emotionally attached a consumer is to a specific event, team, or player, the more

receptive and supportive the consumer will be of their sponsor. For example, Pitts (1998)

found consumers at the Gay Games were more likely to purchase products from

corporate sponsors of the event than consumers of similar events.

No matter how engaged a consumer is with an event, there is still the possibility

that goodwill is not conveyed to the sponsor. Within the construct of goodwill in

sponsorship, there is also an understanding that this goodwill is contingent. Contingent

goodwill means that, "...goodwill is earned by the total behavior of the sponsor toward

all aspects of the sponsored activity and this is registered and judged by fans of that

activity" (Meenaghan 2001, p. 109). Even if the consumer demonstrates goodwill at the

upper-most level, this behavior has many different contingencies based on the actions of

the sponsor. Some of the contingencies that Meenaghan (2001) lists include the time of

entry/exit of the sponsorship, level of commitment to the event or team, and the amount

of caring displayed to the event or team. If corporate sponsors do not properly adhere to

these aspects, they will cause consumers to withdraw their feelings of goodwill regardless

of their commitment level.

Fan Involvement

The third and final variable of sponsorship is the concept of fan involvement. The

definition of fan involvement is "... the extent to which consumers identify with, and are

motivated by, their engagement and affiliation with particular leisure activities"









(Meenaghan, 2001, p. 106). Fan involvement is a central concept in commercial

sponsorship, because the various emotional levels of commitment fans have with the

sponsored event will affect how attentive they are to that event's sponsors. Depending on

how involved consumers are with their coveted events, they can establish a range of

relationships with the commercial sponsors.

Fan involvement is a component of social identity theory (Madrigal, 2001).

Similar to personal identity theory, where an individual forms characteristics and ideas of

his or her specific personality, social identity theory consists of the characteristics and

ideas that an individual derives from his or her association with a group. Fan

involvement refers to an individual's level of association, attachment, or concern with a

particular sports team or sporting event (Wann & Branscombe, 1993). Fans who are

highly attached to or involved with their sports team often have difficulty distancing

themselves from their coveted group or event. Due to their desire to achieve a strong

affiliation with the team, highly involved fans often purchase more licensed team

merchandise (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998; Wann & Branscombe, 1993) and attend more

games (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998; Schurr, Wittig, Ruble, & Ellen, 1988) than fans with

low involvement.

Highly involved consumers are those individuals who are often most

knowledgeable about their favored event, team, or player (Meenaghan, 2001). These

individuals are generally aware of the sponsor and whether or not that sponsor is helping

or hindering the progress of the sport. Highly involved consumers are extremely

sensitive to the behavior of corporate sponsors with respect to the treatment of their

favored activity, and they will react positively or negatively according to this behavior. If









a sponsor is viewed as a partner or supporter of an event, the consumer will exhibit more

goodwill toward that company. If, however, the same company is seen as exploiting the

event in some way, the consumer will reject that company and the purpose of the

sponsorship will be ineffective.

Highly involved consumers display more goodwill or benevolence toward

commercial sponsors, depending on the situation, than less involved consumers. Due to

this fact, consumers who exhibit high levels of fan involvement are the prime targets of

commercial sponsorship. These fans pay close attention, not only to the game and the

players, but also to advertising and sponsorship. These consumers will be the most loyal

to a sponsor if that company positively affects their experience at the event. The only

disadvantage is that the company can also ruin a potential relationship with that consumer

if they negatively affect the individual's experience at the event.

Less involved consumers do not have the awareness of sponsorship that highly

involved consumers possess. Because they are not as emotionally attached to their

leisure activities as the more serious fans, less involved consumers do not respond to

corporate sponsors with the same level of goodwill. They may exhibit goodwill to some

degree based on the situation, but not in the same scope as the highly involved

consumers.

Individuals who exhibit lower levels of fan involvement can still be potential

targets of commercial sponsorship. It simply becomes more difficult to connect with

these fans and relay the marketing message. One advantage to targeting these consumers

is that they do not have a strong attachment to their favored activities, so they are less

likely to reject a sponsor following a negative experience.









Purchase Intentions

According to Peyrot, Alperstein, Van Doren, and Poli (1998), consumers draw on

past experiences when forming purchase intentions, and their purchasing behaviors are

often repeated. Rosenberg and Czepial (1984) indicate that marketing to current

customers and increasing customer retention is easier than attempting to attract new

clientele. A central component of this investigation is the concept of purchase intentions

which are linked to perceived value and satisfaction of customers. Previous research has

shown that consumer satisfaction can be a reliable predictor of (re)purchase intentions

(Patterson & Spreng, 1997). When studying consumer behaviors in a large-scale sporting

event, it is important to analyze purchase intentions, because a primary goal of sports

marketers is to create customer satisfaction, develop loyal fan bases, and generate repeat

purchases (Ostrowski, 2002; Petrecca, 2000). For this investigation, obtaining data on the

likelihood of consumers to purchase products or services from the event sponsors, or data

on actual purchases from sponsors, constitutes purchase intentions and behaviors.

Therefore, it is important to understand the perceived and actual purchase intentions of

intercollegiate football consumers at these events.

CS not only generates revenue streams that fund sporting events, but it also serves

to promote these activities within their respective communities. Many sports rely on

corporate sponsors to finance events and event broadcasts. One such example is the

action sports segment of the sport industry (Bennett et al., 2002; Ostrowski, 2002). In

2001, the Summer X Games sold approximately $30 million in corporate sponsorships

(Bennett et al., 2002; Petrecca, 2000). Arguably, action sports events, like many sporting

events, would not be possible if it were not for the revenue generated from CS.

Corporations not only choose to sponsor sporting events to generate sales, but they also









use these settings to facilitate product awareness and strengthen brand image (Lee et al.,

1997; Shanklin & Kuzma, 1992). Sponsors first seek to create awareness of their product

or brand, then generate sales and produce a profit, and finally, build brand equity and a

loyal consumer base (Pope, 1998; Pope & Voges, 1994). Since the sales effects, or return

on investment (ROI), are a key concept in CS marketing communication, it is necessary

to investigate purchase intentions and behaviors.

As the objectives of CS evolve, so should the research in regard to how these

sponsorships affect the sports consumer (Lee et al., 1997). Since there is an abundance of

studies examining CS through recall and recognition rates, or intermediate measures of

memory, and a lack of scholarship exists in the area of CS affects on the consumer, it is

important to investigate this phenomenon. Scholars have conducted several studies at

large-scale events and utilized intermediate measures to examine consumer attitudes and

behaviors (Bennett et al., 2002; Cuneen & Hannan, 1993; Johar & Pham, 1999; Pitts,

1998; Sandler & Shani, 1993; Stotlar & Johnson, 1989; Stotlar, 1993). These studies

have provided a plethora of information describing the ability of consumers to recall or

recognize commercial sponsors, but there is a lack of empirical evidence with regard to

the relationship between sports event sponsors and consumer purchase intentions (Lee et

al., 1997; Meenaghan, 2001). Even though consumer recall and recognition rates have

been successful indicators of sponsorship awareness (Bennett et al. 2002;, 1996;

Meenaghan, 1991; Nicholls et al., 1999; Otker & Hayes, 1987; Stotlar, 1993), they are

not necessarily a strong gauge for consumer satisfaction or intent to purchase based on

event sponsorships. Previous research by conducted by Johar and Pham (1999) suggests









that aided and unaided recall rates serve as better indicators of brand-event relatedness

and market prominence.

In Meenaghan's (2001) model of sponsorship effects, he implies that the concepts

of contingent goodwill, transfer of image values, and fan involvement each influence

consumers to respond to sponsorships of sporting events. The level of intensity of

goodwill consumers possess toward the event sponsors, combined with the level of

intensity of fan involvement with the sponsored event or activity, directly affects their

assessment of the sponsors and their degree of purchase intention. Highly involved

consumers display higher awareness levels of sponsorship, and there is a greater chance

they will express a preference for the sponsor's product because of its affiliation with the

event (Bennett, 1999; 1985; Meenaghan, 2001). An example of this would be individuals

who, have either participated in or enjoy watching intercollegiate football, giving more

positive assessments of college football sponsors than individuals who do not follow

these activities. The positive perceptions of these highly involved consumers may

influence their purchase intentions toward the sponsors of their favored event.

Sponsorship differs from advertising because it portrays an alternative set of values

(Gwinner, 1997; McDonald, 1991). Past research indicates that consumers are more

accepting of advertising if it comes in the form of sustaining or promoting an event that

they enjoy (Meenaghan, 2001). Consumers who demonstrate an affinity toward a certain

activity, and develop a sense of goodwill toward the sponsors of that activity, are more

likely to transfer those positive attitudes and beliefs onto the company's products or

brand (Gwinner, 1997; Meenaghan, 2001). Meenaghan (2001) also notes that goodwill is

contingent upon the sponsors' actions within the realm of the event. For example, if a









corporate sponsor excessively promotes and virtually interrupts the activity, consumers

will display negative emotions, and this can produce negative image transfer among

consumers which likely affects purchase intentions. The action sports segment has faced

this challenge. In the beginning stages of action sports events and event broadcasts, fans

were skeptical of the need for CS (Bennett et al., 2002). Therefore, CS of action sports

was initially a risky marketing strategy (Bennett, 1999; Ostrowski, 2002). With the

increase in attendance and the emergence of action sports as a popular spectator sport, CS

in this segment has flourished and been successful.

Fan involvement includes the "extent to which consumers identify with, and are

motivated by, their engagement and affiliation with particular leisure activities"

(Meenaghan, 2001, p. 106). One significant way to measure the effectiveness of CS is to

evaluate the relationship between event sponsors and purchase intentions. It has been

stated previously that highly involved sports fans are more likely to demonstrate a

preference toward sponsors of their coveted events. The identification with a preferred

intercollegiate team or event can be a powerful influence for sponsors, as well as

connecting with fans through goodwill. Therefore, it is could be concluded that increased

goodwill toward the event sponsors and fan involvement with the activity will lead to

greater purchase intentions.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

A cross-sectional, non-experimental, exploratory study was conducted in an

attempt to determine the effectiveness of commercial sponsorships of an elite

intercollegiate football program. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the

effectiveness of CS of an elite intercollegiate football program by analyzing the

constructs of awareness, favorable disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase

intentions. The following methods were utilized based upon the purpose of this

investigation:

* Setting
* Pilot Test Results
* Data Collection
* Sampling Procedures and Selection of Subjects
* Instrumentation
* Operationalization of the Constructs
* Sample Profile
* Development of Measures
* Data Analysis
* Descriptive Statistics

Setting

Data were collected at three football games hosted by the University of Florida

(UF), an NCAA Division IA institution. Universities competing in NCAA Division IA

are considered elite competitors since just over 100 institutions compete on this level.

Furthermore, UF is a member of the Southeastern Conference (SEC) which is one of the

Bowl Championship Series (BCS) qualifying conferences. These facts make the football

program at UF an elite program. Several aspects of the setting at the University of Florida









create an unrivaled atmosphere and distinguish it from other athletic programs. Some of

these aspects include revenue generation, seating capacity, location, and history.

