<%BANNER%>

Sponsorship Advertising: Effects of Source, Narration Mode and Involvement with the Sponsored Activity on Attitude towar...

HIDE
 Title Page
 Dedication
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Literature review
 Methodology
 Results
 Discussion and conclusion
 Appendices
 References
 Biographical sketch
 

PAGE 1

SPONSORSHIP ADVERTISING: EFFE CTS OF SOURCE, NARRATION MODE AND INVOLVEMENT WITH THE SPONS ORED ACTIVITY ON ATTITUDE TOWARD THE SPONSORSHI P, ATTITUDE TOWARD THE AD AND ATTITUDE TOWARD THE SPONSOR By ZIAD GHANIMI A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ADVERTISING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Ziad Ghanimi

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to my parents my family in Morocco and in the U.S.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Without the Fulbright program, I would not be presenting this work today. I would like to thank the Fulbright committee members in Morocco for their trust and the opportunity they gave me to be part of this wonderful program. I w ould also like to thank the men and women who manage the Fulbri ght program everyday, making it one of the most successful experiences that increas e mutual understanding and tolerance among cultures in the world. During these two year s these persons showed us enough care and attention to become like family members. I am very grateful to my committee memb ers for the support they showed to this project, their availability and their guidan ce. I would like to thank them and all the faculty members of our college for their cont ribution in making these two years in UF a wonderful experience. Finally I would like to thank my family in Morocco and my new family in Gainesville, Philip and Elizabeth, for thei r support during these two years. Their contribution to this work was more than they can imagine.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................8 Nature of Sponsorship..................................................................................................8 Definition of Sponsorship......................................................................................8 Sponsorship in the Promotional Mix...................................................................10 Objectives of Sponsorship..........................................................................................13 Corporate Objectives of Sponsorship..................................................................13 Marketing Objectives..........................................................................................14 Measuring Sponsorship Effects..................................................................................16 The Measurement Process of Sponsorship Effects.............................................16 Sponsorship Effects.............................................................................................17 Exposure.......................................................................................................17 Attention.......................................................................................................18 Attitude.........................................................................................................19 Behavior.......................................................................................................20 Theoretical Framework of Sponsorship:....................................................................20 Frameworks Based on Low Processing...............................................................21 Frameworks Based on High Processing..............................................................21 Leveraging a Sponsorship...........................................................................................23 Why Leverage a Sponsorship Relation?..............................................................24 Reach of consumers.....................................................................................24 Impacting the target market..........................................................................25 Considering the environment.......................................................................26

PAGE 6

vi How to Leverage a Sponsorship?........................................................................28 The weight of leverage.................................................................................28 The message.................................................................................................29 Duration of leverage.....................................................................................29 Leveraging sponsorship at the right scale....................................................29 Limits of Literature on Sponsorship Leverage.............................................30 Hypothesis Development............................................................................................31 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................37 Measurements.............................................................................................................37 Independent Variables.........................................................................................37 Source in the print ad...................................................................................37 Narration mode.............................................................................................37 Involvement with the sponsored activity.....................................................37 Dependant Variables...........................................................................................38 Attitude toward the sponsorship...................................................................38 Attitude toward the sponsorship message....................................................39 Attitude toward the sponsor.........................................................................39 Pre Test.......................................................................................................................40 Development of Stimuli..............................................................................................41 Experimental Procedure..............................................................................................41 Participants.................................................................................................................42 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................44 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION........................................................................50 Hypothesis 1...............................................................................................................50 Hypothesis 2...............................................................................................................51 Hypothesis 3...............................................................................................................52 Hypothesis 4...............................................................................................................52 Hypothesis 5...............................................................................................................53 Implications................................................................................................................53 Limitations..................................................................................................................54 Future research............................................................................................................56 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT............................................................................................58 B UFRIB PROTOCOL..................................................................................................60 C PRINT ADS................................................................................................................64 D QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................................................................70

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................75 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................78

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Enduring involvement Pers onal inventory involvement.......................................38 3-2 Attitude toward the act.............................................................................................39 3-3 Attitude toward the ad..............................................................................................39 3-4 Attitude toward the brand.........................................................................................40 3-5 Pre test results for brands.........................................................................................40 3.6 Pre test results for sports..........................................................................................41 3-7 Sample size...............................................................................................................43 4-1 Main effect of source................................................................................................44 4-2 Means by type of source...........................................................................................44 4-3 Main effect of narration mode..................................................................................45 4-4 Means by narration mode.........................................................................................45 4-5 Main effect of involvement......................................................................................46 4-6 Means by level of involvement................................................................................46 4-7 Interaction effect of i nvolvement and narration mode.............................................46 4-8 Means by involvement and narration mode.............................................................47 4-9 Interaction effect of involvement and source...........................................................47 4-10 Means by involvement and source...........................................................................48 4-11 Interaction effect of source, narration mode and involvement.................................48 4-12 Means by source, narration mode and involvement.................................................49

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Sterns advertising model of communication...........................................................32 2-2 Meenaghans sponsorship model.............................................................................33

PAGE 10

x Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Advertising SPONSORSHIP ADVERTISING: EFFE CTS OF SOURCE, NARRATION MODE AND INVOLVEMENT WITH THE SPONS ORED ACTIVITY ON ATTITUDE TOWARD THE SPONSORSHI P, ATTITUDE TOWARD THE AD AND ATTITUDE TOWARD THE SPONSOR By Ziad Ghanimi December 2006 Chair: Jorge Villegas Major Department: Advertising During the late nineties, a considerable amount of literature was produced on nature of sponsorship, its objectives and its effects. Unfortunatel y, sponsorship management did not receive as much attention as the other areas as only general guidelines exist on the weight to allow to sponsorship promotion, the content of a message promoting a sponsorship and the time period necessary to promote a sponsorship. The objective of this study is to add to the existi ng literature on sponsorship management by defining possible directions for the execution of sponsorship advertising. The message source and narration mode were manipulated to examine effects on attitudes depending on the level of involvement of the respondent with the sponsored activity. Four advertisements promoting a sponsorship relation were execute d, each one using either the sponsor or the activity as a source, and eith er a first person narration m ode or a third person narration

PAGE 11

xi mode. Results are presented and implications for sponsorship advertising execution are also discussed. The study also presents limita tions and orientation for future research.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The support of artists and athletes goes back to the Greek civili zations in the city of Athena where rich patr ons were supporting financiall y promising performers. Few centuries later, Maecenas, a Roman knight who lived from 68 to 8 before Christ, became famous for his protection of ar tists, poets and scientists. His name will become in the French language a synonym of rich pers on protecting and supporting people of knowledge. Little by little other concepts li ke charity, philanthropy, corporate giving and sponsorship made their appearance without a real distinction betw een them. In modern times, Meenaghan (1983) defined sponsorship as an investment in cash or in kind in an activity in return for access to the exploitable potential associated w ith that activity. From a relatively limited practice in the late sixties and early se venties, sponsorship has grown substantially over the last three decades (Meenaghan 1998). Sponsorship spending reached $28 billion worldwide in 2004 (Cornwell et al 2005) which represents an increase of 8.1% over 2003, more than 100% over the last ten years and 1300% over the last twenty years. North America, the United States and Canada, continue to dominate the world sponsorship market with $11.14 billion in 2004 accounting for 39% of sponsorship worldwide spending (IEG report 2003). The top five US sponsors are PepsiCo, AnheuserBusch, General Motors, Coca-Cola and Nike spending from $160 million to $255 million. In comparison with the $141.1 billion spent on advertising in 2004 in the U.S. market (Deeken 2005), sponsorship expenditu res may appear triv ial. However, two factors can correct this misconception. Fi rst, the previous amounts do not include

PAGE 13

2 expenditures to ensure proper exploitati on of the chosen sponsorship but only sponsorship rights. Sponsors le verage their initial investment with a variety of marketing tools including advertis ing, in-store displays, incentives and others. In 1996 for example, $5 billion were spent worldwide to promot e sponsorship of the 1996 Olympic Games (Cornwell and Maignan, 1998). Second, sponsorsh ip annual expenses grow faster than advertising and sales promotion si nce early eighties (Meenaghan 1998). Scholars attribute sponsorship growth to corporate disillusion with traditional advertising and government restrictions on alcohol and toba cco advertising. Scholars and practitioners are increasingly questioning the effectiveness and efficiency of media advertising (Quester and Thomps on 2001, Meenaghan 2001a, 2001b). Gardner and Shuman (1987) suggest that with the exp ected growth of 15 se conds commercials, perceived clutter will undoubtedly worsen an d become more and more challenging to effective reach and frequency. Clutter comb ined with the increasing costs of media commercials led a practitioner to say If we continue to pay premium prices for advertising of diminished value then we are fools (Gardner and Shuman, 1987 p.12). Meenaghan (1999) opines that technological ch ange in media development, like TiVo, has changed media viewing habits (zipping and zapping). In this context, sponsorship is seen as a relatively cost effective access to target (Meenaghan 2001a, 2001b) that can cut through clutter of traditional advertising chan nels and cope with changing media viewing habits (Gardner and Shuman 1987). During the nineties, legal restrictions imposed on tobacco and alcohol advertising contributed significantly to sponsorship gr owth (Tripodi 2001). According to Dolphin (2003), the tobacco and alcohol industries use sponsorship fo r the media coverage of the

PAGE 14

3 sponsored activities since they are not allowed to buy media sp ace. The author also thinks that the association of the c ontroversial products of these industries with an activity like sport or art is likely to improve both corporate and product image. The rapid growth of sponsorship as a marketing practice raised the need to understand how this technique really works. Th e need became more ur gent during the last ten years as marketers became more account able for their budgets, particularly the promotional ones. Till late nineties, sponsorsh ip activities have at tracted little academic interest (Cornwell and Maignan 1998), but over the pa st ten years, there have been clear advances in understanding of sponsorship (Walliser 2003). Cornwell and Maignan (1998) identified five research streams in sponsorsh ip research namely; nature of sponsorship, managerial aspects of sponsorship, measuremen t of sponsorship effect s, strategic use of sponsorship and legal and ethical considerations. The first str eam of research, nature of sponsorship, tried to propose a definition of sponsorship identifying it s characteristics and its differences from other prom otional tools. Most of the research on this stream was published from the eighties till early nine ties (Walliser 2003). The second stream of research, managerial aspects of sponsorship, tried to identify the corporate motivations and objectives, the selection process and the implementation with respect to sponsorship. The third stream of research focused on sponsorship communication effectiveness by analyzing the intended and unintended eff ects of sponsorship. The evaluation of sponsorship impact is, without doubt, the area where sponsors hip research has progressed most over the past few years (Walliser 2003). Th e fourth stream of re search, strategic use of sponsorship, investigated in equal proportions strategi es and counterstrategies in sponsorship. Strategies of sponsorship have focused on the integr ation of sponsorship

PAGE 15

4 into the marketing mix and its harmonic use with other promotional tools. On the long term, integration provides greater results than a use on an ad-hoc basis (Walliser 2003). Counterstrategies studied ambush marketing, a practice used by companies to associate their name with an activity without be ing a sponsor (Cornwe ll and Maignan 1998). Finally, the last stream of research addre ssed legal constraint and tax implication of sponsorship along with issues re lated to the use of sponsorsh ip to promote products that are detrimental to health like alcohol and tob acco. However, this last stream received far less attention than the four first ones (Cornwell and Maignan 1998, Walliser 2003). Probably the most recurrent point in research on sponsorship management was the necessity to actively promote the initia l sponsorship investme nt with additional communication tools to increa se sponsorship awareness a nd effectiveness. The basic sponsorship packages citations, logos a nd brand names displa y on arena or logos appearance with other partne rs on any communication form can merely achieve any communication objectives unless the relationship between the sponsor and the activity was promoted using all the ot her techniques of the promotional mix like advertising, public relations, etc. (Crimmins and Horn 1996, Kinney and MC Daniel 1996, Lardinoit and Quester 2001, Meenaghan 1998, 2001a 2001b, Otker 1988). Nevertheless, Meenaghan (1999, 2001a, 2001b) and Otker (1988) make cautionary note to this principle, as they recommend promoting the sponsorship relation at the right scale as overexploitation generates nega tive attitudes toward the sp onsor. One might expect a sensitive subject like sponsorship leverage, on which depends the whole sponsorship success, to be thoroughly inve stigated in litera ture. Surprisingly, it is not the case. Research on how to promote a sponsorship a ddressed a limited numbe r of questions with

PAGE 16

5 a limited number of articles. Indeed, the availa ble literature on the weight of sponsorship promotion, the content of the message to be promoted by the promotion, the duration of the promotion and the optimization of the pr omotion is not enough to provide with the guidelines needed by practitioners to optim ize their sponsorship. Furthermore, the execution of the message that will promote a sponsorship relation has not been addressed at all. According to Meenaghan (1999, 2001a, 2001b), two factors need to be considered when framing an effective sponsorship promotion: The goodwill dimension and the intensity of exploitation. Goodwill was found to be the ultimate point of distinction between advertising, considered selfish, and sponsorship considered beneficial to the activity. However, fans are very sensitive to the sponsors behavior and will reward the sponsor with goodwill only if this latter shows a real interest in the activity and not just an interest motivated by financial gains. In those circumstances sponsors should be cautious on the way they implement the promotion of their sponsorships, paying great attention to their audience attitudes. Sin ce fans are emotionally connected with the activity being sponsored, a message coming from the sponsored activity is more likely to be accepted by fans than a message coming from the sponsor himself. In other words, fans might react more positively to message coming from the sponsored activity, a trusted source for which they have strong feelings, than a message coming from a company, a for profit source that might be in terested only in business. Sour ce effects have been studied extensively in main stream advertising bu t not in a sponsorship context. Further, narratology theory has showed that different narration mode s can have different impacts on the audience (Stern 1991, 1993, 1994). For ex ample, the first person narration mode

PAGE 17

6 was proven to create more intimacy and trus tworthiness than a third person narration mode. In the context of a sponsorship relation, where sponsors seek to be part of the emotional relationship that exists between the fans and a particular activity, a first person narration mode would be more effective in genera ting an emotional response from fans than an impersonal third person narration mode. The objective of this study is to investigate source effects and narration mode effects in sp onsorship advertising. Since sponsorships are used to reach a fan community of a particul ar activity, the research will study effects on fans but also effects on non fans as well. To accomplish this objective, this study w ill first review the existing literature to set a definition for sponsorship as practic e, distinguish sponsorship from other promotional tools, understand the nature of objectives that motivates the use of sponsorship and outline the guidelines to an effective management of a sponsorship investment. An analysis of all the elemen ts stated above will help frame the tree hypothesis that this study will test: Attitudes in sponsorship advertising can be much more improved when the source is not the sponsor, bluntly shouting his support for an activity; A better connection wi ll occur with the target audience if the sponsorship message uses a first person narration mode, generating improved feelings toward the sponsor, his action and his message; The targ et audience will reac t differently to a sponsorship advertisement according to thei r level of involvement with the activity engaged in the sponsorship. The target audience that is more involved with the sponsored activity will develop bett er attitudes toward the sponsorship and the sponsor if the source of the message is not the sponsor but the ac tivity. The experimental of this study will develop and measure reactions to four stimu li. Each stimulus will be different by the

PAGE 18

7 source of the message (the sponsor or the activ ity) and the narration m ode (first person or third person). The involvement with the activ ity being sponsored wi ll be an internal characteristic of each respondent. Finally the study will present the results of the respondents reaction to each stimulus a nd discuss implications for execution of sponsorship advertisements.

PAGE 19

8 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Nature of Sponsorship Definition of Sponsorship Despite its development during the last two decades, there is still no rigorous agreed on definition for sponsorship. Walliser (2003) suggests that the nature of sponsorship and the way it touches other me thods of communication is the main reason behind this lack of consensu s across and within countries. Some scholars even consider that any attempt to define sponsorship is l ike trying to harpoon a butterfly in a gale (Dolphin 2003, p.176). Yet, an acceptable definiti on is needed to guide any research as it represents an important prelude to an appr opriate level of rigor in empirical studies (Dolphin 2003, p176). Cornwell and Maignan (1998) claim that the lack of an accepted definition of sponsorship obstructs the deve lopment of theoretical frameworks on which significant sponsorship research might be based. Therefore a definition is not only a semantic exercise but a base that could help future research move from descriptive to explanatory. The definitions suggested have evolved with time according to sponsorship development. It seems that there are three categories of definitions each one belonging to a decade. In the early eighties, at the beginning of sponsorship research, sponsorship was presented as a provision of assistance, a kind of financial support to an activity, sometimes with commercial objectives sometimes not (Meenaghan 1983). From those definitions, no differences exist between sponsorship and patronage, philanthropy or

PAGE 20

9 corporate giving. Furthermore, communication objectives were not taken in consideration in these definitions. By the late eighties and during the nineties defi nitions of sponsorship presented the practice as an investment (Gardner and Schumann 1987), a financial act (Hansen and Scotwin, 1995) and a business transaction (Dolphin 2003). Introducing financial and business dimension in sponsorsh ip definitions was reflecting the phasing out of the donation mentality and its repl acement by an economic based partnership (Quester and Thompson 2001, p34). This em phasis on business transaction made sponsorship appear as a communication activit y often cited as: a form of advertising with the same characteris tics and principles (Hastings 1984, p171), a marketing tool with the intent of ex tracting some commercial benefit (T ripodi, 2001), an important part of the marketing mix (Meenaghan 1990, Witcher et al, 1991), a form of promotion that should be managed on strict commercial lin es (Tripodi 2001). At this stage of the sponsorship development, the intended exploi tation of the association between a sponsor and an activity differentiates sponsorship from altruistic corporate donations. The last category of defin itions, developed just few years ago, emphasized on two elements presented to be the minimum agr eed on by scholars about sponsorship. These two elements have been introduced by Ot ker as (1) buying and (2) exploiting an association with an event, a team or a group for specific marketing purposes (Otker 1988, p.77). Cornwell and Maignan (1998) and Wallis er (2003) afterward presented these two elements as follow: (1) An exchange be tween a sponsor and a sponsored whereby the latter receives fees and the former obtains th e right to associate itself with the activity sponsored; (2) An exploitation of the associ ation between the two at the marketing and communication level. Often referred as spons orship linked marketing the implementation

PAGE 21

10 of Marketing Communications to build and communicate a sponsorship association are an integrate part of sponsorship. If scholars have reached an agreement on t hose two points, others still represent a source of divergence. Some scholars consider that support of human cause is part of the domain of sponsorship (Gardner and Shuma n, 1987), whereas other scholars consider that financial support of a phila nthropic nature should not be part of sponsorship since the company is making a donation without any e xpectation in return. They argue that expectation of commercial re turns is what distinguishes sponsorship from patronage, corporate giving and philanthropy (Witche r et al 1991). The use of marketing communication tools to leverage an associ ation between a sponsor and a sponsored activity make the limits between sponsorship and other promotional tools very confusing. Walliser (2003) note, after a review of the lit erature, that how sponsorship is different from other promotional tools may be problematic. In front of such complexity, some scholar s said that it was impossible to reach a complete agreement and suggested to stop a never ending academic debate on concurrent definitions of sponsorship (Walliser 2003). For the purpose of this research, sponsorship will be defined as a marketing technique where a company provides any type of assistance to an activity and promotes this relationship in order to achieve marketing objectives. If defined this way, there is a need to clarify how sponsor ship fits along other marketing techniques in the promotional mix. Sponsorship in the Promotional Mix Given recent growth in the popularity of sponsorship, scholars describe it as a legitimate element of a companys communicat ion mix alongside other traditional tools (Tripodi, 2001). Meenaghan ( 1991) suggest that accordi ng to sponsorship function,

PAGE 22

11 which is achieving marketing and communica tion objectives, sponsorship fits quite naturally within the broader context of the marketing mix alongside advertising, public relation, personal selling and sales promoti on. Research has focused mainly on how to distinguish sponsorship from advertising. Comparison with public relation and sales promotion has been less addressed and compar ison with personal selli ng not addressed at al. The distinction between sponsorship and advertising is rendered harder when advertising is used to promote the relati onship between the sponsor and the sponsored activity. The use of advertis ing is strongly recommended to obtain unparalleled results (Walliser 2003). As a marketing communi cation tool, sponsorship shares some similarities with advertising in that m oney is invested for commercial purposes (Meenaghan 1991). Sponsorship and advertisi ng partly share the same objectives of awareness and or image, but deliver the me ssage in different ways. Ad messages are generally more direct, exp licit and can be more easily controlled (Dolphin 2003). Hastings (1984) says that th e control marketing has over ad vertising makes it possible to promote much more complex messages where the link between the brands and the message can be explicit. This explicit link between the message and the brand or the company is not possible in sponsorship, as any message beyond the companys name will be communicated by implication or implicitl y. This subtlety on another other hand can overcome certain communication barriers and have practically unlimited target selection possibilities (Meenaghan 2001a, 2001b). Hastings (1984) also suggests that the difference between sponsorship and advertising lies in the difference of their respective targets. The author notes that the target of advertising messages can be resumed to viewers and non

PAGE 23

12 viewers, whereas sponsors hips target is composed by participants to the event, spectators of the event and media followers of the event. Sponsorship and cause related marketing ar e two techniques that can be confused. Cornwell and Maignan (1998) defined the concept of cause related marketing as a donation for a good cause tied with the purchas e of a product or a service. A very good example was suggested by Meenaghan (1991) in the campaign ran by American express for restoring The Statue of Liberty. Cornwe ll and Maignan (1998) point out that cause related marketing is different from sponsorsh ip in that cause related marketing appeals to the solidarity of costumers for a worthy cause to boost sales. No comparison between sponsorship and public relations exis t in literature, probably because, differentiating between them is an extremely difficult exercise. Both tools have the same objectives leveraging co rporate or brand image, both can have less control on the messages they send than advert ising and both have a variety of target groups. May be what distinguish these two tool s is the way they proceed to reach their respective objectives. Indeed, s ponsorship uses association with a particular activity, with its own personality, to send a set of stimulus to the target market. Public relations are more likely to engage in a two way communi cation with their target audiences than sponsorship and will not use a third party to send a set of stimulus. Globally no major breakthrough has been ach ieved regarding the differentiation of sponsorship from other communicational and promotional techniques. Agreement exists when it comes to the general lines but in some cases it is hard to define the limits (Walliser 2003).

PAGE 24

13 Objectives of Sponsorship Although companies use sponsorship routin ely as a part of their promotional activities, their objectives tend to be vague (Dolph in 2003). Sponsors objectives move overtime from vague objectives for companies using sponsorship occasionally or as a new tool, to strictly stated objectives for companies that ha ve integrated sponsorship in their promotional mix long time ago. Whether clearly stated or not, the objectives of sponsorship are as numerous as companies themselves. The nature of sponsorship objectives will vary from organization to organization according to the industry where they operate, the market they address and th e size of the company. Nevertheless the wide range of sponsorship objectives can be divided into the tw o categories of corporate and marketing objectives. Corporate Objectives of Sponsorship Leveraging corporate image is the most ci ted corporate objec tive in research on sponsorship. Quoting Javalgi et al, Dolphi n (2003) defined corporate image as the impressions held by some segment of the people on a particular company. One of the corporate objectives of sponsorship is th en to enhance corporate image among some segment of people (Cornwell a nd Maignan 1998). Other author s expressed that objective of image differently: Raising the profile of the corporate brand (Walliser 2003), raising corporate reputation (Dolphin 2003), or enhancing corporate stature in the community (Quester and Thompson 2001). Sponsorship activities engaged with the objective of leveraging corporate image seem to be intended to create an identity and to define the company in its broad environment. If sponsorship is used to de fine an identity with a broad environment, it can be used also to communicate with closer environment and especially with st akeholders (Dolphin

PAGE 25

14 2003). Stakeholders can be defined as indi viduals or groups who can affect, or be affected by and organization: employees, cust omers, investors, suppliers, distribution channel members, the community, the media, special interest and activist groups, and government agencies (Duncan 2002, p.7). Indeed, sponsorship is used to create goodwill among opinion formers (Witcher et al 1991), vi a perceptions of corporate generosity (Dolphin 2003). Sponsorship is also used to boost community involvement, by fulfilling companys societal obligation in a responsible manner, which is an excellent mechanism to give back to the community. Sponsorship helps gaining affinity with target markets significant to the organization, which publics can be external or internal to the company, as sponsorship is also used to boost morales staff (Tripodi 2001) or for staff recruitment (Cornwell and Maignan 1998). Beside these corporate objectives, re search has mentioned a second set of objectives but at the marketing level. Marketing Objectives Sponsorship has the ability to contribute to the fulfillment of a broad range of objectives at the corporate level, but also at the brand level. Ma rketing objectives of sponsorship are different from corporate ones as they are more clearly stated, generally quantified and aimed for a narrower target co mposed by customers and or prospects. As presented earlier, one characteristic that dis tinguishes sponsorship from advertising is its subtlety. Meenaghan (2001a, 2001b) suggests th at sponsorship penetrates consumers perception filters in an indi rect way. Subtlety of spons orship is an opportunity for companies to reach consumers through their heart and minds, but a prerequisite is to enhance brand awareness and brand equity.

