<%BANNER%>

Branding Individual Athletes

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041778/00001

Material Information

Title: Branding Individual Athletes Developing a Conceptual Model of Athlete Brand Image
Physical Description: 1 online resource (94 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Arai, Akiko
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: athlete, brand, branding, conceptual, marketing, model, scale, sport
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Sport Management thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purposes of this study were (a) to propose and test a conceptual model of Athlete Brand Image (MABI) and (b) to develop a Scale of Athlete Brand Image (SABI). The proposed model consists of three primary dimensions; Athletic Performance, Attractive Appearance, and Marketable Lifestyle. Athletic Performance consists of four sub dimensions; Athletic Expertise, Competition Style, Sportsmanship and Rivalry. Attractive Appearance consists of three sub dimensions; Physical Attractiveness, Symbol and Body Fit. Marketable Lifestyle consists of three sub dimensions; Life Story, Role Model, and Relationship Effort. To test this model, the Scale of Athlete Brand Image (SABI) was developed. A total of 402 college students were surveyed for the model test. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the SABI showed a reasonable fit to the data and that the survey scale developed to test the model was psychometrically sound. Implications and limitations of this study were discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Akiko Arai.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Ko, Yong Jae.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041778:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041778/00001

Material Information

Title: Branding Individual Athletes Developing a Conceptual Model of Athlete Brand Image
Physical Description: 1 online resource (94 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Arai, Akiko
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: athlete, brand, branding, conceptual, marketing, model, scale, sport
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Sport Management thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purposes of this study were (a) to propose and test a conceptual model of Athlete Brand Image (MABI) and (b) to develop a Scale of Athlete Brand Image (SABI). The proposed model consists of three primary dimensions; Athletic Performance, Attractive Appearance, and Marketable Lifestyle. Athletic Performance consists of four sub dimensions; Athletic Expertise, Competition Style, Sportsmanship and Rivalry. Attractive Appearance consists of three sub dimensions; Physical Attractiveness, Symbol and Body Fit. Marketable Lifestyle consists of three sub dimensions; Life Story, Role Model, and Relationship Effort. To test this model, the Scale of Athlete Brand Image (SABI) was developed. A total of 402 college students were surveyed for the model test. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the SABI showed a reasonable fit to the data and that the survey scale developed to test the model was psychometrically sound. Implications and limitations of this study were discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Akiko Arai.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Ko, Yong Jae.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041778:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 BRANDING INDIVIDUAL ATHLETES: DEVELOPING A MOD EL OF ATHLETE BRAND IMAGE By AKIKO ARAI A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MA STER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Akiko Arai

PAGE 3

3 To my family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the great role my family played in terms of supporting me and believing in me through the course of this thesis.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 8 ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 10 The Emergence of Athlete Brand ............................................................................................... 10 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 12 Purpose Statement ....................................................................................................................... 13 Contribution of the Study ........................................................................................................... 13 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................................. 14 Definition of Athlete Brand ........................................................................................................ 14 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 16 Why Brand Image is Important? ................................................................................................ 16 Conceptual Background .............................................................................................................. 18 Brand Image in Spo rt Team Brands ................................................................................... 18 Issues about the classification of brand association dimensions Attitude dimensions ................................................................................................................ 20 Benefit dimensions ....................................................................................................... 21 Endorsement Research ........................................................................................................ 22 Human Brand ....................................................................................................................... 25 3 PROPOSED MODEL ................................................................................................................. 28 Proposed Model of Athlete Brand Image .................................................................................. 28 Athletic Performance ........................................................................................................... 28 Winning record ............................................................................................................. 29 Athletic expertise .......................................................................................................... 29 Competition style ......................................................................................................... 30 Sportsmanship .............................................................................................................. 30 Rivalry ........................................................................................................................... 30 Attractive Appearance ......................................................................................................... 31 Physical attractiveness ................................................................................................. 31 Symbol .......................................................................................................................... 31 Body fit ......................................................................................................................... 31 Marketable Lifestyle ............................................................................................................ 32

PAGE 6

6 Life story ....................................................................................................................... 33 Role model .................................................................................................................... 34 Relationship effort ........................................................................................................ 34 4 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 36 Free Thought Listing Survey ...................................................................................................... 36 Item Generation ........................................................................................................................... 37 Athlete Brand Image Items ................................................................................................. 37 Athletes Selection Method .................................................................................................. 38 Demographics ...................................................................................................................... 39 A Panel of Expert ........................................................................................................................ 39 Pilot Test ...................................................................................................................................... 40 Main Survey ................................................................................................................................ 41 Sampling ............................................................................................................................... 41 Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 42 Data Analysis Procedures .................................................................................................... 43 5 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 56 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample ............................................................................. 56 Results of the Measurement Model Test ................................................................................... 5 7 6 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 69 Theoretical Implications ............................................................................................................. 69 Recommendations for Future Study .......................................................................................... 71 Managerial Implications ............................................................................................................. 72 7 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 74 APPENDIX A COVER LETTER AND SURVEY FOR PANEL OF EXPERT ............................................. 75 B COVER LETTER AND SURVEY FOR PILOT TEST ........................................................... 79 C COVER LETTER AND SURVEY FOR MAIN SURVEY ..................................................... 83 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 87 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................................. 94

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Comparison of i mage d imensions ......................................................................................... 27 4 1 Result of the free thought listing survey ............................................................................... 50 4 2 Originally identified items for athlete brand image ............................................................. 50 4 3 Demographic c haracteristics of p ilot t est s ample ................................................................. 53 4 4 Athlete selection in pilot test ................................................................................................. 53 4 5 The result o f the pilot test ...................................................................................................... 54 5 1 The result o f the main survey ................................................................................................ 63 5 2 Athlete selection in main survey ........................................................................................... 63 5 3 Fit table ................................................................................................................................... 64 5 4 Summary r esults for c onfirmatory f actor a nalysis ............................................................... 65 5 5 Loadings, p ath c oefficients, and r esidual v ariances for th e h ypothesized m odel .............. 66 5 6 Correlation matrix .................................................................................................................. 67 5 7 Final dimensions a nd definitions o f athlete brand image .................................................... 68

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Share of the agent market (IBIS world industry reports, 2008) .......................................... 15 3 1 Original conceptual model of athlete brand image .............................................................. 35 4 1 First order factor model ......................................................................................................... 47 4 2 Second order factor model ..................................................................................................... 48 4 3 Third order factor model ........................................................................................................ 49 5 1 Original measurement model of athletic performance......................................................... 60 5 2 Revis ed measurement model of athletic performance ......................................................... 61 5 3 Final model of athlete brand image ....................................................................................... 62

PAGE 9

9 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 Science BRANDING INDIVIDUAL ATHLETES: DEVELOPING A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF ATHLETE BRAND IAMGE By Akiko Arai May 2010 Chair: Yong Jae Ko Major: Sport Managemen t The purposes of this study were (a) to propose and test a conceptual model of Athlete Brand Image (MABI) and (b) to develop a Scale of Athlete Brand Image (SABI). The proposed model consists of three primary dimensions; Athletic Performance, Attractive Appearance, and Marketable Lifestyle. Athletic Performance consists of four sub dimensions; Athletic Expertise, Competition Style, Sportsmanship and Rivalry. Attractive Appearance consists of three sub dimensions; Physical Attractiveness, Symbol and Body F it. Marketable Lifestyle consists of three sub dimensions; Life Story, Role Model, and Relationship Effort. To test this model, the Scale of Athlete Brand Image (SABI) was developed. A total of 402 college students were surveyed for the model test. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the SABI showed a reasonable fit to the data and that the survey scale developed to test the model was psychometrically sound. Implications and limitations of this study were discussed.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Emergence of Athlete Brand Today, professional sports are highly commercialized and involved corporate sponsors, media, and spectators. The market is expanding globally to form a complex business structure. In this highly commercialized spo rts industry, t he concept of sports celebrity has emerged. S port celebrities are needed to attract media interest and sponsors financial investments to the sports industry (LEtang, 2006). They are key players in the sports industry for connecting to ot her industries. In light of the modern media culture, sports celebrities have became more than just sports figure. They can be considered to be a social sign, carrying cultural meanings and ideological values, which express the intimacies of individual p ersonality, inviting desire and identification; an emblem of national celebrity, founded on the body, fashion and personal style. (Gledhill, 1991, p. xiii). Sport celebrities are effectively multi textual and multi platform promotional entities who have c omplex and varied roles, not only as athletes but also as entertainers, role models for youth, and political figures (Andrews & Jackson, 2001). In sports marketing researches these sports celebrities have proven to be effective endorsers. However, these sports celebrities are considered not only as vehicles for advertisement or product endorsement, but also as cultural products that can be sold as brands (Gilchrist, 2005). Rein, Kotler, and Shields (2006a) pointed out the advantage of athletes as brand in their book, Elusive Fan. Because there are a growing number of distribution opportunities available, the athlete has the potential to enter into a variety of sectors and use his or her sports career as a platform for other endeavors. Critical to bra nd expansion is the athletes ability to construct a brand that identifies and connects with specific target segments (p. 264).

PAGE 11

11 In fact, many sports celebrities have started managing their individual brands. For example, Annika Sorenstam, a professional golf player, founded The ANNIKA Foundation to manage her own brand ANNIKA, including her own apparel line, golf course design, and golf academy (ANNIKA foundation, n.d.). Auto -racing driver Danica Patrick has also been seen as a unique brand in auto raci ng. She has been developing her sexy image in the male -dominated auto racing market. For further development of her brand, Danica signed with IMG As a driver and as a brand (Hart, 2010). In 2005, Roger Federer re -signed with IMG. His agent at IMG, Tony Godsick, aims for global development of the Federer brand emphasizing his multi lingual skills (e.g., German, French, and English), his global charitable activities (e.g., his foundation for South African children), and his personable image (Wulterkens, 2007). As a matter of fact, the agent market is getting highly competitive. According to IBIS World Industry report, the industry revenue grew to 6,331 million in 2008. The major growth segment of the industry over the last decade has been the managem ent of professional athletes and sporting clubs/ organizations The agent market share of professional athletes and sporting organizations is up to 35 percent in the whole agent market (Figure 1 1 ). There are thousands of sports agencies in existence all r anging in client level and size, and the sports agencies are becoming saturated A t the same time, the expectations for agents are getting tougher. Many professional athletes expect more services, and agents and managers are required to fulfill a myriad number of functions for authors, including 'brand' management. (IBIS World Industry reports, 2008) Branding of individual athletes has become an essential job for the sports agents and managers in the current highly competitive professional sports market. For example, IMG, the worlds largest sports agent company declares that branding of elite athletes is their mission

PAGE 12

12 Today, we help hundreds of elite athletes, coaches, industry executives and prestigious sports organizations maximize their earnings pote ntial and build strong personal brands (IMG, n.d.) The acknowledgment of developing and managing strong brands is not restricted to teams and leagues but is also recognized among specific individual athletes. As the current examples indicate, in the mode rn sports industry, professional athletes should be managed as brands because the specific branding strategy for athletes is in high demanded. In addition, previous branding studies have clarified the positive consequences of successful branding. The major positive consequences of strong brand are the following: the probability of brand choice, willingness to pay premium price, marketing communication effectiveness, and promotion of positive word of mouth (Aaker, 1996; Berry, 2000; Keller 1993; Rein, Kotl er, & Shields, 2006a). Those benefits are highly applicable to individual athletes. Well -branded athletes can attain price premium on their salary, transfer fee, or contract money and stabilize the following of fans even when their performance has failed ( Gladden & Funk, 2001). Well branded athletes, who have a symbolic message, can attract companies that seek effective endorsers. Furthermore, athletes are fragile products in the sports industry because of the potential risks for unexpected injuries or slum ps. Considering those risks, athletes are truly in need of strong branding strategies. Rein et al. (2006b, p. 30) stated that, winning is the one factor in the sports branding mix, and sports marketers must develop other branding strategies to sustain loy alty during the inevitable winloss cycles of teams and individual athletesSports products can only survive with new brand thinking. Problem Statement Despite the increasing importance in this practical field, the strategy of brand management for athlet es has rarely been studied in academics. Although some studies have discussed individual athletes as brands (Carlson & Donavan, 2008; Gilchrist, 2005; Jowdy & Mc D onald,

PAGE 13

13 2002; Thomson, 2006; Till, 2001), the structural understanding of building or managing athlete brands has rarely been examined. In fact, branding studies for sports context have just begun. Although there are studies examining sports organizations (e.g., professional sport teams) as brands (Bauer, Sauer & Exler, 2005, 2008; Bauer, Sauer & Sc hmitt, 2005; Gladden & Funk, 2001, 2002; Ross, James & Vargas, 2006; Ross, Russell & Bang, 2008), brand studies for individual athletes are still in the infant stage. Purpose Statement The purposes of this study were (a) to develop and test a conceptual m odel of Athlete Brand Image (MABI) and (b) to develop a Scale of Athlete Brand Image (SABI). The model reveals the athlete brand image factors, which are crucial for the athletes to be established as brands. This study contributes to a better understanding of the consumers perception of athlete brand, thus helping sports managers or sports agents work of athletes brand management. The model integrated the structure of the athlete brand image dimensions and works as a guideline for athlete brand image man agement. Contribution of the Study This study develop ed the Model of Athlete Brand Image and the Scale of Athlete Brand Image. Although prior studies examined the brand image of consumer products and organization, limited studies are available on the bran d image in the context of human brand, particularly athlete brand. The results of this study make a scientific contribution to the fields of (sport) marketing and advertising by offering a comprehensive and sound model of athlete brand image and psychometr ically sound measurement scale. In addition, this study will help sport managers identify strengths and weaknesses of athlete brands and develop effective brand management strategies for future improvement of athlete brand. Ultimately, this study will cont ribute to the growth of the agent industry.