Three home football games at UF were used for data collection. The University

Athletic Association (UAA) at UF is one of the largest and most successful in the country

annually finishing in the top ten in final Sears Cup standings. The operating budget for

the UF's athletic department in the 2001-2002 season was $44,234,795 (University of

Florida Website). In the 2002-2003 season, operating expenses for the football team

were over $7.8 million, but the sport created $19,703,486 in revenue. This amounts to

almost one-third of the total revenue for the UAA (Florida Football Guide, 2003).

UF's football stadium, also known as "The Swamp", has existed since 1930. It has

been expanded several times and currently holds 88,548 fans (Florida Football Guide,

2003). Recent additions to the venue brought the total number of skyboxes to 74.

Because of its continued expansion and upgrades, the Swamp attracts new sponsors and

fans every season.

The size of the university itself is another contributing factor to the paramount

feeling of its sporting events. The undergraduate and graduate populations combine for a

total student population of over 48,000 (Florida Football Guide, 2003). UF has the 4th

largest university population in the United States.

The successful recent history of the football program at UF helps to generate

revenue through sponsorships. Since 1990, the football team has spent the most

consecutive weeks (220) in the AP or coaches' polls (active), has been in the most

January Bowl Games (10) in the past decade, and has had the most Top 15 finishes in the

final poll (12) (Florida Football Guide, 2003). The program is also third in most wins









since 1990 with 130, second in Top 10 finishes since 1990 with 10, and had the most

former players appear on NFL rosters in the 2002-2003 season with 39 (Florida Football

Guide, 2003).

Pilot Test Results

The validity and reliability of expected responses to the questionnaire were

evaluated using a panel of experts, a pilot test, and an internal consistency measure

(Cronbach, 1951). The content validity of the initial survey was evaluated first by a

panel of experts who were asked to judge the items content validity. The panel consisted

of three Sport Management professors, one Advertising professor, and one statistical

measurement expert in the field of Exercise and Sport Sciences. Additionally, 12

graduate students in a research seminar class evaluated the instrument for face validity

and item construction. The professor of this particular class likewise examined the scale

construction of the questionnaire. Each of the experts were asked to comment on the

relevance, representativeness, and clarity of items and provide suggestions for improving

the questionnaire. After following these steps the questionnaire was modified according

to feedback from the experts and students.

The survey was then pilot tested prior to data collection on all items. Research

participants (N=49) were attendees of a UAA sporting event. First, frequency measures

were calculated for each of the three constructs to determine the levels of goodwill,

purchase intentions, and fan involvement displayed by the participants. For the 7

goodwill items (N=47), there was a minimum score of 3.3, a maximum score of 4.4, and

a mean of 3.8. For the 7 purchase intentions items (N=46), there was a minimum score of

3.3, a maximum score of 4.1, and a mean of 3.8. For the 10 fan involvement items

(N=44), there was a minimum score of 3.5, a maximum score of 4.7, and a mean of 4.1.









Frequency measures were also conducted on the unaided recall section of the

survey. Of the five major brands studied, the maximum number of times each one was

recalled was listed. Coke was recalled by 17 of the 49 participants. Gatorade was

recalled by 8 of the participants. Alltel, Publix, and Dodge was recalled by 9

participants. The least number of brands recalled by a participant was 0, and the highest

number of brands recalled was 5.

Next, a reliability analysis was conducted on each of the constructs. The 7

goodwill items, which included statements like "I think favorably of companies who

sponsor sporting events," had a reliability of a = .72. The 7 purchase intentions items,

which included statements like "I would try a new product or service if I saw it at a

sporting event," had a reliability of a = .66. One item, "Companies who sponsor sporting

events have a lot of money," was then removed in order to create a more reliable

measure. After the statement was deleted, the reliability of the remaining 6 purchase

intentions items increased to an alpha level of .74. The 10 fan involvement items, which

included statements like "I see myself as a strong fan of this athletic team," had a

reliability of a u = .87.

Data Collection

The data for this study were collected through an informed consent web-based

questionnaire. Mail-out surveys were not used due to the time allotment needed to

receive the surveys back in the mail as well as the cost of postage required for a mail-out

questionnaire. Furthermore, the web-based questionnaire allowed participant responses to

immediately be stored into a database for analysis. This advantage was important to the

researcher. Permission was received from the University Athletic Association (UAA)









(Appendix D), event coordinators, and the Institutional Review Board (Appendix A)

before data collection began. Data collection was conducted at the first three home

football games of the 2003-2004 season.

Individuals (n=900) were approached at random in pre-game tailgating areas

outside the stadium prior to the three football games. These individuals were asked to

give informed consent to participate in the study by providing information on a card that

was provided by the data collector. Each individual was given an index card printed with

the details of the study, his/her rights as a participant and whom to contact with

questions, and spaces for his/her demographic information including e-mail address and

signature. The data collector informed those individuals who completed the index card

that they would be contacted via e-mail after the game and asked to complete a web-

based survey. They were then informed that they were in no way obligated to participate

and that they would be contacted via email after the game seeking their participation in

the study.

There were 300 index cards distributed and collected by trained data collectors

prior to each game for a total of 900 potential participants. The 10 trained surveyors were

asked to collect 30 index cards from individuals willing to fill them out before the first

three UF football games for a total of 900 possible participants (300 per game). These

individuals were trained by an expert in sport management based upon mall-intercept

methodologies common to survey research. They were provided with an assent script to

read to individuals that they approached. Everyone that was approached did not agree to

fill out the index card, and no statistics were computed on how many individuals chose

not to complete this task.









In order to obtain a random sample, every fourth or tenth person was approached

and asked if they would be willing to participate in a study investigating the sponsorship

of UF athletics. Spectator flow into the venue, based upon time prior to the event,

predicated which sampling technique was utilized. Every fourth person was asked to

participate in the study if game time was more than an hour from commencing. Data

collectors were asked to solicit responses from every tenth person an hour or less prior to

game time due to heavy traffic flow.

Immediately following the games, the investigator e-mailed those individuals

(n=900) who completed the demographic information and asked them to participate in the

study by filling out the attached web-based questionnaire linked to the e-mail. Therefore,

900 (300 per game) emails were sent to possible participants immediately following the

games. A response rate of 44% was attained resulting in a final sample of 394

participants. This number of responses was used to control for sampling error and also

allowed for patterns to be seen in the data.

Sampling Procedures and Selection of Subjects

Random sampling techniques were employed for the selection of respondents. This

method of sampling is often used in designs when the goal of the research is to randomly

select a sample of information rich subjects who can provide an in-depth analysis of the

phenomenon being studied. The selection of the participants was based on their location

in relation to the stadium and their willingness to participate in the study. Only

participants 18 and older who attended the football games were eligible to participate in

the study. Ten data collectors were trained to randomly sample 30 respondents each prior

to three football games. Each data collector was instructed to count nine people who

walked by, then select the tenth person, and ask them to be a participant. Each









participant who was selected, and agreed to take part, was asked to sign an informed

consent document prior to participating. Once they filled out the informed consent card,

they were told that the survey would be sent to them via e-mail following the game, and

they were asked to complete and submit it promptly.

Instrumentation

The survey (Appendix C) used in this study consists of three parts. The first section

of the questionnaire measured consumer awareness of the sponsorships through recall

(unaided recall) and recognition (aided recall).

The second section of the questionnaire asked respondents about their expressed

favorable disposition toward the five major sponsors of the football program. The second

half of this section obtained data relevant to consumer purchase intentions of the five

major sponsors' products.

The third section of the questionnaire measured goodwill and fan involvement, but

included additional items on favorable disposition and purchase intentions. There were

17 total items on favorable disposition, 15 items on goodwill, 4 on fan involvement, and

29 total on purchase intentions. This amounted to 65 items measuring all four constructs.

The final section of the questionnaire included 5 items related to the demographics of the

respondents. These responses were coded and entered numerically for data analysis.

Operationalalizing the Constructs

Some of the measures of the constructs were modified or adapted from previous

studies through a literature review involving all the constructs. The fan involvement and

purchase intention items were modified from Madrigal's (2001) study of the belief-

attitude intentions hierarchy, which included the concepts of fan identification as well

as purchase behaviors. The favorable disposition items were modified from attitudinal









measures used by Quester and Thompson (2001) in their study of arts sponsorship

effectiveness. The rest of the measures were developed specially for this inquiry after a

review of the relevant literature. The majority of the variables in the analysis were

measured using a five-point Likert-scale ranging from 5 (Strongly agree) to 1 (Strongly

disagree). The following constructs were measured in this analysis:

Awareness

Awareness was measured using one unaided recall question and five aided recall

questions. First, participants were asked to list all the corporate sponsors they could

remember from the event (unaided recall). Next, they were asked to select all of the

sponsors for that day's game from a list of correct and incorrect sponsors (aided

recall/recognition). This section was used to determine the participants' levels of

cognition which is based on research conducted by Bennett, et al (2002) and Wells

(2000). These items are listed in Table 3-1.









Table 3-1. Awareness Items
Unaided Recall Item
As you watched the football game, you may have recognized some of the
companies sponsoring this event. These sponsorships could have been in the form of
signage around the field, logos on clothing, or advertisements over the PA system. What
are some of the companies you recall from the game?


Aided Recall Items
From the list below, please check all of the companies that sponsored today's football
game.
Pepsi_ Mountain Dew Coke Minute Maid

Cingular Verizon Nextel Alltel

Winn Dixie Publix Kash 'N Karry_ Albertson' s

Ford Chevrolet Dodge Jeep_

Gatorade Powerade Red Bull Propel









Favorable Disposition

Favorable Disposition was measured using 15 brand-specific questions and 2 non-

brand-specific questions (for a total of 17 items). They were all measured on a five-point

Likert-scale ranging from 5 (Strongly agree) to 1 (Strongly disagree). The items asked

participants about their dispositions toward the top 5 corporate sponsors of the event and

about their disposition regarding sponsorship in general. The items in this section were

developed based on research conducted by MacKenzie & Lutz (1989) and Reid & Soley

(1982). These items are listed in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2. Questionnaire Items
Favorable Disposition Items
I think favorably of companies that sponsor Florida football.
I think favorably of Alltel because they sponsor Florida football.
I think favorably of Coke because they sponsor Florida football.
I think favorably of Gatorade because they sponsor Florida football.
I think favorably of Publix because they sponsor Florida football.
I think favorably of Dodge because they sponsor Florida football.
Companies who sponsor Florida football provide quality products/services.
I like the brand Alltel.
I like the brand Coke.
I like the brand Gatorade.
I like the brand Publix.
I like the brand Dodge.
Alltel is a very good brand.
Coke is a very good brand.
Gatorade is a very good brand.
Publix is a very good brand.
Dodge is a very good brand.