PAGE 26

15 Brand awareness can be defined as The exte nt of a brand to be recognizable, to be in the purchase consideration set (Vande n Bergh and Katz 1999, p.154). Sponsorship is intended to facilitate brand name recognition by image association (Easton and Mackie 1998), an association with well r eceived events (Hack et al 1997). Cornwell et al (2001) consider that the use of association genera tes awareness naturally. Beside association, sponsorship also generates awareness thr ough media coverage which is sometimes the only way to access the media for controvers ial products ((Meenaghan 1998). Dolphin (2003) points out that sponsorship of an in ternational event is capable of increasing awareness to key audiences in both local a nd distant market for multinationals selling products around the world. Brand equity can be defined as The net tota l of all assets and liabilities linked to a brand by consumers (Vanden Bergh and Ka tz 1999, p.526). Tripodi (2001) notes that sponsorship is a brand equity building strategy that enha nces brand image over other brands. Many scholars think that sponsorship is a way to establish a relationship with customers and/or provide them with entertainment (Dolphin 2003). At the level of marketing strategy, sponsorsh ip is also used to position a brand on a market or alter its image (Meenaghan 1998), to avoid cluttered media in a cost effective way or to boost though its eff ects are not always easy to isolate (Dolphin 2003, Hansen and Scotwin 1995). In England, marketing and communication object ives are adopted mainly by large corporations, whereas small and midsized businesses in small towns view sponsorship as a tool to support th eir community and establish relationship (Cornwell and Maignan 1998).

PAGE 27

16 Objectives of sponsorship are very inconsistent among companies and depend mainly on how long sponsorship has been used as a marketing tool. Measuring Sponsorship Effects Scholars have deplored business resistance to measure the effect of their investment in sponsorship (Mc Donald 1991). Indeed, during the nineties, little ha s been done in this area, probably because of the small part of sponsorship in the overall marketing budget. As a result, marketers today remain unsure of how sponsorship works despite its rapid growth (Cornwell et al. 2005). However, unde r pressure from shareholders, marketers started seeking accountability in all their expenses, es pecially their marketing communications expenditures (M eenaghan 1998). Therefore the last six years have seen a growing interest among scholars and marketer s to quantify sponsorsh ip investment and measure its effects (Dolphin 2003). Walliser (2 003) even suggests that evaluation of sponsorship impact is without any doubt the area where sponsorship research has progressed most over the past few years. Before presenting effects of sponsorship, there is a need to understand the measurement process. The Measurement Process of Sponsorship Effects Lardinoit and Quester (2001) think that measuring sponsorship effectiveness is made difficult by the fact that sponsors have sought to leverage their efforts with simultaneous investments in supporting co mmunication activities. To understand sponsorship effects, Dolphin (2003) quo ting Irwin and Asimakopoulossuggested taking in consideration the sponsorship pr ocess. Sponsorship process includes the following steps: (1) Review of marketing objectives, (2 ) prioritization of specific objectives, (3) identify evalua tion criteria, (4) screen proposals, (5) implement and control. The control step should be done in accordance with all the other steps of the

PAGE 28

17 process especially the marketing objectives th at led to the choice of the activity to be sponsored. Setting objectives and evaluation cr iteria to any marketi ng activity from the outset will make easier the evaluation of this activity. Moreover, Meenaghan (1998) opines that the measurement process is greatl y facilitated if undert aken at several key stages. Therefore a company should determ ine its present position on the variables sponsorship is supposed to leverage before engaging in the sponsor ship activity. Interim tracking may be necessary in order to detect movement on the chosen variables. Finally evaluation must take place when sponsorship is completed to determine performance against stated objectives. Sponsorship Effects Hansen and Scotwin (1995), suggest that the association between the company or product and the activity being sponsored is impo rtant for the kind of effects that can be obtained. Effects of sponsorship will vary depending on how close is the association between the sponsor and the sponsored ac tivity. Effects may be discussed at the following levels: Exposure, atte ntion, cognition and behavior. Exposure The level of media coverage as a result of sponsorship involvement is frequently used by sponsors as an indicator of performa nce. Such evaluation c onsists of measuring the duration of TV coverage, monitored radio coverage and extend of press coverage in terms of single column inches. However this measure alone does not evaluate effectiveness of exposure gained as it can be compared to the level of advertising time or space bought to air an ad not to its impact (Meenaghan 1991). This raises a question on the popularity of this measure to evaluate sponsorship effectiveness. Hastings (1984) suggests that because sponsorship is seen as a form of advertising, exposure and media

PAGE 29

18 coverage comes naturally in mind to measur e its effectiveness. Meenaghan (1998) think that sponsorship has become the main prom otional tool for controversial products and their only key to access the media. Theref ore quite naturally media coverage and exposure will represent an important effect to measure sponsorship effectiveness, if not the most important. Meenaghan (1991) justif y the wide use of this method to measure sponsorship effectiveness by its simplicity and practicability de spite its lack of consistency. Attention Sponsorship, as well as advertising can ge nerate attention in terms of brand and company awareness. This must be measured in terms of recall or recognition and changes in the same (Hansen and Scotwin 1995). A large majority of studies measuring effects of sponsorship have chosen awareness as an independent variable. These studies have focused either on general awar eness of sponsor in the public s mind or awareness levels of sponsorship associated with specific events and activities (Meenaghan 1998, Walliser 2003). Their findings suggest that awareness an d recall are influenced by a large number of factors that can be summed up as follow: Pairing sponsorship with other marke ting communications tools like media sponsorship (Lardinoit and Quester 2001) or advertising (Quester and Thompson 2001) yield increased communications score. Some scholars even consider sponsorship as ineffective without sponsorship linked mark eting as defined earlier (Walliser 2003). Recall has been found to increa se as a function of durati on of exposure to sponsors, message length and design, involvement with the sponsored activity, socio demographic variables and previous brand awarene ss (Crimmins and Horn 1997, Meenaghan 2001a, 2001b). As an example for duration of exposur e, research has shown that brand recall

PAGE 30

19 increases from a basic level during an event a nd fall back again into its original level a few week after the event. Attitude Research has outlined attitude toward sponsorship as practice in general besides attitude toward a specif ic sponsorship activity. Attitudes toward sponsorship: Walliser (2003) notes that acceptance of sponsorship will vary according to the sponsorship area, the activity sponsored and the industry. It is believed that sponsors are more easily accepted in association with sporting event than with arts and social causes. When it comes to social causes, sponsors are accepted more easily if people believe them to have ge nuine interest in th e issue (Meenaghan 1999, 2001a, 2001b). In a survey conducted by Mars hall (1992), results showed that sponsorship is considered to be done for commercial purposes by 70% of respondents, but that sponsors are considered as good co rporate citizens who ar e giving back while advertising their name. However public opinion varies from country to country as 29% of the Spanish have improved opinion about s ponsors in comparison with only 9% of French. This means that, according to the c ountry, sponsorship perception as a practice will be less likely to positivel y influence consumer perception than a specific sponsorship (Walliser 2003). Attitudes toward specific sponsorship: On that question, literature suggest that a good symbiosis between the sponsor and the act ivity will have a positive effect on the sponsors image a weak link between the two might affect it negatively. Image transfer was found to be influenced by two factors: (1) the number of comm on perceptions of the sponsor and the activity and (2) the attitude toward the associ ation of the sponsor and the

PAGE 31

20 activity. Here again image effects are shown to be only temporary and depend greatly on the marketing communications associated w ith sponsorship (Crimmins and Horn 1996). Behavior Research has also considered consumer behavior or purch ase as a dependant variable of sponsorship. Sales effectiveness is highly problematic to measure because of the following reasons: Simultaneous use of va riety of communicati ons, carry over effect of previous marketing communications, uncontrollable variables in the business environment (Cornwell and Maignan 1998, Wallis er 2003). Even if sponsorship effect on sales is difficult to isolate, so me marketers point to sales resu lts as sponsorship effects. At another level, research has s hown that respondents to surveys declare themselves more likely to buy sponsor products, declarations which were strongly correlated with frequency of attendance to the event and level of education. However, this intentions are not observed as a real behavior, as sponsori ng companies do not have necessarily higher sales. Studies of sponsorship effectiveness have yielded inconsistent results because of methodological weaknesses and lack of c ontrol (Cornwell and Maignan 1998). Mc Donald (1991) recommends using more accurate measures of sponsorship attitude effects by creating scales that measures concepts like friendliness, goodness and closeness to community. These measures would be more lik ely to appreciate sponsorships perception among a larger population than sponsors customers only. Theoretical Framework of Sponsorship: Much of the research conducted on sponsor ship was empirically driven and shows a serious lack of theory development (C ornwell and Maignan 1998) Actually, scholars have posited some theoretical processes, but none of them did a dire ct investigation of a

PAGE 32

21 process per se (Cornwell 2005). As a result there is a large battery of possible frameworks, but no certitude on how indivi duals process sponsorship information (Cornwell and Maignan 1998). An understand ing of how sponsorship stimulus is processed by fans and consumers in general will help identify the variables that have an impact on consumers response. Great attention will be accorded to these variables in any sponsorship implementation to insure its success. Frameworks Based on Low Processing Generally sponsorship messages are limite d to brand or company names and this may cause mere exposure effect (Hansen a nd Scottwin 1995). Mere exposure theory suggests that repeated exposure to a stimul us can engender familiarity, which, through a low involvement processing, can turns to liking and preference (Hoyer and McInnis 2003 p.159). Cornwell (2005) considers that the mere exposure model might play an important role in sponsorship processi ng since most of the sponsorsh ip stimuli rely on peripheral cues. Crimmins and Horn considered that sponsorship was making consumers use their elementary human calculus a process as uncons cious as digestion (Crimmins and Horn 1996, p. 12). The calculus was first described by Heider in 1946 when he introduced the balance theory. Balance theory argues that individuals continually seek to put their beliefs in balance. Thus, when a highly valued object is linked with a lowly valued one, consumer will have to lower the value of one or raise the value of the other to keep their belief in balance. In terms of sponsorship, consumers will tend to ra ise the value of the sponsor if it is linked to an activity valuable to them (Cornwell 2005). Frameworks Based on High Processing Other research explored sponsorship theoretical frameworks from a high processing perspective. This category of resear ch considered that congruence or matching

PAGE 33

22 between the sponsor and the event or activ ity was enhancing storage in memory and retrieval of information (Cor nwell 2005). Congruence theory suggests that the storage in memory and retrieval of information are in fluenced by prior exp ectations. Therefore people best remember information that is c ongruent with prior expectations (Cornwell and Maignan 1998). In other words, consumer will be more likely to store and remember information influenced by similarity or rela tedness, such as a running event sponsored by a running shoe. Another category of schol ars go beyond simple pairing of event and sponsor from a functional perspective, runni ng event and shoes, by advocating a pairing in terms of images. Unrelated sponsor and event, Oil Company and the Olympic Games, can be paired if both are portr ayed as striving for excellence. Referred to as Articulation theory, research in this area considers th e overlap in existing images and meanings between sponsor and event (Cornwell 2005). A similar approach considering image effects is the meaning transfer theory developed my McCracken (1989). Originally developed to understand the effect of celebrity endorsements, this theory posits that the events attributes transfer to the sponsor through the sponsor ship process. Many examples were cited in the literature to explain how transfer theory applies to sponsorship. IVECO trucks were perceived in the U.S. market as weak European vehicles. Through their sponsorship of heavyweight boxing, the compa ny was able to change the image of its trucks to strong vehicles by associating w ith a macho activity. Si milarly, Gillette the American company became less American in the British consumers mind with its involvement with cricket (Meenaghan 1991).

PAGE 34

23 Hansen and Scotwin (1995) suggest that al l possible theoretical formulations do not necessarily rule out but, rather complement each other in an attempt to understand how sponsorship works. A thought also share by Cornwell (2005). Leveraging a Sponsorship Sponsorship was presented earlier to be a composition of two elements, 1) buying and 2) exploiting an associat ion with an event, team, gr oup etc (Cornwell and Maignan 1998, Meenaghan 1991, Otter 1988 Walliser 2003). This second element of the definition, exploiting a sponsorship associ ation, has been used by scholars under different appellations: exploi tation, sponsorship linked mark eting and leverage. Otker (1998) defined the exploitation of a sponsorsh ip association as t he potentiation of a sponsorship relation by using other marketi ng and communication activities. Cornwell et al (2001) described spons orship linked marketing as the orchestration and implementation of marketing activities for the purpose of building and communicating an association to a sponsorship, and presente d leverage as the us e of advertising and promotion to support the sponsorship. Corn well et al (2005) have also used the appellation collateral communication to refe r to activate or leverage a sponsorship relation between a brand and a property. For the purpose of this study the appellation exploitation of sponsorship will be avoided as the word exploitation carries a negative connotation of abuse. This study is trying to find optimal levels of exploitation and so the appellation leverage will be used in stead. Meenaghan (1991, p.43) defined leverage as the additional effort, largely promotional, which must be invested by the sponsor in order to properly exploit the opportunity exploit the opportunity provided. Literature revealed a shared belief that leverage plays an important role in the performances of sponsorship programs (Cor nwell et al 2005, Crimmins and Horn 1996,

PAGE 35

24 Kinney and Mc Daniel 1996, Lardinoit a nd Quester 2001, Meenaghan 1998, Otker 1988). Cornwell and Maignan even consider even th at the marketing communication value of sponsorship is null unless the sponsor activel y promotes the relationship established with the organizer of a special event or activ ity (Cornwell and Maignan 1998, p.11). The present section will try to answer why levera ge plays such an important role in the success of a sponsorship program, how to le verage a sponsorship relation according to existing literature and the areas not yet covered by this latter From that point the chapter will introduce the research question of this study. Why Leverage a Sponsorship Relation? For the purpose of this study we defined s ponsorship as a marketing tool used to achieve marketing objectives either at the cor porate or the brand leve l. Therefore, as any other marketing tool, sponsorship should 1) re ach consumers, 2) impact the target market 3) while considering the environment. Reach of consumers From a rational marketing perspective, sponsorship can only be justified by amortizing the costs of sponsorship rights ac ross the expected impact on a large number of consumers (Crimmins and Horn 1996). Afte r analyzing 87 sponsorships in selected industries, Javalgi et al found that prim ary objectives of sponsor were consumer objectives. The main reason presented by mana gers was: A sponsorship worth a million of dollars primarily because it can have an impact on millions of consumers (Crimmins and Horn 1996, p.11). However, most sponsorsh ip contracts include no more than two boards around a soccer stadium, the name of a company at th e feet of a poster and a VIP party and Otker (1988) points out that it is ha rdly realistic to expect such elements of sponsorship to have an influence on awarene ss or image of a company. Brands fail to link

PAGE 36

25 their name to the sponsored event or orga nization because they do not commit their own marketing dollars to communicate the link (C rimmins and Horn 1996). Therefore the first reason to leverage a sponsorship seems to be forging a link between the sponsor and the sponsored activity in consumers mind to ma ke him aware of the sponsorship relation. Scholars consider that one of the elements that contribute the most to sponsorship success is visibility of the sponsor (Otker 1988, Stipp and Schiavone 1996) as it makes an association better known to th e target group (Otker 1988). A brand should then take responsibility for communicati ng about its sponsorship to consumers and if the brand cannot afford that, then the bran cannot affo rd sponsorship at all (Crimmins and Horn 1996). Stipp and Schiavone (1996) even say th at sponsorship is an investment that requires an investment. Impacting the target market Mere exposure to a brand may create aw areness, but awareness alone may not capture a unique position in consumers minds (Cornwell et al 2005) Otker (1988) insists that recall or awareness of st adium boards are not in any wa y an objective of sponsorship. Measuring visibility/awareness will then leave the question of message about the brand and its impact on consumer unanswered: I s being seen in an arena communicate a message about a brand different than being seen in the side of building somewhere (Crimmins and Horn 1996, p. 12). Further sponsorship does not carry with it a meaningful communication component (Cornwe ll et al 2001). The poor content of the sponsorship message combined with a lack of control leave consumer s to draw their own conclusions from a logo appearing on a poster or in an arena (Meenaghan 2001). Therefore, leveraging a sponsor ship is undoubtedly a way to increase visibility, but it represents also a way to have some control over the message the sponsor wants to send

PAGE 37

26 by connecting his brand to an event or or ganization. More contro l over the messages would improve clarity of the message, streng then memory links and facilitate affect transfer: Crimmins and Horn (1996) insist that sponsors who were able to translate recognition of their sponsorship into improve d brand perceptions were those who made the conclusion to be drawn from the sponsorship very clear to their target in the message of their sponsorship leverage. Cornwell et al (2005) suggests that the nature of leveraging activities is central to the communication effects achie ved by sponsorship as creative leverage can not only establish a link between the sponsor and the activity in consumers mind, but also create stronger trace in memor y. Thus an effective leverage drain the activity values onto the brand (Meenaghan 1999), resulting in a positive affect transfer from the event to the sponsoring brand (K inney and McDaniel 1996), a sort of halo effect that benefits the sponsor insofar as the ini tial attitudes to the event were favorable (Stipp and Schiavone 1996). Considering the environment Similarly to media advertising, spon sorship has become a cluttered and competitive promotional vehicle (Kinney and McDaniel 1996). Therefore, leveraging a sponsorship is not only important to its overa ll effectiveness but al so a way to reduce confusion that arises from clutter (C ornwell et al, 2000) and block ambushers (Meenaghan 1996). Clutter. The term clutter was originally coined to reflect the crowding of commercials allowed in a commercial break. Th e application of this concept to an event spectator experience is appropr iate both in stadiums and for the televised audience.

PAGE 38

27 Sufficient visibility has proven to be necessa ry to reduce negative e ffects of clutter on individuals recall and rec ognition of sponsorship stimu li (Cornwell et al 2005). Ambush marketing. The concept of ambush marketing is defined in literature as a planned campaign by an organization to associate itself indirectly with an event in order to gain at least some of the recognition and benefit that are associ ated with being an official sponsor (Sandler and Shani 1989, p.9). By engaging in promotions and advertising, that associate thei r names indirectly with the event, ambushers confuse the buying public as to which company really ho lds sponsorship rights. Ambushers then fulfill: Brand awareness and brand image which are objectives available only to sponsors; generate goodwill which is consumers natural reaction to support for an activity they are involved with; and lessen considerably spons ors benefits (Meena ghan 1996, Sandler and Shani 1989). Meenaghan distinguishes three t ypes of ambush strategies; sponsorship of the broadcast of the event, spons orship of subcategories within the event (such as specific team), or development of specific promotion th at coincide with the event. As companies environment grows more and more competitive, marketers will use any opportunity that can help them take a lead (Kotler 1997). This idea is clearly stated in the following citation from Jerry C. Welsh former head of worldwide marketing at American Express: There is a weak minded view that competitors have a moral obligation to step back and allow an official sponsor to r eap all the benefits from a special event. They have not only the right but an obligation to shareholders to take advantage of such events (Meenaghan 1996, p.109). Official sponsors have to expect actions from their competitors and take appropriate strategies accordingly whenever they engage in a sponsorship relation. Research interest is split almost evenly between sponsorship strategies and counter

PAGE 39

28 strategies (ambushing) (Walliser 2003), which gives an idea on the importance of the question. Ambushing is a natural reaction in a competitive market, a reaction familiar to experienced and expert sponsors. Therefore it is their res ponsibility to come through loud and clear to say they are sponsor s as there is considerable re search to support the belief that proper sponsorship exploitation mini mizes the effects of ambushing (Meenaghan 1996). Therefore to achieve any benefit from being a sponsor it is necessary for a company to heavily advertise the fact that th ey are official sponsors. Buying the right to be an official sponsors is only a license to spend more money (Sandler and Shani 1989). How to Leverage a Sponsorship? Current research has provided with info rmation on the weight of leverage, the nature of leverage, the timing of leverage, th e message content, and the scale of leverage. The weight of leverage The industry norm in order to ensure adequa te exploitation of a sponsorship is to match dollar for dollar the leve raging expenditures with the cost of sponsorship property rights (Kinney and McDaniel 1996, M eenaghan 1991, 1996, 1998). However this commonly agreed on norm has never been s upported by any empirical evidence. It was only in 2001 that Quester and Thompson pr ovided evidence to support this norm. The authors compared how three different comp anies of the same sponsorship opportunity achieved their objectives to a various extent depending on the weight of their leveraging investment. The company that leveraged its initial investment by a corollary budget was able to achieve more both in awareness and image change than the companies who invested less than their initial in vestment (Quester and Thompson 2001).

PAGE 40

29 The message Leveraging a sponsorship is necessary to create awareness of the sponsorship, and to have some sort of control over the cont ent of the message instead of a mere exposure to the sponsors logo. Crimmins and Horn ( 1996) think that to translate recognition of sponsorship into improved brand perceptions, sponsors need to make the meaning of the sponsorship clear. In other words, the messa ge carried by sponsorsh ip leverage should emphasize the conclusion that the target mark et has to draw. Consumer will not work to understand what the sponsor is trying to tell them, they should be to ld how to interpret the connection between the brand and the activity. This effort is necessary even if the link between the sponsor and the activity is clear and especially if it is not. Duration of leverage The perceptions created by a controlled message of sponsorship leverage are perishable. No matter how str ong these perceptions can be, if not supported and defended over time they will fade (Crimmins and Horn, 1998). The period for potential impact is far larger than the period immediately su rrounding an event as fans are impressed by sponsors long before the event. Thus many contemporary event marketers leverage their sponsorship investment before during and af ter an event (Kinney and McDaniel 1996). Crimmins and Horn (1998) recommend extending the duration of sponsorship leverage as much as possible to avoid wasting any poten tial opportunity to make an impact on the target market. Leveraging sponsorship at the right scale Sponsorship without leverage is nearly always suboptimal but leverage must be done at the right scale, not too little and not too much (Otker, 1988). Leveraging at the right scale is a concep t that includes the weight of leve rage and salience of the sponsor.