PAGE 14

14 Limitations of the Study This study has some limitations that should be considered for future research. First, the majority of the participants in this study were college students. Therefore, future research need s to use broader samples to increase generalizability of the research findings. Second, the researchers arbitrarily selected 17 athletes based on brand popularity reports published in such sources as Forbes Celebrity 100 and Fortunate 50. Future studies might consider other individual athletes in different sports, such as action sports and martial arts, as targets for evaluation. Definition of Athlete Brand For the purpose of this study, defining athlete brand is a fundamental step. Some articles use the term human brand (Thomson, 2006) but the definition of human brand has not been fully discussed and a consensus has not yet been reached. First, we have to discuss if an individual athlete can be a brand or not. Basically, a brand in sports is define d as a name, design, symbol, or any combination that a sports organization uses to help differentiate its product from the competition (Shank, 1999, p. 239). According to the definition, an individual athlete definitely can be a brand because every athle te has a name, distinctive looks, and their own personality. Keller (1993) also stated that public figures such as politicians, entertainers, and professional athletes can be seen as brands when they have well -defined images that are easily understood and liked or disliked by others. Can anyone be a brand? Some scholars have tried to define human brand but they have not reached a common consensus yet. Thomson understood the human brand in broad definition as any well known persona who is the subject of m arketing communications efforts (2006, p. 104). On the other hand, Till (2001) understood athlete brand in a limited sense and explained that athletes who have earned a significant amount of money from endorsement contracts can be

PAGE 15

15 considered as brand in t heir own right. In reality, a brand often means more than Shanks definition. According to Keller, A brand is something that has actually created a certain amount of awareness, reputation, prominence, and so on in the market place. (Keller, 2008, p 2) T herefore, by following Kellers idea of brand, here, we defined an athlete brand as a public persona of an individual athlete who already has established their own symbolic meaning and value within their name, face or other brand elements in the market F igure 1 1. Share of the agent market (IBI S world industry reports, 2008)

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Why Brand Image is Important? Practically, branding has been understood as a strategy for establishing a trademark, maximizing its value and then explo iting that value (Storie, 2008, p. 13). Storie (2008) further explained that a trademark involves anything (e.g., a word, phrase, symbol, color, number, or sound) that the public associates exclusively with an entity or represents a business entity and re putation. From an academic perspective, branding is often discussed in terms of how to develop, build, manage, and measure brand equity. Brand equity is initially defined as the added value attached to the brand name or other brand elements (Aaker, 1991) i ncluding both financial and customer based perspective values (Gladden & Milne, 1998). However, the latest brand management study suggests that brand equity should be focused on the consumers perspective while brand value should be understood as its fi nancial value (Raggio & Leone, 2009). Raggio and Leone defined brand equity as the perception or desire that a brand will meet a promise of benefits (2006, p 252). Although the definition of brand equity has not yet reached a consensus, consistent with the majority of previous studies (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Raggio & Leone, 2006), the current study focused on the consumers perspective of brand equity. Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) have conducted extensive studies on brand equity. Aakers framework clarified the contents of brand equity, which includes brand name awareness, brand loyalty, perceived quality, and brand associations. On the other hand, Keller developed a customer -based brand equity theory. According to the customer based brand equity m odel, customer -based brand equity occurs when the customer has a high level of awareness and familiarity with the brand and holds some strong, favorable, and unique brand associations in

PAGE 17

17 memory (Keller, 1993). In other words, to acquire positive brand equi ty, marketers should enhance brand awareness by repeating exposures and developing a positive brand image. In Kellers model, perceived quality is considered as a part of product related association, and brand loyalty as a manifestation of brand equity (Ro ss, 2006). Erdem and Swait (2004) also agreed that brand loyalty is a consequence of brand. Keller (1993) further classified the brand association dimensions into overall brand attitudes and different types of brand attributes (i.e., product related attrib utes and nonproduct related attributes) and brand benefits (i.e., functional benefit, symbolic benefit and experiential benefits). According to Keller, The success of a marketing program is reflected in the creation of favorable brand associations that i s, consumers believe the brand has attributes and benefits that satisfy their needs and wants such that a positive overall brand attitude is formed (1993, p. 6 7) Although Aaker and Keller took different approaches to understand brand equity, both emphas ized the importance of brand awareness and brand image in the process of building a brand. In particular, both authors agreed that brand image is key to building a strong brand. Brand image is defined as the reasoned or emotional perceptions consumers attach to specific brands (Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990). Brand image involves the consumers perceptions about a particular brand, as reflected by the brand associations held in a consumers memory (Keller, 1993). Then, the brand association is the set of associatio ns linked to the brand that consumers hold in memory (Keller, 1993). Ultimately, brand equity can be developed based on the positive associations customers make with a brand (Aaker, 1996, p. 25). Thus, identifying brand associations is an important task for better understanding the brand equity creation mechanism Because brand associations differ across brands and product category (Low & Lamb, 2000), it is

PAGE 18

18 necessary to examine what kinds of brand associations become important in developing sport fans. Es pecially, sport fans must have unique associations when they think of athlete brands. Conceptual Bac kground A subsequent question is: what kinds of associations are related to the development of brand equity, consequently brand loyalty? If the sport marke ters can understand what creates brand associations, they can develop marketing strategies to create new, favorable brand associations and reinforce existing positive brand associations (Gladden & Funk, 2001). Although studies directly examining the athlet e brand image are rarely explored, there are related studies applicable to athlete brand image. The athlete brand image dimensions are identified based on a comprehensive literature review of three research fields: (1) sports team branding studies (Gladde n & Funk, 2001, 2002; Ross, James & Vargas, 2006), which explore the sports team brand association dimensions and (2) endorser image studies, which explore the factors for being an effective endorser (McCraken, 1989; Ohanian, 1990, 1991), and (3) human bra nd study (Thomson, 2006), which explores customers needs to help build attachment toward the human brand. Brand Image in Sport Team Brands Although studies focusing on just athlete brands are lacking, several sport team branding studies are available. Un like any other physical product, the sports consumers need for sports product consumption is unique (e.g., affiliation, self -expression, or entertainment; Gladden, Milne & Sutton, 1989). Thus, some of the sport -specific dimensions found in the sport team brand image studies may be applicable for the dimensions of athlete brand image. As a team sports brand association studies, Gladden and Funks (2001, 2002) Team Association Model (TAM) and Ross, James & Vargas (2006) Team Brand Association Scale (TBAS) a re two relevant studies.

PAGE 19

19 First, by adapting Kellers conceptualization of brand association, Gladden and Funk (2000, 2001) developed the Team Association Model (TAM) to measure brand association of sport teams. Gladden and Funk (2001) identified the 13 br and association dimensions through extensive literature review. The identified dimensions included: product related attributes (i.e., Success, Star player, Head coach, Teams management), n on product related attributes (i.e., Logo, Stadium, Tradition, and Product Delivery), symbolic benefit (i.e., Fun identification and Peer group acceptance), e xperimental b enefit (i.e., Escape, Nostalgia, and Pride in place). They conducted the multiple regression analysis to examine the relationship between brand loyalty and those 13 brand association dimensions through the survey data from loyal sports fans (i.e., the subscribers of a U.S. sports magazine). They found that seven of 13 attributes and benefit dimensions (i.e., product delivery, identification, nostalgia, and escape were positively related and peer group acceptance, tradition, and star player were negatively related). The main contribution of this study was to provide the first measure for assessing the type and level of brand associations that exist in the c onsumers mind. In 2002, Gladden and Funk extended their TAM scale to understand the attitude dimension in brand association. To precisely examine Kellers Customer Based Brand Equity theory, they added three attitude dimensions to their previous study: I mportance, Knowledge, and Affect. Attitudes are commonly defined as overall evaluations of objects (e.g., oneself, other people, and issues) along a dimension ranging from positive to negative (Petty & Wegener, 1997). Gladden and Funk (2002) examined attit ude in terms of importance, knowledge, and affect. Their factors of attitude are based on Krosnick and Perrys study (1995), which categorized various attitude properties into affective reaction, cognitive structure, and subjective belief. TAM (2002) final ly identified 16 potential dimensions and subdimensions: The identified items were: product -

PAGE 20

20 related attribute (Success, Star P layer, Head C oach, and Teams M anagement) n on product related attribute (Logo, Stadium, Tradition, and Product D elivery), s ymbol ic benefit (Fun Identification and Peer G roup A cceptance), experiential benefit (Escape, Nostalgia, and Pride in P lace), and attitude (Importance, Knowledge, and Affective Reaction). On the other hand, James and Vargas (2006) developed the Team Brand Asso ciation Scale (TBAS). They questioned the structure of the brand image dimensions. In fact, some researchers (e.g., Low & Lamb, 2000) have argued that the Aaker (1991) and Kellers (1993) brand image dimensions may not reflect the consumers image precisel y because their models have not been empirically supported. Ross et al. (2006) asserted that the literature review and researchers brainstorming sessions may not be enough to measure the brand association, which has to reflect the thought of consumers. Th erefore, they identified brand association dimensions by free thought listening technique and strict analysis to confirm its validity. Eventually, they identified 11 dimensions underlying professional sport team brand associations: Success, History, Stadiu m, Team characteristics, Logo, Concessions, Socialization, Rivalry, Commitment, Organizational Attribute, and Non player P ersonnel. Consequently, the seven dimensions identified in TBAS model were: Team play, S uccess, S tadium, Nonplayer personnel, Organiza tional A ttributes, Team H istory, and Brand M ark were correlated with eight dimensions from TAM (Gladden & Funk, 2002). Issue s about the c lassification of b rand a ssociation d imensions Attitude dimensions Although those identified association dimensions provided significant knowledge for our study, the classifications of the image dimensions created a controversy. First, should attitude dimension be included in brand association dimension? Keller (1993) defined brand attitude as a consumers overall evaluati on of a brand, which often depends on the beliefs about the attributes and benefits. Keller included attitude in brand association dimensions subsidiary to cover the

PAGE 21

21 general component of attitude toward the brand that cannot be captured as the attributes o r benefit values of the brand (Keller, 1993). Keller also suggested that it was important to include attitude as a brand association because attitudes can vary in strength. Attitude strength has been measured by the reaction time for evaluating the questions about an object and individuals who can evaluate an object quickly are assumed to have a very positive attitude. Therefore, attitude can be considered to be a type of association. However, when attitude is evaluated by the strength of the information re call of the object, it could be classified as brand awareness. Brand awareness relates to brand recall and recognition performance by consumers (Keller, 1993). In contrast to Kellers measurement of attitude, attitude is often discussed in two ways. First attitude is often examined in terms of affective reaction, cognitive structure, subjective belief, and behavioral reaction (e.g., Krosnick & Perry, 1995; Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960). Second, attitude is also discussed only as an affective reaction (Lutz, 1991). Especially in the latter case, attitude can be considered and modeled in attitudinal loyalty. This is consistent with much marketing research that considers attitude as dependent variables of image management or advertisement effects (Bruner & Hense l, 1996; Homer, 2006; Kirmani & Shiv, 1998). Thus, it is reasonable to consider attitude to be a consequence of brand image. Positive brand association leads to positive brand attitude. Benefit d imensions According to Kellers Customer Based Brand Equity Model (1993) and Gladden and Funks Team Association Model (2001), the associations were categorized into three dimensions: attribute, benefit, and attitude. However, Keller (1993) implied that the associations are not independent of each other, some benef its correspond with attributes. In fact, a previous brand image free thought listing survey identified only two benefit dimensions: socialization and commitment (Ross et al., 2006). The result implies that when consumers are asked to think about

PAGE 22

22 the brand, they tend to recognize only one aspect. Bauer, Sauer, and Exler (2005) explained the flow applying the means end theory. Bauer et al. (2005) explained the relationship between brand attribute and customers benefit by applying the means -end chain model (G utman, 1982). They suggested that product attributes are the means for consumers to obtain a desired benefit. On an unconscious level of a consumers mind, the product attributes are ideally linked to desirable benefits for the consumer. Based on their study, we understand an athletes brand image as a spectators perception about athlete brand attributes. This is consistent with previous marketing and advertising studies (Choi & Rifon, 2007; Ohanian, 1990) that identified the adjectives to describe the end orser celebrity image from a large pool of adjectives. Endorsement Research Athletes image management has been discussed in studies about brand or product endorser image instead of a brand itself (e.g., Choi & Rifon, 2007; Ohanian, 1991; Till, 2001). However, current endorsement studies began considering endorsers as brands. For example, Seno and Lukas (2005) stated that, Celebrity product endorsement is a form of co brandingthe essence of co branding is a public relationship between independent brands (p. 123). An endorser is defined by Shuart (2007, p. 128) as a well known person used in advertising whose function is to sell products. However, impacts of star athletes in market are so strong that those stars have begun to be seen more than just endo rsers. Despite the focus on brand endorsement of the later studies, the theories discussed in endorser research can support an explanation of the athlete brand association model and generate implications for brand management. Athlete and celebrity endorse ment research has attempted to examine the image that influences the celebrity or athlete as effective product endorsers. For example, Ohaninan (1991) examined the impact of celebrity spokespersons perceived image on consumers intention to purchase. The celebrity endorser studies are mainly based on four major