Goodwill

Goodwill was measured with 15 items based on Meenaghan's (2001) theoretical

model outlining the Sponsor-Process-Response sequence. A 5-point Likert-type scale,

ranging from 5 (Strongly agree) to 1 (Strongly disagree), was used to measure

consumers' perceptions of the corporate sponsors of the event. These items are displayed

in Table 3-3.









Table 3-3. Questionnaire Items
Goodwill Items
Florida football sponsors are involved with their community.
Companies that sponsor Florida football are successful.
Companies that sponsor Florida football are professional.
Florida football sponsors are only after consumers' money.
Corporate sponsorships detract from the enjoyment of this event.
Corporate sponsors try to improve Florida football.
This sporting event benefits from corporate sponsors.
Florida football should not have corporate sponsors.
Companies who do not sponsor Florida football are not involved with their community.
I do not pay attention to the corporate sponsors of Florida football.
Sponsorships of Florida football are better than regular advertising.
Corporate sponsors care about the fans of Florida football.
Florida football would not be possible without sponsors.
Florida football sponsors are only after consumers' money.
Corporate sponsors do not care about the fans of Florida football.

Fan Involvement

Fan involvement levels were measured using 4 items on a five-point Likert-scale.

These items were used to determine how closely the participants identified with the team

they were watching. This was based on work by Madrigal (2001) and his social identity

theory and belief-attitude-intentions hierarchy. These items are listed in table 3-4.

Table 3-4. Questionnaire Items
Fan Involvement Items
I see myself as a strong fan of Florida football.
My friends view me as a strong fan of Florida football.
It is very important to me that Florida football games are played.
It is important to me to be a part of Florida football.

Purchase Intentions

Purchase intentions were measured with 29 items on a five-point Likert-scale,

based on research conducted by Peyrot and Van Doren (1998). These items were used to

measure consumers' intent to purchase or actual purchase of the various brands

advertised in the corporate sponsorships at the event. These items are displayed in Table









Table 3-5. Questionnaire Items
Purchase Intentions Items
Whenever possible, I try to purchase products/services from companies that sponsor Florida
football.
I do not base my purchasing decisions on the corporate sponsorship of Florida football.
I think it is good to purchase products/services from companies that sponsor Florida football.
I would consider purchasing products/services from the corporate sponsors of this event.
I would try a new product/service if I saw it at a Florida football game.
I would definitely purchase products/services from the corporate sponsors of Florida football.
I try to purchase products/services from companies that sponsor Florida football.
My overall attitude toward purchasing products/services from companies that sponsor this event
is positive.
I will try to buy at least one product/service from a company that sponsors this event within the
next 3 mos.
I would consider purchasing products/services from Alltel because they sponsor Florida football.
I would consider purchasing products/services from Coke because they sponsor Florida football.
I would consider purchasing products/services from Gatorade because they sponsor Florida
football.
I would consider purchasing products/services from Publix because they sponsor Florida football.
I would consider purchasing products/services from Dodge because they sponsor Florida football.
I would purchase products/services from Alltel because they sponsor this event.
I would purchase products/services from Coke because they sponsor this event.
I would purchase products/services from Gatorade because they sponsor this event.
I would purchase products/services from Publix because they sponsor this event.
I would purchase products/services from Dodge because they sponsor this event.
I would buy the brand Alltel.
I would buy the brand Coke.
I would buy the brand Gatorade.
I would buy the brand Publix.
I would buy the brand Dodge.
The next time I need to purchase a product of this type, I would consider buying Alltel.
The next time I need to purchase a product of this type, I would consider buying Coke.
The next time I need to purchase a product of this type, I would consider buying Gatorade.
The next time I need to purchase a product of this type, I would consider buying Publix.
The next time I need to purchase a product of this type, I would consider buying Dodge.

Sample Profile

The fans who attended these intercollegiate football games and responded to the

questionnaire (n=394) provided a wealth of information concerning their attitudes,

beliefs, and experiences with commercial sponsorship. A total of 900 questionnaires

(300 per game) were submitted to individuals who returned an index card to data

collectors immediately following three UF football games. A total of 394 individuals

filled out the questionnaire online resulting in a 44% response rate. The socio-









demographic information provided by the participants was useful in determining who

attends these sporting events and what their perceptions are of commercial sponsorship.

The demographic variables analyzed in this study were gender, age, ethnicity,

marital status and education level. In this study (N=394), the following demographic

characteristics of the sample were found. The gender of the participants was split almost

evenly with 52% males and 48% females. The age groups included 71% in the 18-24

range, 28% in the 25-49 range, and 1% in the 50-74 range. The race of the participants

included 77% Caucasians, 8% African Americans, 7% Hispanics, 5% Other, and 3%

Asians. The majority of the participants in the study were single (81%). The marital

status of the remainder of the respondents was married (6%), divorced (1%), and

widowed (1%). Most of the respondents had some college education (55%), while the

remainder reported some high school (.3%), high school graduate (3%), college graduate

(20%), and graduate degree (10%). The results are listed in Table 3-6.

The results of the demographic information collected indicates that the majority of

the sample were college-age students. This may have been due to the fact that the

majority of individuals were approached in the Northeast tailgating area outside of the

stadium. This area includes one of the two major gates utilized by UF students. Also, the

fact that this demographic tends to be more computer-savvy than the other age groups

may have influenced the final sample.









Table 3-6. Sample Profile for Participants of 3 Intercollegiate Football Games
Socio-Demographic Characteristics Frequency Valid Percentage

Gender (N=394)
Male 205 52.0
Female 189 47.9

Age (N=394)
18-24 278 70.5
25-49 111 28.1
50-74 5 1.2
75 and older 0 0.0

Race (N=394)
Caucasian 302 76.6
African American 30 7.6
Hispanic 26 6.5
Asian 13 3.2
Native American 0 0.0
Other 23 5.3

Marital Status (N=347)
Single 318 80.7
Married 24 6.1
Divorced 3 .8
Widowed 2 .5
Other 0 0.0

Level of Education (N=349)
Some High School 1 .3
High School Graduate 11 2.8
Trade/Tech Degree 0 0.0
Some College 217 55.1
College Graduate 80 20.3
Graduate Degree 40 10.2
The number (N) may vary due to missing values or responses
Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding

Development of Measures

Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the four constructs of favorable

disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase intentions were factor analyzed

using a principal components technique with varimax rotation to identify underlying









relationships or factors. The use of factorial analysis for each of the constructs (favorable

disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase intentions) developed for this study

ensures that the items used create unidimensional measures of the four constructs of

interest. Component analysis is often used when the primary objective is to identify the

minimum number of factors in an instrument that account for the maximum portion of the

variance in an original data set (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black,, 1995; Morton &

Friedman, 2002). The factor analysis that included the original items for favorable

disposition suggested six factors. The first factor accounted for 28.83% of the variance.

The items that loaded in factor one were regarded as the unidimensional construct of

general favorable disposition. The items that loaded in factor two were considered brand-

specific favorable dispositions toward Alltel and accounted for 13.69% of the variance.

Factor three included the brand-specific favorable dispositions toward Publix and

explained 11.27% of the variance. Factor four included the brand-specific favorable

dispositions toward Dodge and explained 9.91% of the variance. The items that loaded in

factor five included the brand-specific favorable dispositions toward Gatorade (8.13% of

variance), and the items that loaded in factor six included the brand-specific favorable

dispositions toward Coke (7.10% of variance). The results are listed in Table 3-7.







44





Table 3-7. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Favorable Disposition


Favorable Disposition Items


Factor


I like the brand -Alltel
It is a very good brand -Alltel

I like the brand-Coke
It is a very good brand-Coke

I like the brand-Gatorade
It is a very good brand-Gatorade

I like the brand-Publix
It is a very good brand-Publix

I like the brand-Dodge
It is a very good brand-Dodge

I think favorably of companies that sponsor Florida
football.
I think favorably of Alltel because they sponsor
Florida football.
I think favorably of Coke because they sponsor
Florida football.
I think favorably of Gatorade because they sponsor
Florida football.
I think favorably of Publix because they sponsor
Florida football.
Companies who sponsor Florida football provide
quality products/services.
I think favorably of Dodge because they sponsor
Florida football.
Eigenvalues
Cronbach alpha (Reliability)
Factor means
Percentage of variance explained
Cumulative variance explained


1
.061

.082

.120

.145

.139

.112

.119

.122

.095

.131

.564

.614

.864

.771

.844

.356

.802

4.90
.868
3.12
28.83


2
.935

.934

.006

.047

-.041

-.032

.054

.082

.076

.013

.153

.448

.035

-.049

.044

.282

.030

2.33
.909
2.68
13.68


3 4 5 6
.068 .042 -.035 .024

.048 .016 -.045 .022

.095 .004 .123 .932

.193 .010 .144 .904

.023 .004 .938 .101

.131 .029 .923 .164

.950 .017 .097 .143

.953 .053 .059 .142

.009 .940 .009 -.013

.048 .936 .016 .021

.149 .180 .219 .162

.018 .134 -.014 -.025

.055 -.034 .054 .230

.045 .000 .197 .007

.153 -.028 .006 .038

.117 .246 .159 .222

-.022 .259 -.018 .042

1.92 1.69 1.38 1.21
.907 .955 .908 .899
3.00 4.55 4.63 4.23
11.27 9.91 8.13 7.10


28.83 42.52 53.79 63.70 71.83 78.93


Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.









A similar procedure was employed to find the unidimensional constructs of

goodwill, fan involvement and purchase intentions. Three factors were uncovered for

goodwill, and the items that loaded in factor one, which accounted for 25.34% of the

variance, were regarded as the unidimensional construct of caring goodwill. The items

that loaded in factor two were considered to be the unidimensional construct of negative

goodwill. This factor accounted for 11.68% of the variance. The items that loaded in the

third factor were regarded as the unidimensional construct of corporate goodwill. This

factor accounted for 9.98% of the variance. After eliminating single items and items that

double-loaded, factors four and five were no longer included in the study due to having

only one item in each factor. The results are listed in Table 3-8.







46



Table 3-8. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Goodwill

Goodwill Items Factor
1 2 3 4 5
Florida football sponsors are involved with their
community.
Companies that sponsor Florida football are successful. .133 .168 .776 -.054 -.015
Companies that sponsor Florida football are .232 .173 .762 -.085 -.013
professional.
Companies who do not sponsor Florida football are not .055 .132 -.099 -.161 .827
involved with their community.
Corporate sponsorships detract from the enjoyment of -.073 .741 .261 .117 .137
this event.
Florida football sponsors are only after consumers' .152 .204 -.49 .768 .159
money.
Corporate sponsors try to improve Florida football. .688 .172 .209 .079 -.121
This sporting event benefits from corporate sponsors. .537 .227 .171 -.448 .069
Florida football should not have corporate sponsors. .192 .759 .115 -.140 .070
I do not pay attention to the corporate sponsors of .134 .588 .094 165 -165
Florida football.
Florida football sponsors are only after consumers' -.310 .001 -.19 -.701 .286
money.
Corporate sponsors do not care about the fans of Florida .568 .442 -.122 .202 .325
football.
Sponsorships of Florida football are better than regular .556 -.182 .213 .109 -.077
advertising.
Corporate sponsors care about the fans of Florida .720 .164 .128 .225 -.082
football.
Florida football would not be possible without sponsors. .402 .202 -.208 -.220 -.636
Eigenvalues 3.80 1.75 1.50 1.13 1.02
Cronbach alpha (Reliability) .637 .600 .646 -- --
Factor means 3.11 3.70 4.06 -- --
Percentage of variance explained 25.34 11.68 9.98 7.51 6.80
Cumulative variance explained 25.34 37.02 46.99 54.50 61.30
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.