PAGE 41

30 Salience can be defined as the ch aracteristic of an element that stands out from the larger context in which it is placed because it is bright, big, complex, moving or prominent in its environment (Hoyer & McInnis 2003, p188) Meenaghan (2001a, 2001b) notes that consumers are sensitive to the potential fo r sponsor abuse. They consider that the sponsored activity does not provide the s ponsor with an unfettered opportunity for publicity. Consumers in general and those high ly involved with the sponsored activity in particular are very likely to develop negativ e attitudes toward the sponsors in case of excessive leverage, resulting in a lesse ned Sponsors goodwill/gratitude. Moreover, consumers tolerance to leverage varies c onsiderably according to the nature of the sponsored activity. While sport and mass arts permit the greatest level of leverage without giving offense, soci al and environmental causes are only capable of limited exploitation without causing consumer a nxiety and reactance (Meenaghan, 1999, 2001a, 2001b). Thus, in pursuing image benefits, managers need to carefully select the activity and be aware that the manner with which they leverage their sponsorship will have image consequences and will determine sponsorship effectiveness (Meenaghan 1999). Limits of Literature on Sponsorship Leverage Scholars highly recommend leveraging a spons orship to increase its chances of success. Surprisingly, this area of sponsorshi p management received very little attention. An analysis of literature limits in this area will provide a base to introduce the research question of this work. Concerning the wei ght of leverage, Quester and Thompson (2001) provided evidence of a positive relationship between the weight of leverage and sponsorship effectiveness. However, the auth ors did not estimate the ratio that would optimize the sponsorship investment. Does a larger leveraging amount would be more effective, or is there a wear out effect that occurs from a certain weight (Quester and

PAGE 42

31 Thompson, 2001)? Sponsors spend sometimes three to for times their initial investment to leverage a sponsorship and literature did not provide any evidence on the optimal weight of sponsorship leverage. Considering the growing trend of rationalizing marketing expenses this question should have received more attention. The nature of activities to be implemented to leverage a sponsorship is al so an area where literature is inexistent. Scholars do think that sponsor ship leverage can be ach ieved through a variety of marketing communication tools like advertisi ng, sweepstakes, venue signage and on site sampling (Cornwell 2005, Kinney & McDaniel 1996, Lardinoit a nd Quester 2001), and that these communications tools should be integrated into to the existing marketing communication plan (Otker 1988). However, except Lardinoit and Quester (2001) who analyzed the interaction effect s of on site boards with tele vision spots, literature is inexistent on the respective contribution of each marketing communi cation tool and their interaction on the effectiveness of sponsor ship leverage. Finall y, the execution of advertising messages did not receive any atten tion as a research question. Elements such as the source of the message, salience of the sponsor and the sponsored activity have not been investigated at all from a sponsorship perspective. This rese arch project seeks to analyze some considerations in the execution of advertisements leveraging a sponsorship relation. Hypothesis Development Using Lasswells communication model, St ern (1994) suggested a model specific to advertising by stat ing its components in marketing terms. Sender, message and source were transformed to sponsor, advertisement and consumers (sponsor must be understood as sponsor of the message not sponsor of an activity). More than a semantic exercise the components in Sterns model are multidimen sional constructs ab le to capture the

PAGE 43

32 interactivity of communicative intercourse between advertisers and consumers (Stern 1994, p.5). In this model, the sponsor is com posed by the advertiser (the company paying for the advertisement), the author (the copyw riter in the creative team) and the persona (the communicator within the advertisemen t). The message was defined as a discourse that can take three different forms de rived from drama research: autobiography, narration, and lecture. Finally, consumers were defined as a construct of implied consumer, sponsorial consumer and actual consumer. Figure 2-1. Sterns advertis ing model of communication The source has received great attention in advertising research. Source credibility and source identification were found to be cr ucial elements in the persuasion process (Wilson and Sherell 1993). A source was consid ered credible when her statements are considered valid and truthful and thus wort hy of consideration. Id entification with the source is more likely to o ccur if recipients consider the source similar or likeable (attractive). Unfortunately, copy research did not extend its investiga tions to sponsorship leveraging advertisements which context is really different from the one of traditional advertisements. Meenaghan (2001) even s uggests a different model of communication including the sponsored activity as an element as an inte gral part in the process, sending Advertisement Advertiser Consumer

PAGE 44

33 and receiving stimulus. Based on Meenaghan s model we suggest the following model of communication for sponsorship: Figure 2-2. Meenaghans sponsorship model Literature has shown that sponsors achie ve image objectives by associating their corporate/product brand name with an activit y. These objectives are more likely to be achieved if the sponsor communicates to cons umers the conclusions they need to draw from the sponsorship relation. However, C opy can be the voice of the advertiser, boasting about its merits in bald, or copy can be the voice of a friend, a trusted adviser (Burton 1999). A not-for-prof it spokesperson was proven to be more persuasive in addressing consumers (source). Its credibility was, however, diminished when perceived as with financial motivation (Wiener and Mowen, 1986). Stern (1993) suggests that a spokesperson, even a celebrity, is a crafted Persona to convey a certain a number of values in an advertisement to persuade cons umers. The real person is always different from the persona he/she plays in the advertis ement. The risks that the spokesperson might be different in real life than in advertising or that he/she could be financially motivated Sponsor Activity Fan Benefi t Association Involvemen t Events Advertisemen t Goodwill Meena g han ori g inal stimulus Stimulus added for this stud y

PAGE 45

34 do not exist with the sponsored activity as a message source. As Meenaghans model shows, the activity is an inte gral part of the communication model. Copy writers will not have to craft it any differently to make it me aningful to the advertising message since it already possesses meanings that attract fans and that the sponsor is interested to transfer to the corporate/product brand image. Further, the activity had received a sort of support (financial or other) but it had delivered to the sponsor associ ation rights and to the fans one or a series of events. The spokesperson in an advertisement does not deliver anything to the consumers as a real person. Theref ore, the first hypothesis of this study is: H1: In sponsorship advertisi ng, the sponsored activity as a source of the message will generate more positive attitudes than the sponsor as a source of the message. The message in an advertisement levera ging a sponsorship relation should make clear statements about the conclusions consumers should make from the sponsorship relation (Crimmins and Horn, 1996). But to make the message effective, the creative staff needs to choose the right way to present thei r argument as the way a message is shaped can have consequences on the effects of the content of message. From narratology theory and techniques of story telli ng Stern (1991) identified three fo rms of presenters the first person narrator, the third person narrator a nd the absent narrator each one with a particular effect on the message. The first person narrator gives a story about himself (autobiography). Using an emotional appeal, this type of presenter expresses personal values feelings and attitudes. His use of I or We creates intimacy and establishes personal relationship with the audience. Consider ed a credible presenter, he is seen as revealing the companys soul rather trying to persuade. The use of We can even generate greater consumer atti tude since it can be seen a bond between the company as a whole (workers, executives etc) and soci ety at large (not on ly consumers). His

PAGE 46

35 weaknesses are that he can appear as con centrating on himself lacking knowledge about the others, which might get boring. The third person narrator gives a story about someone else calling characters by their names or he /she/it (narration). Di fferent from the first person narrator, the third person narrator gives factual information about products, companies or users not himself. His opinion is considered trustf ul since he is not personally involved in the story. One of hi s weaknesses is that he might be too knowledgeable for an outsider not really involved in the story. Finally, the absent presenter is a narration mode where characters interact with each ot hers without any one to present them. The message is conveyed through a dialogue between the characters (drama). This narration form can make consum ers assimilate to the characters and their situation. However, when it does not succeed, consumers might end up confused, unable to draw conclusions about the advertising message. Since sponsorships objective is to associate one companys or product name with an activity with which consumers have emotional bounds, it seems that using an emotiona l appeal will generate a better attitude toward the message and the brand than a f actual appeal. Therefore, the second hypothesis of this study is: H2: In sponsorship advertisement a first person narration mode will generate more positive attitudes than a third person narration mode. Unfortunately, the absent narrator will not be considered in this study given the difficulty to find and manipulate an advertis ement leveraging a spons orship relation by featuring an interaction between two or more characters. If McCrackens mean transfer theory is a pplied to sponsorship, it might be seen as a way to translate an emotional relationship between fans and an activity to a similar relationship between fans and a corporat e/product brand name. The concept of fan

PAGE 47

36 involvement was defined as the extent to which consumers identify with, and are motivated by, their engagement and affiliation with particular leisure activities. Fan involvement can help to explai n the very different reactions of consumers to individual sponsorships as compared to advertis ements (Meenaghan 2001a, 2001b). Given the strong interest fans have a bout their leisure activity, it can be assumed their attitudes toward a message about message related to their activity will be much more improved than non fans of that activity. The third hypothesis of this study will be: H3: Sponsorship advertising will generate more positive attitudes toward the sponsorship, attitudes toward the ad and attitudes the brand among consumers that are highly involved with the sponsored activity (fans) th an consumers that are not involved with the sponsored activity (non fans). Meenaghan (2001a, 2001b) insi sts that promoting a sponsorship relation needs careful attention since consumers that are highly involve d with the sponsored activity, are sensitive to any sponsor abuse. If consumer s highly involved with the sponsored activity consider the sponsorship as beneficial the s ponsor will be rewarded with goodwill, and if they consider the sponsorship to be overexpl oiting they will sanc tion the sponsors with negative attitudes. Given the emotional relationship between the highly involved consumers and the sponsored activity, the source and narration mode might have a different effects on them than consumers non involved with the sponsored activity. H4: Consumers that are highly involved with the sponsored activity will develop more positive attitudes than consumers that are not involved with the sponsored activity if the sponsored ac tivity is the source of the sponsorship advertising. H5: Consumers that are highly involv ed with the sponsored activity will develop more positive attitudes than consumers who are not involved with the sponsored activity if sponsorship a dvertising uses a first person narration mode.

PAGE 48

37 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY To answer the research questions stated earlier, an experimental was conducted. Using a 2x2x2 factorial design (Sponsor/Sponsored activity as source, First/Third person narration mode and High/Low involvement th e sponsored activity ) the experiment evaluates consumers attitudes toward the sponsorship relation, the sponsorship advertising and the sponsor Measurements Independent Variables Source in the print ad Sponsor Sponsored activity Narration mode First person narrator Third person narrator Involvement with the sponsored activity (Measured within group difference) High Low Involvement was measured using the e nduring involvement scale developed by Zaichkowski (1985) commonly referred to as Personal Involvement Inventory. The original scale counts 20 items measured on 7 seven points, but Lichenstein and

PAGE 49

38 colleagues (1988) used only 11 of them. These same 11 even items were used in this study. Table 3-1. Enduring involvement Personal inventory involvement Dependant Variables Attitude toward the sponsorship. Attitude toward the ad. Attitude toward the sponsors. Attitude toward the sponsorship Attitude toward the sponsorship was measured using a scale measuring attitude toward the act developed by Maheswaran a nd Meyers Levy (1990). The 7 point scale is composed by 4 items including statements and bipolar adjectives. Name of object 1. Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant 2. Of no concern 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Of concern to me 3. Irrelevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Relevant 4. Means a lot Means nothing to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me 5. Valuable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Worthless 6. Beneficial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not beneficial 7. Matters Doesnt matter to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me 8. Boring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting 9. Unexciting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Exciting 10. Appealing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unappealing 11. Essential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nonessential

PAGE 50

39 Table 3-2. Attitude toward the act Attitude toward the sponsorship message Attitude toward the ad was measured using a 14 item, Likert like 5 point scale. Table 3-3. Attitude toward the ad Attitude toward the sponsor Attitude toward the brand was measured using a 7 points scale composed by 9 bipolar items. The scale was develope d by La Tour and Rotfeld in 1997. We are interested in your attitudes about the information provided to you and about For each of the following questions, please indicate how yo u feel by circling the on e number on each of these scales that best represents the way you feel about it. 1. How useful do you feel it would be to take a .? Not at all useful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely useful 2. Would you say your overall opinion about the is? Extremely unfavorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable 3. Would you say the..is: An extremely An extremely bad idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 good idea 4. Would say that regularly taking the is: Means a lot to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Means nothing to me Please tell us how well you think each of the words listed below describes the ad you have just seen by putting a number to the right of the word. Here we are interested in your thoughts about the ad, not the brand or product class. If you think the word describes the ad extremely well, put a 5; very well, put a 4; fairly well, put a three; not very well, put a 2; not at all well, put a 1. 1. Believeable 2. For me 3. Informative 4. Interesting 5. Irritating 6. Meaningful to me 7. Phony 8. Ridiculous 9. Terrible 10. Valuable 11. Worth remembering 12. Liked the ad 13. Enjoyed the ad 14. Found ad to be good

PAGE 51

40 Table 3-4. Attitude toward the brand Pre Test To determine the sponsor and the activity th at was used in the treatment stimuli a pre-test was conducted to evaluate: Perceptions of three potential sponsors. Involvement with thr ee sport activities. Using the measurements described earlier, a sample of college students (n=64) were asked about their perceptions of three brands: Adidas, McDonalds and Gillette, and about their personal involvement with three sports: Soccer, Football and Basketball. Results have shown that att itudes toward McDonalds a nd involvement with Soccer presented a more normal distri bution of cases across variable s values. Indeed, Adidas and Gillette had strong positive image among a majority of cases and Football and Soccer had either cases that were strongly invol ved or cases not involved at all. Table 3-5. Pre test results for brands Adidas McDonalds Gillette Mean 5.40 4.23 5.32 Standard Deviation 0.86 1.09 0.87 N 64 64 64 No, definitely not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yes, definitely 1. High quality 2. Unsatisfactory 3. Appealing 4. Inferior 5. Interesting 6. Desirable 7. Good 8. Useful 9. Distinctive

PAGE 52

41 Table 3.6: Pre test results for sports Soccer Football Basketball Mean 3.43 4.70 5.04 Standard Deviation 1.57 1.54 1.37 N 64 64 64 Development of Stimuli Based on the pre test results, McDonalds wa s retained as a sponsor and Soccer as a sponsored activity. Four colored print ads we re then developed f eaturing a sponsorship relation between McDonalds and the Federa tion International of Football Association (FIFA) for the Soccer World Cup in Germany this summer. The four ads were having the following specificities: First print advertisement: McDonalds is the source of the message using a first person narration mode through its pres ident Michael Roberts (Appendix 2). Second print advertisement: FIFA is the source of the message using a first person narration mode through its presid ent Joseph Blatter (Appendix 3). Third print advertisement: McDonalds is the source using a third person narration (Appendix 4). Fourth print advertisement: FIFA is th e sponsor using a third person narration mode. Experimental Procedure A booklet was produced containing one type of the four colored print advertisements presented earlier along with tw o other actual print a dvertisements. One of them for Kool, a tobacco brand, was run by the magazine Sports Illustrated and the second for LOreal was run by the magazine Vogue. The booklet was organized as follow: (1) Informed consent, (2) Glob al presentation of the studys objectives

PAGE 53

42 (3)Presentation of one print advertisem ent, (4) Identifica tion of the brand, (5)Identification of the medium where the print advertisement was taken from. The presentation for the McDonalds print adver tisements pretended that the ad was run by the magazine Sports Illustrated. Questions about the print advertisement, 2 pages of questions for each print advertisement. The questions for the three print advertisements where made as much similar as possible. Print advertisement 2 and questions. Print advertisement 3 and questions. The order of the three print advertisements and the nature of each treatment were randomly determined for each booklet. Participants A total of 229 college students where as ked to participate in the study for extra credits. Students were told that the study is about perceptions of advertising in general with no other specification. They were then handed the booklets and asked to read the instructions, look at the advertisements and answer the questions on class. Students had all the time necessary to complete the questi ons with the possibility to go back to the advertisements if considered necessary. The involvement with soccer mean score for all respondents was (m=3.59). Respondents with a mean score larger than (m=3.59) were classified as high involvement consumers. Respondents with mean score smaller than (m=3.59) were classified as low involvement consumers.

PAGE 54

43 Table 3-7. Sample size Level of Involvement Narration mode Source High Involvement Low Involvement Total Sponsor 31 22 First person Activity 25 35 108 Sponsor 29 26 Third person Activity 28 27 115 Total 113 110 223

PAGE 55

44 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS A multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to identify the effects of source, narration mode and involvement on th e three constructs th at measure attitude. MANOVA is usually used to analyze the effects of many categorical independent variables on many interrelated con tinuously measured variables. H1: In sponsorship advertis ing, the sponsored activity as a source of the message will generate more positive attitudes than the sponsor as a source of the message. Table 4-1. Main effect of source. Dependent Variables Sum of squares Df Mean square F Sig. Attitude toward the sponsorship 3.61 1 3.61 2.13 0.14 Attitude toward the advertisement 1.59 1 1.59 2.65 0.11 Attitude toward the sponsor 0.98 1 0.98 0.64 0.42 Table 4-2. Means by type of source. Dependent Variables Source Mean Standard Deviation N Sponsor 4.97 0.54 104 Activity 4.73 0.66 114 Attitude toward the sponsorship Total 4.85 0.61 218 Sponsor 3.32 0.76 104 Activity 3.16 0.79 114 Attitude toward the advertisement Total 3.24 0.78 218 Sponsor 4.16 1.27 104 Activity 4.28 1.22 114 Attitude toward the sponsor Total 4.23 1.24 218 Wilks Lambda=.98 F=1.8 H yp othesis df=3 Error df=208 000 Si g =.15

PAGE 56

45 Differences in means are not statistically significant which make it impossible to conclude that the message source had any effect on all three types of attitudes. Thus, H1 was not supported. H2: In sponsorship advertisement a first person narration mode will generate more positive attitudes than a third person narration mode. Table 4-3. Main eff ect of narration mode. Dependent Variables Sum of squares Df Mean square F Sig. Attitude toward the sponsorship 8.19 1 8.19 4.83* 0.03 Attitude toward the advertisment 2.14 1 2.14 3.57 0.06 Attitude toward the sponsor 8.48 1 8.48 5.57* 0.02 Table 4-4. Means by narration mode. Dependent Variables Source Mean Standard Deviation N First person 5.04 1.18 110 Third person 4.66 1.20 108 Attitude toward the sponsorship Total 4.85 1.31 218 First person 3.33 0.72 110 Third person 3.14 0.82 108 Attitude toward the advertisement Total 3.24 0.78 218 First person 4.42 1.24 110 Third person 4.03 1.22 108 Attitude toward the sponsor Total 4.23 1.24 218 The first person narration mode generates be tter attitudes toward the sponsorship and attitudes toward the sponsor than the third person narration mode with respective means of (m=5.04 compared to m=4.66) and (m=4.42 compared to 4.03). Means for attitude toward the sponsorship and attit ude toward the sponsor are statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. Mean differences for attitude toward the advertisement were not statistically si gnificant. H2 was partially supported. Wilks Lambda=.97 F=2.52 H yp othesis df=3 Error df=208 000 Si g =.06 p <0.05

PAGE 57

46 H3: Sponsorship advertising will generate more positive attitudes among consumers that are highly involved with the sponsored activity (fans) than consumers that are not involved with the sponsored activity (non fans). Table 4-5. Main eff ect of involvement. Dependent Variables Sum of squares Df Mean square F Sig. Attitude toward the sponsorship 1.33 1 1.33 0.79 0.38 Attitude toward the advertisment 0.10 1 0.10 0.17 0.68 Attitude toward the sponsor 1.40 1 1.40 0.92 0.34 Table 4-6. Means by level of involvement. Differences in means for low and high invol vement are not statis tically significant. It was impossible to conclude that involvem ent with sponsored activity had any effect on attitudes. H3 was not supported. H4: Consumers that are highly involved w ith the sponsored activity will develop more positive attitudes than consumers who are not involved with the sponsored activity if sponsorship advertising uses a firs t person narration mode. Table 4-7. Interaction effect of involvement and narration mode. Dependent Variables Sum of squares Df Mean square F Sig. Attitude toward the sponsorship 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.98 Attitude toward the advertisment 0.15 1 0.15 0.25 0.62 Attitude toward the sponsor 3.49 1 3.49 2.29 0.13 Dependent Variables Source Mean Standard Deviation N Low involvement 4.77 1.18 110 High involvement 4.92 1.43 108 Attitude toward the sponsorship Total 4.85 1.31 218 Low involvement 3.22 0.66 110 High involvement 3.26 0.88 108 Attitude toward the advertisement Total 3.24 0.78 218 Low involvement 4.30 1.18 110 High involvement 4.15 1.31 108 Attitude toward the sponsor Total 4.23 1.24 218 Wilks Lambda=.99 F=.90 H yp othesis df=3 Error df=208 000 Si g =.44

PAGE 58

47 Table 4-8. Means by involve ment and narration mode. Dependent Variables Involvement Narration Mode Mean Standard Deviation N First person 4.97 1.13 54 Low involvement Third person 4.58 1.20 56 First person 5.10 1.23 56 High involvement Third person 4.73 1.61 52 Attitude toward the sponsorship Total 4.85 1.31 218 First person 3.30 0.61 54 Low involvement Third person 3.14 0.70 56 First person 3.37 0.82 56 High involvement Third person 3.14 0.94 52 Attitude toward the advertisement Total 3.24 0.76 218 First person 4.63 1.26 54 Low involvement Third person 3.98 1.00 56 First person 4.23 1.20 56 High involvement Third person 4.07 1.43 52 Attitude toward the sponsor Total 4.23 1.24 218 Differences in means are not statistica lly significant. Conclusions regarding interaction of effects of na rration mode and involvement with the sponsored activity cannot be drawn. H4 was not supported. H5: Consumers that are highly involved w ith the sponsored activity will develop more positive attitudes than consumers th at are not involved with the sponsored activity if the sponsored ac tivity is the source of the sponsorship advertising. Table 4-9. Interaction effect of involvement and source. Dependent Variables Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Attitude toward the sponsorship 0.15 1 0.15 0.09 0.76 Attitude toward the advertisment 0.51 1 0.51 0.85 0.36 Attitude toward the sponsor 1.35 1 1.35 0.89 0.35 Wilks Lambda=.98 F=1.17 H yp othesis df=3 Error df=208 000 Si g =.32

PAGE 59

48 Table 4-10. Means by involvement and source. Differences in means are not statistica lly significant. Conclusions regarding interaction of effects of s ource and involvement with the sponsored activity cannot be drawn. H5 was not supported. Extra Findings: Interaction effect betw een source, narration mode and level of involvement. Table 4-11. Interaction effect of s ource, narration mode and involvement. Dependent Variables Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Attitude toward the sponsorship 0.86 1 0.86 0.51 0.48 Attitude toward the advertisment 0.21 1 0.21 0.35 0.55 Attitude toward the sponsor 0.52 1 0.52 0.34 0.56 Dependent Variables Involvement Source Mean Standard Deviation N Sponsor 4.88 1.13 57 Low involvement Activity 4.65 1.22 53 Sponsor 5.08 1.29 47 High involvement Activity 4.80 1.53 61 Attitude toward the sponsorship Total 4.85 1.31 218 Sponsor 3.35 0.59 57 Low involvement Activity 3.08 0.70 53 Sponsor 3.29 0.92 47 High involvement Activity 3.23 0.86 61 Attitude toward the advertisement Total 3.24 0.76 218 Sponsor 4.17 1.21 57 Low involvement Activity 4.44 1.13 53 Sponsor 4.16 1.35 47 High involvement Activity 4.15 1.29 61 Attitude toward the sponsor Total 4.23 1.24 218 Wilks Lambda=.98 F=1.24 H yp othesis df=3 Error df=208 000 Si g =.30

PAGE 60

49 Table 4-12. Means by source, na rration mode and involvement. Dependent Variables Involvement Narration Mode Source Mean Standard Deviation N Sponsor 4.93 1.21 29 First person Activity 5.01 1.05 25 Sponsor 4.83 1.06 28 Low Involvement Third person Activity 4.34 1.29 28 Sponsor 5.27 1.03 22 First person Activity 4.99 1.35 34 Sponsor 4.91 1.48 25 High involvement Third person Activity 4.56 1.73 27 Attitude toward the sponsorship Total 4.85 1.31 218 Sponsor 3.42 .54 29 First person Activity 3.16 0.66 25 Sponsor 3.29 0.64 28 Low Involvement Third person Activity 3.00 0.75 28 Sponsor 3.48 0.70 22 First person Activity 3.29 0.89 34 Sponsor 3.12 1.07 25 High Involvement Third person Activity 3.15 0.83 27 Attitude toward the advertisement Total 3.23 0.76 218 Sponsor 4.52 1.32 29 First person Activity 4.75 1.20 25 Sponsor 3.81 0.98 28 Low involvement Third person Activity 4.16 1.00 28 Sponsor 4.16 1.42 22 First person Activity 4.27 1.05 34 Sponsor 4.16 1.42 25 High involvement Third person Activity 4.00 1.54 27 Attitude toward the sponsor Total 4.23 1.24 218 Wilks Lambda=.99, F=.47, Hypothesis df=3, Error df=208,000, Sig=.70 Differences in means are not statistica lly significant. Conclusions regarding interaction of effects of s ource, narration mode and invol vement with the sponsored activity cannot be drawn.

PAGE 61

50 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects on consumers attitudes of source and narration mode manipulations in a context of sponsorship advertising considering both fan and non fans of the sponsored activity. Hypothesis 1 In sponsorship advertising, the sponsored activity as a source of the message will generate more positive attitude s than the sponsor as a source of the message. Literature presents enough evidence about the diminish ed credibility of a financially motivated source (Weiner and Mowen 1986). Based on that and on the presence of a not for profit entity in the Meenaghan communication m odel for sponsorship (Meenaghan 2001a) this study hypothesized that the sponsored activity w ould generate better attitudes than the sponsor if used as the source of the sponsorship advertising message. There was indeed a difference in attitudes between groups, but the obtained results cannot be generalized to a larger population. The study used the area of sport as the sponsored activity as sport sponsorship is considered as a benchmark for all other forms of sponsorship (Quester and Thompson 2001). Probably, the heavy use of a dvertising and promotions techniques in the area of sport sponsorship made respondents insensitive to the di fferences between the messages of this study, especially that sponsor ship advertisements are more likely to feature the sponsors as a sour ce of the message. Another pos sible explanation could be the message similarity between the two sour ces. The message was framed identically for the sponsor as a source and the sponsored ac tivity as a source a nd the only differences

PAGE 62

51 were the signature and the logos places. It is possible that respondents were expecting a different form and style of communication or even content from each source which made them less sensitive to any possible effect. Hypothesis 2 In sponsorship advertisement a first person narration mode will generate more positive attitudes than a third person narration mode. Stern (1991) suggests that the first person narration mode is more likely to create intimacy with the audience and establishes a personal relationship with them based on an emotional appeal by expressing personal values and feelings. It was hypothesized that this form of narration mode would be more appropriate to sponsorship advertising si nce the sponsorship model was built on an emotional relationship between the fans a nd the activity that sponsor was trying to transfer to his brand name. The first pers on narration mode generated better attitudes toward the sponsorship and attitudes toward the sponsor than th e third person narration mode. It seems that developing positive attit udes toward the sponsorship and the sponsor is linked to the identification of the source. Indeed, using a first person narration mode lessens ambiguity on who is making the claim, thus generating more improved attitudes. Further, the first person narration appears to create the required intimacy that facilitates the creation of bonds between the source of the sponsorship advertisement message and the target audience. Conclusions on effect s of the source on at titudes toward the sponsorship advertisement cannot be drawn from this study. However, this can be explained by the fact that the creative concept and its executi on did not appeal to respondents. A more creative concept with a better execu tion would have certainly generated improved attitudes toward the adve rtisement with a first person narration mode. H2 was partially supported.