PAGE 23

23 models: the Source Attractiveness Model (MacGuire, 1968), the Source Credibility Model (Ohanian, 1990, 1991), the Image Transfer Model (McCraken, 1989), and the Image Match-Up Hypothesis (Kamins, 1990). The first three models, in particular, are highly applicable to athlete brand image. The Source Credibility Model (Ohanian, 1990) provided crucial factors for athletes to be established as brands. Many scholars agree that a brand entails a promis e for future satisfaction (Berry, 2000; Clifton & Simmons, 2004; Raggio & Leone, 2007). Therefore, like a corporate brand or product brand, the athletes have to be credible for satisfying the consumers future needs. In branding literature, brand credibili ty has also been considered to be an important antecedent of brand loyalty or brand choice (Erdem & Swait, 2004; Kim, Morris & Swait, 2008). Erdem and Swait (2004) defined brand credibility as the believability of the product information contained in a br and, which requires that consumers perceive that the brand have the ability (i.e., expertise) and willingness (i.e., trustworthiness) to continuously deliver what has been promised (in fact, brands can function as signals since if and when they do not deli ver what is promised their brand equity will erode). Both expertise and trustworthiness of a brand reflect the cumulative impacts of associated past and present marketing strategies and activities (p. 192). As their definition shows, credibility is considered from two components: Trustworthiness and Expertise. Trustworthiness means that it is believable that a brand will deliver what it has promised, and expertise implies that the brand is believed capable of delivering the promise (Kim, Morris & Swait, 2008, p. 102). The credibility is also often discussed as an essential component of effective endorsers. According to Ohanians source credibility theory, an endorsers attractive and credible character has a significant effect on the persuasiveness of the message and attitude change of the consumer (Ohanian, 1990). In the case

PAGE 24

24 where an athlete himself is a product to be sold as a brand, the athletes attractive and credible characteristics directly influence the credibility of their messages or promises, w hich they possess as brands. Ohainan (1990) added physical attractiveness as a dimension of source credibility based on Josephs (1982) study, which experimentally proved that physically attractive communicators have more positive impact on opinion change, product evaluation, and other dependent measures. Second, the Image Transfer Model (McCraken, 1989) suggested that the endorsers success depends on how effectively the symbolic properties (distinctions of status, class, gender, and age, as well as perso nality and lifestyle types) and cultural meanings of the celebrity are transferred to the product image (McCraken, 1989). The sport stars are often perceived as epitomizing social ideals and masculine virtues, and as embodying values that will readily tran sfer into consumers everyday life (Line, 2001). Therefore, it is easy for athletes to transform the positive image to endorsed products. Although the image transfer model is about the transformation of celebrity image toward the endorsed product, the theo ry was originally emphasized on the cultural meaning because obtaining the celebrity-conveyed cultural meanings satisfies the consumers self -concept (Choi & Rifon, 2007). In other words, the celebrities endorsers symbolic properties are important for cu stomers to fulfill their self -concept. Therefore, the cultural image has influence over customers purchase intention toward the celebrity endorsed products. Considering several studies argues self -concept as an important motivation factor of purchasing th e brand (Escalas, Edson & Bettmen, 2009), the cultural meaning factors can be counted as the essential brand image dimensions for athletes. Although the wide recognition of the importance of understanding image of celebrity, the kinds of the images or mea nings that celebrities carry are yet unidentified (Choi & Rifon, 2007).

PAGE 25

25 To cover the lack of understanding of celebrity images, Choi and Rifon developed the scale to measure the celebrity images and identified four Celebrity Image Dimensions. They identifi ed five dimensions of celebrity images: G enuineness, Competence, Excitement and Sociability. Those dimensions were confirmed as independent dimensions from credibility dimensions: Attractiveness, Trustworthiness, and E xpertise (Ohanian, 1990). Stevens, Lat hrop, and Bradishs study (2003) qualitatively analyzed the five themes of athletic hero characteristics by using Canadian Generation Ys. They found five general themes to be Personal Traits, Pro -social Behavior, Athletic Skill, Celebrity Status, and a dhes ion for other reasons. Furthermore, Braunstein and Zhang (2005) examined the effective endorsers characteristics by using the concept of star power. They refer to star power as the power and the unique characteristics of a specific individual that make him or her star worthy (French & Raven, 1959). Based on previous endorsement studies and hero studies ( Stevens, Lathrop & Bradish, 2003), they identified five dimensions of star power: Professional Trustworthiness, Likeable Personality, Athletic Experti se, Social Attractiveness and Characteristic Style and confirmed that all the five factors are antecedents of sport consumption factors in Generation Y. As discussed above, the area of athlete endorsement study and athlete brand study is largely overlappi ng in terms of identifying the athletes positive and marketable image. Although they have not directly examined the athlete brand image, endorser image studies are highly applicable to the Athlete Brand Image model. Human Brand Though there are few stud ies examining a human as a brand, Thomson (2006) clarified why consumers develop strong attachment to human brands by applying self -determination and attachment theories. He focused on consumers strength of attachment because he assumed

PAGE 26

26 attachments may be important to understanding consumer -based brand equity. The study proved that fulfilling customers autonomy and relatedness needs strengthened their attachment to the human brand. In this study, autonomy is defined as a persons need to feel that his or her activities are self -chosen, self governed, and self -endorsed (Thomson, 2006). When a human brand can make consumers feel appreciated, empowered, and understood, the human brand can fulfill the customers autonomy needs. Relatedness is defined as a persons need to feel a sense of closeness with others (Thomson, 2006). When a human brand promotes acceptance, openness, and belonging, the customers need for relatedness is fulfilled. According to the study, repeated interaction between the human brand and consumers is needed to form attachments by fulfilling those autonomy and relatedness needs. Thomson (2006) suggested that repeated interaction could reduce uncertainty and provide the basis for an attachment to grow. However, the author also suggeste d that not only the quantity of the interaction but also the quality is important. When the human brand is perceived as accessible, increasing the opportunity for feeling of autonomy and relatedness, attachment is formed. This study was significant in term s of identifying a celebrity as a human brand and the fans needs for the human brand for the first time. The findings are unique from team branding literature and provide a deep insight to athlete brand image dimensions.

PAGE 27

27 Table 2 1. Comparison of i mage d imensions Human Brand Team Brand Arai & Ko (2009) Ohanian (1990) Choi & Rifon (2007) Braunstein & Zhang (2005) Gladden & Funk (2001) Ross, James, & Vargas (2006) Model of Athlete Brand Image (MABI) Celebrity Endorser Credibility Scale Celebrity Image Di mensions Scale of Athletic Star Power (SASP) Team Association Model (TAM) Team Brand Association Scale (TBAS) ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE Athletic Expertise Competition Style Sportsmanship Rivalry ATTRACTIVE APPEARANCE Physical Attractiveness Symbol Body Fit MARKETABLE LIFE STYLE Life Story Role Model Relationship Effort ATTRACTIVENESS Attractive Classy Handsome/Beautiful Elegant Sexy TRUSTWORTHINESS Dependable Honest Reliable Sincere Trustworthy EXPERTISE Expert Experienced Knowledgeable Qualified Skille d GENUINENESS Socially responsible/ Socially irresponsible Wise/ Stupid Pleasant/ Unpleasant Comfortable/ Uncomfortable Sophisticated/ Nave COMPETENCE Strong/ Weak Confident/ Apprehensive Enthusiastic/ Not enthusiastic Determined/ Undetermined EXCITEMEN T Rugged/ Delicate Excitable/ Calm Dominating/ Submissive Masculine/ Feminine SOCIABILITY Public/ Private Bold/ Shy PROFESSIONAL TRUSTWORTHINESS LIKABLE PERSONALITY ATHLETIC EXPERTISE SOCIAL ATTRACTIVENESS CHARACTERISTIC STYLE PRODUCT RELATED ATTRIBU TES Success Star Player Head Coach Management NONPRODUCT RELATED ATTRIBUTES Logo Design Stadium Product Delivery Tradition BENEFITS Escape Fun Identification Peer Group Acceptance Nostalgia Pride in Place NONPLAYER PERSONNEL TEAM SUCCESS TEAM HISTORY STADIUM COMMUNITY TEAM PLAY CHARACTERISTICS BRAND MARK CONSUMPTION EXPERIENCE CHARACTERISTICS OF SPORT COMMITMENT ORGANIZATIONAL ATTRIBUTE SOCIAL INTERACTION CONCESSIONS RIVALRY

PAGE 28

28 CHAPTER 3 PROPOSED MODEL Proposed Model of Athlete Brand Image Based on the comprehensive literature review and free -thought listing survey, we propose the model of Athlete Brand Image. Athlete Brand Image here is defined as a consumers descriptive perception about the Athlete Brand. Dimensions of Athlete Brand Image were developed based on Kellers classification of attribute dimensions: product related attributes, non -product related attributes. In most cases, athletes could attain their status as sport celebrities due to continued excellence within their field of sports (Andrews & Jackson, 2008). Therefore, athlete brands primary product should be Athletic Performance. We consider other off -field activities, Marketable Lifestyle, to be non -product related attributes. However, Attractive Appearance could be considere d as both an on -field attribute and off -field attribute. In addition, Attractive Appearance would work as a trademark of product brand, which is the main concern in most practical branding activity. Considering the importance of attractive appearance, we placed Attractive Appearances as a primary dimension, parallel in structure to Athletic Performance and Marketable Lifestyle. Athletic Performance Athletic Performance refers to an athletes performance related features, defined by Winning Record, Athlet ic Expertise, Competition Style, and Rivalry. Sport celebrities emerge and endure due to continued excellence within their respective fields of endeavor (Andrews & Jackson, 2008, p. 8) Therefore, Athletic Performance should be a fundamental dimension in Athlete Brand Image.

PAGE 29

29 Winning r ecord Winning Record refers to an athletes individual achievement in sport, whether the athlete wins games and holds titles or not. Success is probably the most important creator of brand associations and brand equity over t ime (Gladden, Milne & Sutton, 1998). In previous team sport studies, this dimension was referred as success (Gladden & Funks scale of Team Association, 2001 ). However, its concept is too broad. To distinguish winning from skills or team history dimens ion, we identified the dimension as winning record. However, Rein et al. (2006b) stated that winning is the one factor in the sports branding mix, and sports marketers must develop other branding strategies to sustain loyalty during the inevitable win los s cycles of teams and individual athletesSports products can only survive with new brand thinking. Athletic e xpertise Athletic Expertise involves an athletes athletic capability (winning, skills, and proficiency in their sport). Athletic Expertise is i mportant from the aspects of fulfilling consumers needs and achieving credibility. Success in sports is not only winning, Trail, Robinson, Dick, and Gillentine (2003) insisted that there are different types of fans. One type highly identifies themselves w ith the team and cares about winning. Another type is just the spectator type; seeking a well played, see -saw game. Those spectator fans are motivated by the skill and knowledge of the athletes or the team. In addition, Hovland, Janis, and Kelley (1953) an alyzed the factors leading to the perceived credibility of the endorser and concluded that the two factors expertness and trustworthiness were the dimensions of the source credibility. Ohanian (1990) further identified the expertise dimensions as Exper t, Experienced, Knowledgeable, Qualified, and Skilled. Our definition is based on Ohanians study (1990). Expertise is also identified from athlete endorsement studies (Braunstein & Zhang, 2005). The dimension is also supported by the free -thought listing survey.

PAGE 30

30 Competition s tyle Competition Style refers to an athletes specific characteristics of his/her performance in a competition. Spectator -motivation studies have found that identification with the team or player is one of the most important factors f or fans loyalty behavior (Trail, Robinson, Dick & Gillentine, 2003). If the athlete has a clear playing style, which fans can easily identify with, identification can lead to loyalty. This dimension is also supported by the sport team branding study (Ross et al., 2006) and free thought listing. Sportsmanship Sportsmanship refers to an athletes virtuous behavior and is often defined by fairness, integrity, ethical behavior, and respect for the game, opponent, and teammates (Sessions, 2004; Shields & Brede meier, 1995). Sportsmanship can be a symbolic message for the athlete brand, and it is also very important to attain trust from consumers. We identified this dimension as the athlete -specific factor of trustworthiness because Ohanian (1990) identified the dimensions of trustworthiness as D ependability, Honesty, Reliability, Sincerity, Trustworthiness in her Celebrity Endorser Credibility Scale. In the sports context, those dimensions overlap with the concept of sportsmanship. Rivalry Rivalry refers to an a thletes competitive relationship with other athletes This dimension is supported by Ross et al.s study (2006) and the free thought listing survey. Ross et al. defined rivalry as the factor of competition among teams known to be historically significant competitors. For example, the rivalry of Nadal and Federer adds more meaning to both of their games. Rivalry also promises an exciting game.