There was only one factor identified for fan involvement, and these items

explained 74.46% of the variance. The items that loaded in this factor were considered to

be the unidimensional construct of fan involvement. The results are listed in Table 3-9.

Table 3-9. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Fan Involvement

Fan Involvement Items Factor

1
It is very important to me that Florida football games are played. .808
I see myself as a strong fan of Florida football. .929
My friends view me as a strong fan of Florida football. .906
It is important to me to be a part of Florida football. .802
Eigenvalues 2.98
Cronbach alpha (Reliability) .884
Factor means 4.09
Percentage of variance explained 74.46
Cumulative variance explained 74.46
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.


Finally, there were seven factors revealed for purchase intentions, and the first

factor explained 34.87% of the variance. The items that loaded in this factor were

considered to be the unidimensional construct of general purchase intentions. The items

that loaded in factor two were regarded as the Dodge purchase intentions and accounted

for 10.81% of the variance. Factor three included the Alltell purchase intentions and

explained 8.20% of the variance. Factor four included various other purchase intentions

which accounted for 6.78%. Factor five included the Coke purchase intentions (5.00% of

variance), factor six the Publix purchase intentions (4.57% of variance), and factor seven

the Gatorade purchase intentions (3.51%). The results are listed in Table 3-10.















Table 3-10. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Purchase Intentions

Purchase Intentions Items Factor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would buy this brand Alltel
0.01 0.06 0.89 0.07 0.03 0.05 -0.01

I would consider this brand-Alltel
-0.02 0.06 0.90 0.15 0.01 0.05 -0.00

I would buy this brand-Coke
0.06 -0.05 -0.04 0.08 0.92 0.15 0.11

I would consider this brand-Coke
0.07 -0.05 0.04 0.10 0.92 0.15 0.12

I would buy this brand-Gatorade
0.12 0.00 -0.03 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.92

I would consider this brand-Gatorade
0.14 -0.01 -0.02 0.05 0.15 0.11 0.90

I would buy this brand-Publix
0.08 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.14 0.93 0.10
00
I would consider this brand-Publix
0.06 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.94 0.04

I would buy this brand-Dodge
-0.04 0.93 0.05 0.10 -0.01 0.03 0.00

I would consider this brand-Dodge
-0.03 0.93 0.10 0.10 -0.02 0.04 -0.01

Whenever possible, I try to buy
products/services from companies that 0.66 0.08 0.17 0.24 -0.02 0.04 0.07
sponsor Florida football.
I would consider purchasing
products/services from Alltel because 0.58 0.15 0.54 0.15 -0.13 0.00 0.10
they sponsor Florida football.















Table 3-10. Continued

Purchase Intentions Items Factor
I would consider purchasing
products/services from Dodge because 0.59 0.65 0.15 0.03 -0.07 -0.07 0.04
they sponsor Florida football.
I would purchase products/services from 0.86 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.10 -0.04
Publix because they sponsor this event.
Iwouldpurchaseproducts/servicesfrom 0.54 0.70 0.12 0.00 -0.10 -0.06 -0.01
Dodge because they sponsor this event.
I think it is good to purchase
products/services from companies that 0.63 0.07 -0.03 0.36 0.06 0.05 0.16
sponsor Florida football.
I would consider purchasing
products/services from Publix because 0.87 0.07 0.05 0.19 0.06 0.09 -0.00
they sponsor Florida football.
I would purchase a product/service from 0.88 0.02 -0.01 0.11 0.24 0.04 0.03
Coke because they sponsor this event.
I would consider purchasing
products/services from the corporate 0.48 0.07 -0.03 0.55 0.10 -0.04 0.09
sponsors of this event.
I would consider purchasing
products/services from Gatorade because 0.81 0.06 -0.06 0.17 -0.01 -0.04 0.18
they sponsor Florida football.
I would purchase a product/service from 0.51 0.26 0.58 0.05 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02
Alltel because they sponsor this event.
I would try a new product/service if I saw 0.26 0.04 0.23 0.60 0.07 -0.10 -0.06
it at a Florida football game.
I would consider purchasing
products/services from Coke because they 0.84 0.02 0.05 0.20 0.19 -0.02 0.00
sponsor Florida football.
I would definitely purchase
products/services from the corporate 0.49 0.14 0.10 0.59 0.05 0.05 -0.05
sponsors of Florida football.
I try to purchase products/services from 0.70 0.13 0.19 0.32 -0.00 0.02 0.04
companies that sponsor Florida football.
My overall attitude toward purchasing
products/services from companies that 0.32 0.09 0.12 0.67 0.04 0.17 0.12
sponsor this event is positive.















Table 3-10. Continued

Purchase Intentions Items Factor
I will try to buy at least one
product/service from a company that 0.48 -0.02 0.02 0.47 0.05 0.06 0.14
sponsors this event within the next 3 mos.
I would purchase a product/service from 0.75 0.08 0.02 0.24 -0.03 -0.01 0.23
Gatorade because they sponsor this event.
I do not base my purchasing decisions on
the corporate sponsorship of Florida 0.65 -0.03 0.04 0.13 -0.19 0.07 0.03
football.
Eigenvalues 10.11 3.13 2.38 1.97 1.45 1.32 1.02
Cronbach alpha (Reliability) .942 .951 .893 .503 .913 .916 .869
Factor means 2.85 2.67 2.46 3.21 4.34 4.66 4.65
Percentage of variance explained 34.87 10.81 8.20 6.78 5.00 4.57 3.51
Cumulative variance explained 34.87 45.68 53.88 60.65 65.65 70.22 73.73
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.









Reliability measures were also calculated for each of the four constructs of the

instrument. For the 6 items in the first factor of favorable disposition items, a = .868.

For the two items in factor two, a = .909. For the two items in factor three, a = .907.

For the two items in factor four, a = .955. For the two items in factor five, a = .908. For

the two items in factor six, a = .899. For the three items in factor one of goodwill, a =

637. For the three items in factor two of goodwill, a = .600. For the two items in the

third factor of goodwill, a = .646. For the 4 fan involvement items, a = .884. For the 10

purchase intentions items in factor one, a =.942. For the two items in factor two of

purchase intentions, a = .951. For the two items in factor three of purchase intentions, ca

= .893. For the two items in factor four of purchase intentions, a = .503. For the two

items in factor five of purchase intentions, a = .913. For the two items in factor six of

purchase intentions, a = .916. For the two items in factor seven of purchase intentions, ca

= .869. Therefore, coefficient alpha reliability tests run for each factor, except for factor

four of purchase intentions, satisfied Nunally's (1978) criterion of .60 or higher as a

standard for an exploratory research study. However, future research on the construct of

goodwill should include a confirmatory factor analysis to test for higher reliability.

In order to make statistical comparisons between the means of the constructs being

studied, indexes were mathematically created for each factor of favorable disposition,

goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase intentions. To create these indexes, all of the

items concerning each factor were added together and divided by the number of items for

that same factor. For example, all of the respondents' answers for the 6 general favorable

disposition items were added together, and that number was divided by 6. This created a

mean value for this sample's level of general favorable disposition toward the sponsors of









this event. The same procedure was repeated for the factors of goodwill, fan

involvement, and purchase intentions.

Data Analysis

The data analysis in the study included a factor analysis, descriptive statistics (i.e.,

frequencies, means, and standard deviations), a correlational analysis, and analyses of

variance for the research questions involving awareness.

Descriptive Statistics

For the recall (unaided recall) and recognition (aided recall) items, frequency

measures were also calculated. The results for the recall question were as follows: Coke

40%, Publix 24%, Gatorade 21%, Alltel 20%, and Dodge 11%. The results are listed in

Table 3-11.

Table 3-11. Recall (Unaided) Results
N Percentage SD
Sponsors
Coke 158 .40 .491
Publix 96 .24 .430
Gatorade 81 .21 .405
Alltel 79 .20 .401
Dodge 45 .11 .318

The results for the recognition (aided recall) questions were as follows: Gatorade

99%, Coke 94%, Publix 92%, Alltel 78%, and Dodge 76%. The results are listed in

Table 3-12.

Table 3-12. Recognition (Aided recall) Results
Missing N Percentage
Sponsor
Gatorade 40 350 98.9
Coke 39 334 94.1
Publix 41 324 91.8
Alltel 42 273 77.6
Dodge 41 268 75.9









Favorable Disposition was measured using 5 brand-specific questions (related to

each of the five major commercial sponsors) and 1 non-brand-specific questions (not

related to one of the five major commercial sponsors) for a total of 8 items. Items that

loaded in the first factor were considered to be general favorable disposition. The

remaining five factors were regarded as favorable disposition toward the particular brand

that loaded in each factor. They were all measured on a five-point Likert-scale ranging

from 5 (Strongly agree) to 1 (Strongly disagree). The items asked participants about their

dispositions toward the top 5 corporate sponsors of the event and about their disposition

regarding sponsorship in general. The items in this section were developed based on

research conducted by MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) and Reid and Soley (1982). The

results from these 17 items are displayed in Table 3-13.










Table 3-13. Frequencies for the 17 Favorable Disposition (FD) Items


FD1 FD2 FD3 FD4 FDs FD6 FD7
N 352 352 350 350 351 351 349
Missing 42 42 44 44 43 43 45
Mean 2.65 2.70 4.27 4.16 4.59 4.66 4.55
SD .84 .84 .91 1.01 .68 .60 .76
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Min. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Max. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5


N
Missing
Mean
SD
Range
Min.
Max.


FD
349
45
4.56
.76
4
1
5


FD9
347
47
2.97
1.02
4
1
5


FD"0
347
47
3.02
1.02
4
1
5


' I like the brand Alltel.
2 Alltel is a very good brand.

3 I like the brand Coke.

4 Coke is a very good brand.

5 I like the brand Gatorade.
6 Gatorade is a very good brand.

I like the brand Publix.

8 Publix is a very good brand.

9 1 like the brand Dodge.