PAGE 63

52 Hypothesis 3 Sponsorship advertising will generate more positive attitudes among consumers that are highly involved with the sponsored activity (fans) than consumers that are not involved with the sponsored activity (non fa ns). Meenaghan (2001a, 2001b) posits that involvement is what distinguishes consumers reaction to sponsorship from their reaction to advertising. Advertising is considered self ish because it does not benefit anything else than the company or the brand. Sponsorship is seen as beneficial for the activity and the community involved with this activity. Ther efore the study hypothesized that consumers highly involved with the sponsored activity wi ll have better attitudes than consumers not involved with the sponsored activity. Conclu sions about the effect of involvement on attitudes cannot be drawn from the results this study. A possible explanation would be that the scale used to measure involvemen t did not probably capt ure real involvement levels but merely interest levels. Thus, respondents that were classified as highly involved were not really passi onate about the activity, but only persons with some interest on soccer or who do not mind having information about soccer. Therefore these respondents reactions to a message related to their supposed favorite activity were not consistent with the reactions expected fr om highly involved fans and made H3 not supported. A more accurate instrument to m easure involvement with a sporting activity would have probably generated different results, but this instrument was not developed yet. This question is further discusse d in suggestions for future research Hypothesis 4 Consumers that are highly involved with th e sponsored activity will develop more positive attitudes than consumers who are not involved with the sponsored activity if sponsorship advertising uses a first pe rson narration mode. Given the emotional

PAGE 64

53 relationship that exists between fans and th eir favorite activity, this study hypothesized that consumers highly involve d with an activity (fans) wi ll develop better attitudes toward a sponsorship advertisement using a fi rst person narration mode. The effects of a first person narration mode that are intimacy and personal relation and emotional appeal were believed to have more effects on c onsumers highly involved with the sponsored activity than that those who are not. Agai n because the study could not capture real levels of involvement of respondents, their at titudes resulting from the combined effect of involvement and narration mode cannot be used in global conclusions. H4 was not supported. Hypothesis 5 Consumers that are highly involved with th e sponsored activity will develop more positive attitudes than consumers that are not involved with the spons ored activity if the sponsored activity is the source of the spons orship advertising. Meenghan has suggested that fans reward the sponsor with goodwill when they feel there is a respect and a concern for the sponsored activity, and that they develop negative at titudes when they consider the sponsor is simply using the activity to achieve financial ob jective (Meenaghan 2001a, 2001b). Based on this study hypothesized that a sponsorship advertisement will generate better attitudes among consumer highly involved with sponsored activity if this latter is the source of the message instead of the s ponsor. H5 was not supported because the levels of involvement with the sponsored activ ity were not properly captured by the measurement used in the study. Implications Though most of the hypotheses of this study were not supported, some guidelines can still be suggested for the execution of sponsorship advertising. First always use a first

PAGE 65

54 person narration mode, because it generates better attitudes. Literature suggests that a first person mode creates intimacy and estab lishes a personal relationship between the source and its audience by using an emoti onal appeal, and that a third person narration mode gives an objective opinion ab out a situation the source is external to, thus appearing as a trusted adviser for the audience (Ste rn 1994). Consumers reac t better to a first person narration mode than a third person narration mode because they perceive sponsorship is more than simple advertisi ng where objectivity might be a central issue. Sponsorship implies a certain interest and car e for the sponsored activity or gratefulness for the sponsor and these cannot be bette r expressed by a third party. Second, it is absolutely necessary to identify the levels of involvement of the ta rget audience with the sponsored activity, to determine precisely the strategy to adop t. The different treatments used in the study did not produce significant effects because there was no real difference between groups. Sponsorship advertising will be more effective if involvement levels with the sponsored activity were measured mo re accurately. Finally, it is advised to copy test the type of source to use whether the target audience is highly involved with the sponsored activity or not. I ndeed, though the results were no t consistent, this study has suggested that using the sponsored activity as source might work as a peripheral cue generating better attitudes and enhancing the sponsors image among consumers not involved with sponsored activity, which is something that was not expected. Limitations The advertisements used as a vehicle for the treatments were not executed by professional designers. Compared with the other print advertisements presented in the booklet on the item phony the treatment executions scored on average (m=3.77) compared to (m=2.67) for the Kool advert isement and (m=3.78) for the LOreal one.

PAGE 66

55 However, if respondents did not notice the advertisement was not real, they globally reacted to it the same whether they were i nvolved with soccer or not. The advertisement did not talk to soccer fans differently from non soccer fans which made attitudes toward the advertisement less than average and qu ite similar on both sides. Concerning the executions, there is also a need to mention a little difference in the logos. The treatments where the sponsor was the source of the messa ge used the McDonald logo as a sponsor and the Germany World Cup 2006 logo as the s ponsored activity, whereas the treatments where the sponsored activity was the sour ce used the FIFA logo and the McDonalds logo. This is a limitation since awareness a nd familiarity with Germany World Cup 2006 and FIFA logos might be different among respondents. The study used the Personal Involvement Inventory scale developed by Zaichkowski to measure sport involvement. Wh ile to scale is global enough to measure a complex concept as sport involvement it fails to identify the different types of involvements a respondent can have with a spor t. A respondent can be an active player of soccer with no interest of the soccer industry and relations with sponsors and another can be very involved with soccer as industry wit hout setting a foot in a soccer field etc. Both of these examples represent a certain type of involvement that could generate different attitudes toward sponsorship advertising. Unfortunately this study could not examine the differences between different na tures of involvement and their effects. This limit is more exacerbated if we consider the nature of re spondents. Respondents were approached in classes from the College of Journalism and Communication where females are more present than males. Indeed 70% of respondent s were females and it is difficult to imagine females having the same nature of involvement with soccer as men.

PAGE 67

56 Future research Future research on sponsorship will give more accurate results if they use a measurement that can differentiate between th e different natures of involvement. General involvement scales cannot accurately measure the different natures of involvement in a sponsorship relation. Further, this study used involvement with a sport at the category level, which means involvement with soccer as sport and not a particular team. Meenaghan (2001b) suggests that fan involveme nt is more important for an individual activity than a whole category. In other wo rds nature and level of involvement will change considerably if the study has used a particular soccer team like the U.S soccer team or Real Madrid. In the area of arts it will be the sponsorship of a particular orchestra, concert or artist instead of a f oundation, an NGO or something similar. Future research must consider this difference of involvement fans can have with a specific activity and its impact on their attitudes. Th is study has used sport sponsorship because scholars consider it as a benchmark for ot her forms of sponsorship (Quester and Thompson 2001, Witcher et al 1991). However, there is evidence in literature that consumers tolerance to sponsorship varies depending on the nature of the sponsored activity. The sport industry has become a re ference in sponsorship and consumers seem to accept the degree of exploitation that is a ssociated with it. Popul ar arts to a lesser extent than sport are also easily associated with sponsor s and sponsorship advertising but it is not the case of fine arts as many c onsumers do not tolerate the same form of exploitation that are used in popular arts or sports (Meen aghan 1999). Future research can also address this area by investigating the difference in attitudes generated by the same manipulations of this study in fine arts and popular arts. Finally, the discussion section raised another interesting area for futu re research. It appeared that fans of an

PAGE 68

57 activity reacted less positively than non fans to a message where the sponsored activity (with which fans are involved) probably b ecause they considered the message to be commercial advertising. Future research can i nvestigate the criteria that make a target audience consider a message as advertising. A pplied to sponsorship, the answers to this question can improve execution of advertisements target ing highly involved fans.

PAGE 69

58 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT Please read this consent document carefully befo re you decide to partic ipate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to: Examine attitudes toward advertising. Time required: 15 minutes Benefits: 1 extra credit. Confidentiality: Questionnaires are anonymous and there wi ll no way to identify your answers. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is comple tely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from th e study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you ha ve questions about the study Jorge Villegas. Ziad Ghanimi Assistant Professor Masters Student College of Journalism & Communication College of J ournalism & Communication jvillegas@jou.ufl.edu 353-328-1457 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0433.

PAGE 70

59 Agreement: I have read the pro cedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure. Participant: ________________________________________Date:_________________ Principal Investigator : ______________________________ Date: _________________

PAGE 71

60 APPENDIX B UFRIB PROTOCOL Title of Project: Advertising a Sponsorship Relation: Effect s of Message Source, Narration Mode and Involvement on Attitude Toward the Sponsorsh ip, Attitude Toward the Ad and Attitude Toward the Brand. This study is a part of a thesis that will be pr esented to the faculty of the graduate school of The University of Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters in Advertising. Principal investigator : Ziad Ghanimi Masters Student College of Journalism & Communication Department of Advertising UFID: 6944-1594 Phone: 352-328-1457 e-mail: ghanimi@ufl.edu Supervisor: Jorge Villegas Assistant Professor College of Journalism and Communication Department of Advertising Phone: (352) 392-5059 e-mail: jvillegas@jou.ufl.edu Dates of proposal research: As soon as approved till May 30, 2006. Source of funding: None.

PAGE 72

61 Scientific purpose: The objective is to determine if consumers w ill have better attitudes toward a sponsor if: The message is coming from the sponsor himself or the sponsored activity. The narration is first person (I or we ) or a third person (He, She). Research methodology : Post exposure survey: There will be four groups of participan ts and each one will be shown a different sponsorship ad. The four ads will globally look the same featuring McDonalds and the soccer worldcup but with the following differences: Two ads will be presented as coming from McDonalds: o One will use a first person narration mode. o The second will use a third person narration mode. Two ads will be presented as coming fr om FIFA (Federati on of International Football Association) o One of these ads will use a first person narration. o The second one will use a thir d person narration mode Participants will then be asked questions on their attitude toward the sponsorship, the ad and the brand. The questionnaire s hould take 15 minutes to complete Measurements: The following scales will be used to collect participants attitudes: Attitude toward the act (Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume II, Br uner & Hensel, American Marketing Association, 1992, p.57). Attitude toward the product/brand (Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume II, Bruner & Hensel, American Marketing Association, 1992, p.77). Attitude toward the product/brand (hedonic) (Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume II, Bruner & Hensel, American Marketing Association, 1992, p.79). Attitude toward the brand (Marketi ng Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume III, Br uner & Hensel, American Marketing Association, 1992, p.90). Attitude toward the brand (Marketi ng Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume III, Br uner & Hensel, American Marketing Association, 1992, p.67). Attitude toward the brand (Marketi ng Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume III, Br uner & Hensel, American Marketing Association, 1992, p.77). The Personal Involvement Inventory (Zaichkowski, 1985) ((Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume II, Bruner & Hensel, American Marketing Association, 1992, p.370).

PAGE 73

62 Attitude toward the ad (Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume II, Br uner & Hensel, American Marketing Association, 1992, p.777). Attitude toward the ad (believability) (Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume II, Bruner & Hensel, American Marketing Association, 1992, p.779). Attitude toward the ad (evaluation j udgments) (Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item measur es Volume II, Bruner & Hensel, American Marketing Association, 1992, p.793). Attitude toward the ad (affective component) (Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume III, Bruner & Hensel, American Marketing Association, 1992, p.713). Attitude toward the ad (overal) (M arketing Scales Ha ndbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume III, Bruner & Hensel, American Marketing Association, 1992, p.727). Credibility of the source (Marketi ng Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume II, Br uner & Hensel, American Marketing Association, 1992, p.846). Potential benefit and anticipated risks: This study will increase know ledge about message source effects and narration mode in sponsorship, an area where research is still very limited. The results will provide creatives in advertising agencies with guidelines to execute sponsorship ads. There is absolutely no possible risk in the process, the ads will be taken from renowned sports magazines, they will be modified using copy used in everyday ads. Further, the questions contained in the measurements presented in the previous section are just common opinion questions Finally, questionnaires are anonymous and there will not be any possibility to link a particular answer to a particular student. Recruitment of participants and compensation: Research participants will be approximat ely 300 students aged 18 and over, who will be recruited from the college of Journalis m and Communication of The University of Florida. They will participate in the resear ch for 1 extra credit. The classes and their instructors are: ADV 3000, Dr. Morton. ADV 3001, Dr. Morton. ADV 3203, Dr. Goodman. ADV 3502, Dr. Sutherland. ADV 4101, Dr Duke.

PAGE 74

63 ADV 4300, Dr Cho. ADV 4800, Dr Duke, Dr Morris and Dr Villegas. The principal investigator is not the instru ctor or a teacher assi stant in any of the classes from which partic ipant will be recruited. The informed consent process: Participants will be informed of the subject of the survey and then reminded of their freedom to participate or not. The info rmed consent (2 first pages of the questionnaire) will be presented as in the first page of the que stionnaire (10 last pages of the questionnaire) before any othe r question and participants will be asked to read it carefully. Supervisor: Administrator: Jorge Villegas Ziad Ghanimi Assistant Professor Masters Student College of Journalism & Communication College of Journalism & Communication

PAGE 75

64 APPENDIX C PRINT ADS

PAGE 76

65

PAGE 77

66

PAGE 78

67

PAGE 79

68

PAGE 80

69

PAGE 81

70 APPENDIX D QUESTIONNAIRE

PAGE 82

71

PAGE 83

72

PAGE 84

73

PAGE 85

74

PAGE 86

75 LIST OF REFERENCES Cornwell, T. Bettina, Roy Donald P., and Steinard II Edward A. (2001), Exploring Managers Perception of the Impact of Sponsorship on Brand Equity, Journal of Advertising, 30(2), 41-52. Cornwell, T. Bettina, Clinton S. Weeks, and Donald P. Roy (2005), Sponsorship-Linked Marketing: Opening the Black Box, J ournal of Advertising, 34 (2), 21-43 Cornwell, T. Bettina, and Isabelle Maigna n (1998), An International Review of Sponsorship Research, Journal of Advertising, 27 (1), 1-21 Crimmins, James, and Martin Horn (1996), S ponsorship: From Management Ego Trip to Marketing Success, Journal of A dvertising Research, 36 (4), 11-21. Deeken, Aimee (2005), TNS: 16 of 17 media grew revenue in , Media Week, 15.11 (March 14), 30-31. Dolphin, Richard R. (2003), Sponsorship: Pers pectives on its Strategic Role, Corporate Communications, 8 (3), 173-186. Duncan, Tom (2002), IMC Using Advertising and Promo tion to Build Brand, McGrawHill, New York. Gardner, Meryl P., and Philip J. Shuman (1987), Sponsorship: An Important Component of the Promotions Mix, Journal of Advertising, 16 (1), 11-18. Hansen, Flemming, and Lene Scotwin ( 1995), An Experimental Enquiry Into Sponsoring: What Effects Can be Meas ured?, Marketing and Research Today, 23 (3), 173-181. Hastings, Gerard B. (1984), Sponsorship Works Differently from Advertising, International Journal of A dvertising, 3 (2), 171-176. Houston, Michael J., Terry L. Childers, and Susan E. Heckler (1987), Picture-Word Consistency and the Elaborative Proce ssing of Advertisements, Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (4), 359-369. Hoyer, Wayne D., and Deborah J. MacInnis (2004), Consumer Behavior Houghton Miflin, Boston.

PAGE 87

76 IEG (2004), The International Sponsorship Market, IEG S ponsorship Report, 22 (4), 1-2. Kinney, Lance, and Stephen R. McDaniel ( 1996), Strategic Implication of Attitude Toward the Ad in Leveraging Event Spons orship, Journal of Sport Management, 10 (July), 250-261 Kotler, Philip (1998), Marketing Ma nagement, Prentice Hall, Chicago. Lardinoit, Thierry, and Pascale G. Quester (2001), Attitudinal E ffects of Combined Sponsorship and Sponsors Prominence on Basketball in Europe, Journal of Advertising Research, 4 (1), 48-64. McCracken, Grant (1989), Who is the Celebr ity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the Endorsement Process, Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (3), 310-322. McDonald, Collin (1991), Sponsor and the Imag e of the Sponsor, European Journal of Marketing, 25 (11), 31-38. Mehta, Abhilasha (1994), How Advertis ing Response Modeling (ARM) Can Increase Ad Effectiveness, Journal of A dvertising Research, 34 (3), 62-74. Meenaghan, Tony (1983), Commercial Sponsorsh ip, European Jour nal of Marketing, 7 (7), 5-71. Meenaghan, Tony (1991), The Role of Spons orship in the Marketing Communications Mix, International Journal of Advertising, 10 (1), 35-47. Meenaghan, Tony (1996), Ambush Marketing A Threat to Corporate Sponsorship, Sloan Management Review, 38 (1), 103-113. Meenaghan, Tony (1998), Current Development and Future Di rections in Sponsorship, International Journal of A dvertising, 17 (1), 3-28 Meenaghan, Tony, and David Shipley ( 1999), Media Effect in Commercial Sponsorship, European Journa l of Marketing, 33 (3/4), 328-347. Meenaghan, Tony (2001a), Understanding Sponsorship Effects, Psychology and Marketing, 18 (2), 95-122. Meenaghan, Tony (2001b), Sponsorship and A dvertising: A Comparison of Consumer Perceptions, Psychology a nd Marketing, 18 (2), 191-215. Otker, Ton (1988), Exploitation: The Key to Sponsorship Success, European Research, 16 (May), 77-85.

PAGE 88

77 Quester, Pascal G., and Beverly Thompson (2001), Advertising and Promotion Leverage on Arts Sponsorship Effectiveness, Jour nal of Advertising Research, 41 (1), 3347. Sandler, Dennis M., and David Shani (1989), O lympic Sponsor vs. Ambush Marketing: Who Gets the Gold?, Journal of Advertising Research, 29 (4), 9-14. Stern, Barbara (1991), Who Talks Advertising? Literary Theory and Narrative Point of View, Journal of A dvertising, 20 (30), 9-22. (1993), The Firm, the Author, and the Persona: A Literary M odel of the Source of Advertising, Journal of Current I ssues and Research in Advertising, 15 (2), 15-24. (1994), A Revised Communi cation Model for Advertising: Multiple Dimension of the Source, the Message, and the Recipi ent, Journal of Advertising, 23 (2), 5-15. Stipp, Horst, and Nicholas P. Schiavon e (1996), Modeling the Impact of Olympic Sponsorship on Corporate Image, Jour nal of Advertising Research, 36 (4), 22-28. Tripodi, John A. (2001), Sponsorship A Confirmed Weapon in the Promotional Armory," International Journal of Spor ts Marketing and Sponsorship, 3 (1), 41-66. Vanden Bergh, Bruce G., and Helen Katz (1999), Advertisin g Principles, NTC Publishing, Chicago. Walliser, Bjrn (2003), An International Revi ew of Sponsorship Research: Extension and Update, International Journa l of Advertising, 22 (1), 5-40. Witcher, Barry, Gordon J. Craigen, Dennis Cullighan, and Andrew Harvey (1991), The Links between Objectives and Function in Organizational Sponsorship," International Journal of A dvertising, 10 (1), 13-33.

PAGE 89

78 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ziad Ghanimi is originally from Morocco where he earned his bachelors degree from ISACE, a business school in Casablanca, with a major in mark eting and advertising in July1999. After five years of experience in the marketing departments of multinational companies operating in different industries, sports wear, dairy pr oducts and Internet access, Ziad was awarded a Fulbright scholarship to pursue a masters degree in advertising at The Univ ersity of Florida.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015784/00001

Material Information

Title: Sponsorship Advertising: Effects of Source, Narration Mode and Involvement with the Sponsored Activity on Attitude toward the Sponsorship, Attitude toward the Ad and Attitude toward the Sponsor
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: UFE0015784:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015784/00001

Material Information

Title: Sponsorship Advertising: Effects of Source, Narration Mode and Involvement with the Sponsored Activity on Attitude toward the Sponsorship, Attitude toward the Ad and Attitude toward the Sponsor
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: UFE0015784:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page ii
    Dedication
        Page iii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
    List of Tables
        Page viii
    List of Figures
        Page ix
    Abstract
        Page x
        Page xi
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Literature review
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
    Methodology
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
    Results
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
    Discussion and conclusion
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
    Appendices
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
    References
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
    Biographical sketch
        Page 78
Full Text












SPONSORSHIP ADVERTISING: EFFECTS OF SOURCE, NARRATION MODE
AND INVOLVEMENT WITH THE SPONSORED ACTIVITY ON ATTITUDE
TOWARD THE SPONSORSHIP, ATTITUDE TOWARD THE AD AND ATTITUDE
TOWARD THE SPONSOR














By

ZIAD GHANIMI


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ADVERTISING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Ziad Ghanimi
































This document is dedicated to my parents my family in Morocco and in the U.S.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Without the Fulbright program, I would not be presenting this work today. I would

like to thank the Fulbright committee members in Morocco for their trust and the

opportunity they gave me to be part of this wonderful program. I would also like to thank

the men and women who manage the Fulbright program everyday, making it one of the

most successful experiences that increase mutual understanding and tolerance among

cultures in the world. During these two years these persons showed us enough care and

attention to become like family members.

I am very grateful to my committee members for the support they showed to this

project, their availability and their guidance. I would like to thank them and all the

faculty members of our college for their contribution in making these two years in UF a

wonderful experience.