PAGE 31

31 Attractive Appearance Attractive Appearance refers to an athletes attractive external appearance that is defined by Physical Attractiveness, Symbol, and Body Fit. This primary dimension works as trademark for athlete brands. Physical a ttractiveness Physical Attractiveness has become an important dimension of source credibility (Ohanian, 1991). Consumers tend to f orm positive stereotypes about such people, and, in addition, research has shown that physically attractive communicators are more successful in changing beliefs than are unattractive communicators (Ohanian, 1991, p. 47). Also, Koo and Hardin (2008) state d that esthetics is one motivation for attachment to a sports team. Symbol Symbol refers to an athletes attractive personal style and trademark. This dimension is as important as name, logo, team color, or team sport (Gladden & Funk, 2001; Ross et al. 2006). For individual athletes, their names and their fashion style have public meaning apart from their real name and real fashion sense. In the free thought listing survey, many students mentioned Tigers red or black golf attire. Body f it Body F it refer s to how fit an athlete is for his sport. Because they are athletes, not fashion models, athletes attractiveness can be evaluated by the fitness of their body. Many physical psychological studies (Lau, Cheung & Ransdell 2008) have examined the relationsh ip between body image and self -esteem and found that the athletes body fitness could be a symbolic message of self -esteem and self -concept. Although many studies (Bissell, 2004) discuss the negative media message (e.g., implanting unrealistic body image t o adolescents; skinnier is better), Daniels (2009) suggests that performance images of female athletes (not sexualized

PAGE 32

32 female athletes) can positively impact female viewers. The study found that the performance images of female athletes prompted more physi cal self -descriptions than the other images (i.e., sexualized female athlete). Marketable Lifes tyle Marketable Lifestyle refers to an athletes off -field marketable features, which could be indicative of his/her personality. Pfahl (2009) asserted that for entrepreneurial athletes wishing to develop a self brand, a lifestyle approach is key to the brand strategy process. He emphasized the importance of the off -the -field life for individual athletes to express who they are and establish a relationship with c onsumers. Today, celebrities are put to the status not only because of their outstanding performance in their fields but also because of their distinct lifestyle s (Choi & Rifon, 2007). Consistent with Andrew and Jacksons (2001) statement that off -the -fiel d indiscretions can also play a role in understanding the personal narrative associated with a particular sport celebrity, it is natural to assume that those off -field attributes also have a strong influence on fans image of the athlete. Nowadays, athlete s are not just sports players, and the fans interest is extended to the athletes off -field life including fashion, life style, and their partners. I n an endorsement study, celebrities lifestyle have been considered a key factor for communicating with th eir customer. For example, McCraken (1989) suggested that the successful endorser depends on how effectively the symbolic properties (distinctions of status, class, gender, and age, as well as personality and lifestyle types) and cultural meanings of the c elebrity are transferred to the product image. Although many studies have supported that lifestyle is one of the key terms of marketing celebrity bands, what represents celebrities lifestyle has rarely been identified. In McCrakens study (1989) lifestyle was listed as one example of the endorsers symbolic properties.

PAGE 33

33 For the purpose of this study, we had to identify and define athlete brands lifestyle dimensions. In consumer behavior, lifestyle is defined as how one lives. Mowen and Minor (1998) stat e d that lifestyle denotes how people live, how they spend their money, and how they allocate their time. The authors also explained the relationship and difference between lifestyle and personality. The authors stated that lifestyle and personality are closely related but should be distinguishedpersonality refers to the internal characteristics of a person, while lifestyle refers to the external manifestations of those characteristics or how a person lives (p. 220). However, what consumers perceive ab out celebrities and their lifestyle cannot be explained just by time and money. Considering the virtue characteristics of sports, consumers often care about sport celebrities lifestyle in terms of how they care about and contribute to fans and society and how they grow up. Their lifestyle, attitude toward fans the society they belong and personal history reflects the athletes personality. The 20 0910 Tiger Woods scandal surprised everyone proving spectators cannot always know an athlete s true personality What we are watching is their lifestyle, which should reflect athletes personality and personal values. Therefore, although we identified the personality dimension in the free thought listing survey, we decided to sum up the personality dimension with lifestyle. The Marketable Life Style dimension could include Life Story, Role Model, and Relationship Effort. Life s tory Life Story refers to an appealing, interesting, off -field life story about an athlete that includes a message and reflects the athlet es personal value. Jowdy and McDonald (2002) suggested that one unique episode about an athlete can increase the value of the athlete. Jowdy and McDonald (2002) suggested that one unique episode about an athlete can raise an athletes value. This factor c an also be explained by the identification with the athlete theory. As team sports association studies have discovered, identification with the team is an important

PAGE 34

34 antecedent of a fans loyalty (Gladden & Funk, 2002). Therefore, a thletes who have unique s tories that fans can identify with may develop loyal fans. Role m odel Role Model refers to an athletes ethical behavior that society has determined is worth emulating. It could be related to the athletes active participation and contribution to society, conformance to societal norms, and exhibition of virtuous behavior. People need role -models and idolsThey offer essential help and orientation, for children and adolescents in particular (Biskup & Pfister, 1999, p. 199). This dimension is supported by Sport Interest Inventory scale (Neal & Funk, 2006) and the free thought listing survey. This dimension can be differentiated from sportsmanship because it is related with athletes off -field activity. Relationship e ffort Relationship Effort refers to an a thletes positive interaction with fans. Thomson (2006) suggested that fulfilling fans relatedness need by offering athletes online spaces such as blogs or chat rooms where fans can have direct contact with the athlete can assist with the development of f an attachment. Thus, those fan services are included in this dimension. According to Wielgus, executive director of USA Swimming (2009), Professional athletes will be viewed differently. Rich athletes will need to become more sensitive and connected to th e regular folks. Ostentatious behavior will be deplored more than ever and extravagance will be resented. Athletes who carry themselves with dignity and who show a sincere caring for other people will find new opportunities to advance their personal brand through cause -marketing and c ommunity service. In summary, we understand the athlete brand image as consumers perception of athlete brands attributes. Athlete brand image is defined by three umbrella dimensions (i.e., Athletic Performance, Attractive A ppearance, and Marketable Lifestyle), which are collectively described

PAGE 35

35 by 10 association sub-dimensions. (i.e., Winning Record, Competition Style, Rivalry, Physical Attractiveness, Symbol, Body Fit, Life Story, Role model, Relationship effort). Figure 3 1. Original c onceptual model of athlete brand image

PAGE 36

36 CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY The method of this study is presented in the following steps: (1) free thought listing survey (2) instrumentation and scale developing procedure (3) the sample and data collecti on procedure, and (4) the data analysis procedures. Free Thought Listing Survey As Ross et al. (2006) suggested, a literature review is not enough to identify the brand association dimensions. Therefore, we also conducted the free-thought listing survey. We needed additional supports to construct the model because human branding is a new study area and the number of supporting literature is not sufficient. The purpose of this survey was to find out the hidden dimensions and to support the athlete brand ass ociation dimensions, which were identified through the literature review. For the first step, they were asked to write down their favorite individual sports athlete and in which sport (e.g., tennis, golf, and figure skating). For the purpose of this surve y, we adopted Thomsons (2006, p. 104) definition of human brand (i.e., any well known persona who is the subject of marketing communications efforts) and asked the participant to answer questions in terms of their favorite athletes. Because the associ ation dimensions are influenced by fans knowledge and familiarity with the athlete (Dean, 2004), they can list more associations when they answer about favorite athletes than unfamiliar but high-profile athletes. The author asked in which sports? becaus e regarding the definition of brand awareness, we assumed that identifying the exact athlete name and sports category is the minimum requirement. In this survey, the author asked individual sports athletes to avoid including the effect from the association of team characteristics (e.g., player s in New York Yankees associate with neat).

PAGE 37

37 Then, the participants were asked to write down any thoughts, ideas, or feelings that came to mind when they thought of their athlete in five minutes. A total of 28 grad uate students in the sports management program at the University of Florida participated in the survey. Participants were on average, 24 years old and 60 percent were male and 40 percent were female. Seventy -five percent of the participants were Caucasian 7 percent were African -American, and 7 percent were Hispanic. For the most frequently mentioned athletes, seven students (25 percent) of students answered Tiger Woods (golf), two students (7 percent) answered Roger Federer (tennis), and another two stude nts (7 percent) answered Serena Williams (tennis). A total of 182 associations were listed, and each association was tabulated and the 10 most common dimensions, winning record (e.g., win majors, grand slam), athletic expertise (e.g., dominating, technique skill, control), style of competition (e.g., power hitter, entertaining, perfectionist), rivalry (e.g., Nadal, rivalry), physical attractiveness (e.g., charming, classy, attractive), symbol (e.g., red, beast, blonde), body fit (e.g., strong, big guy), pe rsonal story (e.g., family, comeback, alcoholism), role model (e.g., role model, work ethic), relationship with fans (e.g., respectful, good public speaker), and personality (e.g., humble, outgoing, personable), were used to develop the model of athlete br and image. Item Generation Athlete Brand Image Items For this study, we developed a Scale of Athlete Brand Image (SABI). The development of the SABI followed the standard psychometric procedures as suggested by Nunnally & Bernstein (1994). The first step in the scale development process was the generation of a list of items for each component of the athlete brand image. The initial items were generated based on extensive literature review. We revised or modified items mainly from existing scales: Team Asso ciation Questionnaire (Gladden & Funk, 2001), Team Brand Association Scale (Ross et al. 2008 ),

PAGE 38

38 Celebrity Endorser Credibility Scale (Ohanian, 1990), the Scale of Athletic Star Power (SASP; Braunstein & Zhang, 2007), the Celebrity Image Scale (Choi & Rifon 2007). However, because the existing scales did not directly measure the individual athletes brand image, we also developed new items for each factor of athlete brand image. On the basis of the review and synthesis of relevant literature, we generated a n initial pool of 71 items for athlete brand image dimensions. Twenty-three items were modified and used from the existing scales. Forty -eight items were newly generated by the researchers ( See Table 4 1) DeVellis ( 2003) suggested that the initial number of items should be 50 percent larger than the final scale. T herefore, five to 17 questions were prepared for each sub dimension. Through the item purification process, we aimed to distill a number of items into three to four items for each dimension. To a void problems such as specification error and nonconvergence of iterative estimation, it is safer to have three indicators per factor. (Kline, 1998) The format for the instrument was a seven -point Likert scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (7) S trongly Agree. Athletes Selection Method We defined the athlete brand at the beginning as a public persona who has already established their own symbolic meaning within their name, face, or other elements in the market. Therefore, we selected several spor t celebrities as investigation objects. We selected celebrity athletes based on person to -person interviews with doctoral students in the sports management program at the University of Florida and credible Internet information sources (i.e., Forbes Celebri ty 100, The Fortunate 50). The Celebrity 100 is the celebrity ranking based on Web, press, and TV ranking and the Fortunate 50 is the ranking the 50 highest -earning athletes in the U.S. Because athlete brands are defined as established public persona, thos e public objective evaluations helped to select the athletes. To reflect the sample characteristics, both female and

PAGE 39

39 male athletes are selected among as many categories of sports as possible. The total 10 athletes are selected: Danica Patrick (auto racing) David Beckham (soccer), Derek Jeter (baseball), LeBron James (basketball), Tiger Woods (golf), Maria Sharapova (tennis), Peyton Manning (American football), Phil Mickelson ( g olf), Roger Federer (tennis), and Serena Williams (tennis) (Group 1 athletes). In addition, we are investigating not only high -profile athletes who tend to possess positive image but also famous athletes who may possess negative images. To fully investigate image dimensions, the object athletes should reflect a range of images from positive to negative (Choi & Rifon, 2007). Therefore, based on personto -person interviews with doctoral students in the sports management program at the University of Florida, we identified another seven athletes who are also star athletes but have some co ntroversial issues (e.g., drug issue and scandal). As a result, we identified the target athletes to be examined as followings: Alex Rodriguez (g b aseball), Allen Iverson (basketball), Barry Bonds (baseball), Tony Stewart (auto racing), John Daly (golf), K obe Bryant (basketball), and Michael Phelps (swimming) (Group 2 athletes). The group 1 and 2 athletes are listed on the separate questionnaire. Two types of questionnaires are printed for group 1 athletes (Survey 1) and group 2 athletes (Survey 2). Demogr aphics The demographics section included four questions including gender, age, academic year, and ethnic background. Demographic variables were included in the questionnaire for sample description purposes. A Panel of Expert For the purification of the instrument, we began with an assessment of content and face validity through a panel of experts and field tests. A panel of experts is convened as the first step of the item purification. Through this procedure, we aimed to exclude or modify one or two po or

PAGE 40

40 explaining items from each dimension. The instrument was revised based on the results from the panel of experts. Panel members were 25 graduate students within the sports management program at the University of Florida. The participants were provided de tailed information of the purpose of this study and purpose of the panel of expert session. We asked participants to rate each item by the 5 -point Likert Scale in terms of each criterion: relevance, representativeness, and clarity. The items rated average above 3.7 by experts were kept and the items rated less than or equal to 3.7 were modified or dropped. As a result, six items were dropped, three items were added, and three items were modified due to lack of relevance, representativeness, and clarity. Thr ough the panel of experts review, a total of 68 items were kept and carried to the next purification step. The cover letter and actual instrument for the panel of experts is shown in Appendix A. Pilot T est A pilot test was conducted to test the reliability of the scale. The purpose of the pilot test is to eliminate poor performing items that confound the relationships in the model. A pilot study was conducted by administering the instrument (68 items) to 70 undergraduate students enrolled in sports manageme nt courses at the same university. In the pilot test, 13 athletes (both high profile and not high -profile) are listed, and the participants were asked to choose one athlete from the list and answer the following questions in terms of the athletes. The cove r letter and actual instrument for the pilot test are shown in Appendix B. Sixty -nine samples were used for analysis as valid data and one sample that did not fill out the half of total questions was eliminated. The missing data were found in 13 out of 69 items but the number was quite small and not enough to affect the entire result. Therefore, missing data was replaced with the mean value.