10 Dodge is a very good brand.











FDn FD12 FD13 FD14 FD15 FD16 FD17
N 351 351 351 350 346 345 346
Missing 43 43 43 44 48 49 48
Mean 3.91 3.52 3.79 3.11 2.47 2.94 2.63
SD .88 1.25 .811 1.18 1.03 1.18 1.08
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Min. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Max. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5


Goodwill was measured with 3 factors based on Meenaghan's (2001) theoretical

model outlining the Sponsor-Process-Response sequence. Items that loaded in the first

factor were regarded as caring goodwill. Items in the second factor were regarded as

negative goodwill. And items that loaded in the third factor were considered to be

corporate goodwill. A 5-point Likert-scale, ranging from 5 (Strongly agree) to 1

(Strongly disagree), was used to measure consumers' goodwill of the corporate sponsors

of the event. The results from these 15 items are displayed in Table 3-14.












11 I think favorably of companies that sponsor Florida football.

12 1 think favorably of Gatorade because they sponsor Florida football.

13 Companies who sponsor Florida football provide quality products/services.
14 1 think favorably of Publix because they sponsor Florida football.

15 1 think favorably of Alltel because they sponsor Florida football.

16 1 think favorably of Coke because they sponsor Florida football.

17 I think favorably of Dodges because they sponsor Florida football.










Table 3-14. Frequencies for the 15 Goodwill (GW) Items
GW18 GW19 GW20 GW21 GW22 GW23 GW24
N 351 351 351 350 352 351 351
Missing 43 43 43 44 42 43 43
Mean 3.42 4.06 2.98 3.81 3.04 4.32 4.05
SD .93 .78 1.17 1.01 1.17 .80 .85
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Min. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Max. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5


GW25 GW26 GW27 GW28 GW29 GW30 GW31 GW32
N 349 349 349 348 349 349 346 346
Missing 45 45 45 46 45 45 48 48
Mean 4.26 4.26 3.04 3.32 2.99 3.19 3.90 3.46
SD .98 .98 1.07 .95 1.02 1.26 1.01 1.01
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Min. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Max. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5



18 Florida football sponsors are involved with their community.

19 Companies that sponsor Florida football are successful.
20 Florida football sponsors are only after consumers' money.

21 Corporate sponsorships detract from the enjoyment of this event.

22 Corporate sponsors try to improve Florida football.

23 This sporting event benefits from corporate sponsors.

24 Companies that sponsor Florida football are professional.

25 Florida football should not have corporate sponsors.

26 Companies who do not sponsor Florida football are not involved with their community.

27 1 do not pay attention to the corporate sponsors of Florida football.

28 Sponsorships of Florida football are better than regular advertising.

29 Corporate sponsors care about the fans of Florida football.

30 Florida football would not be possible without sponsors.

31 Florida football sponsors are only after consumers' money.
32 Corporate sponsors do not care about the fans of Florida football.






57


Fan involvement levels were measured using only one factor on a five-point

Likert-scale ranging from 5 (Strongly agree) to 1 (Strongly disagree). All four items

loaded in the first factor. These items were used to determine how closely the

participants identified with the team they were watching. This was based on work by

Madrigal (2001) and his social identity theory and belief-attitude-intentions hierarchy.

The results from these 4 items are listed in Table 3-15.









Table 3-15. Frequencies for the 4 Fan Involvement (FI) Items.
F33 F34 35 36
N 350 350 349 348
Missing 44 44 45 46
Mean 3.99 3.89 4.42 4.10
SD 1.19 1.19 .96 1.12
Range 4 4 4 4
Min. 1 1 1 1
Max. 5 5 5 5

Consumer purchase intentions were measured using 7 factors, and all of the items

were measured on a 5-point Likert-scale, ranging from 5 (Strongly agree) to 1 (Strongly

disagree). Items that loaded in the first factor were considered to be general purchase

intentions. Items that loaded in the second factor were Dodge purchase intentions. Items

that loaded in factor three were Alltel purchase intentions. Factor four included various

other purchase intentions. Items that loaded in factor five were Coke purchase intentions.

Items that loaded in factor six were Publix purchase intentions, and items that loaded in

factor seven were Gatorade purchase intentions. These questions were based on research

by Peyrot and Van Doren (1998). The results for these 29 items are displayed in Table 3-

16.












33 It is important to me to be a part of Florida football.

34 My friends view me as a strong fan of Florida football.

35 It is very important to me that Florida football games are played.
36 1 see myself as a strong fan of Florida football.










Table 3-16. Frequencies for the 29 Purchase Intentions Items
PI1371 2 PI63 P14 P142 PI743 PI844
N 349 349 350 350 348 348 350 350
Missing 45 45 44 44 46 46 44 44
Mean 2.43 2.50 4.39 4.30 4.62 4.68 4.66 4.65
SD 1.01 1.09 .94 1.01 .74 .64 .67 .70
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Min. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Max. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

PI945 PI1046 Q247 Q348 Q649 Q750 Q1251 Q1652
N 347 347 352 352 351 350 350 350
Missing 47 47 42 42 43 44 44 44
Mean 2.69 2.65 2.86 2.16 2.21 2.95 2.16 3.21
SD 1.18 1.17 1.05 1.09 1.05 1.27 .97 .99
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Min. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Max. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

I37 would buy the brand Alltel.

38 The next time I need to buy a product of this type, I would consider buying Alltel.

39 would buy the brand Coke.
40 The next time I need to buy a product of this type, I would consider buying Coke.

411 would buy the brand Gatorade.

42 The next time I need to buy a product of this type, I would consider buying Gatorade.

431 would buy the brand Publix.

44 The next time I need to buy a product of this type, I would consider buying Publix.

45 I would buy the brand Dodge.
46 The next time I need to buy a product of this type, I would consider buying Dodge.

47 Whenever possible, I try to buy products/services from companies that sponsor Florida football.
481 would consider purchasing products/services from Alltel because they sponsor Florida football.

49 would consider purchasing products/services from Dodge because they sponsor Florida football.
50o would purchase products/services from Publix because they sponsor this event.

51 I would purchase products/services from Dodge because they sponsor this event.

521 think it is good to purchase products/services from companies that sponsor Florida football.










Q17s3 Q1954 Q21ss Q22s6 Q24s7 Q25ss Q2959 Q3460
N 349 350 350 348 351 346 349 346
Missing 45 44 44 46 43 48 45 48
Mean 2.96 2.86 3.50 3.18 1.86 2.08 3.01 2.85
SD 1.23 1.22 .97 1.27 .99 .95 .96 1.17
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Min. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Max. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Q3561 Q3762 Q3863 Q4064 Q4565
N 348 347 347 347 347
Missing 46 47 47 47 47
Mean 2.92 2.57 3.41 3.17 3.11
SD 1.00 .99 .80 1.24 1.22
Range 4 4 4 4 4
Min. 1 1 1 1 1
Max. 5 5 5 5 5







5 1 would consider purchasing products/services from Publix because they sponsor Florida football.

54 1 would purchase products/services from Coke because they sponsor this event.

55 1 would consider purchasing products/services from the corporate sponsors of this event.
56 1 would consider purchasing products/services from Gatorade because they sponsor Florida football.

5 1 do not base my purchasing decisions on the corporate sponsorship of Florida football.
58 1 would purchase products/services from Alltel because they sponsor this event.

59 1 would try a new product/service if I saw it at a Florida football game.

60 1 would consider purchasing products/services from Coke because they sponsor Florida football.

61 1 would definitely purchase products/services from the corporate sponsors of Florida football.

62 1 try to purchase products/services from companies that sponsor Florida football.

63 My overall attitude toward purchasing products/services from companies that sponsor this event is
positive.
64 1 will try to buy at least one product/service from a company that sponsors this event within the next 3
mos.
65 1 would purchase products/services from Gatorade because they sponsor this event.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

There were nine research questions proposed in this study. These questions guided

the exploration of the effectiveness of commercial sponsorship, and the results of each of

the questions are outlined below.

Research Question 1: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels of Awareness of
Corporate Sponsorships Display A More Favorable Disposition Than Participants
With Lower Levels of Awareness?

For each research question involving awareness (Q1, Q2, Q4, and Q7), one-way

analyses of variance (ANOVA's) were conducted for the recall and recognition measures

of the five sponsoring companies compared to each construct. Each commercial sponsor

of the event (Alltel, Coke, Gatorade, Publix, and Dodge) was compared to each factor in

the construct being studied for those four research questions.

For question 1, only one of the unaided recall ANOVA's was significant.

Respondents that remembered Alltel as one of the commercial sponsors demonstrated a

favorable disposition toward that brand (F(1, 78) = 6.954, p<.05). While some

consumers' could recall many of the companies sponsoring the event, they did not

necessarily form more positive feelings or beliefs about those companies. There were

four aided recall ANOVA's that were significant. Respondents that recognized Publix as

a commercial sponsor demonstrated a general favorable disposition toward sponsorship

(F(1, 309) = 4.364, p<.05) and also a favorable disposition toward that particular brand

(F(1, 320) = 3.336, p<.05). Respondents that recognized Dodge as a commercial sponsor

also demonstrated a general favorable disposition (F(1, 257) = 2.689, p<.05) and a brand-









specific favorable disposition toward Dodge (F(1, 264) = 2.679, p<.05). However, there

was not sufficient overall evidence to support Q1. It was partially supported. The results

of these ANOVA's are displayed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2.

Table 4-1. One-Way ANOVA's for Question 1
Unaided recall for Alltel, Dodge, Publix, Gatorade, and Coke


Yes
Mean


Alltel
No
Mean


SD F Value Sig.


Factor 1: General (n= 72) 0.92 (n= 265) 0.85 0.229 .633
Favorable Disposition 3.15 3.10
Factor 2: Alltel (n= 78) 0.86 (n= 273) 0.78 6.954 .009*
Favorable Disposition 2.47 2.74

Dodge
Factor 1: General (n=42) 0.79 (n=296) 0.87 1.796 .181
Favorable Disposition 3.27 3.08
Factor 3: Dodge (n=44) 1.06 (n=303) 0.06 2.851 .092
Favorable Disposition 3.23 2.96

Publix
Factor 1: General (n=88) 0.77 (n=250) 0.89 0.213 .645
Favorable Disposition 3.14 3.09
Factor 4: Publix (n=95) 0.79 (n=254) 0.73 0.003 .958
Favorable Disposition 4.56 4.55

Gatorade
Factor 1: General (n=79) 0.83 (n=259) 0.87 0.061 .805
Favorable Disposition 3.09 3.11
Factor 5: Gatorade (n=81) 0.61 (n=270) 0.62 0.800 .372
Favorable Disposition 4.68 4.61

Coke
Factor 1: General (n=148) 0.84 (n=189) 0.88 0.041 .840
Favorable Disposition 3.09 3.11
Factor 6: Coke (n=156) 0.90 (n=193) 0.93 1.079 .300
Favorable Disposition 4.28 4.17
*Significant at the .05 level












Table 4-2. One-way ANOVA's for Question 1
Aided recall for Alltel, Dodge, Publix, Gatorade, and Coke


Correct


Foil I


Mean SD Mean


Alltell
Foil 2 Foi
SD Mean SD Mean


il 3
SD F Value Sig.