Finally I would like to thank my family in Morocco and my new family in

Gainesville, Philip and Elizabeth, for their support during these two years. Their

contribution to this work was more than they can imagine.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS



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

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

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................... ........... ............................ ix

ABSTRACT ............................................................................. x

CHAPTER

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

2 L IT E R A TU R E R E V IE W .................................................................. ..................... 8

N atu re o f S p o n so rsh ip .................................................................................................. 8
D definition of Sponsorship.................................... ....................... ............... 8
Sponsorship in the Prom otional M ix.............................................. ............... 10
O objectives of Sponsorship ......................................... ......................... .............. 13
Corporate Objectives of Sponsorship............................................. ................ 13
M marketing O objectives .. .. ................ ................................................ 14
M easuring Sponsorship E effects ........................................... .................. ............... 16
The Measurement Process of Sponsorship Effects ........................................16
Sponsorship E effects .............. .... ............. ............................................... 17
E x p o su re ....................................................................................................... 17
A tte n tio n ....................................................................................................... 1 8
A ttitu d e ......................................................................................................... 1 9
B eh av ior ............................................................................................... 2 0
Theoretical Fram ew ork of Sponsorship: ................................ .............................. 20
Frameworks Based on Low Processing..........................................................21
Frameworks Based on High Processing.........................................................21
Leveraging a Sponsorship............................ ................ 23
Why Leverage a Sponsorship Relation?.........................................................24
R each of consum ers ...................................... ....................... ................ 24
Im acting the target m arket..................................................... ................ 25
C considering the environm ent .................................................. ................ 26






v









How to Leverage a Sponsorship? ..................................................28
The w eight of leverage ...................................................... ................ 28
The message ........................................................29
D uration of lev erage ................ ................................................. ................ 29
Leveraging sponsorship at the right scale ............................................... 29
Limits of Literature on Sponsorship Leverage.......................................30
H ypothesis D evelopm ent........................................... ......................... .................. 3 1

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ................................................... ............................................ 37

M easu rem en ts ............................................................................................................. 3 7
Independent V ariables ......................................... ........................ ................ 37
Source in the print ad ........................................................ 37
Narration mode....................................................................................... 37
Involvement with the sponsored activity ...............................................37
D ependant V ariables ............. ......... .......... .............................................. 38
Attitude toward the sponsorship.............................................................. 38
Attitude toward the sponsorship message ............................................... 39
A attitude tow ard the sponsor .................................................... ................ 39
P re T est .................................................................................................... ....... .. 4 0
D evelopm ent of Stim uli ...................................................................... ................ 4 1
E xperim ental Procedure ...................................................................... ................ 4 1
P a rtic ip a n ts ................................................................................................................ 4 2

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

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ..................................................50

H y p o th e sis 1 ............................................................................................................... 5 0
H y p o th e sis 2 ............................................................................................................... 5 1
H y p o th e sis 3 ............................................................................................................... 5 2
H y p o th e sis 4 ............................................................................................................... 5 2
H y p o th e sis 5 ............................................................................................................... 5 3
Im p lic atio n s ................................................................................................................ 5 3
L im itatio n s ............................................................................................................... .. 5 4
F u tu re re se arch ............................................................................................................ 5 6

APPENDIX

A IN F O R M E D C O N SEN T ........................................... ......................... ................ 58

B UFRIB PROTOCOL ................................................. .............................. 60

C P R IN T A D S ............................................................................................................... 6 4

D Q U E ST IO N N A IR E .................................................. ............................................ 70









L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S... ......................................................................... ................ 75

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ......................................................................................78
















LIST OF TABLES

Table page

3-1 Enduring involvement- Personal inventory involvement..................................38

3-2 A attitude tow ard the act .................................................................... ................ 39

3-3 A attitude tow ard the ad ..................................................................... ................ 39

3-4 A attitude tow ard the brand ......................................... ........................ ................ 40

3-5 P re test results for brands ......................................... ........................ ................ 40

3.6 Pre test results for sports ................. .............................................................. 41

3 -7 S am p le siz e .............................................................................................................. 4 3

4-1 M ain effect of source. ....................................................................... ................ 44

4-2 M eans by type of source ...................................... ......................... ................ 44

4-3 M ain effect of narration m ode ............................................................. ................ 45

4-4 M eans by narration m ode ......................................... ........................ ................ 45

4-5 M ain effect of involved ent ...................................... ....................... ................ 46

4-6 M eans by level of involved ent .................................... .................... ................ 46

4-7 Interaction effect of involvement and narration mode........................................46

4-8 Means by involvement and narration mode. .......................................................47

4-9 Interaction effect of involvement and source .....................................................47

4-10 M eans by involved ent and source ..................................................... ................ 48

4-11 Interaction effect of source, narration mode and involvement...............................48

4-12 Means by source, narration mode and involvement............................................49















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 Stern's advertising model of communication...................................... ................ 32

2-2 M eenaghan's sponsorship m odel ........................................................ ................ 33















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Advertising

SPONSORSHIP ADVERTISING: EFFECTS OF SOURCE, NARRATION MODE
AND INVOLVEMENT WITH THE SPONSORED ACTIVITY ON ATTITUDE
TOWARD THE SPONSORSHIP, ATTITUDE TOWARD THE AD AND ATTITUDE
TOWARD THE SPONSOR

By

Ziad Ghanimi

December 2006

Chair: Jorge Villegas
Major Department: Advertising

During the late nineties, a considerable amount of literature was produced on nature

of sponsorship, its objectives and its effects. Unfortunately, sponsorship management did

not receive as much attention as the other areas as only general guidelines exist on the

weight to allow to sponsorship promotion, the content of a message promoting a

sponsorship and the time period necessary to promote a sponsorship. The objective of this

study is to add to the existing literature on sponsorship management by defining possible

directions for the execution of sponsorship advertising. The message source and narration

mode were manipulated to examine effects on attitudes depending on the level of

involvement of the respondent with the sponsored activity. Four advertisements

promoting a sponsorship relation were executed, each one using either the sponsor or the

activity as a source, and either a first person narration mode or a third person narration









mode. Results are presented and implications for sponsorship advertising execution are

also discussed. The study also presents limitations and orientation for future research.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The support of artists and athletes goes back to the Greek civilizations in the city

of Athena where rich patrons were supporting financially promising performers. Few

centuries later, Maecenas, a Roman knight who lived from 68 to 8 before Christ, became

famous for his protection of artists, poets and scientists. His name will become in the

French language a synonym of rich person protecting and supporting people of

knowledge. Little by little other concepts like charity, philanthropy, corporate giving and

sponsorship made their appearance without a real distinction between them. In modern

times, Meenaghan (1983) defined sponsorship as an investment in cash or in kind in an

activity in return for access to the exploitable potential associated with that activity. From

a relatively limited practice in the late sixties and early seventies, sponsorship has grown

substantially over the last three decades (Meenaghan 1998). Sponsorship spending

reached $28 billion worldwide in 2004 (Cornwell et al 2005) which represents an

increase of 8.1% over 2003, more than 100% over the last ten years and 1300% over the

last twenty years. North America, the United States and Canada, continue to dominate the

world sponsorship market with $11.14 billion in 2004 accounting for 39% of sponsorship

worldwide spending (IEG report 2003). The top five US sponsors are PepsiCo, Anheuser-

Busch, General Motors, Coca-Cola and Nike spending from $160 million to $255

million. In comparison with the $141.1 billion spent on advertising in 2004 in the U.S.

market (Deeken 2005), sponsorship expenditures may appear trivial. However, two

factors can correct this misconception. First, the previous amounts do not include









expenditures to ensure proper exploitation of the chosen sponsorship but only

sponsorship rights. Sponsors leverage their initial investment with a variety of marketing

tools including advertising, in-store displays, incentives and others. In 1996 for example,

$5 billion were spent worldwide to promote sponsorship of the 1996 Olympic Games

(Cornwell and Maignan, 1998). Second, sponsorship annual expenses grow faster than

advertising and sales promotion since early eighties (Meenaghan 1998).

Scholars attribute sponsorship growth to corporate disillusion with traditional

advertising and government restrictions on alcohol and tobacco advertising.

Scholars and practitioners are increasingly questioning the effectiveness and efficiency of

media advertising (Quester and Thompson 2001, Meenaghan 2001a, 2001b). Gardner and

Shuman (1987) suggest that with the expected growth of 15 seconds commercials,

perceived clutter will undoubtedly worsen and become more and more challenging to

effective reach and frequency. Clutter combined with the increasing costs of media

commercials led a practitioner to say "If we continue to pay premium prices for

advertising of diminished value then we are fools" (Gardner and Shuman, 1987 p.12).

Meenaghan (1999) opines that technological change in media development, like TiVo,

has changed media viewing habits (zipping and zapping). In this context, sponsorship is

seen as a relatively cost effective access to target (Meenaghan 2001a, 2001b) that can cut

through clutter of traditional advertising channels and cope with changing media viewing

habits (Gardner and Shuman 1987).

During the nineties, legal restrictions imposed on tobacco and alcohol advertising

contributed significantly to sponsorship growth (Tripodi 2001). According to Dolphin

(2003), the tobacco and alcohol industries use sponsorship for the media coverage of the









sponsored activities since they are not allowed to buy media space. The author also thinks

that the association of the controversial products of these industries with an activity like

sport or art is likely to improve both corporate and product image.

The rapid growth of sponsorship as a marketing practice raised the need to

understand how this technique really works. The need became more urgent during the last

ten years as marketers became more accountable for their budgets, particularly the

promotional ones. Till late nineties, sponsorship activities have attracted little academic

interest (Cornwell and Maignan 1998), but over the past ten years, there have been clear

advances in understanding of sponsorship (Walliser 2003). Cornwell and Maignan (1998)

identified five research streams in sponsorship research namely; nature of sponsorship,

managerial aspects of sponsorship, measurement of sponsorship effects, strategic use of

sponsorship and legal and ethical considerations. The first stream of research, nature of

sponsorship, tried to propose a definition of sponsorship identifying its characteristics and

its differences from other promotional tools. Most of the research on this stream was

published from the eighties till early nineties (Walliser 2003). The second stream of

research, managerial aspects of sponsorship, tried to identify the corporate motivations

and objectives, the selection process and the implementation with respect to sponsorship.

The third stream of research focused on sponsorship communication effectiveness by

analyzing the intended and unintended effects of sponsorship. The evaluation of

sponsorship impact is, without doubt, the area where sponsorship research has progressed

most over the past few years (Walliser 2003). The fourth stream of research, strategic use

of sponsorship, investigated in equal proportions strategies and counterstrategies in

sponsorship. Strategies of sponsorship have focused on the integration of sponsorship









into the marketing mix and its harmonic use with other promotional tools. On the long

term, integration provides greater results than a use on an ad-hoc basis (Walliser 2003).

Counterstrategies studied ambush marketing, a practice used by companies to associate

their name with an activity without being a sponsor (Cornwell and Maignan 1998).

Finally, the last stream of research addressed legal constraint and tax implication of

sponsorship along with issues related to the use of sponsorship to promote products that

are detrimental to health like alcohol and tobacco. However, this last stream received far

less attention than the four first ones (Cornwell and Maignan 1998, Walliser 2003).

Probably the most recurrent point in research on sponsorship management was

the necessity to actively promote the initial sponsorship investment with additional

communication tools to increase sponsorship awareness and effectiveness. The basic

sponsorship packages citations, logos and brand names display on arena or logo's

appearance with other partners on any communication form can merely achieve any

communication objectives unless the relationship between the sponsor and the activity

was promoted using all the other techniques of the promotional mix like advertising,

public relations, etc. (Crimmins and Horn 1996, Kinney and MC Daniel 1996, Lardinoit

and Quester 2001, Meenaghan 1998, 2001a, 2001b, Otker 1988). Nevertheless,

Meenaghan (1999, 2001a, 2001b) and Otker (1988) make cautionary note to this

principle, as they recommend promoting the sponsorship relation at the right scale as

overexploitation generates negative attitudes toward the sponsor. One might expect a

sensitive subject like sponsorship leverage, on which depends the whole sponsorship

success, to be thoroughly investigated in literature. Surprisingly, it is not the case.

Research on how to promote a sponsorship addressed a limited number of questions with









a limited number of articles. Indeed, the available literature on the weight of sponsorship

promotion, the content of the message to be promoted by the promotion, the duration of

the promotion and the optimization of the promotion is not enough to provide with the

guidelines needed by practitioners to optimize their sponsorship. Furthermore, the

execution of the message that will promote a sponsorship relation has not been addressed

at all.

According to Meenaghan (1999, 2001a, 2001b), two factors need to be considered

when framing an effective sponsorship promotion: The goodwill dimension and the

intensity of exploitation. Goodwill was found to be the ultimate point of distinction

between advertising, considered selfish, and sponsorship considered beneficial to the

activity. However, fans are very sensitive to the sponsor's behavior and will reward the

sponsor with goodwill only if this latter shows a real interest in the activity and not just

an interest motivated by financial gains. In those circumstances sponsors should be

cautious on the way they implement the promotion of their sponsorships, paying great

attention to their audience attitudes. Since fans are emotionally connected with the

activity being sponsored, a message coming from the sponsored activity is more likely to

be accepted by fans than a message coming from the sponsor himself. In other words,

fans might react more positively to message coming from the sponsored activity, a trusted

source for which they have strong feelings, than a message coming from a company, a for

profit source that might be interested only in business. Source effects have been studied

extensively in main stream advertising but not in a sponsorship context. Further,

narratology theory has showed that different narration modes can have different impacts

on the audience (Stem 1991, 1993, 1994). For example, the first person narration mode









was proven to create more intimacy and trustworthiness than a third person narration

mode. In the context of a sponsorship relation, where sponsors seek to be part of the

emotional relationship that exists between the fans and a particular activity, a first person

narration mode would be more effective in generating an emotional response from fans

than an impersonal third person narration mode. The objective of this study is to

investigate source effects and narration mode effects in sponsorship advertising. Since

sponsorships are used to reach a fan community of a particular activity, the research will

study effects on fans but also effects on non fans as well.

To accomplish this objective, this study will first review the existing literature to

set a definition for sponsorship as practice, distinguish sponsorship from other

promotional tools, understand the nature of objectives that motivates the use of

sponsorship and outline the guidelines to an effective management of a sponsorship

investment. An analysis of all the elements stated above will help frame the tree

hypothesis that this study will test: Attitudes in sponsorship advertising can be much

more improved when the source is not the sponsor, bluntly shouting his support for an

activity; A better connection will occur with the target audience if the sponsorship

message uses a first person narration mode, generating improved feelings toward the

sponsor, his action and his message; The target audience will react differently to a

sponsorship advertisement according to their level of involvement with the activity

engaged in the sponsorship. The target audience that is more involved with the sponsored

activity will develop better attitudes toward the sponsorship and the sponsor if the source

of the message is not the sponsor but the activity. The experimental of this study will

develop and measure reactions to four stimuli. Each stimulus will be different by the






7


source of the message (the sponsor or the activity) and the narration mode (first person or

third person). The involvement with the activity being sponsored will be an internal

characteristic of each respondent. Finally the study will present the results of the

respondents' reaction to each stimulus and discuss implications for execution of

sponsorship advertisements.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Nature of Sponsorship

Definition of Sponsorship

Despite its development during the last two decades, there is still no rigorous

agreed on definition for sponsorship. Walliser (2003) suggests that the nature of

sponsorship and the way it touches other methods of communication is the main reason

behind this lack of consensus across and within countries. Some scholars even consider

that any attempt to define sponsorship is "like trying to harpoon a butterfly in a gale"

(Dolphin 2003, p. 176). Yet, an acceptable definition is needed to guide any research as it

represents "an important prelude to an appropriate level of rigor in empirical studies"

(Dolphin 2003, pl76). Cornwell and Maignan (1998), claim that the lack of an accepted

definition of sponsorship obstructs the development of theoretical frameworks on which

significant sponsorship research might be based. Therefore a definition is not only a

semantic exercise but a base that could help future research move from descriptive to

explanatory. The definitions suggested have evolved with time according to sponsorship

development. It seems that there are three categories of definitions each one belonging to

a decade.

In the early eighties, at the beginning of sponsorship research, sponsorship was

presented as "a provision of assistance", a kind of "financial support" to an activity,

sometimes with commercial objectives sometimes not (Meenaghan 1983). From those

definitions, no differences exist between sponsorship and patronage, philanthropy or









corporate giving. Furthermore, communication objectives were not taken in consideration

in these definitions. By the late eighties and during the nineties definitions of sponsorship

presented the practice as an investment (Gardner and Schumann 1987), a financial act

(Hansen and Scotwin, 1995) and a business transaction (Dolphin 2003). Introducing

financial and business dimension in sponsorship definitions was reflecting "the phasing

out of the donation mentality and its replacement by an economic based partnership"

(Quester and Thompson 2001, p34). This emphasis on "business transaction" made

sponsorship appear as a communication activity often cited as: "a form of advertising

with the same characteristics and principles" (Hastings 1984, pl 71), a marketing tool

with the intent of extracting some commercial benefit (Tripodi, 2001), an important part

of the marketing mix (Meenaghan 1990, Witcher et al, 1991), a form of promotion that

should be managed on strict commercial lines (Tripodi 2001). At this stage of the

sponsorship development, the intended exploitation of the association between a sponsor

and an activity differentiates sponsorship from altruistic corporate donations.

The last category of definitions, developed just few years ago, emphasized on two

elements presented to be the minimum agreed on by scholars about sponsorship. These

two elements have been introduced by Otker as "(1) buying and (2) exploiting an

association with an event, a team or a group for specific marketing purposes" (Otker

1988, p.77). Cornwell and Maignan (1998) and Walliser (2003) afterward presented these

two elements as follow: (1) An exchange between a sponsor and a sponsored whereby the

latter receives fees and the former obtains the right to associate itself with the activity

sponsored; (2) An exploitation of the association between the two at the marketing and

communication level. Often referred as sponsorship linked marketing the implementation









of Marketing Communications to build and communicate a sponsorship association are

an integrate part of sponsorship.

If scholars have reached an agreement on those two points, others still represent a

source of divergence. Some scholars consider that support of human cause is part of the

domain of sponsorship (Gardner and Shuman, 1987), whereas other scholars consider

that financial support of a philanthropic nature should not be part of sponsorship since the

company is making a donation without any expectation in return. They argue that

expectation of commercial returns is what distinguishes sponsorship from patronage,

corporate giving and philanthropy (Witcher et al 1991). The use of marketing

communication tools to leverage an association between a sponsor and a sponsored

activity make the limits between sponsorship and other promotional tools very confusing.

Walliser (2003) note, after a review of the literature, that how sponsorship is different

from other promotional tools may be problematic.

In front of such complexity, some scholars said that it was impossible to reach a

complete agreement and suggested to stop a never ending academic debate on concurrent

definitions of sponsorship (Walliser 2003). For the purpose of this research, sponsorship

will be defined as a marketing technique where a company provides any type of

assistance to an activity and promotes this relationship in order to achieve marketing

objectives. If defined this way, there is a need to clarify how sponsorship fits along other

marketing techniques in the promotional mix.

Sponsorship in the Promotional Mix

Given recent growth in the popularity of sponsorship, scholars describe it as "a

legitimate element of a company's communication mix" alongside other traditional tools

(Tripodi, 2001). Meenaghan (1991) suggest that according to sponsorship function,









which is achieving marketing and communication objectives, sponsorship fits quite

naturally within the broader context of the marketing mix alongside advertising, public

relation, personal selling and sales promotion. Research has focused mainly on how to

distinguish sponsorship from advertising. Comparison with public relation and sales

promotion has been less addressed and comparison with personal selling not addressed at

al.

The distinction between sponsorship and advertising is rendered harder when

advertising is used to promote the relationship between the sponsor and the sponsored

activity. The use of advertising is strongly recommended to obtain unparalleled results

(Walliser 2003). As a marketing communication tool, sponsorship shares some

similarities with advertising in that money is invested for commercial purposes

(Meenaghan 1991). Sponsorship and advertising partly share the same objectives of

awareness and or image, but deliver the message in different ways. Ad messages are

generally more direct, explicit and can be more easily controlled (Dolphin 2003).

Hastings (1984) says that the control marketing has over advertising makes it possible to

promote much more complex messages where the link between the brands and the

message can be explicit. This explicit link between the message and the brand or the

company is not possible in sponsorship, as any message beyond the company's name will

be communicated by implication or implicitly. This subtlety on another other hand can

overcome certain communication barriers and have practically unlimited target selection

possibilities (Meenaghan 2001a, 2001b). Hastings (1984) also suggests that the difference

between sponsorship and advertising lies in the difference of their respective targets. The

author notes that the target of advertising messages can be resumed to viewers and non









viewers, whereas sponsorship's target is composed by participants to the event, spectators

of the event and media followers of the event.

Sponsorship and cause related marketing are two techniques that can be confused.

Cornwell and Maignan (1998) defined the concept of "cause related marketing" as a

donation for a good cause tied with the purchase of a product or a service. A very good

example was suggested by Meenaghan (1991) in the campaign ran by American express

for restoring The Statue of Liberty. Cornwell and Maignan (1998) point out that "cause

related marketing" is different from sponsorship in that cause related marketing appeals

to the solidarity of costumers for a worthy cause to boost sales.

No comparison between sponsorship and public relations exist in literature,

probably because, differentiating between them is an extremely difficult exercise. Both

tools have the same objectives "leveraging corporate or brand image", both can have less

control on the messages they send than advertising and both have a variety of target

groups. May be what distinguish these two tools is the way they proceed to reach their

respective objectives. Indeed, sponsorship uses association with a particular activity, with

its own personality, to send a set of stimulus to the target market. Public relations are

more likely to engage in a two way communication with their target audiences than

sponsorship and will not use a third party to send a set of stimulus.

Globally no major breakthrough has been achieved regarding the differentiation of

sponsorship from other communicational and promotional techniques. Agreement exists

when it comes to the general lines but in some cases it is hard to define the limits

(Walliser 2003).









Objectives of Sponsorship

Although companies use sponsorship routinely as a part of their promotional

activities, their objectives tend to be vague (Dolphin 2003). Sponsors' objectives move

overtime from vague objectives for companies using sponsorship occasionally or as a

new tool, to strictly stated objectives for companies that have integrated sponsorship in

their promotional mix long time ago. Whether clearly stated or not, the objectives of

sponsorship are as numerous as companies themselves. The nature of sponsorship

objectives will vary from organization to organization according to the industry where

they operate, the market they address and the size of the company. Nevertheless the wide

range of sponsorship objectives can be divided into the two categories of corporate and

marketing objectives.

Corporate Objectives of Sponsorship

Leveraging corporate image is the most cited corporate objective in research on

sponsorship. Quoting Javalgi et al, Dolphin (2003) defined corporate image as the

impressions held by some segment of the people on a particular company. One of the

corporate objectives of sponsorship is then to enhance corporate image among some

segment of people (Cornwell and Maignan 1998). Other authors expressed that objective

of image differently: Raising the profile of the corporate brand (Walliser 2003), raising

corporate reputation (Dolphin 2003), or enhancing corporate stature in the community

(Quester and Thompson 2001). Sponsorship activities engaged with the objective of

leveraging corporate image seem to be intended to create an identity and to define the

company in its broad environment.

If sponsorship is used to define an identity with a broad environment, it can be used

also to communicate with closer environment and especially with stakeholders (Dolphin









2003). Stakeholders can be defined as "individuals or groups who can affect, or be

affected by and organization: employees, customers, investors, suppliers, distribution

channel members, the community, the media, special interest and activist groups, and

government agencies" (Duncan 2002, p.7). Indeed, sponsorship is used to create goodwill

among opinion former (Witcher et al 1991), via perceptions of corporate generosity

(Dolphin 2003). Sponsorship is also used to boost community involvement, by fulfilling

company's societal obligation in a responsible manner, which is an excellent mechanism

to give back to the community. Sponsorship helps gaining affinity with target markets

significant to the organization, which publics can be external or internal to the company,

as sponsorship is also used to boost morale's staff (Tripodi 2001) or for staff recruitment

(Cornwell and Maignan 1998).

Beside these corporate objectives, research has mentioned a second set of

objectives but at the marketing level.

Marketing Objectives

Sponsorship has the ability to contribute to the fulfillment of a broad range of

objectives at the corporate level, but also at the brand level. Marketing objectives of

sponsorship are different from corporate ones as they are more clearly stated, generally

quantified and aimed for a narrower target composed by customers and or prospects. As

presented earlier, one characteristic that distinguishes sponsorship from advertising is its

subtlety. Meenaghan (2001a, 2001b) suggests that sponsorship penetrates consumer's

perception filters in an indirect way. Subtlety of sponsorship is an opportunity for

companies to reach consumers through their heart and minds, but a prerequisite is to

enhance brand awareness and brand equity.









Brand awareness can be defined as "The extent of a brand to be recognizable, to be

in the purchase consideration set" (Vanden Bergh and Katz 1999, p. 154). Sponsorship is

intended to facilitate brand name recognition by image association (Easton and Mackie

1998), an association with well received events (Hack et al 1997). Cornwell et al (2001)

consider that the use of association generates awareness naturally. Beside association,

sponsorship also generates awareness through media coverage which is sometimes the

only way to access the media for controversial products ((Meenaghan 1998). Dolphin

(2003) points out that sponsorship of an international event is capable of increasing

awareness to key audiences in both local and distant market for multinationals selling

products around the world.

Brand equity can be defined as "The net total of all assets and liabilities linked to a

brand by consumers" (Vanden Bergh and Katz 1999, p.526). Tripodi (2001) notes that

sponsorship is a brand equity building strategy that enhances brand image over other

brands. Many scholars think that sponsorship is a way to establish a relationship with

customers and/or provide them with entertainment (Dolphin 2003).

At the level of marketing strategy, sponsorship is also used to position a brand on a

market or alter its image (Meenaghan 1998), to avoid cluttered media in a cost effective

way or to boost though its effects are not always easy to isolate (Dolphin 2003, Hansen

and Scotwin 1995). In England, marketing and communication objectives are adopted

mainly by large corporations, whereas small and midsized businesses in small towns

view sponsorship as a tool to support their community and establish relationship

(Cornwell and Maignan 1998).









Objectives of sponsorship are very inconsistent among companies and depend

mainly on how long sponsorship has been used as a marketing tool.

Measuring Sponsorship Effects

Scholars have deplored business resistance to measure the effect of their investment

in sponsorship (Mc Donald 1991). Indeed, during the nineties, little has been done in this

area, probably because of the small part of sponsorship in the overall marketing budget.

As a result, marketers today remain unsure of how sponsorship works despite its rapid

growth (Cornwell et al. 2005). However, under pressure from shareholders, marketers

started seeking accountability in all their expenses, especially their marketing

communications expenditures (Meenaghan 1998). Therefore the last six years have seen a

growing interest among scholars and marketers to quantify sponsorship investment and

measure its effects (Dolphin 2003). Walliser (2003) even suggests that evaluation of

sponsorship impact is without any doubt the area where sponsorship research has

progressed most over the past few years. Before presenting effects of sponsorship, there

is a need to understand the measurement process.