PAGE 41

41 Cronbachs alpha and item -to -total correlations were used as the criteria for item elimination. As Robinson, Shaver, and Wrightman (1991) suggested, items with higher than .50 reliability coefficients were kept and the items with lower than .50 reliability coefficients were eliminated or modified. Generally, if the reliability of a standardized test is above .80, it is said to have very good reliability. Therefore, the items were chosen to establish around .80 reliability coefficients. Reliability estimates, item to total correlations, means, and standard deviations were calculated for each sub -dimension. The results of the analysis of the subdimension items are presented in Table 4 3. The Cronbachs alphas were: .84 for W inning R ecord, .94 for A thletic E xpertise, .76 for C ompetition sStyle, .87 for Sportsmanship, .74 for Rivalry, .90 for Physical Attractiveness, .85 fo r Symbol, .92 for Body Fit, .70 for Life Story, .86 for Role Model, .90 for Relationship Effort. Through this process, 14 additional items were dropped, one item was added and eight items were modified based on the assessments of those items for internal consistency (i.e., Cronbachs alpha and item -to -total correlations) and factor loadings (Netemeyer, Bearden & Sharma, 2003). The instrument for the main survey had a total of 55 items. For the internal consistency of athlete brand image dimensions, Cronbac hs alpha ranged from .70 (Life Story) to .94 (Athletic Expertise). Based upon the results of the pilot test, scale items for each construct were considered reliable for the intended population (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Main S urvey Sampling In this s tudy, we used the convenient sampling method. From this sampling method, the college students at the University of Florida were selected as the sample for this study. College students are often considered to be major consumers of sports products and freque ntly used in

PAGE 42

42 product and brand choice research (Biswas & Sherrell, 1993). In this study, we aimed to obtain 400 samples. Sample size is determined by following factors: model misspecification, model size, departure from normality, and estimation procedure (Hair et al., 1998; Klein, 1998). Data Collection After obtaining approval from the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) of the University of Florida to administer the survey, the survey was conducted in three ways. The survey was conducted with (1) direct a dministration to students in the class rooms of the Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management Department, University of Florida, (2) direct administration to students in the Reiz Union, cafeteria section and (3) online survey. For the first method, we visit ed class rooms of the sports management department, University of Florida, and conducted the survey. We can expect a high response rate from this method Furthermore, with this data collection procedure; we can provide detailed information to minimize the n on -response error. For the second method, some assistant students and I visited the Reiz Union and distributed the survey to students sitting at cafeteria tables. With both methods, after we got students agreement to participate in the survey, a brief introduction about the survey including the purpose of the study, importance of the study, assurance of complete confidentiality, directions for responding each questions, and appreciation for their participation was given (the survey cover letter includes t he same contents). In addition to the direct administration method, the online survey was conducted to gather enough data. The online survey also included information about the introduction of the survey, including the purpose of the study, importance of t he study, assurance of complete confidentiality, directions on responding to each question, and appreciation for their participation in the first section of the survey. Therefore, we assume there is no difference between responses to direct administration and responses to the online survey.

PAGE 43

43 In the pilot study, we listed all athletes in the same paper and many of the participants chose only the high-profile athletes (i.e., Tiger Woods and LeB r on James). Therefore, in the main survey, the athlete list 1(only high -profile athletes), and 2 (not -high profile athletes but assumed to have fully established image in the market) were divided and distributed as different surveys. Therefore, two types of surveys that have two types of the athlete list were distributed aiming to correct 250 for survey 1 and 150 for survey 2. In the survey, the participants were asked to pick one of the most familiar athletes in the list and answer the following questionnaires in terms of the athlete. All items are answered by 7 -points, Likert type scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). The cover letter and actual instrument for main survey is shown in Appendix C. Data Analysis Procedures The conceptual definitions of each factor were provided in the literature review section. Thr ough the item -generation procedure, the items were argued and purified. Now, the structural relation of the model needs to be tested. The efficacy of the proposed model and psychometric properties of the scale were analyzed using the software Statistical P ackage for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 18.0 and Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS) 18. Demographic characteristics of the sample were determined by the SPSS 18.0. The model of athlete brand image consists of three primary dimensions: Athletic Performance, Attractive Appearance, and Marketable Lifestyle. Each dimension has three to five sub -dimensions. Athletic Performance consists of Winning Record, Athletic Expertise, Competition Style, Sportsmanship, and Rivalry. Attractive Appearance consists of Physica l Attractiveness, Symbol, and Body Fit. Marketable Life Style consists of Life Story, Role Model, and Relationship Effort. Therefore, the model can be examined as a third order factor model. To test the model, we adopted both the measurement model test and structural model test. This two -

PAGE 44

44 step approach is recommended for a research model that does not have a strong theoretical background (Hair et. al., 1998). Measurement Model. A measurement model specifies the relation between the measured variables or ind icators (i.e., specific items) and latent variables (i.e., dimension or sub dimensions) (Bollen, 1989). We tested a measurement model through a confirmatory factor analysis. A first -order measurement model specifies the relationships of the observed indic ators (scale items) and the 11 latent constructs (sub-dimensions; Figure 4 1. Measurement Model). A confirmatory factor analysis confirms the fit between model and data. The result of the measurement model indicates how well the items capture their specifi ed construct. Therefore, based on the confirmatory factor analysis, we purified the items and consequently the items will be narrowed down to three to four for each sub dimension. Structure Model The proposed model of athlete brand image was a third-order factor model. In the model, the construct consists of not only the direct primary dimensions, but also the 11 sub-dimensions: Winning Record, Athletic Expertise, Competition Style, Sportsmanship, Rivalry, Physical Attractiveness, Symbol, Body Fit, Life St ory, Role Model and Relationship Effort, which define Athlete Brand Image through the customers perception of the three primary dimensions: Athletic Performance, Attractive Appearance, and Marketable Life s tyle. The proposed hierarchical model of Athlete B rand Image was tested in two stages: (a) a test of the secondorder factor to test sub dimensions, (b) a test of the third-order factor to test the primary dimensions. As a first step, a second -order -factor model was tested to examine whether the three di mensions (i.e. Athletic Performance, Attractive Appearance, and Marketable Lifestyle) could be viewed as higher order factor to the 10 sub-dimensions and how they are related to each other

PAGE 45

45 (Figure 4 2. Second Factor Model ). We used second -order -confirmator y -factor analysis to test the model. For the next step, the third order -factor model was tested to examine whether the athlete brand image could be viewed as higher order factor to the three dimensions: Athletic Performance, Attractive Appearance and Mark etable Lifestyle ( See Figure 4 3. Third Order Factor Model) Model Fit Index. Model fit was evaluated by following indexes: Chi -square (Chi square/df ratio), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), and Standardized Ro ot Mean Residual (SRMR). Although there is no clear -cut guideline about the value of Chi -square statistics ( 2/df), the ratio of values of 2 and degree of freedom less than 3 is considered to be good fit or acceptable fit (Kline, 1998). A 2/df ratio less than 2.0 indicates an excellent model fit (Hayduk, 1996). Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) is the average of the residuals between the observed and predicted matrices (Hair et al., 1998). The SRMR of 0 indicates a perfect fit, and the smaller the RMR is the better (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1998). Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is the discrepancy (the average of the residuals between the observed and estimated matrices) per degree of freedom. RMSEA is recommended with relatively larg e sample. Browne and Cudeck (1993) indicated that values of 0.08 or less for the RMSEA provide evidence for reasonable fits and values less than or equal to about 0.10 should be satisfactory for exploratory research. Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is a relati ve comparison of the proposed model to the null model which is a measure ranging from 0 (not fit at all) to 1.0 (perfect fit). Value of 0 for CFI indicates the model is not fit at all and 1 indicates perfect fit. The value of .80 indicates that the relativ e overall fit of the proposed model is 80 percent better than that of the null model. A recommended value for CFI is .90 or

PAGE 46

46 greater (Bentler & Bonnet, 1980; Kline, 1998). Hu and Bentler (1999) recommend a conservative threshold of .95. Validity and Relia bility. In addition to the model fit tests, the researcher examined the reliability and validity of measurement scale. To establish the validity of the measurement scale, both convergent and discriminant validity were examined. Convergent validity assesses the degree to which a measure correlates highly with other measures designed to measure the same construct (Churchill, 1979). Convergent validity is established when each scale item has a significant factor loading on each construct (Anderson & Gerbing, 1 988; Netemeyer, Johnson & Burton, 1990). If all the factor loadings for the indicators were greater than twice their standard errors, the parameter estimates demonstrated convergent validity. Discriminant validity was tested by examining the correlations b etween the factors. To establish discriminant validity, the correlations of the factors should not be higher than .85 (Kline, 1998). The reliability was tested by calculating construct reliability (CR) and AVE scores. Reliable items are highly inter correl ated and, therefore, denote that they measure a common latent construct (Hair et al., 1998). The recommended .70 cut -off value was adopted to determine CR (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). A benchmark value for AVE was .50 suggested by Hair et al. (1998). AVE values greater than .50 were considered to be reliable.

PAGE 47

47 Figure 4 1. First order factor model

PAGE 48

48 Figure 4 2. Second order factor model

PAGE 49

49 Figure 4 3. Third order factor model

PAGE 50

50 Table 4 1. Result of the free thought listing survey Dimensions Words Winning Record Win Majors, Grand Slum etc Athletic Expertise Dominating, Technique, Skill, Control etc Competition Style Power hitter, Entertaining, Perfectionist etc Rivalry Nadal, Rivalry etc Physical Attractivene ss Charming, Classy, Attractive etc Symbol Red, Beast, Blonde etc Body Fit Strong, Big guy etc Personal Story Family, Comeback, Alcoholism etc Relationship with fans Respectful, good public speaker etc Personality Humble, Outgoing, Per sonable etc Table 4 2. Originally identified items f or athlete brand image Items Athletic Performance Winning Record M The athlete is doing really well in a competition Arai & Ko M The athlete is successful in his/her career Arai & Ko T he athlete has good winning records Arai & Ko P The athlete won titles Arai & Ko P The athlete received awards Arai & Ko P The athlete has set new record Arai & Ko The athlete is a dominating player in his/her sport Arai & Ko Athletic Expertise P The athlete is an expert in his/her sport Ohanian, 1990, Expertise M The athlete is talented Braustein & Zhang, 2005, Athletic Expertise M The athlete is well qualified Ohanian, 1990, Expertise The athlete seems very knowledgeable in his/her sport Ohanian, 1990, Expertise M The athlete has knowledge about his/her sport M The athlete has high level of skill in his/ her sport Braustein & Zhang, 2005, Athletic Expertise The athlete has prominent athletic skills in his/ her sport Arai & Ko P Th e athlete has authentic skills Arai & Ko P The athlete is dependable in a high pressure moment in a competition Ohanian, 1990, Trustworthiness P The athlete shows reliable performance Ohanian, 1990, Trustworthiness

PAGE 51

51 Table 4 2. Continued Attractive appearanc e Attribute Physical Attractiveness The athlete is physically attractive Ohanian, 1990, A ttractiveness PE The athlete is classy Ohanian, 1990, A ttractiveness The athlete has beautiful looking Ohanian, 1990, A ttractiveness PE The athlete is eleg ant Ohanian, 1990, A ttractiveness M The athlete is sexy Ohanian, 1990, A ttractiveness PE + The athlete is aesthetically pleasing Ohanian, 1990, A ttractiveness Symbol M The athlete has distinctive looking Braustein & Zhang, 2005, Social Attractivenes s M The athlete wears attractive uniform/ sporting wear Arai & Ko The athlete has his/her own style in fashion Arai & Ko M The athlete has distinctive trade mark colors Arai & Ko The athletes private fashion is attractive Arai & Ko Competition Style M The athletes performance has unique characteristics Ross, Russel, & Bang, 2008, Team Play The athletes competition style is distinctive from other players Ross, Russel, & Bang, 2008, Team Play His/ Her performance is exciting to watch Arai & Ko PE + The athlete shows beautiful competition style Arai & Ko His/ Her competition style i s charismatic Arai & Ko M The athlete is courageous Arai & Ko P His/ Her competition style is glamorous Arai & Ko PE His/ Her competition style is elegant Arai & Ko Sportsmanship The athlete shows sportsmanship in competition Arai & Ko The at hlete shows integrity in competition Arai & Ko M The athlete shows respect for his/her opponents and other players Arai & Ko P +/ The athlete shows fair play Arai & Ko Rivalry M The athlete has good rivals Arai & Ko The rivalry match of this a thlete is exciting Arai & Ko The athlete does well against his/ her major rival Ross, Russel, & Bang, 2008, Rivalry Rivalry match of this athlete is dramatic Arai & Ko PE The athlete doesnt have any specific rivals Arai & Ko

PAGE 52

52 Table 4 2. Continued The athlete is stylish Tenser, 2004; Knowledge Networks online survey PE +/M His/ her fashion is trendy Arai & Ko Body Fit The athlete is physically fit Arai & Ko The athletes body is perfect for the sport Arai & Ko P The athlete looks strong Arai & Ko The athlete is in good shape Ar ai & Ko M The athletes body fit to the sport Arai & Ko M The athletes body is well conditioned Arai & Ko Marketable Lifestyle Attribute Life Story The athlete has a heroic episode/ story in his/her life Arai & Ko The athlete has a legendary episode Arai & Ko The athlete has a dramatic episode in his/her life Arai & Ko PE The athlete doesnt have any interesting anecdotes Arai & Ko M The athlete has a dramatic personal life Arai & Ko M His/ Her private life style is newsy Arai & Ko Rol e Model Behavior M The athlete is a good citizen Arai & Ko PE The athlete has good family life Tenser, 2004, Knowledge Networks online survey M The athlete never use drug Tenser, 2004, Knowledge Networks online survey The athlete is socially respon sible Dimen, Choi & Rifon, 2007, Celebrity Image Scale, Geniumness The athlete is good role model for others Neal & Funk, 2006, Sport Interest Inventory Scale, Role Model P The athlete provides inspiration for people Neal & Funk, 2006, Sport Interest I nventory Scale, Role Model The athlete is a good leader in our community Arai & Ko Relationship Effort The athlete cares about his/her fans Arai & Ko The athlete shows appreciation for fans and spectators Arai & Ko The athlete is responsive to fans Arai & Ko M The athlete tries to interact with fans Arai & Ko P The athlete is approachable fans Braustein & Zhang, 2005, Likable personality P The athlete has good relationship with Sponsors Arai & Ko P The athlete has positive attitude towar d sponsor Arai & Ko Symbol