Factor 1: General (n=261) 0.84 (n=26) 1.04 (n=31) 0.97 (n=19) 0.70 1.600 .189
Favorable Disposition 3.15 2.81 2.96 3.21
Factor 2: Alltel (n=272) 0.83 (n=27) 0.72 (n=31) 0.80 (n=20) 0.55 0.473 .701
Favorable Disposition 2.65 2.67 2.82 2.75
Dodge
Factor 1: General (n=257) 0.88 (n=48) 0.80 (n=28) 0.77 (n=4 0.32 2.689 .046*
Favorable Disposition 3.17 2.95 2.75 3.13
Factor 3: Dodge (n=264) 0.96 (n=50) 0.98 (n=28) 1.04 (n=4) 0.63 2.679 .047*
Favorable Disposition 3.05 2.84 2.63 3.63
Publix
Factor 1: General (n=309) 0.84 (n=18) 0.94 (n=3) 1.06 (n=8) 0.76 4.364 .005*
Favorable Disposition 3.15 2.87 2.72 2.15
Factor 4: Publix (n=320) 0.71 (n=18) 1.06 (n=3) 0.58 (n=8) 0.99 3.336 .020*
Favorable Disposition 4.59 4.28 4.67 3.88
Gatorade
Factor 1: General (n=334) 0.86 (n=l1) 0.00 (n=3) 0.17 (n=0) 0.00 0.836 .434
Favorable Disposition 3.11 2.00 3.17 0.00
Factor 5: Gatorade (n=347) 0.62 (n=l1) 0.00 (n=3) 0.58 (n=0) 0.00 0.523 .593
Favorable Disposition 4.63 5.00 4.33 0.00
Coke
Factor 1: General (n=317) 0.86 (n=20) 0.89 (n=l) 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 1.846 .159
Favorable Disposition 3.13 2.82 2.17 0.00
Factor 6: Coke (n=329) 0.92 (n=20) 0.82 (n=l1) 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 1.651 .193
Favorable Disposition 4.23 3.98 3.00 0.00
*Significant at the .05 level









Research Question 2: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels of Awareness
Display Stronger Purchase Intentions Than Participants With Lower Levels of
Awareness?

For question 2, two of the unaided recall ANOVA's were significant. Specifically,

the respondents that recalled Alltel displayed significantly higher purchase intentions for

that particular brand than respondents that did not remember seeing Alltel (F(1, 77) =

5.337, p<.05). Respondents that recalled Dodge displayed significantly higher general

purchase intentions than those who did not remember seeing the brand (F(1, 41) = 4.205,

p<.05). Therefore, Q2 was partially supported. The results of these ANOVA's are

displayed in Tables 4-3 and 4-4.









Table 4-3. One-Way ANOVA's for Question 2
Unaided recall for Alltel, Dodge, Publix, Gatorade, and Coke
Alltel


Yes
Mean


Mean


SD F Value Sig.


Factor 1: General (n=73) 0.95 (n=264) 0.91 2.539 .112
Purchase Intentions 3.00 2.81
Factor 2: Alltel (n=77) 0.98 (n=271) 0.99 5.337 .021
Purchase Intentions 2.23 2.53

Dodge
Factor 1: General (n=41) 0.82 (n=297) 0.93 4.205 .041
Purchase Intentions 3.12 2.81
Factor 3: Dodge (n=45) 1.32 (n=302) 1.15 1.460 .228
Purchase Intentions 2.87 2.65

Publix
Factor 1: General (n=87) 0.84 (n=251) 0.95 0.050 .824
Purchase Intentions 2.87 2.84
Factor 4: Publix (n=96) 0.67 (n=254) 0.66 0.036 .849
Purchase Intentions 4.67 4.65

Gatorade
Factor 1: General (n=76) 0.87 (n=262) 0.94 0.050 .823
Purchase Intentions 2.87 2.84
Factor 5: Gatorade (n=81) 0.60 (n=267) 0.67 0.689 .407
Purchase Intentions 4.70 4.63

Coke












Table 4-4. One-Way ANOVA's for Question 2
Aided recall for Alltel, Dodge, Publix, Gatorade, and Coke

Correct Foil 1
Mean SD Mean SD


Alltell
Foil 2
Mean SD


Foil 3


Mean


SD F Value Sig.


Factor 1: General (n=260) 0.93 (n=26) 0.97 (n=30) 0.85 (n=20) 0.83 2.717 .045
Purchase Intentions 2.90 2.47 2.61 3.02
Factor 2: Alltel (n=269) 1.03 (n=27) 0.89 (n=31) 0.92 (n=21) 0.75 0.858 .463
Purchase Intentions 2.45 2.34 2.50 2.79

Dodge
Factor 1: General (n=258) 0.94 (n=48) 0.87 (n=27) 0.78 (n=4) 0.47 2.226 .085
Purchase Intentions 2.92 2.63 2.57 2.68
Factor: Dodge (n=267) 1.15 (n=49) 1.08 (n=26) 1.19 (n=4) 0.41 2.062 .105
Purchase Intentions 2.75 2.39 2.38 2.50

Publix
Factor 1: General (n=309) 0.92 (n=18) 0.89 (n=3) 0.95 (n=8) 0.93 1.630 .182
Purchase Intentions 2.88 2.68 2.57 2.23
Factor 4: Publix (n=320) 0.64 (n=18) 0.98 (n=3) 0.29 (n=8) 0.74 0.926 .428
Purchase Intentions 4.67 4.50 4.83 4.38

Gatorade
Factor 1: General (n=334) 0.93 (n=l1) 0.00 (n=3) 0.32 (n=0) 0.00 1.667 .190
Purchase Intentions 2.85 1.20 3.03 0.00
Factor 5: Gatorade (n=344) 0.66 (n=l1) 0.00 (n=3) 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 0.576 .563
Purchase Intentions 4.65 5.00 5.00 0.00

Coke












Factor 1: General (n=317) 0.92 (n=20) 0.90 (n=l1) 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 1.750 .175
Purchase Intentions 2.87 2.52 2.10 0.00
Factor 6: Coke (n=329) 0.94 (n=20) 0.99 (n=l) 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 1.296 .275
Purchase Intentions 4.36 4.08 3.50 0.00









Research Question 3: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels of Favorable
Disposition Display Stronger Purchase Intentions Than Participants With Lower
Levels of Favorable Disposition?

A correlational analysis was performed in order to answer the remaining five

research questions regarding favorable disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and

purchase intentions (Q3, Q5, Q6, Q8, and Q9). The results indicated that general

favorable disposition was significantly (p<.01) and positively correlated to general

purchase intentions (Pearson's r = .872) and other purchase intentions (Pearson's r =

.601). The results also indicated that certain brand-specific favorable dispositions were

also significantly and positively correlated to brand-specific purchase intentions, while

others were not significant. The results of this correlational analysis are displayed in

Table 4-5.















Table 4-5. Correlational Analysis for Favorable Disposition (FD) and Purchase Intentions (PI)
General PI Dodge PI Alltel PI Other PI Coke PI Publix PI Gatorade PI
General FD Correlation .872(**) .175(**) .178(**) .601(**) .217(**) .189(**) .227(**)

Sig. (2- .000 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N 331 334 338 337 336 336 334
Alltel FD Coarrelation .130(*) .159(**) .763(**) .254(**) .033 .162(**) -.010

Sig. (2- .017 .003 .000 .000 .538 .002 .848
tailed)
N 337 346 348 346 348 348 346
Dodge FD Pearson
Dodge FD Pearson .104 .784(**) .088 .128(*) -.011 .075 .028
Correlation
Sig. (2- .059 .000 .104 .018 .834 .163 .605
tailed)
N 334 343 345 343 345 345 343
Publix FD Pearson
Correlation .188(**) .032 .087 .141(**) .306(**) .830(**) .112(*)

Sig. (2- .001 .560 .106 .009 .000 .000 .037
tailed)
N 336 344 346 344 347 347 346
trade Coarrelation .244(**) -.004 -.100 .134(*) .260(**) .214(**) .857(**)

Sig. (2- .000 .944 .063 .013 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N 337 346 348 346 349 349 347
CokeFD correlation .214(**) -.008 .030 .212(**) .851(**) .275(**) .232(**)

Sig. (2- .000 .882 .574 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N 336 345 347 345 349 348 346


* *
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (?-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).









Research Question 4: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels of Goodwill
Display Higher Levels of Awareness of Corporate Sponsorships Than Participants
With Lower Levels of Goodwill?

Following the results of the ANOVA's for question 4, it was found that there were

ten significant results. The respondents that recalled Alltel as a sponsor scored

significantly higher in the factor of corporate goodwill (F(1, 79) = 7.523, p<.05).

Respondents who recalled Dodge's sponsorship scored significantly higher in the factors

of negative goodwill (F(1, 43) = 6.308, p<.05) and corporate goodwill (F(1, 45) = 4.194,

p<.05). Respondents who remembered Coke's sponsorship of the event also scored

significantly higher in negative goodwill (F(1, 155) = 5.147, p<.05) and corporate

goodwill (F(1, 157) = 4.428, p<.05). For the aided recall section, respondents who

recognized Alltel as a sponsor scored significantly higher in the factor of negative

goodwill (F(1, 268) = 2.836, p<.05). Those who recognized Dodge's sponsorship also

scored significantly higher in negative goodwill (F(1, 265) = 6.684, p<.001). The

respondents who recognized Publix as a commercial sponsor displayed significantly

higher results in the factor of corporate goodwill (F(1, 320) = 3.524, p<.05). When

Coke's sponsorship was recognized by the participants, they also scored significantly

higher in both negative goodwill (F(1, 326) = 7.084, p<.001) and corporate goodwill

(F(1, 329) = 5.349, p<.05). Therefore, Q4 was partially supported. The results of these

ANOVA's are displayed in Tables 4-6 and 4-7.









Table 4-6. One-Way ANOVA's for Question 4
Unaided recall for Alltel, Dodge, Publix, Gatorade, and Coke


Yes
Mean


Alltel
No
Mean


SD F Value Sig.