The Measurement Process of Sponsorship Effects

Lardinoit and Quester (2001) think that measuring sponsorship effectiveness is

made difficult by the fact that sponsors have sought to leverage their efforts with

simultaneous investments in supporting communication activities. To understand

sponsorship effects, Dolphin (2003) -quoting Irwin and Asimakopoulos- suggested

taking in consideration the sponsorship process. Sponsorship process includes the

following steps: (1) Review of marketing objectives, (2) prioritization of specific

objectives, (3) identify evaluation criteria, (4) screen proposals, (5) implement and

control. The control step should be done in accordance with all the other steps of the









process especially the marketing objectives that led to the choice of the activity to be

sponsored. Setting objectives and evaluation criteria to any marketing activity from the

outset will make easier the evaluation of this activity. Moreover, Meenaghan (1998)

opines that the measurement process is greatly facilitated if undertaken at several key

stages. Therefore a company should determine its present position on the variables

sponsorship is supposed to leverage before engaging in the sponsorship activity. Interim

tracking may be necessary in order to detect movement on the chosen variables. Finally

evaluation must take place when sponsorship is completed to determine performance

against stated objectives.

Sponsorship Effects

Hansen and Scotwin (1995), suggest that the association between the company or

product and the activity being sponsored is important for the kind of effects that can be

obtained. Effects of sponsorship will vary depending on how close is the association

between the sponsor and the sponsored activity. Effects may be discussed at the

following levels: Exposure, attention, cognition and behavior.

Exposure

The level of media coverage as a result of sponsorship involvement is frequently

used by sponsors as an indicator of performance. Such evaluation consists of measuring

the duration of TV coverage, monitored radio coverage and extend of press coverage in

terms of single column inches. However this measure alone does not evaluate

effectiveness of exposure gained as it can be compared to the level of advertising time or

space bought to air an ad not to its impact (Meenaghan 1991). This raises a question on

the popularity of this measure to evaluate sponsorship effectiveness. Hastings (1984)

suggests that because sponsorship is seen as a form of advertising, exposure and media









coverage comes naturally in mind to measure its effectiveness. Meenaghan (1998) think

that sponsorship has become the main promotional tool for controversial products and

their only key to access the media. Therefore quite naturally media coverage and

exposure will represent an important effect to measure sponsorship effectiveness, if not

the most important. Meenaghan (1991) justify the wide use of this method to measure

sponsorship effectiveness by its simplicity and practicability despite its lack of

consistency.

Attention

Sponsorship, as well as advertising can generate attention in terms of brand and

company awareness. This must be measured in terms of recall or recognition and changes

in the same (Hansen and Scotwin 1995). A large majority of studies measuring effects of

sponsorship have chosen awareness as an independent variable. These studies have

focused either on general awareness of sponsor in the public's mind or awareness levels

of sponsorship associated with specific events and activities (Meenaghan 1998, Walliser

2003). Their findings suggest that awareness and recall are influenced by a large number

of factors that can be summed up as follow:

Pairing sponsorship with other marketing communications tools like media

sponsorship (Lardinoit and Quester 2001) or advertising (Quester and Thompson 2001)

yield increased communications score. Some scholars even consider sponsorship as

ineffective without "sponsorship linked marketing" as defined earlier (Walliser 2003).

Recall has been found to increase as a function of duration of exposure to sponsors,

message length and design, involvement with the sponsored activity, socio demographic

variables and previous brand awareness (Crimmins and Horn 1997, Meenaghan 2001 la,

2001b). As an example for duration of exposure, research has shown that brand recall









increases from a basic level during an event and fall back again into its original level a

few week after the event.

Attitude

Research has outlined attitude toward sponsorship as practice in general besides

attitude toward a specific sponsorship activity.

Attitudes toward sponsorship: Walliser (2003) notes that acceptance of sponsorship

will vary according to the sponsorship area, the activity sponsored and the industry. It is

believed that sponsors are more easily accepted in association with sporting event than

with arts and social causes. When it comes to social causes, sponsors are accepted more

easily if people believe them to have genuine interest in the issue (Meenaghan 1999,

200 l1a, 200 1b). In a survey conducted by Marshall (1992), results showed that

sponsorship is considered to be done for commercial purposes by 70% of respondents,

but that sponsors are considered as good corporate citizens who are giving back while

advertising their name. However public opinion varies from country to country as 29% of

the Spanish have improved opinion about sponsors in comparison with only 9% of

French. This means that, according to the country, sponsorship perception as a practice

will be less likely to positively influence consumer perception than a specific sponsorship

(Walliser 2003).

Attitudes toward specific sponsorship: On that question, literature suggest that a

good symbiosis between the sponsor and the activity will have a positive effect on the

sponsor's image a weak link between the two might affect it negatively. Image transfer

was found to be influenced by two factors: (1) the number of common perceptions of the

sponsor and the activity and (2) the attitude toward the association of the sponsor and the









activity. Here again image effects are shown to be only temporary and depend greatly on

the marketing communications associated with sponsorship (Crimmins and Horn 1996).

Behavior

Research has also considered consumer behavior or purchase as a dependant

variable of sponsorship. Sales effectiveness is highly problematic to measure because of

the following reasons: Simultaneous use of variety of communications, carry over effect

of previous marketing communications, uncontrollable variables in the business

environment (Cornwell and Maignan 1998, Walliser 2003). Even if sponsorship effect on

sales is difficult to isolate, some marketers point to sales results as sponsorship effects. At

another level, research has shown that respondents to surveys declare themselves more

likely to buy sponsor products, declarations which were strongly correlated with

frequency of attendance to the event and level of education. However, this intentions are

not observed as a real behavior, as sponsoring companies do not have necessarily higher

sales.

Studies of sponsorship effectiveness have yielded inconsistent results because of

methodological weaknesses and lack of control (Cornwell and Maignan 1998). Mc

Donald (1991) recommends using more accurate measures of sponsorship attitude effects

by creating scales that measures concepts like friendliness, goodness and closeness to

community. These measures would be more likely to appreciate sponsorship's perception

among a larger population than sponsor's customers only.

Theoretical Framework of Sponsorship:

Much of the research conducted on sponsorship was empirically driven and shows

a serious lack of theory development (Cornwell and Maignan 1998). Actually, scholars

have posited some theoretical processes, but none of them did a direct investigation of a









process per se (Cornwell 2005). As a result, there is a large battery of possible

frameworks, but no certitude on how individuals process sponsorship information

(Cornwell and Maignan 1998). An understanding of how sponsorship stimulus is

processed by fans and consumers in general will help identify the variables that have an

impact on consumers' response. Great attention will be accorded to these variables in any

sponsorship implementation to insure its success.

Frameworks Based on Low Processing

Generally sponsorship messages are limited to brand or company names and this

may cause mere exposure effect (Hansen and Scottwin 1995). Mere exposure theory

suggests that repeated exposure to a stimulus can engender familiarity, which, through a

low involvement processing, can turns to liking and preference (Hoyer and Mclnnis 2003

p. 159). Cornwell (2005) considers that the mere exposure model might play an important

role in sponsorship processing since most of the sponsorship stimuli rely on peripheral

cues. Crimmins and Horn considered that sponsorship was making consumers use their

"elementary human calculus a process as unconscious as digestion" (Crimmins and Horn

1996, p. 12). The calculus was first described by Heider in 1946 when he introduced the

balance theory. Balance theory argues that individuals continually seek to put their

beliefs in balance. Thus, when a highly valued object is linked with a lowly valued one,

consumer will have to lower the value of one or raise the value of the other to keep their

belief in balance. In terms of sponsorship, consumers will tend to raise the value of the

sponsor if it is linked to an activity valuable to them (Cornwell 2005).

Frameworks Based on High Processing

Other research explored sponsorship theoretical frameworks from a high

processing perspective. This category of research considered that congruence or matching









between the sponsor and the event or activity was enhancing storage in memory and

retrieval of information (Cornwell 2005). Congruence theory suggests that the storage in

memory and retrieval of information are influenced by prior expectations. Therefore

people best remember information that is congruent with prior expectations (Cornwell

and Maignan 1998). In other words, consumer will be more likely to store and remember

information influenced by similarity or relatedness, such as a running event sponsored by

a running shoe. Another category of scholars go beyond simple pairing of event and

sponsor from a functional perspective, running event and shoes, by advocating a pairing

in terms of images. Unrelated sponsor and event, Oil Company and the Olympic Games,

can be paired if both are portrayed as striving for excellence. Referred to as Articulation

theory, research in this area considers the overlap in existing images and meanings

between sponsor and event (Cornwell 2005). A similar approach considering image

effects is the meaning transfer theory developed my McCracken (1989). Originally

developed to understand the effect of celebrity endorsements, this theory posits that the

event's attributes transfer to the sponsor through the sponsorship process. Many examples

were cited in the literature to explain how transfer theory applies to sponsorship. IVECO

trucks were perceived in the U.S. market as weak European vehicles. Through their

sponsorship of heavyweight boxing, the company was able to change the image of its

trucks to strong vehicles by associating with a macho activity. Similarly, Gillette the

American company became less American in the British consumers' mind with its

involvement with cricket (Meenaghan 1991).









Hansen and Scotwin (1995) suggest that all possible theoretical formulations do not

necessarily rule out but, rather complement each other in an attempt to understand how

sponsorship works. A thought also share by Comwell (2005).

Leveraging a Sponsorship

Sponsorship was presented earlier to be a composition of two elements, 1) buying

and 2) exploiting an association with an event, team, group etc (Cornwell and Maignan

1998, Meenaghan 1991, Otter 1988 Walliser 2003). This second element of the

definition, "exploiting a sponsorship association", has been used by scholars under

different appellations: exploitation, sponsorship linked marketing and leverage. Otker

(1998) defined the exploitation of a sponsorship association as "the potentiation of a

sponsorship relation by using other marketing and communication activities". Comwell

et al (2001) described sponsorship linked marketing as "the orchestration and

implementation of marketing activities for the purpose of building and communicating an

association to a sponsorship", and presented "leverage" as the use of advertising and

promotion to support the sponsorship. Comwell et al (2005) have also used the

appellation collateral communication to refer to activate or leverage a sponsorship

relation between a brand and a property. For the purpose of this study the appellation

exploitation of sponsorship will be avoided as the word exploitation carries a negative

connotation of abuse. This study is trying to find optimal levels of "exploitation" and so

the appellation "leverage" will be used in stead. Meenaghan (1991, p.43) defined

leverage as "the additional effort, largely promotional, which must be invested by the

sponsor in order to properly exploit the opportunity exploit the opportunity provided".

Literature revealed a shared belief that leverage plays an important role in the

performances of sponsorship programs (Cornwell et al 2005, Crimmins and Horn 1996,









Kinney and Mc Daniel 1996, Lardinoit and Quester 2001, Meenaghan 1998, Otker 1988).

Cornwell and Maignan even consider even that "the marketing communication value of

sponsorship is null unless the sponsor actively promotes the relationship established with

the organizer of a special event or activity" (Cornwell and Maignan 1998, p. 11). The

present section will try to answer why leverage plays such an important role in the

success of a sponsorship program, how to leverage a sponsorship relation according to

existing literature and the areas not yet covered by this latter. From that point the chapter

will introduce the research question of this study.

Why Leverage a Sponsorship Relation?

For the purpose of this study we defined sponsorship as a marketing tool used to

achieve marketing objectives either at the corporate or the brand level. Therefore, as any

other marketing tool, sponsorship should 1) reach consumers, 2) impact the target market

3) while considering the environment.

Reach of consumers

From a rational marketing perspective, sponsorship can only be justified by

amortizing the costs of sponsorship rights across the expected impact on a large number

of consumers (Crimmins and Horn 1996). After analyzing 87 sponsorships in selected

industries, Javalgi et al found that primary objectives of sponsor were consumer

objectives. The main reason presented by managers was: "A sponsorship worth a million

of dollars primarily because it can have an impact on millions of consumers" (Crimmins

and Horn 1996, p. 11). However, most sponsorship contracts include no more than two

boards around a soccer stadium, the name of a company at the feet of a poster and a VIP

party and Otker (1988) points out that it is hardly realistic to expect such elements of

sponsorship to have an influence on awareness or image of a company. Brands fail to link









their name to the sponsored event or organization because they do not commit their own

marketing dollars to communicate the link (Crimmins and Horn 1996). Therefore the first

reason to leverage a sponsorship seems to be forging a link between the sponsor and the

sponsored activity in consumer's mind to make him aware of the sponsorship relation.

Scholars consider that one of the elements that contribute the most to sponsorship success

is visibility of the sponsor (Otker 1988, Stipp and Schiavone 1996) as it makes an

association better known to the target group (Otker 1988). A brand should then take

responsibility for communicating about its sponsorship to consumers and if the brand

cannot afford that, then the bran cannot afford sponsorship at all (Crimmins and Horn

1996). Stipp and Schiavone (1996) even say that sponsorship is an investment that

requires an investment.

Impacting the target market

Mere exposure to a brand may create awareness, but awareness alone may not

capture a unique position in consumer's minds (Cornwell et al 2005). Otker (1988) insists

that recall or awareness of stadium boards are not in any way an objective of sponsorship.

Measuring visibility/awareness will then leave the question of message about the brand

and its impact on consumer unanswered: "Is being seen in an arena communicate a

message about a brand different than being seen in the side of building somewhere"

(Crimmins and Horn 1996, p. 12). Further sponsorship does not carry with it a

meaningful communication component (Cornwell et al 2001). The poor content of the

sponsorship message combined with a lack of control leave consumers to draw their own

conclusions from a logo appearing on a poster or in an arena (Meenaghan 2001).

Therefore, leveraging a sponsorship is undoubtedly a way to increase visibility, but it

represents also a way to have some control over the message the sponsor wants to send









by connecting his brand to an event or organization. More control over the messages

would improve clarity of the message, strengthen memory links and facilitate affect

transfer:

Crimmins and Horn (1996) insist that sponsors who were able to translate

recognition of their sponsorship into improved brand perceptions were those who made

the conclusion to be drawn from the sponsorship very clear to their target in the message

of their sponsorship leverage. Cornwell et al (2005) suggests that the nature of leveraging

activities is central to the communication effects achieved by sponsorship as creative

leverage can not only establish a link between the sponsor and the activity in consumer's

mind, but also create stronger trace in memory. Thus an effective leverage drain the

activity values onto the brand (Meenaghan 1999), resulting in a positive affect transfer

from the event to the sponsoring brand (Kinney and McDaniel 1996), a sort of "halo

effect" that benefits the sponsor insofar as the initial attitudes to the event were favorable

(Stipp and Schiavone 1996).

Considering the environment

Similarly to media advertising, sponsorship has become a cluttered and

competitive promotional vehicle (Kinney and McDaniel 1996). Therefore, leveraging a

sponsorship is not only important to its overall effectiveness but also a way to reduce

confusion that arises from clutter (Cornwell et al, 2000) and block ambushers

(Meenaghan 1996).

Clutter. The term clutter was originally coined to reflect the crowding of

commercials allowed in a commercial break. The application of this concept to an event

spectator experience is appropriate both in stadiums and for the televised audience.









Sufficient visibility has proven to be necessary to reduce negative effects of clutter on

individuals' recall and recognition of sponsorship stimuli (Cornwell et al 2005).

Ambush marketing. The concept of ambush marketing is defined in literature as a

"planned campaign by an organization to associate itself indirectly with an event in order

to gain at least some of the recognition and benefit that are associated with being an

official sponsor" (Sandler and Shani 1989, p.9). By engaging in promotions and

advertising, that associate their names indirectly with the event, ambushers confuse the

buying public as to which company really holds sponsorship rights. Ambushers then

fulfill: Brand awareness and brand image which are objectives available only to sponsors;

generate goodwill which is consumers' natural reaction to support for an activity they are

involved with; and lessen considerably sponsors' benefits (Meenaghan 1996, Sandler and

Shani 1989). Meenaghan distinguishes three types of ambush strategies; sponsorship of

the broadcast of the event, sponsorship of subcategories within the event (such as specific

team), or development of specific promotion that coincide with the event. As companies'

environment grows more and more competitive, marketers will use any opportunity that

can help them take a lead (Kotler 1997). This idea is clearly stated in the following

citation from Jerry C. Welsh former head of worldwide marketing at American Express:

"There is a weak minded view that competitors have a moral obligation to step back and

allow an official sponsor to reap all the benefits from a special event. They have not only

the right but an obligation to shareholders to take advantage of such events" (Meenaghan

1996, p. 109). Official sponsors have to expect actions from their competitors and take

appropriate strategies accordingly whenever they engage in a sponsorship relation.

Research interest is split almost evenly between sponsorship strategies and counter









strategies (ambushing) (Walliser 2003), which gives an idea on the importance of the

question. Ambushing is a natural reaction in a competitive market, a reaction familiar to

experienced and expert sponsors. Therefore it is their responsibility to come through loud

and clear to say they are sponsors as there is considerable research to support the belief

that proper sponsorship exploitation minimizes the effects of ambushing (Meenaghan

1996). Therefore to achieve any benefit from being a sponsor it is necessary for a

company to heavily advertise the fact that they are official sponsors. Buying the right to

be an official sponsors is only a license to spend more money (Sandler and Shani 1989).

How to Leverage a Sponsorship?

Current research has provided with information on the weight of leverage, the

nature of leverage, the timing of leverage, the message content, and the scale of leverage.

The weight of leverage

The industry norm in order to ensure adequate exploitation of a sponsorship is to

match dollar for dollar the leveraging expenditures with the cost of sponsorship property

rights (Kinney and McDaniel 1996, Meenaghan 1991, 1996, 1998). However this

commonly agreed on norm has never been supported by any empirical evidence. It was

only in 2001 that Quester and Thompson provided evidence to support this norm. The

authors compared how three different companies of the same sponsorship opportunity

achieved their objectives to a various extent depending on the weight of their leveraging

investment. The company that leveraged its initial investment by a corollary budget was

able to achieve more both in awareness and image change than the companies who

invested less than their initial investment (Quester and Thompson 2001).









The message

Leveraging a sponsorship is necessary to create awareness of the sponsorship, and

to have some sort of control over the content of the message instead of a mere exposure

to the sponsor's logo. Crimmins and Horn (1996) think that to translate recognition of

sponsorship into improved brand perceptions, sponsors need to make the meaning of the

sponsorship clear. In other words, the message carried by sponsorship leverage should

emphasize the conclusion that the target market has to draw. Consumer will not work to

understand what the sponsor is trying to tell them, they should be told how to interpret

the connection between the brand and the activity. This effort is necessary even if the link

between the sponsor and the activity is clear and especially if it is not.

Duration of leverage

The perceptions created by a controlled message of sponsorship leverage are

perishable. No matter how strong these perceptions can be, if not supported and defended

over time they will fade (Crimmins and Horn, 1998). The period for potential impact is

far larger than the period immediately surrounding an event as fans are impressed by

sponsors long before the event. Thus many contemporary event marketers leverage their

sponsorship investment before during and after an event (Kinney and McDaniel 1996).

Crimmins and Horn (1998) recommend extending the duration of sponsorship leverage as

much as possible to avoid wasting any potential opportunity to make an impact on the

target market.

Leveraging sponsorship at the right scale

Sponsorship without leverage is nearly always suboptimal but leverage must be

done at the right scale, not too little and not too much (Otker, 1988). Leveraging at the

right scale is a concept that includes the weight of leverage and salience of the sponsor.









Salience can be defined as the characteristic of an element that stands out from the larger

context in which it is placed because it is bright, big, complex, moving or prominent in its

environment (Hoyer & Mclnnis 2003, p188). Meenaghan (2001a, 2001b) notes that

consumers are sensitive to the potential for sponsor abuse. They consider that the

sponsored activity does not provide the sponsor with an unfettered opportunity for

publicity. Consumers in general and those highly involved with the sponsored activity in

particular are very likely to develop negative attitudes toward the sponsors in case of

excessive leverage, resulting in a lessened Sponsor's goodwill/gratitude. Moreover,

consumers' tolerance to leverage varies considerably according to the nature of the

sponsored activity. While sport and mass arts permit the greatest level of leverage

without giving offense, social and environmental causes are only capable of limited

exploitation without causing consumer anxiety and reactance (Meenaghan, 1999, 2001 a,

2001b). Thus, in pursuing image benefits, managers need to carefully select the activity

and be aware that the manner with which they leverage their sponsorship will have image

consequences and will determine sponsorship effectiveness (Meenaghan 1999).

Limits of Literature on Sponsorship Leverage

Scholars highly recommend leveraging a sponsorship to increase its chances of

success. Surprisingly, this area of sponsorship management received very little attention.

An analysis of literature limits in this area will provide a base to introduce the research

question of this work. Concerning the weight of leverage, Quester and Thompson (2001)

provided evidence of a positive relationship between the weight of leverage and

sponsorship effectiveness. However, the authors did not estimate the ratio that would

optimize the sponsorship investment. Does a larger leveraging amount would be more

effective, or is there a wear out effect that occurs from a certain weight (Quester and









Thompson, 2001)? Sponsors spend sometimes three to for times their initial investment

to leverage a sponsorship and literature did not provide any evidence on the optimal

weight of sponsorship leverage. Considering the growing trend of rationalizing marketing

expenses this question should have received more attention. The nature of activities to be

implemented to leverage a sponsorship is also an area where literature is inexistent.

Scholars do think that sponsorship leverage can be achieved through a variety of

marketing communication tools like advertising, sweepstakes, venue signage and on site

sampling (Comwell 2005, Kinney & McDaniel 1996, Lardinoit and Quester 2001), and

that these communications tools should be integrated into to the existing marketing

communication plan (Otker 1988). However, except Lardinoit and Quester (2001) who

analyzed the interaction effects of on site boards with television spots, literature is

inexistent on the respective contribution of each marketing communication tool and their

interaction on the effectiveness of sponsorship leverage. Finally, the execution of

advertising messages did not receive any attention as a research question. Elements such

as the source of the message, salience of the sponsor and the sponsored activity have not

been investigated at all from a sponsorship perspective. This research project seeks to

analyze some considerations in the execution of advertisements leveraging a sponsorship

relation.

Hypothesis Development

Using Lasswell's communication model, Stem (1994) suggested a model specific

to advertising by stating its components in marketing terms. Sender, message and source

were transformed to sponsor, advertisement and consumers (sponsor must be understood

as sponsor of the message not sponsor of an activity). More than a semantic exercise the

components in Stem's model are multidimensional constructs able to "capture the









interactivity of communicative intercourse between advertisers and consumers" (Stern

1994, p.5). In this model, the sponsor is composed by the advertiser (the company paying

for the advertisement), the author (the copywriter in the creative team) and the persona

(the communicator within the advertisement). The message was defined as a discourse

that can take three different forms derived from drama research: autobiography,

narration, and lecture. Finally, consumers were defined as a construct of implied

consumer, sponsorial consumer and actual consumer.


SAdvertiser




SAdvertisement




Consumer


Figure 2-1. Stern's advertising model of communication

The source has received great attention in advertising research. Source credibility

and source identification were found to be crucial elements in the persuasion process

(Wilson and Sherell 1993). A source was considered credible when her statements are

considered valid and truthful and thus worthy of consideration. Identification with the

source is more likely to occur if recipients consider the source similar or likeable

(attractive). Unfortunately, copy research did not extend its investigations to sponsorship

leveraging advertisements which context is really different from the one of traditional

advertisements. Meenaghan (2001) even suggests a different model of communication

including the sponsored activity as an element as an integral part in the process, sending









and receiving stimulus. Based on Meenaghan's model we suggest the following model of

communication for sponsorship:



Benefit


Sponsor Association Activity


\ Goodwill Involvement /


Advertisement / Events

~Fan



-- Meenaghan original stimulus
-- Stimulus added for this study

Figure 2-2. Meenaghan's sponsorship model

Literature has shown that sponsors achieve image objectives by associating their

corporate/product brand name with an activity. These objectives are more likely to be

achieved if the sponsor communicates to consumers the conclusions they need to draw

from the sponsorship relation. However, "Copy can be the voice of the advertiser,

boasting about its merits in bald, or copy can be the voice of a friend, a trusted adviser"

(Burton 1999). A not-for-profit spokesperson was proven to be more persuasive in

addressing consumers (source). Its credibility was, however, diminished when perceived

as with financial motivation (Wiener and Mowen, 1986). Stern (1993) suggests that a

spokesperson, even a celebrity, is a crafted "Persona" to convey a certain a number of

values in an advertisement to persuade consumers. The real person is always different

from the persona he/she plays in the advertisement. The risks that the spokesperson might

be different in real life than in advertising or that he/she could be financially motivated









do not exist with the sponsored activity as a message source. As Meenaghan's model

shows, the activity is an integral part of the communication model. Copy writers will not

have to craft it any differently to make it meaningful to the advertising message since it

already possesses meanings that attract fans and that the sponsor is interested to transfer

to the corporate/product brand image. Further, the activity had received a sort of support

(financial or other) but it had delivered to the sponsor association rights and to the fans

one or a series of events. The spokesperson in an advertisement does not deliver anything

to the consumers as a real person. Therefore, the first hypothesis of this study is:

HI: In sponsorship advertising, the sponsored activity as a source of the message
will generate more positive attitudes than the sponsor as a source of the message.