PAGE 53

53 Table 4 2. Continued P The athlete has good relationship with media Arai & Ko M The athlete is committed to social activity (e.g., charity) Ross, Russel, & Bang, 2008, Organizational Attribute M The athlete is good public speaker Arai & Ko Note: PE Eliminated in Panel of Expert PE + Added in Panel of Expert P Eliminated in Pilot Test P + Added in Pilot Test MEliminated in Main Survey Table 4 3. Demographic c haracteristics of p ilot t est s ample Variables N Percentage Gender Male 43 61.4% Female 26 37.1% Academic Year Freshman 3 4.3% Sophomore 9 13.0% Junior 25 36.2% Senior 32 46.4% Ethnic background African American 5 7.1% Asian American 1 1.4% Caucasian/White 50 71.4% Native American 10 14.3% Hispanic 0 0.0% Others 3 4.2% Table 4 4 Athlete selection in pilot test Athlete N Percentage Alex Rodriguez (Baseball) 3 4.3% Danica Patrick (Auto racing) David Beckham (Soccer) 0 0.0 % 3 4.3% Derek Jeter (Baseball) 4 5.7% Kobe Bryant (Basketball) 5 7.1% LeBron James (Basketball) 12 17.1% Tiger Woods (Golf) 16 22.9% Maria Sharapova (Tennis) 0 0.0% Relationship Effort

PAGE 54

54 Table 4 4. Continued Athlete N Percentage Michael Phelps (Swimming) 6 8.6% Peyt on Manning (American Football) 15 21.4% Phil Mickelson (Golf) 3 4.3% Roger Federer (Tennis) 2 2.9% Serena Williams (Tennis) 1 1.4% Table 4 5 The result o f the pilot test Scale Items (n=69) Items Item to Total Correlation Means Standard Deviation W inning Record WR1 .67 6.2 1.12 WR2 .60 6.6 .68 WR3 .76 6.3 .93 WR7 .70 6.5 .94 Athletic Expertise AE2 .86 6.7 .75 AE3 .81 6.3 1.05 AE4 .85 6.5 .82 AE5 .84 6.6 .70 AE6 .77 6.6 .91 AE7 .83 6.5 1.00 Competition Style CS1 .54 6.3 1.04 CS2 .48 6.4 .81 CS3 .59 6.3 1.01 CS4 .53 6.1 1.00 CS5 .53 5.2 1.52 CS7 .42 5.6 1.08 Sportsmanship CS6 .73 6.0 1.25 CS8 .68 5.8 1.22 CS9 .84 6.0 1.20 Rivalry R1 .54 5.7 1.40 R2 .60 5.9 1.16 R3 .37 5.8 1 .20 R4 .62 5.9 1.20 Physical Attractiveness PA1 .77 4.7 1.75 PA2 .82 3.7 1.81 PA3 .85 3.7 1.89 PA4 .75 4.7 1.58 S1 .59 5.7 1.26

PAGE 55

55 Table 4 5. Continued Scale Items (n=69) Items Item to Total Correlation Means Standard Deviation Symbol = .85 S2 .67 4.7 1.56 S4 .37 4.8 1.62 S5 .80 4.3 1.55 S6 .74 4.6 1.50 S7 .79 4.5 1.60 Body Fit BF1 .72 6.2 1.12 BF2 .79 5.3 1.44 BF4 .80 6.0 1.24 BF5 .85 5.8 1.48 BF6 .86 5.8 1.39 Life Story LS1 .20 5.8 1.24 LS3 .62 4 .8 1.42 LS4 .62 4.0 1.61 LS5 .50 4.0 1.68 Role Model RM1 .63 5.8 .95 RM2 .64 4.9 2.01 RM3 .73 5.2 1.20 RM4 .77 5.7 1.16 RM6 .78 5.2 1.36 Relationship Effort RE1 .76 5.5 1.23 RE2 .80 5.5 1.24 RE3 .84 5.4 1.14 RE4 .74 5.2 1.25 RE9 .71 5.6 1.18 RM7 .53 5.5 1.41

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS In this section, the results of the study are presented. Through the data collection procedure, 427 surveys were collected. Among the 427 returned surveys, 402 cases were determined as usable cases. The other 25 cases were not completed and thus excluded in the data analysis as unusable data. Among the 402 usable cases, 131 were collected in class (32 percent), 208 were collected in the cafeteria (52 percent), and 63 were collected via online survey (16 percent). Among 402 cases, 262 cases are survey 1 (high-profile athletes), and 140 were survey 2 (not high-profile but famous athletes). Missing data were identified in 45 of the 55 items. One hundred and -seventy-three missing data were identified among whole data but the number of the missing data was not large (0.7 percent of entire data) and thus negligible. The missing values were replaced with the mean value of the variable based on all valid responses (Hair et al., 1998). Demog raphi c Characteristics of the S ample For this study, the target survey sample was college students at the University of Florida. Among the usable 402 samples, 49.4 percent were male and 50.5 percent were female. The average age of the sample was 21.3 year s old and the age of the majority of the participants was between 18 20 (51 percent) and 21 23 (30 percent). The majority of ethnicity was Caucasian (56.5 percent). In terms of an academic year, junior students were the majority (24.6 percent). Demographic characteristics of the main survey sample are shown in Table 5 1 Among 402 cases, 262 answered survey 1 (Group 1, high -profile athletes), and 140 cases answered survey 2 (Group 2, or -high -profile but famous athletes). In the Group 1athletes, Peyton Mann ing (American football) was most frequently identified the most familiar athlete by the participants (20.2 percent). David Beckham was the second (19.8 percent) and Tiger Woods was the third (17.5 percent). Among Group 2 athletes, Michael Phelps (swimming) was most

PAGE 57

57 frequently identified as the most familiar athlete (37.8 percent). Kobe Bryant (basketball) was the second (30.0 percent) and Alex Rodriguez (baseball) was the third (18.5 percent). Results of the Measurement Model Test The data were first subje cted to further scale purification using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Based on the assessment of psychometric properties, theoretical relevance of the items and scale parsimony, 24 items were dropped, leaving a final set of 31 items. The finalized s cale items are shown in Table 5 3. Based on the high correlation between Winning Record and Athletic Expertise (.93, see Figure 5 1. Original Measurement Model of Athletic Performance), the sub-dimension of Winning Record was eliminated and synthesized as Athletic Expertise. Two items from Winning Record were adopted as items for Athletic Expertise. The final model of Athlete Brand Image is shown in Figure 5 3. The results of the CFA showed reasonable fit. For the first order measurement model, the values o 2/ df = 991/387 =2.56 at p <.001, RMSEA = .062, CFI = .91, SRMR = .062) indicated that the measurement model has a good fit to the data. The ratio of chi -square and degrees of freedom was 2.56 which meeting the criteria range of 2.0 3.0 (Car mines & McIver, 1981; Kline, 1998). RMSEA was reported as .062, which is less than .08 as suggested by Browne and Cudeck (1993). RMSEA provided evidence for reasonable fits. CFI was .91, which was higher than the .90 suggested thresholds. SRMR (.062) was b elow the recommended .10 ceiling, indicating an adequate fit (Kline, 1998). CFI values were slightly lower than the suggested threshold and the ratio of chi -square and degrees of freedom is little more than criteria range. However, considering the size of the model, the gap 2/ df = 1359/419 =3.25 at p <.001, 2/ df = 1359/419 =3.25 at p <.001, RMSEA = .075, CFI = .86, SRMR = .096) suggest that the models reasonably fit to the data. (see Table 5 3.)

PAGE 58

58 Reliability. The reliability estimates were investigated using construct reliabilities and average variance extracted (AVE) for each factor (see Table 5 4. ). Construct reliability coefficients for th e scale were acceptable (greater than .60; Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), ranging from .64 (Life Story) to .88 (Role Model). Except for three cases (Athlete Expertise, Competition Style, and Life Story), AVE values were acceptable (AVE > .50; Hair et al., 1998) rang ing from .52 (Body Fit) to .70 (Role Model). Validity. Convergent validity is established when each scale item has a significant factor loading on each construct (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Netemeyer, Johnson & Burton, 1990). To establish convergent validit y, all the factor loadings for the indicators were greater than twice their standard errors. Generally, all factor loadings were significant with critical ratio ranging from 10.0 to 19.1 at p < .05 level, supporting convergent validity (Rahim & Magner, 1996). Table 5 4. shows that except for two items, the factor loadings for all items were greater than the .60 threshold. In addition, significant relationships between the 10 subdimensions and three dimensions (i.e., Athletic Performance, Attractive Appeara nce, and Marketable Lifestyle), and three dimensions and overall image further support convergent validity of the scale (see Table 5 5. ; Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Taken together, the results include evidence for convergent validity of the measurement scal es. D iscriminant validity is established when the estimated correlations between the dimensions are not excessively high (>.85; Kline, 2005). Table 5 5. supports the discriminant validity of the scale. Discriminant validity is also evident when the squared correlations between one construct and any others are lower than the AVE for each construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 5 5. shows evidence of discriminant validity of the scale except for four cases (.79 between Athletic Expertise and Competition St yle, .72 between

PAGE 59

59 Competition Style and Sportsmanship, .72 between Athletic Expertise and Rivalry, and .69 between Competition Style and Rivalry).

PAGE 60

60 Figure 5 1. Origin al measurement model of athletic performance

PAGE 61

61 Figure 5 2. Revised measurement model of athletic performance

PAGE 62

62 Figure 5 3. Final model of athlete brand image

PAGE 63

63 Table 5 1. The result o f the main survey Demographic Variables N=402 Percentage Gender Male 198 49.4% Female 203 50.5% Age 1 17 3 0.7% (Ave= 21.3) 18 20 205 51.0% 21 23 121 30.1% 24 26 44 11.0% 27 29 15 3.6% 14 3.1% Academic Year Freshman 73 18.2% Sophomore 62 15.4% Junior 99 24.6% Senior 80 19.9% Graduate Student 76 18.9% Others 12 3.0% Ethnic background African Ameri can 32 8.0 % Asian American 49 12.3% Caucasian/White 227 56.5% Native American 0 0.0% Hispanic 57 14.2 % Others 33 8.2% Table 5 2 Athlete selection in main survey Group 1 Athlete N=262 Percentage Danica Patrick (Auto racing) 4 1.5% David Beckham (Soccer) Derek Jeter (Baseball) 52 19.8% 22 8.4% LeBron James (Basketball) 39 14.9% Tiger Woods (Golf) 46 17.5% Maria Sharapova (Tennis) 6 2.2% Peyton Manning (American Football) 53 20.2% Phil Mickelson (Golf) 2 0.7% Roger Federer (Te nnis) 26 9.9% Serena Williams (Tennis) 7 2.6%

PAGE 64

64 Table 5 2. Continued Group 2 Athlete N=140 Percentage Alex Rodriguez (Baseball) 26 18.5% Allen Iverson (Basketball) 12 8.5% Barry Bond (Baseball) 2 1.4% Tony Stewart (Auto racing) 1 0.7% John Daly (Gol f) 2 1.4% Kobe Bryant (Basketball) 42 30.0% Michael Phelps (Swimming) 53 37.8% Table 5 3. Fit tab le CMIN DF CMIN/DF CFI RMSEA SRMR Model 1 First Order 990.751 387 2.560 .910 .062 .0520 Model 2 Second Order 1359.454 419 3.245 .860 .075 .0958 Mod el 3 Third Order 1359.454 419 3.245 .860 .075 .0958

PAGE 65

65 Table 5 4. Summary results for c onfirmatory f actor a nalysis Factors and items Means S.E. CR AVE Athletic Expertise The athlete has good winning records 6.23 .69 .047 .78 .48 The athlete is a dominating player in his/her sport 6.20 .74 .050 The athlete seems very knowledgeable in his/her sport 6.32 .65 .048 The athlete has prominent athletic skills in his/her sport 6.25 .68 .053 Competition Style The athletes competiti on style is distinctive from other players 5.85 .54 .053 .70 .44 The athletes competition style is exciting to watch 6.22 .71 .051 The athletes competition style is charismatic 5.86 .73 .056 Sportsmanship The athlete shows sportsmanship in competition 5.90 .67 .056 .79 .56 The athlete shows integrity in competition 5.87 .83 .057 The athlete shows fair play 5.76 .74 .061 Rivalry The rivalry match of this athlete is exciting 5.87 .78 .060 .80 .58 The athlete does w ell against his/her major rival 5.96 .74 .053 The rivalry match of this athlete is dramatic 5.70 .76 .060 Physical Attractiveness The athlete is physically attractive 5.30 .83 .076 .86 .68 The athlete is beautiful looking 4.79 .89 .083 The athlete is aesthetically pleasing 5.19 .75 .072 Symbol The athlete has his/her own style in fashion 4.75 .79 .075 .87 .69 The athletes private fashion is attractive 4.62 .87 .081 The athlete is stylish 4.99 .83 .075 Body Fit The athlete is physically fit 6.21 .64 .052 .77 .52 The athletes body is perfect for the sport 5.54 .80 .070 The athlete is in good shape 5.96 .72 .058 Life Story The athlete has heroic stories in his/her life 4.97 .60 .069 .64 .38 T he athlete has a legendary episode 5.63 .70 .066 The athlete has dramatic episodes in his/her life 4.83 .53 .074 Role Model The athlete is socially responsible 5.16 .85 .071 .88 .70 The athlete is good role model for others 5.29 .85 .0 71 The athlete is a good leader in our community 4.99 .81 .069 Relationship Effort The athlete cares about his/her fans 5.55 .76 .058 .85 .65 The athlete shows appreciation for fans and spectators 5.71 .85 .057 The athlete is responsive to fans 5.57 .81 .056

PAGE 66

66 Table 5 5. Loadings, p ath c oefficients, and r esidual v ariances for the h ypothesized m odel Parameter Unstandardized S.E. Standardized Loadings on Third Order Image Image Athletic Performance 0.98* 0.15 .92 Image ive Appearance 0.31 0.06 .41 Image Marketable Lifestyle 1.00 .85 Loadings on Second Order Image Athletic Performance Athletic Expertise 0.79 0.08 .82 Athletic Performance Competition Style 0.97* 0.09 .91* Athletic Performance Sports manship 0.94 0.07 .79 Athletic Performance Rivalry 1.00 .81 Attractive Appearance Physical Attractiveness 1.75* 0.20 .88 Attractive Appearance Symbol 2.11 0.24 .93 Attractive Appearance Body Fit 1.00 .72 Marketable Lifestyle Lif e Story 0.45 0.08 .54 Marketable Lifestyle Role Model 1.11 0.09 .83 Marketable Lifestyle Relationship Effort 1.00 .94 Note: *p < .05.