Factor 7: Caring (n=77) 0.76 (n=270) 0.81 0.403 .526
Goodwill 3.06 3.13
Factor 8: Negative (n=77) 0.71 (n=269) 0.78 0.783 .377
Goodwill 3.77 3.68
Factor 9: Corporate (n=79) 0.64 (n=270) 0.71 7.523 .006*
Goodwill 4.25 4.00

Dodge
Factor 7: Caring (n=43) 0.69 (n=305) 0.81 0.207 .649
Goodwill 3.16 3.10
Factor 8: Negative (n=43) 0.63 (n=304) 0.77 6.308 .012*
Goodwill 3.97 3.66
Factor 9: Corporate (n=45) 0.67 (n=305) 0.71 4.194 .041*
Goodwill 4.26 4.03

Publix
Factor 7: Caring (n=94) 0.71 (n=254) 0.82 0.273 .601
Goodwill 3.07 3.12
Factor 8: Negative (n=94) 0.70 (n=253) 0.78 1.763 .185
Goodwill 3.79 3.67
Factor 9: Corporate (n=96) 0.64 (n=254) 0.73 0.203 .653
Goodwill 4.08 4.05

Gatorade
Factor 7: Caring (n=79) 0.74 (n=269) 0.81 0.032 .858
Goodwill 3.10 3.14
Factor 8: Negative (n=79) 0.72 (n=268) 0.77 0.001 .978
Goodwill 3.70 3.70
Factor 9: Corporate (n=80) 0.67 (n=270) 0.71 1.003 .317
Goodwill 4.13 4.04

Coke
Factor 7: Caring (n=155) 0.81 (n=192) 0.78 0.186 .667
Goodwill 3.13 3.09
Factor 8: Negative (n=155) 0.75 (n=191) 0.76 5.147 .024*
Goodwill 3.80 3.61

Factor 9: Corporate (n=157) 0.69 (n=192) 0.71 4.428 .036*
Goodwill 4.14 3.98
*Significant at the .05 level













Table 4-7. One-Way ANOVA's for Question 4
Aided recall for Alltel, Dodge, Publix, Gatorade, and Coke


Foil 1
SD Mean SD


Alltell
Foil 2
Mean SD


Foil 3
Mean SD F Value


Factor 7: Caring (n=268) 0.78 (n=26) 0.86 (n=31) 0.91 (n=21) 0.70 1.008 .389
Goodwill 3.14 2.90 3.15 2.97
Factor 8: Negative (n=268) 0.73 (n=26) 0.84 (n=31) 0.93 (n=20) 0.74 2.836 .038*
Goodwill 3.75 3.51 3.39 3.62
Factor 9: Corporate (n=271) 0.70 (n=26) 0.69 (n=30) 0.76 (n=21) 0.72 0.975 .405
Goodwill 4.09 4.02 3.92 3.90

Dodge
Factor 7: Caring (n=266) 0.79 (n=49) 0.83 (n=28) 0.71 (n=4) 0.27 2.161 .092
Goodwill 3.17 2.91 2.90 3.00
Factor 8: Negative (n=265) 0.73 (n=49) 0.83 (n=28) 0.72 (n=4) 0.88 6.684 .000**
Goodwill 3.79 3.31 3.49 3.5
Factor 9: Corporate (n=267) 0.69 (n=50) 0.78 (n=28) 0.61 (n=4) 0.48 2.362 0.71
Goodwill 4.09 3.93 3.86 4.63

Publix
Factor 7: Caring (n=319) 0.80 (n=18) 0.80 (n=3) 0.69 (n=8) 0.31 1.992 .115
Goodwill 3.14 2.74 2.89 2.79
Factor 8: Negative (n=318) 0.75 (n=18) 0.94 (n=3) 0.19 (n=8) 0.85 2.083 .102
Goodwill 3.70 3.46 4.56 3.92


Correct
Mean












Table 4-7. Continued


Foil 1 Foil 2 Foi
SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean


il 3
SD F Value Sig.


Factor 9: Corporate (n=320) 0.69 (n=18) 0.81 (n=3) 0.76 (n=8) 0.37 3.524 .015*
Goodwill 4.08 3.92 3.83 3.31

Gatorade
Factor 7: Caring (n=344) 0.79 (n=l1) 0.00 (n=3) 0.19 (n=0) 0.00 2.428 .090
Goodwill 3.12 1.67 2.56 0.00
Factor 8: Negative (n=343) 0.76 (n=l1) 0.00 (n=3) 0.67 (n=0) 0.00 0.589 .556
Goodwill 3.69 4.33 4.00 0.00
Factor 9: Corporate (n=346) 0.70 (n=l1) 0.00 (n=3) 0.58 (n=0) 0.00 1.359 .258
Goodwill 4.06 5.00 3.67 0.00

Coke
Factor 7: Caring (n=327) 0.80 (n=20) 0.62 (n=l1) 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 0.547 .579
Goodwill 3.12 3.05 2.33 0.00
Factor 8: Negative (n=326) 0.76 (n=20) 0.59 (n=l1) 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 7.084 .001**
Goodwill 3.73 3.22 2.00 0.00
Factor 9: Corporate (n=329) 0.70 (n=20) 0.57 (n=l1) 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 5.349 .005*
Goodwill 4.08 3.70 0.00 0.00


*Significant at the .05 level
** Significant at the .001 level


Correct
Mean










Research Question 5: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels Of Goodwill
Display Higher Levels Of Favorable Disposition Than Participants With Lower
Levels Of Goodwill?

A correlational analysis was performed to test this research question. All three

factors of goodwill were significantly (p<.01) and positively correlated to general

favorable disposition (Pearson's r = .604, .247, and .366). Some of the brand-specific

favorable dispositions were also significantly and positively correlated to certain factors

of goodwill while others were not significant. The results are displayed in Table 4-8.

Table 4-8. Correlational Analysis for Favorable Disposition (FD) and Goodwill
Caring Negative Corporate
Goodwill Goodwill Goodwill
General FD Pearson
General FD Correlation .604(**) .247(**) .366(**)

Sig. (2- .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N 338 338 337
Alltel FD Pearson .158) .070 .125
Correlation .158(**) .070 .125(*)
Sig. (2- .003 .197 .020
tailed)
N 346 346 348
Dodge FD Pearson) .048 .076
Correlation .135(*) .048 .076
Sig. (2- .012 .380 .157
tailed)
N 343 342 345
Publix FD Pearson
.Correlation 094 .122(*) .245(**)
Correlation
Sig. (2- .081 .024 .000
tailed)
N 346 345 347
Gatorade FD Pearson
.110(*) .105 .232(**)
Correlation
Sig. (2- .040 .050 .000
tailed)
N 347 346 349
CokeFD Pearson .176(**) .211(**) .312(**)
Correlation
Sig. (2- .001 .000 .000
tailed)
N 346 345 348
Sig. (2- .000 .000
tailed)
N 347 346 350
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).










Research Question 6: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels Of Goodwill
Display Stronger Purchase Intentions Than Participants With Lower Levels Of
Goodwill?

Table 4-9 also indicates that goodwill was significantly (p<.01) and positively

correlated to general purchase intentions (Pearson's r = .564). Various facets of goodwill

were also significantly and positively correlated to some of the brand-specific purchase

intentions.

Table 4-9. Correlational Analysis for Goodwill and Purchase Intentions (PI
Caring Negative Corporate
Goodwill Goodwill Goodwill
General PI Pearson
General PCorrelation .564(**) .225(**) .363(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 338 337 337
Doge PI Pearson .143() -.001 .043
Correlation .143(**) -001 .043
Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .986 .422
N 343 342 345
Alltel PI Pearson 156(**) 008 .124()
Correlation .156(**) .008 .124(*)
Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .881 .021
N 345 344 347
Other PCorrelation .594(**) .325(**) .363(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 346 345 346
Coke PI Pearson .124() .146() .258()
Correlation24(*) .146(**) .258
Sig. (2-tailed) .021 .007 .000
N 346 345 348
Public P Pearson .077 .212(**) .222(**)
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .155 .000 .000
N 346 345 348
Gatorade PI Pearson
Correlation .119(*) .107(*) .179(**)
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .027 .047 .001
N 344 343 346
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).









Research Question 7: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels Of Fan
Involvement Display Higher Levels Of Awareness Of Corporate Sponsorships Than
Participants With Lower Levels Of Fan Involvement?

For question 7, two analyses of variance that were performed showed significant

results between fan involvement and awareness level. Respondents that recalled Dodge

as an event sponsor scored significantly higher in fan involvement than those who did not

remember Dodge (F(1, 44) = 6.155, p<.05). For those respondents that recognized

Publix as an event sponsor, they also scored significantly higher in fan involvement (F(1,

315) = 6.888, p<.001). Therefore, Q7 was partially supported. The results of these

ANOVA's are displayed in Tables 4-10 and 4-11.









Table 4-10. One-Way ANOVA's for Question 7
Unaided recall for Alltel, Dodge, Publix, Gatorade, and Coke


Yes
Mean


Alltel
No
Mean


SD F Value Sig.


Factor 10: Fan (n=77) 0.89 (n=267) 1.00 0.799 .372
Involvement 4.18 4.07

Dodge
Factor 10: Fan (n=44) 0.82 (n=301) 0.98 6.155 .014*
Involvement 4.43 4.04

Publix
Factor 10: Fan (n=94) 0.99 (n=251) 0.96 .742 .390
Involvement 4.02 4.12

Gatorade
Factor 10: Fan (n=80) 0.76 (n=265) 1.02 2.776 .097
Involvement 4.25 4.05

Coke
Factor 10: Fan (n=154) 0.99 (n=190) 0.96 .001 .970
Involvement 4.10 4.09
*Significant at the .05 level













Table 4-11. One-Way ANOVA's for Question 7
Aided recall for Alltel, Dodge, Publix, Gatorade, and Coke


Foil 1
SD Mean


Alltell
Foil 2


Foil 3


SD Mean SD Mean


SD F Value


Factor 10: Fan (n=268) 0.97 (n=24) 1.14 (n=31) 0.88 (n=20) 0.98 0.543 .653
Involvement 4.11 4.00 3.93 4.24

Dodge
Factor 10: Fan (n=264) 0.99 (n=48) 0.88 (n=28) 0.99 (n=4) 0.38 1.726 .161
Involvement 4.14 3.86 3.98 4.69

Publix
Factor 10: Fan (n=315) 0.93 (n=18) 0.93 (n=3) 0.38 (n=8) 1.53 6.888 .000**
Involvement 4.13 4.08 4.33 2.59

Gatorade
Factor 10: Fan (n=341) 0.98 (n=l1) 0.00 (n=3) 0.14 (n=0) 0.00 0.602 .548
Involvement 4.09 5.00 4.41 0.00

Coke
Factor 10: Fan (n=325) 0.97 (n=19) 0.99 (n=l1) 0.00 (n=0) 0.00 2.857 .059
Involvement 4.12 3.64 3.00 0.00
**Significant at the .001 level


Correct
Mean






79



Research Question 8: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels Of Fan
Involvement Display Higher Levels Of Favorable Disposition Than Participants
With Lower Levels Of Fan Involvement?

The correlational analysis also showed that fan involvement is significantly (p<.01)

and positively correlated to general favorable disposition (Pearson's r = .419), Publix

favorable disposition (Pearson's r = .234), Gatorade favorable disposition (Pearson's r =

.286), and Coke favorable disposition (Pearson's r = .197). The results are displayed in

Table 4-12.





** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


nent and Favorable Disposition (FD)


Research Question 9: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels Of Fan
Involvement Display Stronger Purchase Intentions Than Participants With Lower
Levels Of Fan Involvement?