The message in an advertisement leveraging a sponsorship relation should make

clear statements about the conclusions consumers should make from the sponsorship

relation (Crimmins and Horn, 1996). But to make the message effective, the creative staff

needs to choose the right way to present their argument as the way a message is shaped

can have consequences on the effects of the content of message. From narratology theory

and techniques of story telling Stern (1991) identified three forms of presenters the first

person narrator, the third person narrator and the absent narrator each one with a

particular effect on the message. The first person narrator gives a story about himself

(autobiography). Using an "emotional appeal", this type of presenter "expresses personal

values feelings and attitudes." His use of "I" or "We" creates intimacy and establishes

personal relationship with the audience. Considered a credible presenter, he is seen as

revealing the company's soul rather trying to persuade. The use of "We" can even

generate greater consumer attitude since it can be seen a bond between the company as a

whole (workers, executives etc) and society at large (not only consumers). His









weaknesses are that he can appear as concentrating on himself lacking knowledge about

the others, which might get boring. The third person narrator gives a story about someone

else calling characters by their names or he/she/it (narration). Different from the first

person narrator, the third person narrator gives factual information about products,

companies or users not himself. His opinion is considered trustful since he is not

personally involved in the story. One of his weaknesses is that he might be too

knowledgeable for an outsider not really involved in the story. Finally, the absent

presenter is a narration mode where characters interact with each others without any one

to present them. The message is conveyed through a dialogue between the characters

(drama). This narration form can make consumers assimilate to the characters and their

situation. However, when it does not succeed, consumers might end up confused, unable

to draw conclusions about the advertising message. Since sponsorship's objective is to

associate one company's or product name with an activity with which consumers have

emotional bounds, it seems that using an emotional appeal will generate a better attitude

toward the message and the brand than a factual appeal. Therefore, the second hypothesis

of this study is:

H2: In sponsorship advertisement a first person narration mode will generate more
positive attitudes than a third person narration mode.

Unfortunately, the absent narrator will not be considered in this study given the

difficulty to find and manipulate an advertisement leveraging a sponsorship relation by

featuring an interaction between two or more characters.

If McCracken's mean transfer theory is applied to sponsorship, it might be seen as

a way to translate an emotional relationship between fans and an activity to a similar

relationship between fans and a corporate/product brand name. The concept of fan









involvement was defined as "the extent to which consumers identify with, and are

motivated by, their engagement and affiliation with particular leisure activities. Fan

involvement can help to explain the very different reactions of consumers to individual

sponsorships as compared to advertisements" (Meenaghan 2001a, 2001b). Given the

strong interest fans have about their leisure activity, it can be assumed their attitudes

toward a message about message related to their activity will be much more improved

than non fans of that activity. The third hypothesis of this study will be:

H3: Sponsorship advertising will generate more positive attitudes toward the
sponsorship, attitudes toward the ad and attitudes the brand among consumers that
are highly involved with the sponsored activity (fans) than consumers that are not
involved with the sponsored activity (non fans).

Meenaghan (2001a, 2001b) insists that promoting a sponsorship relation needs

careful attention since consumers that are highly involved with the sponsored activity, are

sensitive to any sponsor abuse. If consumers highly involved with the sponsored activity

consider the sponsorship as beneficial the sponsor will be rewarded with goodwill, and if

they consider the sponsorship to be overexploiting they will sanction the sponsors with

negative attitudes. Given the emotional relationship between the highly involved

consumers and the sponsored activity, the source and narration mode might have a

different effects on them than consumers non involved with the sponsored activity.

H4: Consumers that are highly involved with the sponsored activity will
develop more positive attitudes than consumers that are not involved with
the sponsored activity if the sponsored activity is the source of the sponsorship
advertising.

H5: Consumers that are highly involved with the sponsored activity will
develop more positive attitudes than consumers who are not involved with
the sponsored activity if sponsorship advertising uses a first person narration
mode.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

To answer the research questions stated earlier, an experimental was conducted.

Using a 2x2x2 factorial design (Sponsor/Sponsored activity as source, First/Third person

narration mode and High/Low involvement the sponsored activity) the experiment

evaluates consumers' attitudes toward the sponsorship relation, the sponsorship

advertising and the sponsor

Measurements

Independent Variables

Source in the print ad

Sponsor

Sponsored activity

Narration mode

First person narrator

Third person narrator

Involvement with the sponsored activity

(Measured within group difference)

High

Low

Involvement was measured using the enduring involvement scale developed by

Zaichkowski (1985) commonly referred to as "Personal Involvement Inventory". The

original scale counts 20 items measured on 7 seven points, but Lichenstein and










colleagues (1988) used only 11 of them. These same 11 even items were used in this


study.

Table 3-1. Enduring involvement


Personal inventory involvement


Name of object


Important

Of no concern

Irrelevant

Means a lot
to me

Valuable

Beneficial

Matters
to me

Boring

Unexciting

Appealing

Essential


3 4 5

3 4 5

3 4 5


Unimportant

Of concern to me

Relevant

Means nothing
to me

Worthless

Not beneficial

Doesn't matter
to me

Interesting

Exciting

Unappealing

Nonessential


Dependant Variables

Attitude toward the sponsorship.

Attitude toward the ad.

Attitude toward the sponsors.

Attitude toward the sponsorship

Attitude toward the sponsorship was measured using a scale measuring attitude

toward the act developed by Maheswaran and Meyers Levy (1990). The 7 point scale is


composed by 4 items including statements and bipolar adjectives.










Table 3-2. Attitude toward the act


We are interested in your attitudes about the information provided to you and about
For each of the following questions, please indicate how you feel by circling the one number on each of these
scales that best represents the way you feel about it.

1. How useful do you feel it would be to take a ..........?


Not at all useful 1


2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely useful


2. Would you say your overall opinion about the......... is?


Extremely unfavorable 1


2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable


3. Would you say the..............is:


An extremely
bad idea


An extremely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 good idea


4. Would say that regularly taking the.......... is:


Means a lot to me


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Means nothing to me


Attitude toward the sponsorship message

Attitude toward the ad was measured using a 14 item, Likert like 5 point scale.

Table 3-3. Attitude toward the ad

Please tell us how well you think each of the words listed below describes the ad you have just seen by
putting a number to the right of the word. Here we are intere'0of1 ~... tihn.. ht h ,,, t io, o,, nt thi brand
or product class. If you think the word describes the ad extrn 8. Ridiculous y well,
put a three; not very well, put a 2; not at all well, put a 1. 9. Terrible
10. Valuable
1. Believeable 11. Worth remembering
2. For me 12. Liked the ad
3. Informative 13. Enjoyed the ad
4. Interesting 14. Found ad to be good
5. Irritating
6. Meaningful to me
7. Phony



Attitude toward the sponsor

Attitude toward the brand was measured using a 7 points scale composed by 9


bipolar items. The scale was developed by La Tour and Rotfeld in 1997.









Table 3-4. Attitude toward the brand


No, definitely not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yes, definitely



1. High quality 6. Desirable
2. Unsatisfactory 7. Good
3. Appealing 8. Useful
4. Inferior 9. Distinctive
5. Interesting


Pre Test

To determine the sponsor and the activity that was used in the treatment stimuli a

pre-test was conducted to evaluate:

Perceptions of three potential sponsors.

Involvement with three sport activities.

Using the measurements described earlier, a sample of college students (n=64)

were asked about their perceptions of three brands: Adidas, McDonald's and Gillette, and

about their personal involvement with three sports: Soccer, Football and Basketball.

Results have shown that attitudes toward McDonald's and involvement with Soccer

presented a more normal distribution of cases across variables' values. Indeed, Adidas

and Gillette had strong positive image among a majority of cases and Football and Soccer

had either cases that were strongly involved or cases not involved at all.

Table 3-5. Pre test results for brands
Adidas McDonald's Gillette
Mean 5.40 4.23 5.32
Standard Deviation 0.86 1.09 0.87
N 64 64 64










Table 3.6: Pre test results for sports
Soccer Football Basketball
Mean 3.43 4.70 5.04
Standard Deviation 1.57 1.54 1.37
N 64 64 64


Development of Stimuli

Based on the pre test results, McDonald's was retained as a sponsor and Soccer as a

sponsored activity. Four colored print ads were then developed featuring a sponsorship

relation between McDonald's and the Federation International of Football Association

(FIFA) for the Soccer World Cup in Germany this summer. The four ads were having the

following specificities:

First print advertisement: McDonald's is the source of the message using a first

person narration mode through its president Michael Roberts (Appendix 2).

Second print advertisement: FIFA is the source of the message using a first person

narration mode through its president Joseph Blatter (Appendix 3).

Third print advertisement: McDonald's is the source using a third person narration

(Appendix 4).

Fourth print advertisement: FIFA is the sponsor using a third person narration

mode.

Experimental Procedure

A booklet was produced containing one type of the four colored print

advertisements presented earlier along with two other actual print advertisements. One of

them for Kool, a tobacco brand, was run by the magazine Sports Illustrated and the

second for L'Oreal was run by the magazine Vogue. The booklet was organized as

follow: (1) Informed consent, (2) Global presentation of the study's objectives









(3)Presentation of one print advertisement, (4) Identification of the brand,

(5)Identification of the medium where the print advertisement was taken from. The

presentation for the McDonald's print advertisements pretended that the ad was run by

the magazine Sports Illustrated.

Questions about the print advertisement, 2 pages of questions for each print

advertisement. The questions for the three print advertisements where made as much

similar as possible.

Print advertisement 2 and questions.

Print advertisement 3 and questions.

The order of the three print advertisements and the nature of each treatment were

randomly determined for each booklet.

Participants

A total of 229 college students where asked to participate in the study for extra

credits. Students were told that the study is about perceptions of advertising in general

with no other specification. They were then handed the booklets and asked to read the

instructions, look at the advertisements and answer the questions on class. Students had

all the time necessary to complete the questions with the possibility to go back to the

advertisements if considered necessary. The involvement with soccer mean score for all

respondents was (m=3.59). Respondents with a mean score larger than (m=3.59) were

classified as high involvement consumers. Respondents with mean score smaller than

(m=3.59) were classified as low involvement consumers.










Table 3-7. Sample size

Level of Involvement
Narration mode Source High Low Total
Involvement Involvement
First person Sponsor 31 22 108
Activity 25 35
Third person Sponsor 29 26 115
Activity 28 27
Total 113 110 223
















CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

A multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to identify the effects

of source, narration mode and involvement on the three constructs that measure attitude.

MANOVA is usually used to analyze the effects of many categorical independent

variables on many interrelated continuously measured variables.




* HI: In sponsorship advertising, the sponsored activity as a source of the message
will generate more positive attitudes than the sponsor as a source of the message.


Table 4-1. Main effect of source.
Dependent Sum of
Variables squares


Mean square


Attitude toward
Attitude toward 3.61 1 3.61 2.13 0.14
the sponsorship
Attitude toward
th tisee t1.59 1 1.59 2.65 0.11
the advertisement
Attitude toward
Attitude toward 0.98 1 0.98 0.64 0.42
the sponsor


Table 4-2. Means by type of source.
Dependent Source Mean Standard Deviation N
Variables
Attitude toward Sponsor 4.97 0.54 104
the sponsorship Activity 4.73 0.66 114
Total 4.85 0.61 218
Attitude toward Sponsor 3.32 0.76 104
the advertisement Activity 3.16 0.79 114
Total 3.24 0.78 218
Attitude toward Sponsor 4.16 1.27 104
Activity 4.28 1.22 114
the sponsor Total 4.23 1.24 218


Wilks' Lambda=.98, F=1.8, Hypothesis df=3, Error df=208,000, Sig=.15










Differences in means are not statistically significant which make it impossible to

conclude that the message source had any effect on all three types of attitudes. Thus, HI

was not supported.




H2: In sponsorship advertisement a first person narration mode will generate more
positive attitudes than a third person narration mode.

Table 4-3. Main effect of narration mode.
Dependent Sum of
Dependent Sum Df Mean square F Sig.
Variables squares
Attitude toward
Attitude toward 8.19 1 8.19 4.83* 0.03
the sponsorship
Attitude toward
theavro n 2.14 1 2.14 3.57 0.06
the advertisement
Attitude toward
Attitude toward 8.48 1 8.48 5.57* 0.02
the sponsor
*p<0.05

Table 4-4. Means by narration mode.
Dependent Source Mean Standard Deviation N
Variables
Attitude toward First person 5.04 1.18 110
the sponsorship Third person 4.66 1.20 108
Total 4.85 1.31 218
Attitude toward First person 3.33 0.72 110
Third person 3.14 0.82 108
the advertisement
Total 3.24 0.78 218
Attitude toward First person 4.42 1.24 110
the sponsor Third person 4.03 1.22 108
the sponsor Total 4.23 1.24 218

Wilks' Lambda=.97, F=2.52, Hypothesis df=3, Error df=208,000, Sig=.06



The first person narration mode generates better attitudes toward the sponsorship

and attitudes toward the sponsor than the third person narration mode with respective

means of (m=5.04 compared to m=4.66) and (m=4.42 compared to 4.03). Means for

attitude toward the sponsorship and attitude toward the sponsor are statistically

significant at a 95% confidence level. Mean differences for attitude toward the

advertisement were not statistically significant. H2 was partially supported.










H3: Sponsorship advertising will generate more positive attitudes among
consumers that are highly involved with the sponsored activity (fans) than
consumers that are not involved with the sponsored activity (non fans).

Table 4-5. Main effect of involvement.
Dependent Sum of
Dependent Sum of Df Mean square F Sig.
Variables squares
Attitude toward
Attitude toward 1.33 1 1.33 0.79 0.38
the sponsorship
Attitude toward
Attitudetowards 0.10 1 0.10 0.17 0.68
the advertisement
Attitude toward
Attitude toward 1.40 1 1.40 0.92 0.34
the sponsor


Table 4-6. Means by level of involvement.
Dependent Source Mean Standard Deviation N
Variables
Attitude toward Low involvement 4.77 1.18 110
the sponsorship High involvement 4.92 1.43 108
Total 4.85 1.31 218
Attitude toward Low involvement 3.22 0.66 110
the advertisement High involvement 3.26 0.88 108
Total 3.24 0.78 218
Low involvement 4.30 1.18 110
Attie sptoward High involvement 4.15 1.31 108
the sponsorTotal 4.23 1.24 218

Wilks' Lambda=.99, F=.90, Hypothesis df=3, Error df=208,000, Sig=.44



Differences in means for low and high involvement are not statistically significant.

It was impossible to conclude that involvement with sponsored activity had any effect on

attitudes. H3 was not supported.

H4: Consumers that are highly involved with the sponsored activity will develop
more positive attitudes than consumers who are not involved with the sponsored
activity if sponsorship advertising uses a first person narration mode.

Table 4-7. Interaction effect of involvement and narration mode.
Dependent Sum of
Dependent Sum of Df Mean square F Sig.
Variables squares
Attitude toward
Attitude toward 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.98
the sponsorship
Attitude toward
theudowr 0.15 1 0.15 0.25 0.62
the advertisement
Attitude toward
Attitude towar 3.49 1 3.49 2.29 0.13
the sponsor







47


Table 4-8. Means by involvement and narration mode.


Dependent
Variables


Attitude toward
the sponsorship



Attitude toward
the advertisement



Attitude toward
the sponsor


Involvement


Low
involvement
High
involvement
Total
Low
involvement
High
involvement
Total
Low
involvement
High
involvement
Total


Wilks' Lambda=.98, F=1.17, Hypothesis df=3, Error df=208,000, Sig=.32


Differences in means are not statistically significant. Conclusions regarding

interaction of effects of narration mode and involvement with the sponsored activity

cannot be drawn. H4 was not supported.




H5: Consumers that are highly involved with the sponsored activity will develop
more positive attitudes than consumers that are not involved with the sponsored
activity if the sponsored activity is the source of the sponsorship advertising.

Table 4-9. Interaction effect of involvement and source.
Dependent Sum of
Dependent Sum of df Mean square F Sig.
Variables squares
Attitude toward
Attitude toward 0.15 1 0.15 0.09 0.76
the sponsorship
Attitude toward
theavri n 0.51 1 0.51 0.85 0.36
the advertisement
Attitude toward
Attitude toward 1.35 1 1.35 0.89 0.35
the sponsor


Narration
Mode
First person
Third person
First person
Third person

First person
Third person
First person
Third person

First person
Third person
First person
Third person


Mean
4.97
4.58
5.10
4.73
4.85
3.30
3.14
3.37
3.14
3.24
4.63
3.98
4.23
4.07
4.23


Standard
Deviation
1.13
1.20
1.23
1.61
1.31
0.61
0.70
0.82
0.94
0.76
1.26
1.00
1.20
1.43
1.24










Table 4-10. Means by involvement and source.
Dependent Involvement Source Mean Standard N
Variables Deviation
Low Sponsor 4.88 1.13 57
Attitude toward involvement Activity 4.65 1.22 53
the sponsorship High Sponsor 5.08 1.29 47
involvement Activity 4.80 1.53 61
Total 4.85 1.31 218
Low Sponsor 3.35 0.59 57
involvement Activity 3.08 0.70 53
Attitude toward
the advertisement High Sponsor 3.29 0.92 47
involvement Activity 3.23 0.86 61
Total 3.24 0.76 218
Low Sponsor 4.17 1.21 57
involvement Activity 4.44 1.13 53
Attitude toward
te High Sponsor 4.16 1.35 47
involvement Activity 4.15 1.29 61
Total 4.23 1.24 218
Wilks' Lambda=.98, F=1.24, Hypothesis df=3, Error df=208,000, Sig=.30

Differences in means are not statistically significant. Conclusions regarding

interaction of effects of source and involvement with the sponsored activity cannot be

drawn. H5 was not supported.

* Extra Findings: Interaction effect between source, narration mode and level of
involvement.

Table 4-11. Interaction effect of source, narration mode and involvement.
Dependent Sum of
Dependent Sum of df Mean square F Sig.
Variables squares
Attitude toward
Attitude toward 0.86 1 0.86 0.51 0.48
the sponsorship
Attitude toward
theavri n 0.21 1 0.21 0.35 0.55
the advertisement
Attitude toward
Attitude toward 0.52 1 0.52 0.34 0.56
the sponsor












Table 4-12. Means by source, narration mode and involvement.
Dependent Involvement Narration Source Mean Standard N
Variables Mode Deviation
First Sponsor 4.93 1.21 29
Low person Activity 5.01 1.05 25
Involvement Third Sponsor 4.83 1.06 28
Attitude toward person Activity 4.34 1.29 28
First Sponsor 5.27 1.03 22
the sponsorship High person Activity 4.99 1.35 34
involvement Third Sponsor 4.91 1.48 25
person Activity 4.56 1.73 27
Total 4.85 1.31 218
First Sponsor 3.42 .54 29
Low person Activity 3.16 0.66 25
Involvement Third Sponsor 3.29 0.64 28
Attitude person Activity 3.00 0.75 28
toward the First Sponsor 3.48 0.70 22
advertisement High person Activity 3.29 0.89 34
Involvement Third Sponsor 3.12 1.07 25
person Activity 3.15 0.83 27
Total 3.23 0.76 218
First Sponsor 4.52 1.32 29
Low person Activity 4.75 1.20 25
involvement Third Sponsor 3.81 0.98 28
Attitude toward person Activity 4.16 1.00 28
e First Sponsor 4.16 1.42 22
High person Activity 4.27 1.05 34
involvement Third Sponsor 4.16 1.42 25
person Activity 4.00 1.54 27
Total 4.23 1.24 218
Wilks' Lambda=.99, F=.47, Hypothesis df=3, Error df=208,000, Sig=.70

Differences in means are not statistically significant. Conclusions regarding

interaction of effects of source, narration mode and involvement with the sponsored


activity cannot be drawn.














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects on consumers' attitudes of

source and narration mode manipulations in a context of sponsorship advertising

considering both fan and non fans of the sponsored activity.

Hypothesis 1

In sponsorship advertising, the sponsored activity as a source of the message will

generate more positive attitudes than the sponsor as a source of the message. Literature

presents enough evidence about the diminished credibility of a financially motivated

source (Weiner and Mowen 1986). Based on that and on the presence of a not for profit

entity in the Meenaghan communication model for sponsorship (Meenaghan 2001 la) this

study hypothesized that the sponsored activity would generate better attitudes than the

sponsor if used as the source of the sponsorship advertising message. There was indeed a

difference in attitudes between groups, but the obtained results cannot be generalized to a

larger population. The study used the area of sport as the sponsored activity as sport

sponsorship is considered as a benchmark for all other forms of sponsorship (Quester and

Thompson 2001). Probably, the heavy use of advertising and promotions techniques in

the area of sport sponsorship made respondents insensitive to the differences between the

messages of this study, especially that sponsorship advertisements are more likely to

feature the sponsors as a source of the message. Another possible explanation could be

the message similarity between the two sources. The message was framed identically for

the sponsor as a source and the sponsored activity as a source and the only differences









were the signature and the logos' places. It is possible that respondents were expecting a

different form and style of communication or even content from each source which made

them less sensitive to any possible effect.

Hypothesis 2

In sponsorship advertisement a first person narration mode will generate more

positive attitudes than a third person narration mode. Stem (1991) suggests that the first

person narration mode is more likely to create intimacy with the audience and establishes

a personal relationship with them based on an emotional appeal by expressing personal

values and feelings. It was hypothesized that this form of narration mode would be more

appropriate to sponsorship advertising since the sponsorship model was built on an

emotional relationship between the fans and the activity that sponsor was trying to

transfer to his brand name. The first person narration mode generated better attitudes

toward the sponsorship and attitudes toward the sponsor than the third person narration

mode. It seems that developing positive attitudes toward the sponsorship and the sponsor

is linked to the identification of the source. Indeed, using a first person narration mode

lessens ambiguity on who is making the claim, thus generating more improved attitudes.

Further, the first person narration appears to create the required intimacy that facilitates

the creation of bonds between the source of the sponsorship advertisement message and

the target audience. Conclusions on effects of the source on attitudes toward the

sponsorship advertisement cannot be drawn from this study. However, this can be

explained by the fact that the creative concept and its execution did not appeal to

respondents. A more creative concept with a better execution would have certainly

generated improved attitudes toward the advertisement with a first person narration

mode. H2 was partially supported.









Hypothesis 3

Sponsorship advertising will generate more positive attitudes among consumers

that are highly involved with the sponsored activity (fans) than consumers that are not

involved with the sponsored activity (non fans). Meenaghan (200 la, 200 ib) posits that

involvement is what distinguishes consumers' reaction to sponsorship from their reaction

to advertising. Advertising is considered selfish because it does not benefit anything else

than the company or the brand. Sponsorship is seen as beneficial for the activity and the

community involved with this activity. Therefore the study hypothesized that consumers

highly involved with the sponsored activity will have better attitudes than consumers not

involved with the sponsored activity. Conclusions about the effect of involvement on

attitudes cannot be drawn from the results this study. A possible explanation would be

that the scale used to measure involvement did not probably capture real involvement

levels but merely interest levels. Thus, respondents that were classified as highly

involved were not really passionate about the activity, but only persons with some

interest on soccer or who do not mind having information about soccer. Therefore these

respondents' reactions to a message related to their supposed favorite activity were not

consistent with the reactions expected from highly involved fans and made H3 not

supported. A more accurate instrument to measure involvement with a sporting activity

would have probably generated different results, but this instrument was not developed

yet. This question is further discussed in suggestions for future research

Hypothesis 4

Consumers that are highly involved with the sponsored activity will develop more

positive attitudes than consumers who are not involved with the sponsored activity if

sponsorship advertising uses a first person narration mode. Given the emotional









relationship that exists between fans and their favorite activity, this study hypothesized

that consumers highly involved with an activity (fans) will develop better attitudes

toward a sponsorship advertisement using a first person narration mode. The effects of a

first person narration mode that are intimacy and personal relation and emotional appeal

were believed to have more effects on consumers highly involved with the sponsored

activity than that those who are not. Again because the study could not capture real

levels of involvement of respondents, their attitudes resulting from the combined effect of

involvement and narration mode cannot be used in global conclusions. H4 was not

supported.