PAGE 67

67 Table 5 6. Correlation m atrix a Average Variance Extracted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Athletic Expertise .477 a Competition St yle .787 .442 a Sportsmanship .582 .717 .561 a Rivalry .762 .692 .566 .578 a Physical Attractiveness .214 .330 .116 .233 .681 a Symbol .185 .419 .121 .234 .825 .690 a Body Fit .623 .574 .206 .564 .638 .650 .523 a Life Story .511 .531 .304 .575 .490 .601 .647 .377 a Role Model .389 .549 .715 .434 .170 .297 .142 .355 .700 a Relationship Effort .554 .645 .731 .604 .225 .290 .244 .463 .814 .652 a

PAGE 68

68 Table 5 7. Final dimensions a nd definitions o f athlete brand image Athlete Brand Image consumers descriptive perception about the athlete Brand Dimension Definition Sub dimension Definition Theoretical Background Athletic performance An athletes performance related features which are defined by Athletic Expertise, Competition Style, Sportsmanship and Rivalry Athletic Expertise An athletes individual achievement and athletic capability (winning, skills, and proficiency in their sport) Braunstein, & Zhang, 2005 Ohanian, 1990, 1991 Free Thought Listing Competition Style An athletes specific characteristics of his/her performance in a competition Ross, James, & Vargas, 2006 Free Thought Listing Sportsmanship An athletes virtuous behavior that people have determined is approp riate as sportsman (fair play, respect for the game, and integrity) Sessions, 2004 Shields & Bredemeier, 1995 Rivalry An athletes competitive relationship with other athletes Ross, James, & Vargas, 2006 Free Thought Listing Attractive Appearance A n Athletes attractive external appearance that is defined by Physical Attractiveness, Symbol and Body Fit Physical Attractiveness An athletes physical quality and characteristics that spectators find aesthetically pleasing Ohanian, 1990,1991 Free Thought Listing Symbol An athletes attractive personal style and trademark Gladden & Funk, 2001, 2002 Gladden, Milne & Sutton, 1998 Ross, James, & Vargas, 2006 Free Thought Listing Body Fit An athletes body fitness to his/her sport Daniels, 2009 Free Th ought Listing Marketable Lifestyle An athletes off field marketable features that is defined by Life Story, Role Model Behavior, and relationship effort Life Story An appealing, interesting off field life story about an athlete that includes a message and reflects the athletes personal value Jowdy & McDonald, 2002 Free Thought Listing Role Model An athletes ethical behavior that society has determined is worth emulating Neal & Funk, 2006 Free Thought Listing Relationship Effort An athletes positive attitude toward interaction with fans, spectators, sponsors and media Thomson, 2006 Free Thought Listing

PAGE 69

69 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION Theoretical Implication s Previous studies have discussed athletes as brands (Till, 2001). However, there is a gap in brand management literature due to a lack of theoretical understanding of the athlete brand image. Furthermore, structure of human brand image has rarely been empirically examined. To fill the gap, this research attempts to develop a model and a measuremen t scale of athlete brand image. This study is significant in terms of (a) defining the athlete brand (b) identifying the image dimensions of at hlete b rand image (c) conceptualized the structure of athlete brand image dimensions, and (d) empirically testing the structure of athlete brand image dimension with survey data. Although many studies have discussed athlete as brand, many agents and management companies have stated branding of athletes as their primary job description. However, the argument What is Athlete Brand? has not been fully discussed. In this study, we discussed whether the athlete as human can be a brand and defined the athlete brand. For this purpose, this study synthesized the previous sport team branding and celebrity endorsement studi es. In particular, compared to the human brand management studies, there is a rich history of celebrity endorsement. However, due to the difference of the goal orientation (i.e., How to use athlete for company or products brands and How to develop self -brand for athletes), the direct application of the endorsement study to the athlete self -branding is not appropriate. Therefore, this study extended the concept of celebrity endorsement study to develop a conceptual framework of individual brand for athl etes by identifying sport -specific image association dimensions and human-specific image association dimensions.

PAGE 70

70 Third, this study conceptualized the structure of athlete brand image dimensions. Previous team branding studies (Gladden & Funk, 2001; Bauer, Sauer & Exler, 2008) mainly followed Kellers Customer -Based Brand Equity for understanding the brand image association structure (i.e., product related attribute, non -product related attribute, benefit, and attitude). On the other hand, the endorsement s tudies (Ohanian, 1990; Choi & Rifon, 2007) have focused on only descriptive attributes of human brand (i.e., The athlete is/has, Not I feel/think). Consistent with those endorsement studies, our model only focused on the attributes. Keller (1993) admit ted that the associations among attributes, perceived benefits, and attitude are not independent of each other, but some benefits correspond with attributes. In this study, free thought listing survey didnt identify the benefit dimension. The result sugge sted that when consumers are asked to think about the brand, they tend to recognize only one aspect, perceived attribute. Bauer, Sauer and Exler (2005) explained the relationships between brand attribute and perceived benefit by applying the means end cha in model (Gutman, 1982). They suggested that product attributes are the means for consumers to obtain a desired benefit. In the subconscious level of a consumers mind, the product attributes are ideally linked to desirable benefits for the consumer. Based on their study, we understand an athletes brand image as a spectators perception about athlete brand attributes. Finally, this study empirically tested the conceptual framework of athlete brand image. The results of data analysis indicated that the pro posed research model (MABI) adequately described the concept of athlete brand image. CFI values were slightly lower than the suggested threshold, and the ratio of chi -square and degrees of freedom is little more than criteria range in the secondorder mod el and overall model. However, considering the large number of factors included in the model test, the overall fit of the model was reasonable.

PAGE 71

71 The results of CFA suggest that the SABI is a psychometrically sound tool. However, further improvement of the SABI can also provide practitioners with a reliable and valid analytical tool for the measurement of athlete brand image. Recommendations for Future S tudy In future studies, the relationship between benefit dimensions and attribute needs to be confirmed, and benefit dimensions also have to be identified corresponding with the image dimensions empirically tested. In terms of the statistical supports, further research is needed to reexamine the reliability and discriminant validity for these measures using potentially revised items and a broader sample. For example, relatively low factor loadings of Life Story items resulted in low AVE score. In addition, the discriminant validity of three factors in Athlete Performance (i.e., Competition Style, Sportsmanshi p, and Rivalry) need to be reexamined in future studies. Once the scale is further refined, it can be used to more decisively predict sports consumers perceptions toward athlete brands. The scale can be also used as a diagnostic tool that allows various s port agents and managers to identify weakness of the athlete as a brand and develop effective strategies in building stronger brands. Second, the model needs to be tested with a greater female athlete sample. In this study, nearly 96 percent of the partic ipants selected male athletes from the list. The low loading between Athlete Brand Image and Attractive Appearance (.41) may have caused this problem. As this results showed, the gender difference of the perception of athlete brand may need to be tested. ( i.e., male/female consumers and male/female athletes). Third, the model needs to be tested with different samples in the future. In this study, the researcher used the college students as a target sample. However, the model needs to be tested with other sa mples to generalize. The cross cultural study will be important for developing a

PAGE 72

72 global branding strategy for athletes. As the researcher discussed in the introduction and literature review section, brands have to build in and reflect the cultural meaning in the market. Therefore, the branding strategies in different cultural contexts should be different. In the modern era of expanding globalization, it is crucial to develop the global brand management strategy for client athletes. In fact, there are many a thletes, such as David Beckham, who have established the global brand. In future, the model should be examined to see if it is applicable for establishing the global athlete brand image or needs to be modified with the cross -cultural samples. Lastly, athl ete brands are a very unique product and different from other products or corporations. The athlete brands are growing and changing as person (Grant, 2008) The model has to be examined and compared in different stages of an athletes lifecycle. Manageri al Implication s All in all, it is believed that the MABI and SABI will help scholars and managers better understand how consumers perceive and evaluate the brand image of an athlete. Once the scale is further refined, it can be used to more decisively pred ict sports consumers perceptions toward the athlete brands. The scale can also be used as a diagnostic tool allowing various sport agents and managers to identify weaknesses of the athlete as a brand and develop effective strategies in building stronger b rands. For example, our model classified the image dimensions into Athletic Performance, Attractive Appearance, and Marketable Lifestyle. Brand managers can analyze athlete brand based on these dimensions. The three dimensions: Athletic Performance, Attra ctive Appearance, and Marketable Lifestyle are very practical. In managing athlete brand, the image of the Athletic Performance should be the most difficult part to control for managers because the consumers perceptions about athletes Athletic Performanc e are largely dependent on statistical facts or reputation

PAGE 73

73 developed by the media. On the other hand, consumers perspective of Marketable Lifestyle is relatively more controllable (e.g., educating the athletes and sharing athletes personal opinions on homepage). Consistent with a recent branding study (e.g., Pfal, 2009), the result showed that Lifestyle factor is critical factor for the athlete brands. On the other hand, compared to Attractive Appearance (loading .41), Athletic Performance (loading .94; Figure 5 3.) and Marketable Lifestyle (loading .84) dont seem as crucial for athletes to be established as brands.

PAGE 74

74 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION Fifty years ago, Levitt Theodore noticed the potential of brand management. In his famous article Marketing Myopia, he insisted that the new competition is not between what companies produce in their factories but between what they add to their factory output in the form of packaging, services, advertising, customer advice, financing, delivery arrangements, warehousin g, and other things that people value (Levitt, 1960). However, the idea was not applied to human brand until fairly recently. In fact, it was in 1950 that people recognized the athletes right of publicity for the first time. (Storie, 2008) Half a cent ury later, players not only control their endorsements, but have become brands in their own right (Storie, 2008, p.13). Sport is intangible and subjective commodity. (Mullin, Hardy & Sutton, 2008, p. 28). Brand management is more effective when the value of the branding objects is more subjective because for those objects, the added value (brand equity) means a lot. The quote is applicable to the individual athlete. In modern sports business, the important thing is not only what an athlete produces (i. e., performance, winning or losing) but how to package the product, winning or losing. Aaker suggested that brand image helps to establish the brand identity (1996), and this A thlete Brand Image model will help sports agents and managers as a guideline to build or (rebuild) the athletes identity as a brand. In academia, the study clarified both branding in sports and endorsement study research flow, and synthesized an individual athlete branding study. The study revealed the dimensions of consumers image and classified new categories: Athletic Performance, Attractive Appearance, and Marketable Lifestyle.

PAGE 75

75 APPENDIX A COVER LETTER AND SUR VEY FOR PANEL OF EXP ERT ________________________________ ______________________________________________ Dear Participant s; T he collected information in this survey will be used t o test the model of athlete brand image which explains the dimensions that contribute to brand image of individual athletes To develop the model of athlete brand model is a critical task for better understanding of sport consumers and their loyalty formation for athlete brands. To take this measure, we need you to judge the relevance, representativeness and clarity of the each item T he each item is measured by 5 point Likert type scales We appreciate your help in completing this important survey. There are no known risks to you if you decide to participate in this survey and I guarantee that your responses will not be identified with you personally. I promise not to share any informati on that identifies you with anyone outside my research group There are no direct benefits or compensation to you for participating in the study. Your participation is voluntary a nd there is no penalty if you do not participate Regardless of whether you choose to participate, please let me know if you would like a summary of my findings. If you have any questions or concerns about completing the questionnaire or about being in this study, please contact the addresses below. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the IRB. Thank you again for your cooperation and the valuable information you are providing in this survey. Sincerely, Akiko Arai Master student Sport Management Program University of Florida akikoarai@ufl.edu _____________________________________________________________________________________ Yong Jae Ko, PhD Assistant Professor Sport Management Program University of Florida Rm.186A Florida Gym PO Box 118208 Gainesville, FL 326118208 yongko@hhp.ufl.edu (352) 3924042x1277

PAGE 76

76 APPENDIX A continued Items Comments Athletic performance Attribute Relevance Representativeness Clarity Low High Low High Low High Winning record An athletes individual achievement in their sport He/ She is doing really well in a competition 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She is successful as an athlete 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She has good winning records 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She won titles 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She received awards 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She has set new record 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She i s dominating player in his/ her sport 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Athletic Expertise An athletes capability in their sports He/ She is expert in his/her sport 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She is talented athlete 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She is well qualif ied 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She is knowledgeable in his/ her sport 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She has high level of skill in his/ her sports 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She has prominent athletic skills in his/ her sport 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She has authentic skills 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She is dependable 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She is reliable 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Competition Style An athletes specific characteristics of his/he r performance in a competition His/ Her performance has unique characteristics 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 His/ Her performance is distinctive from other players 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 His/ Her performance is exciting to watch 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 His/ Her competition style is charismatic 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 His/ Her competition style is glamorous 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 His/ Her competition style is elegant 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She shows sportsm anship in competition 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ S he is courageous 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ S he shows integrity 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ S he shows respect for his/her opponents and other players 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 77