The results also indicated that fan involvement was significantly (p<.01) and

positively correlated to general purchase intentions (Pearson's r = .390), other purchase

intentions (Pearson's r = .280), Coke purchase intentions (Pearson's r = .155), Publix

purchase intentions (Pearson's r = .217), and Gatorade purchase intentions (Pearson's r

.329). These results of this correlational analysis are displayed in Table 4-13.


able 4-12. Correlational Analysis tor ran involved
Fan Involvement
General FD Pearson 419(**)
Correlation .419(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 334
Alltel FD Pearson 101
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .062
N 343
Dodge FD Pearson 063
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .250
N 340
Publix FD Pearson .234(**)
Correlation .234(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 342
Gatorade FD Pearson .286(**
Correlation .286(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 344
Coke FD Pearson
Correlation .197(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 343











Table 4-13. Correlational Analysis for Fan Involvement and Purchase Intentions (PI)
Fan Involvement
General PI Pearson .390()
Correlation .390(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 334
Dodge PI Pearson 002
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .976
N 340
AlItel PI Pearson 058
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .284
N 342
Other PI Pearson .280(**)
Correlation .280(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 343
Coke PI Pearson .155(**
Correlation .155(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .004
N 343
Publix PI Pearson 217(**)
Correlation .217(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 343
Gatorade PI Pearson .329(**
Correlation .329(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 341
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of commercial

sponsorships (CS) as they pertain to an elite intercollegiate athletic football program.

More specifically, the problem included analyzing the constructs of CS, which were

defined as awareness, favorable disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase

intentions. This chapter discusses the results of the study, their relevance to the literature

and industry and, finally, areas for further investigation. The four major sections of this

chapter include:

* Summary of Methods
* Discussion of Findings
* Implications
* Limitations
* Delimitations
* Suggestions for Further Research

Summary of Methods

The data for this study were collected through a web-based questionnaire which

was administered following three home football games at the University of Florida during

the 2003-2004 season. The participants in the study were randomly selected by trained

data collectors and asked to fill out an informed consent card prior to participating. At

the completion of each game, the investigator distributed the survey via e-mail to all

those individuals who completed the index card. At the conclusion of the data collection,

a total of 394 participants had completed the 15-minute survey and submitted it. This









web-based questionnaire consisted of 76 total items measuring the constructs of

awareness, favorable disposition, goodwill, fan involvement, and purchase intentions.

Discussion of Findings

Sample Profile

The sample profile in this study was used to provide some insight as to what types

of individuals made up the audience at the intercollegiate football games. The

percentages for gender were split almost equally, but there were slightly more males

(52.1%) than females (47.9%) who responded to the survey. The majority of the

respondents were Caucasian (76.6%) and between the ages of 18-24 (70.5%) and 25-49

(28.1%). One of the most interesting findings in this sample's sociodemographic data

was that virtually as many females attended the games as males. In the past, football has

often been stereotyped as having primarily a male audience. If this sample was an

accurate representation of the population at elite intercollegiate football games, then the

results of the study would indicate that females are in attendance at intercollegiate

football games roughly as much as males.

Research Question 1: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels Of Awareness Of
Corporate Sponsorships Display A More Favorable Disposition Than Participants
With Lower Levels Of Awareness?

According to Meenaghan (2001), consumers who demonstrate higher levels of

awareness of commercial sponsorships should also demonstrate more favorable

dispositions toward those sponsors. In other words, participants who see and remember

more sponsorship messages should also view those commercial sponsors more positively.

The results of this investigation, however, revealed that participants' awareness levels

were not consistently significant indicators of their levels of favorable disposition. None

of the companies that sponsored this event created more positive attitudes within the









consumers simply by generating awareness of their brands. In fact, some participants in

the survey exhibited negative attitudes toward the commercial sponsors for which they

were most aware.

This suggested that awareness alone should not be the only measure used by

sponsors to gauge a consumer's interest in or favorable disposition toward their brand or

their products and services. Other factors, or combinations of those factors, may better

determine a consumer's favorable disposition or perceptions of the sponsor.

Research Question 2: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels Of Awareness Of
Corporate Sponsorships Display Stronger Purchase Intentions Than Participants
With Lower Levels Of Awareness?

Meenaghan (2001) also suggests that consumers who recall and recognize

sponsorships should also display stronger purchase intentions than consumers who do not

recall as many messages. The results of this study were not in support of this suggestion.

One ANOVA, comparing the means for awareness and purchase intentions regarding the

brand Dodge, showed a significant result. In other words, the participants who recalled

the Dodge ads were also more likely to purchase the Dodge brand or indicated that they

would consider purchasing the Dodge brand. The results for the remaining sponsors,

including Alltel, Coke, Gatorade and Publix, did not reveal any consistent significant

relationships between the awareness of sponsorships and the purchase of these specific

brands. This outcome supports the literature on aided and unaided recall in that

awareness levels are not solely indicative of consumer purchase intentions. They are

better suited for revealing brand exposure. Even though consumer recall and recognition

rates have been successful indicators of sponsorship awareness (Bennett et al. 2002;

Meenaghan, 1991; Nicholls et al., 1999; Otker & Hayes, 1987; Stotlar, 1993), they are

not necessarily a strong gauge for consumer satisfaction or intent to purchase based on









event sponsorships. A person's ability to recall an ad is an indicator of the

meaningfulness of the message or how well the brand registers in the consumers mind

(Wells, 2000). Just because the target market recognizes a company or their brands does

not necessarily mean they prefer that brand and will purchase it over another. These

findings are supported by previous research conducted by Johar and Pham (1999) who

propose that aided and unaided recall rates serve as better indicators of brand-event

relatedness and market prominence.

Research Question 3: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels Of Favorable
Disposition Display Stronger Purchase Intentions Than Participants With Lower
Levels Of Favorable Disposition?

According to Peyrot et al. (1998), consumers develop their purchase behaviors

based on past experiences, and they tend to repeat these behaviors. If these previous

experiences are positive, based on Meenaghan's (2001) model, it is more likely that the

consumer will transfer these positive feelings to the sponsors of the event. This means

that if consumers develop favorable dispositions toward the sponsors of a particular

sporting event, and then have the opportunity to purchase products or services that have

an affiliation with that previous positive experience, they will generally purchase those

same brands. The results support the notion that a central component of future

(re)purchase intentions is the perceived value and satisfaction of customers. Previous

research has shown that consumer satisfaction can be a reliable predictor of (re)purchase

intentions (Patterson & Spreng, 1997). There was a strong positive correlation between

the feelings and emotions consumers displayed toward the event sponsors and their

purchase intentions and behaviors. Many participants indicated that they look favorably

upon the companies that invested in their favored activity. For this reason, they would

also consider making purchases from them (or had already done so).









These results are extremely important because previous theory has indicated that

consumers tend to view sponsorships more favorably than they do traditional advertising

(Meenaghan, 2001). If consumers also repeat purchases after having positive experiences

at a sporting event, as this study has indicated, then commercial sponsorships may be

equal to or more beneficial in producing purchase behaviors than conventional

advertising methods. Meenaghan (2001) suggests that investing in commercial

sponsorships allows companies to promote their brands in a pleasant, entertaining

atmosphere, which can generate favorable attitudes and perception within consumers,

and, consequently, increase the likelihood of purchase intentions and behaviors.

Research Question 4: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels Of Goodwill
Display Higher Levels Of Awareness Of Corporate Sponsorships Than Participants
With Lower Levels Of Goodwill?

The model utilized as a frame for this study suggests that consumers who exhibit

higher levels of goodwill will recall more sponsors from the event. This suggestion was

partially supported by the results. The results from this study showed no significant

difference between the participants' levels of goodwill toward the sponsors and their

abilities to recall, through aided or unaided measures, the brands Gatorade and Publix.

However, significant results were revealed when the means for goodwill and the means

for awareness of Alltel, Coke, and Dodge were compared. The results indicated that

consumers who demonstrated higher levels of goodwill recognized Alltel and Dodge

sponsorship activations the most. In the literature, Meenaghan (2001) stated that

consumers are more aware of and display benevolence and appreciation toward

commercial sponsors for supporting an event in which they are passionate. However, this

study indicates that the consumers were not more aware of the commercial sponsors of

the event, even though they felt positively about the overall idea of sponsorship. Alltel









and Dodge may have been highly identified because they are less prominent or preferred

brands, and consumers who appreciated the sponsors' contribution to the football

program took notice. Another explanation could be the combination of this sponsorship

and Alltel and Dodge's involvement with other sporting events attended by the same

participants, since these two companies sponsor the entire athletic program. Despite the

positive outcomes for Alltel and Dodge, the overall results are indicative of the fact that

awareness alone does not necessarily increase levels of goodwill or other variables in the

study, which was also determined in Research Questions 1 and 2. Companies

considering sponsorship endeavors should not focus solely on brand recognition, but also

incorporate into their strategies other constructs like goodwill and favorable disposition

in order to connect emotionally with their target market.

Research Question 5: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels Of Goodwill
Display Higher Levels Of Favorable Disposition Than Participants With Lower
Levels Of Goodwill?

Meenaghan (2001) and the modified model used for this investigation both suggest

that participants who display higher levels of goodwill will also display higher levels of

favorable disposition. The data in this study strongly supported this concept. As the

means for general goodwill increased, the means for general favorable disposition also

significantly increased. The participants who stated that commercial sponsorship in

general was positive for these events also displayed positive feelings and emotions

toward the individual sponsoring companies and their brands. Not only did the

participants demonstrate that commercial sponsors were an important aspect of the

activity, they also suggested that this particular activity's sponsors were charitable

companies. They demonstrated appreciation toward these businesses for promoting and

sustaining their event, and they also highly rated their products and services. This









outcome is extremely important for commercial sponsors because it has been noted for

years that favorable disposition, also known as attitude-toward-ad or consumer

perception, is an essential aspect in the effectiveness of the advertising message (Greyser,

1972). Since the consumer can form both positive and negative dispositions about the ad

(Reid & Soley, 1982), it is crucial for the sponsor to incorporate a sense of goodwill into

their marketing message to enhance the positive emotions within their consumers and

improve the overall effectiveness of their sponsorship message.

Research Question 6: Will Participants Who Have Higher Levels Of Goodwill
Display Stronger Purchase Intentions Than Participants With Lower Levels Of
Goodwill?

The largest factor distinguishing sponsorship from advertising is goodwill

(Meenaghan, 2001). Because sponsors are contributing to the participants in the activity,

as well as the local community, they receive goodwill from the consumers of that

activity. Throughout this process, event sponsors are also hoping that the goodwill

consumers feel will persuade them to make purchases from their companies or brands.

This was apparent in the results of the study. When the two sets of means were

correlated, there was a strong positive outcome. The means for general consumer

purchase intentions rose significantly with the increase in the participants' levels of

general, negative, and caring goodwill. This means that the more goodwill consumers

convey toward commercial sponsors, the more likely they are to purchase from those

same companies due to their affiliation with these sporting events. As opposed to

advertising, sponsorship aids in the production and promotion of an event that consumers

enjoy and in which they can take part. Consumers recognize and appreciate when

corporations support an activity they enjoy, because they believe it is helping elevate that

activity and not just exploit it to produce a profit (Meenaghan, 1991). The literature