Hypothesis 5

Consumers that are highly involved with the sponsored activity will develop more

positive attitudes than consumers that are not involved with the sponsored activity if the

sponsored activity is the source of the sponsorship advertising. Meenghan has suggested

that fans reward the sponsor with goodwill when they feel there is a respect and a concern

for the sponsored activity, and that they develop negative attitudes when they consider

the sponsor is simply using the activity to achieve financial objective (Meenaghan 2001a,

200 ib). Based on this study hypothesized that a sponsorship advertisement will generate

better attitudes among consumer highly involved with sponsored activity if this latter is

the source of the message instead of the sponsor. H5 was not supported because the levels

of involvement with the sponsored activity were not properly captured by the

measurement used in the study.

Implications

Though most of the hypotheses of this study were not supported, some guidelines

can still be suggested for the execution of sponsorship advertising. First always use a first









person narration mode, because it generates better attitudes. Literature suggests that a

first person mode creates intimacy and establishes a personal relationship between the

source and its audience by using an emotional appeal, and that a third person narration

mode gives an objective opinion about a situation the source is external to, thus appearing

as a trusted adviser for the audience (Stern 1994). Consumers react better to a first

person narration mode than a third person narration mode because they perceive

sponsorship is more than simple advertising where objectivity might be a central issue.

Sponsorship implies a certain interest and care for the sponsored activity or gratefulness

for the sponsor and these cannot be better expressed by a third party. Second, it is

absolutely necessary to identify the levels of involvement of the target audience with the

sponsored activity, to determine precisely the strategy to adopt. The different treatments

used in the study did not produce significant effects because there was no real difference

between groups. Sponsorship advertising will be more effective if involvement levels

with the sponsored activity were measured more accurately. Finally, it is advised to copy

test the type of source to use whether the target audience is highly involved with the

sponsored activity or not. Indeed, though the results were not consistent, this study has

suggested that using the sponsored activity as source might work as a peripheral cue

generating better attitudes and enhancing the sponsor's image among consumers not

involved with sponsored activity, which is something that was not expected.

Limitations

The advertisements used as a vehicle for the treatments were not executed by

professional designers. Compared with the other print advertisements presented in the

booklet on the item "phony" the treatment executions scored on average (m=3.77)

compared to (m=2.67) for the Kool advertisement and (m=3.78) for the L'Oreal one.









However, if respondents did not notice the advertisement was not real, they globally

reacted to it the same whether they were involved with soccer or not. The advertisement

did not talk to soccer fans differently from non soccer fans which made attitudes toward

the advertisement less than average and quite similar on both sides. Concerning the

executions, there is also a need to mention a little difference in the logos. The treatments

where the sponsor was the source of the message used the McDonald logo as a sponsor

and the Germany World Cup 2006 logo as the sponsored activity, whereas the treatments

where the sponsored activity was the source used the FIFA logo and the McDonald's

logo. This is a limitation since awareness and familiarity with Germany World Cup 2006

and FIFA logos might be different among respondents.

The study used the Personal Involvement Inventory scale developed by

Zaichkowski to measure sport involvement. While to scale is global enough to measure a

complex concept as sport involvement it fails to identify the different types of

involvements a respondent can have with a sport. A respondent can be an active player of

soccer with no interest of the soccer industry and relations with sponsors and another can

be very involved with soccer as industry without setting a foot in a soccer field etc. Both

of these examples represent a certain type of involvement that could generate different

attitudes toward sponsorship advertising. Unfortunately this study could not examine the

differences between different natures of involvement and their effects. This limit is more

exacerbated if we consider the nature of respondents. Respondents were approached in

classes from the College of Journalism and Communication where females are more

present than males. Indeed 70% of respondents were females and it is difficult to imagine

females having the same nature of involvement with soccer as men.









Future research

Future research on sponsorship will give more accurate results if they use a

measurement that can differentiate between the different natures of involvement. General

involvement scales cannot accurately measure the different natures of involvement in a

sponsorship relation. Further, this study used involvement with a sport at the category

level, which means involvement with soccer as sport and not a particular team.

Meenaghan (200 ib) suggests that fan involvement is more important for an individual

activity than a whole category. In other words nature and level of involvement will

change considerably if the study has used a particular soccer team like the U.S soccer

team or Real Madrid. In the area of arts it will be the sponsorship of a particular

orchestra, concert or artist instead of a foundation, an NGO or something similar. Future

research must consider this difference of involvement fans can have with a specific

activity and its impact on their attitudes. This study has used sport sponsorship because

scholars consider it as a benchmark for other forms of sponsorship (Quester and

Thompson 2001, Witcher et al 1991). However, there is evidence in literature that

consumers' tolerance to sponsorship varies depending on the nature of the sponsored

activity. The sport industry has become a reference in sponsorship and consumers seem

to accept the degree of exploitation that is associated with it. Popular arts to a lesser

extent than sport are also easily associated with sponsors and sponsorship advertising but

it is not the case of fine arts as many consumers do not tolerate the same form of

exploitation that are used in popular arts or sports (Meenaghan 1999). Future research

can also address this area by investigating the difference in attitudes generated by the

same manipulations of this study in fine arts and popular arts. Finally, the discussion

section raised another interesting area for future research. It appeared that fans of an






57


activity reacted less positively than non fans to a message where the sponsored activity

(with which fans are involved) probably because they considered the message to be

commercial advertising. Future research can investigate the criteria that make a target

audience consider a message as advertising. Applied to sponsorship, the answers to this

question can improve execution of advertisements targeting highly involved fans.














APPENDIX A
INFORMED CONSENT

Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study.

Purpose of the research study:
The purpose of this study is to:
Examine attitudes toward advertising.


Time required:
15 minutes


Benefits:
1 extra credit.


Confidentiality:
Questionnaires are anonymous and there will no way to identify your answers.


Voluntary participation:
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not
participating.


Right to withdraw from the study:
You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence.


Whom to contact if you have questions about the study
Jorge Villegas. Ziad Ghanimi
Assistant Professor Master's Student
College of Journalism & Communication College of Journalism & Communication
jvillegas@jou.ufl.edu 353-328-1457


Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study:
UFIRB Office,
Box 112250,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
32611-2250;
ph 392-0433.






59


Agreement:
I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the
procedure.

Participant: Date:

Principal Investigator: Date:














APPENDIX B
UFRIB PROTOCOL

Title of Project:

Advertising a Sponsorship Relation: Effects of Message Source, Narration Mode and
Involvement on Attitude Toward the Sponsorship, Attitude Toward the Ad and Attitude
Toward the Brand.

This study is a part of a thesis that will be presented to the faculty of the graduate school
of The University of Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master's in Advertising.


Principal investigator:

Ziad Ghanimi
Master's Student College of Journalism & Communication
Department of Advertising
UFID: 6944-1594
Phone: 352-328-1457
e-mail: ghanimi@ufl.edu


Supervisor:

Jorge Villegas
Assistant Professor College of Journalism and Communication
Department of Advertising
Phone: (352) 392-5059
e-mail: jvillegas@jou.ufl.edu


Dates of proposal research:

As soon as approved till May 30, 2006.


Source of funding:

None.









Scientific purpose:

The objective is to determine if consumers will have better attitudes toward a sponsor if:
The message is coming from the sponsor himself or the sponsored activity.
The narration is first person (I or we) or a third person (He, She).


Research methodology:

Post exposure survey:
There will be four groups of participants and each one will be shown a different
sponsorship ad. The four ads will globally look the same featuring McDonald's and
the soccer worldcup but with the following differences:
Two ads will be presented as coming from McDonald's:
o One will use a first person narration mode.
o The second will use a third person narration mode.
Two ads will be presented as coming from FIFA (Federation of International
Football Association)
o One of these ads will use a first person narration.
o The second one will use a third person narration mode.
Participants will then be asked questions on their attitude toward the sponsorship, the
ad and the brand. The questionnaire should take 15 minutes to complete

Measurements:
The following scales will be used to collect participants' attitudes:
Attitude toward the act (Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of
Multi-Item measures Volume II, Bruner & Hensel, American Marketing
Association, 1992, p.57).
Attitude toward the product/brand (Marketing Scales Handbook: A
Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume II, Bruner & Hensel, American
Marketing Association, 1992, p.77).
Attitude toward the product/brand (hedonic) (Marketing Scales Handbook: A
Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume II, Bruner & Hensel, American
Marketing Association, 1992, p.79).
Attitude toward the brand (Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of
Multi-Item measures Volume III, Bruner & Hensel, American Marketing
Association, 1992, p.90).
Attitude toward the brand (Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of
Multi-Item measures Volume III, Bruner & Hensel, American Marketing
Association, 1992, p.67).
Attitude toward the brand (Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of
Multi-Item measures Volume III, Bruner & Hensel, American Marketing
Association, 1992, p.77).
The Personal Involvement Inventory (Zaichkowski, 1985) ((Marketing
Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume II, Bruner
& Hensel, American Marketing Association, 1992, p.370).









Attitude toward the ad (Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of
Multi-Item measures Volume II, Bruner & Hensel, American Marketing
Association, 1992, p.777).
Attitude toward the ad (believability) (Marketing Scales Handbook: A
Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume II, Bruner & Hensel, American
Marketing Association, 1992, p.779).
Attitude toward the ad (evaluation judgments) (Marketing Scales Handbook:
A Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume II, Bruner & Hensel,
American Marketing Association, 1992, p.793).
Attitude toward the ad (affective component) (Marketing Scales Handbook:
A Compilation of Multi-Item measures Volume III, Bruner & Hensel,
American Marketing Association, 1992, p.713).
Attitude toward the ad overall ) (Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation
of Multi-Item measures Volume III, Bruner & Hensel, American Marketing
Association, 1992, p.727).
Credibility of the source (Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of
Multi-Item measures Volume II, Bruner & Hensel, American Marketing
Association, 1992, p.846).


Potential benefit and anticipated risks:

This study will increase knowledge about message source effects and narration mode
in sponsorship, an area where research is still very limited. The results will provide
creative in advertising agencies with guidelines to execute sponsorship ads.
There is absolutely no possible risk in the process, the ads will be taken from
renowned sports magazines, they will be modified using copy used in everyday ads.
Further, the questions contained in the measurements presented in the previous
section are just common opinion questions. Finally, questionnaires are anonymous
and there will not be any possibility to link a particular answer to a particular
student.




Recruitment of participants and compensation:

Research participants will be approximately 300 students aged 18 and over, who will
be recruited from the college of Journalism and Communication of The University of
Florida. They will participate in the research for 1 extra credit. The classes and their
instructors are:
ADV 3000, Dr. Morton.
ADV 3001, Dr. Morton.
ADV 3203, Dr. Goodman.
ADV 3502, Dr. Sutherland.
ADV 4101, Dr Duke.









ADV 4300, Dr Cho.
ADV 4800, Dr Duke, Dr Morris and Dr Villegas.
The principal investigator is not the instructor or a teacher assistant in any of the
classes from which participant will be recruited.


The informed consent process:

Participants will be informed of the subject of the survey and then reminded of their
freedom to participate or not. The informed consent (2 first pages of the
questionnaire) will be presented as in the first page of the questionnaire (10 last
pages of the questionnaire) before any other question and participants will be asked
to read it carefully.


Supervisor:


Administrator:


Jorge Villegas
Assistant Professor
College of Journalism & Communication


Ziad Ghanimi
Master's Student
College of Journalism & Communication












APPENDIX C
PRINT ADS


,


..I I




































d


;-k
OL


%"s _.. .


0'


-AOL.















-'qm~L .~ .~



J.
N.

k ;'


q~. i'~;
~ "'I
h. -


((b.~7


/m
.. -


. ... .. L' "
r .' o .
*^tu






67








s .,1










lowi.




*-^'S^^^^jP Ado111


-I


Or I









-


,.

4


~*1 7"


^ t







L2&t tIj~


SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING. Smoking
Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease,
Emphysema. And May Complicate Pregnancy.




1 "L ,


fL 4 RE E.40LDc 1*.jA.: Co


4


A
I
II


I;
ii,


I
Pb
ill a


&



















APPENDIX D
QUESTIONNAIRE



Part I: Questions about the Mcdonald's ad.
Page 1/2


Please indicate on a scale from 1 to 7 how you feel about McDonald's sponsorship of the Soccer
Worldcup:

1. How useful do you think is McDonald's sponsorship of the Worldcup?
Not at all useful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely useful

2. Would you say your overall opinion about McDonald's sponsorship of the Worldcup is:

Extremely Extremely
unfavorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 favorable

3. Would you say the McDonald's sponsorship of the Worldeup is:

An extremely An extremely
bad idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 good idea

4. Would you say that McDonald's sponsorship of the Worldcup is:
Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very important


Please indicate how well you think each of the following words describes the ad you have seen about
Mcdonald's sponsorship of the Soccer Worldcup. We are interested in your thoughts about the ad, not
the brand.

If you think the word describes the ad

Not at all well: 1 Not very well: 2 Fairly well: 3 Very well: 4 Etremely well: 5


5. Believable 1 2 3 4 5
6. For me 1 2 3 4 5
7. Informative 1 2 3 4 5

8. Interesting 1 2 3 4 5
9. Irritating 1 2 3 4 5
10. Meaningful to me 1 2 3 4 5

11. Phony 1 2 3 4 5
12. Ridiculous 1 2 3 4 5
13. Terrible 1 2 3 4 5

14. Valuable 1 2 3 4 5
15. Worth remembering 1 2 3 4 5
16. Liked the ad 1 2 3 4 5

17. Valuable 1 2 3 4 5
18 Worth remembering 1 2 3 4 5












Part 1: Questions about the Mcdonald's ad.
Page 2/2


How much would you agree with the following statements about the brand McDonald's:

No, Yes,
Definitely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely
67. McDonald's is a high quality brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
68. McDonald's is an unsatisfactory brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
69. McDonald's is an appealing brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

70. McDonald's is an inferior brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
71. McDonald's is an interesting brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
72. McDonald's is a desirable brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

73. McDonald's is a good brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
74. McDonald's is a useful brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
75. McDonald's is a distinctive brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


How would you describe your personal relationship with Soccer as a sport on scale from I to 7:

12. Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant
13. Of no concern 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Of concern to me
14. Irrelevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Relevant
15. Means a lot to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Means nF,,hlic to me
16. Valuable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Worthless
17. Beneficial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not beneficial

18. Matters to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doesn't matter to me
19. Boring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting
20. Unexciting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Exciting

21. Appealing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unappealing
22. Essential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nonessential







72




Part II: Questions about the L'Oreal ad.
Page 1/2


Please indicate on a scale from 1 to 7 how you feel about Charlize Theron promoting L'Oreal:


1. How useful do you think is L'Oreal usage of Charlize Theron as a model?
Not at all useful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely useful

2. Would you say your overall opinion about Charlie Theron promoting L'Oreal is:

Extremely Extremely
unfavorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 favorable

3. Would you say the promotion of L'Oreal by Charlize Theron is:

An extremely An extremely
bad idea 2 3 4 5 6 7 good idea

4. Would you say that L'Oreal usage of celebrities to advertise:
Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very important


Please indicate how well you think each of the following words describes the ad you have seen about
L'Oreal and Charlize Theron. We are interested in your thoughts about the ad, not the brand.


If you think the word describes the ad

Not at all well: 1 Not very well: 2 Fairly well: 3 Very well: 4 Etremely well: 5


5. Believable 1 2 3 4 5
6. For me 1 2 3 4 5
7. Informative 1 2 3 4 5

8. Interesting 1 2 3 4 5
9. Irritating 1 2 3 4 5
10. Meaningful to me 1 2 3 4 5

11. Phony 1 2 3 4 5
12. Ridiculous 1 2 3 4 5
13. Terrible 1 2 3 4 5

14. Valuable 1 2 3 4 5
15. Worth remembering 1 2 3 4 5
16. Liked the ad 1 2 3 4 5

17. Valuable 1 2 3 4 5
18 Worth remembering 1 2 3 4 5








73




Part III: Questions about the Kool ad.
Page 1/2


Please indicate on a scale from 1 to 7 how you feel about the health warning on the Kool ad:


1. How useful do you think is to say smoking is dangerous in the Kool ad?
Not at all useful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely useful

2. Would you say your overall opinion about the Kool ad is:

Extremely Extremely
unfavorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 favorable

3. Would you say the promoting Kool with a health warning:

An extremely An extremely
bad idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 good idea

4. Would you say that the health warning in the Kool ad is:
Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very important


Please indicate how well you think each of the following words describes the ad you have seen about
the brand Kool. We are interested in your thoughts about the ad, not the brand.


If you think the word describes the ad

Not at all well: 1 Not very well: 2 Fairly well: 3 Very well: 4 l-trrirml well: 5


5. Believable 1 2 3 4 5
6. For me 1 2 3 4 5
7. Informative 1 2 3 4 5

8. Interesting 1 2 3 4 5
9. Irritating 1 2 3 4 5
10. Meaningful to me 1 2 3 4 5

11. Phony 1 2 3 4 5
12. Ridiculous 1 2 3 4 5
13. Terrible 1 2 3 4 5

14. Valuable 1 2 3 4 5
15. Worth remembering 1 2 3 4 5
16. Liked the ad 1 2 3 4 5

17. Valuable 1 2 3 4 5


18 Worth remembering I ., 3 4 5


2 3 4 5


18 Worth remembering 1












Part III: Questions about the Kool ad.
Page 2/2


How much would you agree with the following statements about the brand Kool:

No, Yes,
Definitely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely
13. Kool is a high quality brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Kool is an unsatisfactory brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Kool is an appealing brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. Kool is an inferior brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. Kool is an interesting brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. Kool is a desirable brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. Kool is a good brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. Kool is a useful brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. Kool is a distinctive brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How would you describe your personal relationship with smoking in general on scale from 1 to 7:

12. Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant
13. Of no concern 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Of concern to me
14. Irrelevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Relevant
15. Means a lot to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Means iu.ihiin to me
16. Valuable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Worthless
17. Beneficial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not beneficial

18. Matters to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doesn't matter to me
19. Boring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting
20. Unexciting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Exciting

21. Appealing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unappealing
22. Essential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nonessential



Finally some questions to help us understand your answers.



Gender:

Age:

( Ti/ia nhip:

Thank you for taking time to complete this questionnaire















LIST OF REFERENCES


Cornwell, T. Bettina, Roy Donald P., and Steinard II Edward A. (2001), "Exploring
Managers' Perception of the Impact of Sponsorship on Brand Equity," Journal of
Advertising, 30(2), 41-52.

Cornwell, T. Bettina, Clinton S. Weeks, and Donald P. Roy (2005), "Sponsorship-Linked
Marketing: Opening the Black Box," Journal of Advertising, 34 (2), 21-43

Cornwell, T. Bettina, and Isabelle Maignan (1998), "An International Review of
Sponsorship Research," Journal of Advertising, 27 (1), 1-21

Crimmins, James, and Martin Horn (1996), "Sponsorship: From Management Ego Trip to
Marketing Success," Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (4), 11-21.

Deeken, Aimee (2005), "TNS: 16 of 17 media grew revenue in '04", Media Week,
15.11 (March 14), 30-31.

Dolphin, Richard R. (2003), "Sponsorship: Perspectives on its Strategic Role," Corporate
Communications, 8 (3), 173-186.

Duncan, Tom (2002), IMC Using Advertising and Promotion to Build Brand, McGraw-
Hill, New York.

Gardner, Meryl P., and Philip J. Shuman (1987), "Sponsorship: An Important Component
of the Promotions Mix," Journal of Advertising, 16 (1), 11-18.

Hansen, Flemming, and Lene Scotwin (1995), "An Experimental Enquiry Into
Sponsoring: What Effects Can be Measured?," Marketing and Research Today,
23 (3), 173-181.

Hastings, Gerard B. (1984), "Sponsorship Works Differently from Advertising,"
International Journal of Advertising, 3 (2), 171-176.

Houston, Michael J., Terry L. Childers, and Susan E. Heckler (1987), "Picture-Word
Consistency and the Elaborative Processing of Advertisements," Journal of
Marketing Research, 24 (4), 359-369.

Hoyer, Wayne D., and Deborah J. Maclnnis (2004), Consumer Behavior, Houghton
Miflin, Boston.









IEG (2004), "The International Sponsorship Market," IEG Sponsorship Report, 22 (4),
1-2.

Kinney, Lance, and Stephen R. McDaniel (1996), "Strategic Implication of Attitude
Toward the Ad in Leveraging Event Sponsorship," Journal of Sport Management,
10 (July), 250-261

Kotler, Philip (1998), Marketing Management, Prentice Hall, Chicago.

Lardinoit, Thierry, and Pascale G. Quester (2001), "Attitudinal Effects of Combined
Sponsorship and Sponsor's Prominence on Basketball in Europe," Journal of
Advertising Research, 4 (1), 48-64.

McCracken, Grant (1989), "Who is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the
Endorsement Process," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (3), 310-322.

McDonald, Collin (1991), "Sponsor and the Image of the Sponsor," European Journal of
Marketing, 25 (11), 31-38.

Mehta, Abhilasha (1994), "How Advertising Response Modeling (ARM) Can Increase
Ad Effectiveness," Journal of Advertising Research, 34 (3), 62-74.

Meenaghan, Tony (1983), "Commercial Sponsorship," European Journal of Marketing,
7(7), 5-71.

Meenaghan, Tony (1991), "The Role of Sponsorship in the Marketing Communications
Mix," International Journal of Advertising, 10 (1), 35-47.

Meenaghan, Tony (1996), "Ambush Marketing A Threat to Corporate Sponsorship,"
Sloan Management Review, 38 (1), 103-113.

Meenaghan, Tony (1998), "Current Development and Future Directions in Sponsorship,"
International Journal of Advertising, 17 (1), 3-28

Meenaghan, Tony, and David Shipley (1999), "Media Effect in Commercial
Sponsorship," European Journal of Marketing, 33 (3/4), 328-347.

Meenaghan, Tony (2001 la), "Understanding Sponsorship Effects," Psychology and
Marketing, 18 (2), 95-122.

Meenaghan, Tony (2001b), "Sponsorship and Advertising: A Comparison of Consumer
Perceptions," Psychology and Marketing, 18 (2), 191-215.

Otker, Ton (1988), "Exploitation: The Key to Sponsorship Success," European Research,
16 (May), 77-85.









Quester, Pascal G., and Beverly Thompson (2001), "Advertising and Promotion Leverage
on Arts Sponsorship Effectiveness," Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (1), 33-
47.

Sandler, Dennis M., and David Shani (1989), "Olympic Sponsor vs. Ambush Marketing:
Who Gets the Gold?," Journal of Advertising Research, 29 (4), 9-14.

Stern, Barbara (1991), "Who Talks Advertising? Literary Theory and Narrative Point of
View," Journal of Advertising, 20 (30), 9-22.

- (1993), "The Firm, the Author, and the Persona: A Literary Model of the Source
of Advertising," Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 15
(2), 15-24.

-_(1994), "A Revised Communication Model for Advertising: Multiple Dimension
of the Source, the Message, and the Recipient," Journal of Advertising, 23 (2),
5-15.

Stipp, Horst, and Nicholas P. Schiavone (1996), "Modeling the Impact of Olympic
Sponsorship on Corporate Image," Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (4),
22-28.

Tripodi, John A. (2001), "Sponsorship A Confirmed Weapon in the Promotional
Armory," International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 3 (1),
41-66.

Vanden Bergh, Bruce G., and Helen Katz (1999), Advertising Principles, NTC
Publishing, Chicago.

Walliser, Bjorn (2003), "An International Review of Sponsorship Research: Extension
and Update," International Journal of Advertising, 22 (1), 5-40.

Witcher, Barry, Gordon J. Craigen, Dennis Cullighan, and Andrew Harvey (1991), "The
Links between Objectives and Function in Organizational Sponsorship,"
International Journal of Advertising, 10 (1), 13-33.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Ziad Ghanimi is originally from Morocco where he earned his bachelor's degree

from ISACE, a business school in Casablanca, with a major in marketing and advertising

in July1999. After five years of experience in the marketing departments of multinational

companies operating in different industries, sports wear, dairy products and Internet

access, Ziad was awarded a Fulbright scholarship to pursue a master's degree in

advertising at The University of Florida.