77 A PPENDIX A continued Items Comments Attractive appearance Attribute Relevance Rep resentativeness Clarity Low High Low High Low High Physical Attractiveness An athletes attractive physical quality and characteristics that spectators find aesthetically pleasing. He/ She is physically attractive 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She is classy 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She is beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She is elegant 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She is sexy 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Symbol An athletes attractive personal style H e/ She has distinctive looking 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She wears attractive uniform/ sporting wear 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She has his/her own style in fashion 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She has distinctive trade mark colors 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 His/ Her private fashion is attractive 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She is stylish 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Body Fit An athletes attractive physical quality for athletic performance He/ She is physically f it 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 His/ H er body is perfect for the sport 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ S he looks strong 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/She is in good shape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 His/ H er body fit to the sport 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 His/ Her body is well conditioned Items Comments Marketable Lifestyle Attribute Relevance Representativeness Clarity Low High Low High Low High Rivalry An athletes competitive relationship with other athletes He/ S he has good rivals 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 The rivalry match of this athlete is exciting 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ S he does well against his / her major rival 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Rivalry match of this athlete is dramatic 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ S he doesnt have any specific rivals 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 78

78 APPENDIX A continued Anecdote An appealing, interesting story about an athlet e that includes a message and reflects the athle t es personal value He/ She has a heroic episode/ story in his/her life 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She is a legendary person 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She has dramatic episode in his/her life 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She doesnt have any interesting anecdotes 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 His/ Her private life is dramatic 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 His/ Her private life style is newsy 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Role Mod el Behavior An athletes ethical behavior that society has determined is worth emulating He/ She is a good citizen 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She has good family life 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She never use drug 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She is socially responsible 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She is good role model for others 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She provides inspiration for people 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She is a good leader in our community 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ S he is good public speaker 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Relationship Effort An athletes positive attitude toward interaction with fans, spectators, sponsors and media He/ S he cares about his/her fans 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ S he shows appreciation for fans and spectators 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She communicate with fans online 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She tries to interact with fans 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She is approachab le 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She has good relationship with Sponsors 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She has positive attitude toward sponsor 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She has good relationship with media 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 He/ She is committed to social activity (e.g., charity) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 79

79 APPENDIX B COVER LETTER AND SURVEY FOR PILOT TEST November 13, 2009 Dear Participants; The collected information in this survey will be used to test the model of athlete brand image which explains the dimensions that contribute to brand image of individual athletes. To develop the model of athlete brand model is a critical task for better understanding of sport consumers and their loyalty forma tion for athlete brands. It would be greatly appreciated if you would simply complete the following questionnaires. There are no known risks to you if you decide to participate in this survey and I guarantee that your responses will not be identified with you personally. I promise not to share any information that identifies you with anyone outside my research group. There are no direct benefits or compensation to you for participating in the study. Your participation is voluntary a nd there is no penalty if you do not participate Regardless of whether you choose to participate, please let me know if you would like a summary of my findings. If you have any questions or concerns about completing the questionnaire or about being in this study, please contac t the addresses below. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the IRB. Thank you again for your cooperation and the valuable information you are providing in this survey. Sincerely, Akiko Arai Master stud ent Sport Management Program University of Florida akikoarai@ufl.edu Yong Jae Ko, PhD Assistant Professor Sport Manageme nt Program University of Florida Rm.186A Florida Gym PO Box 118208 Gainesville, FL 326118208 yongko@hhp.ufl.edu (352) 3924042x1277

PAGE 80

80 APPENDIX B continued I. Please choose or describe your demographic categories. 1. My gender is _____ (1) Male _____ (2) Female 2. I am: ___________ years old. 3. My academic year at UF: _____(1) Freshmen _____(2) Sophomore _____(3) Junior _____(4) Senior _____(5) Graduate student _____(6) Other 4. My ethnic background is: _____ (1) Afric an American _____ (2) AsianAmerican _____ (3) Caucasian/White _____ (4) Native American _____ (5) Hispanic _____ (6) other, please specify: ________________________________________________ II. Please choose and circle your most familiar athlete from the list below. The selected athlete will be the target of your response for the rest of athlete brand image survey. ___Alex Rodriguez (Baseball) ___Danica Patrick (Auto racing) ___David Beckham (Soccer) ___Derek Jeter (Baseball) ___Kobe Bryant (Basketball) ___LeBron James (Basketball) ___Tiger Woods (Golf) ___Maria Sharapova (Tennis) ___Michael Phelps (Swimming) ___Peyton Manning (American Football) ___Phil Mickelson (Golf) ___Roger Federer (Tennis) ___Serena Williams (Tennis) III. Please rank by level of agreement (1= not agree, 7 = strongly agree) for the following factors that may influence the athlete brand image in terms of the athlete you chose in section II. Not Strongly Agree Agree The athlete is doing really well in a competition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is an expert in his/her sport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athletes performance has unique characteristics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete has good rivals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is physically attractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete has distinctive looking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is physically fit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete has heroic episodes/stories in his/her career 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is a good citizen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete cares about his/her fans 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is successful in his/her career 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is talented 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athletes performance is distinctive from other players 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The rivalry match of this athlete is exciting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 81

81 APPENDIX B continued The athlete won titles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete seems very knowledgeable in his/her sport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athletes competition style is charismatic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The rivalry match of this athlete is dramatic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is aesthetically pleasing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete has distinctive trademark colors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is in good shape 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete has a dramatic personal life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is good role model for others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete tries to interact with fans 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete received awards 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete has knowledge about his/her sport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athletes competition style is beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athletes private fashion is attractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athletes body fit to the sport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athletes private life style is newsy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete provides inspiration for people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is approachable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete has set new records 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete has high level of skill in his/her sports 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete shows sportsmanship in competition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is stylish 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athletes body is well conditioned 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is a good leader in our community 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete has good relationship with sponsors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete i s a dominating player in his/her sport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete has prominent athletic skills i n his/her sport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is courageous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athletes fashion is trendy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is a good public speaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete has positive attitude toward sponsors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete wears attractive uniform/sporting wear 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athletes body is perfect for the sport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is a legendar y person 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete never use drug 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete shows appreciation for fans and spectators 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete has good winning r ecords 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is well qualified 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athletes performance is exciting to watch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete does well against his/her major rival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is sexy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete has his/her own style in fashion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete looks strong 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete has dramatic episodes in his/her life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is socially responsible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is responsive to fans 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 82

82 APPENDIX B continued The athlete has authentic skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete shows integri ty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete has good relationship with media 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is dependable in a high pressure moment in a competition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete shows respect for his/her opponents and other players 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete is committed to social activities (e.g., charity) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The athlete shows reliable performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 83

83 APPENDIX C COVER LETTER AND SURVEY FOR MAIN SURVEY Dear Participants; The collected information in this survey will be used to test the Model of Athlete Brand Image which explains the dimensions that contribute to brand image of individual athletes. To develop the Model of Athlete Brand Image is a critical task for better understanding of sport consumers and their loyalty formation for athlete brands. It would be greatly appreciated if you would simply complete the following questionnaires. There are no known risks to you if you decide to participate in this survey and I guarantee that your responses will not be identified with you personally. I promise not to share any information that identifies you with anyone outside my research group. There are no direct benefits or compensation to you for participating in the study. Your participation is voluntary a nd there is no penalty if you do not participate Regardless of whether you choose to participate, please let me know if you would like a summary of my findings. If you have any questions or concerns about completing the questionnaire or about being in this study, please contact the addresses below. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the IRB. Thank you again for your cooperation and the valuable information you are providing in this survey. Sincerely, Akiko Arai Master student Sport Management Program University of Florida akikoarai@ufl.edu Yong Jae Ko, PhD Assistant Professor Sport Management Program University of Flor ida Rm.186A Florida Gym PO Box 118208 Gainesville, FL 326118208 yongko@hhp.ufl.edu (352) 3924042x1277

PAGE 84

84 APPENDIX C continued I. Please choose or describe your demographic categories. 1. My gender is _____ (1) Male _____ (2) Female 2. I am: ___________ years old. 3. My academic year at UF : _____(1) Freshmen _____(2) Sophomore _____(3) Junior _____(4) Senior _____(5) Graduate student _____(6) Other 4. My ethnic background is: _____ (1) AfricanAmerican _____ (2) AsianAmerican _____ (3) C aucasian/White _____ (4) Native American _____ (5) Hispanic _____ (6) other, please specify: ________________________________________________ II. Please check your most familiar and favorite athlete from the list below. The selected athlet e will be the target of your responses for the rest this survey. (Group 1) ___Danica Patrick (Auto racing) ___David Beckham (Soccer) ___Derek Jeter (Baseball) ___LeBron James (Basketball) ___Tiger Woods (Golf) ___Maria Sharapova (Tennis) ___Peyton Manning (American Football) ___Phil Mickelson (Golf) ___Roger Federer (Tennis) ___Serena Williams (Tennis) II. Please check your most familiar and favorite athlete from the list below. The selected athlete will be the target of your responses for the rest this survey. (Group 2) ___ Alex Rodriguez (Baseball) ___ Allen Iverson (Basketball) ___ Barry Bond (Baseball) ___ Tony Stewart (Auto racing) ___ Kobe Bryant (Basketball) ___ Michael Phelps (Swimming) ___ John Dal y (Golf) Note: Group 1 and Group 2 Athletes Lists were provided separately in the actual survey III. This section includes questions about factors that may influence the athlete brands. Please rank by level of agreement (1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) for the following questions in terms of the athlete you chose in section II. Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree The athlete is doing really well in a competitio n The athlete is talented The athletes performance has unique characteristics The athlete shows sportsma nship in competition

PAGE 85

85 APPENDIX C continued The athletes competition style is exciting to watch The athlete sho ws respect for his/her opponents and other players The athlete does well against his/her major rival The athlete is sexy The athletes private fashion is attractive The athlete is in good shape The athlete has dramatic episodes in his/her life The athlete is socially responsible The athlete is responsive to fans The athlete i s a dominating player in his/ her sport The athlete has knowledge about his/ her sport The athletes competition style is charismatic The athlete s hows fair play The rivalry match of this athlete is dramatic The athlete is aesthetically pleasing The ath lete is stylish The athletes body fits to the sport The athlete has a dramatic personal life The athlete is good role model for others The athlete tries to interact with fans The athlete has high level of skill in his/her sports The athlete shows beautiful competition style The athlete has distinctive looking The athletes fashion is trendy The athletes body is well conditioned The athlete s private life style is newsy The athlete is a good leader in our community The athlete has good rivals The athlete is physically attractive The athlete wears attractive uniform/ sporting wear The athlete is physically fit The athlete has heroic stories in his/her life The athlete is a good citizen The athlete cares about his/her fans The a thlete is successful in his/her career The athlete is well qualified The athletes competition style is distinctive from other players The athlete shows integrity in competition The rivalry match of this athlete is exciting The athlete is beautiful looking The athlete has his/her own style in fashion The athletes body is perfect for the sport The athlete has a legendary episode The athlete never use drug The athlete shows appreciation for fans and spectators The athlete has good winning records The athlete seems very knowledgeable in his/her sport

PAGE 86

86 APPENDIX C continued The athlete is committed to social activities (e.g., charity) The athlete has prominent athletic skills in his/her sport The athlete is courageous The athlete is a good public speaker

PAGE 87

87 REFERENCES Aaker, D. (1996) Building strong brands New York: Free Press. Aderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two -step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103(3), 411423. Andrews, D., & Jackson, S. (2001). Sport celebrities, public cultur e, and private experience. In D.L. Andrews, ( E d s .), Sport stars: the cultural politics of sporting celebrity (pp. 1 19). L ondon: Routledge. ANNIKA foundation. (n.d.) A nnika bio. Retrieved December, 21, 2009. from http://www.annikafoundation.org/annikabio.html# Arb uckle, J.L (1995) Amos 18.0 User s Guide Retrieved February, 19, 2010, from http://web1.wright.edu/cats/docs/pasw/pas w18/1.pdf Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of covariance structure analysis: A further comment. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 449450. Bauer, H., Sauer, N., & Exler, S. (2005). The loyalty of German soccer fans: does a team's brand i mage matter?. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 7 (1), 1422. Bauer, H., Sauer, N., & Exler, S. (2008). Brand Image and Fan Loyalty in Professional Team Sport: A Refined Model and Empirical Assessment. Journal of Sport Management 22(2), 205226. Bauer, H., Sauer, N., & Schmitt. (2005). Customer based brand equity in the team sport industry: Operationalization and impact on the economic success of sport teams. European Journal of Marketing, 39(5/6), 496513. Bentler P.M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 88, 588606. Berry,L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Academy of Marketing Science. Journal, 28(1), 128137. Biskup, C., & Pfister G. (1999). I would like to be like her/him: Are athletes role -models for boys and girls?. European Physical Education Review 5 (3), 199. Retrieved September 14, 2009, from Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition database. Bissell, K. (2004). Sports Model /Sports Mind: The Relationship Between Entertainment and Sports Media Exposure, Sports Participation, and Body Image Distortion in Division 1 Female Athletes. Mass Communication & Society 7 (4), 453 472. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete d atabase.

PAGE 88

88 Biswas A & Sherrell D.L. (1993). The Influence of Product Knowledge and Brand Name on Internal Price Stan dards and Confidence. Psychology & Marketing 10(1), 31. Retrieved April 23, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 415584751). Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York, NY: Johon Wiley & Sons, Inc. Braunstein, J., & Zhang, J. (2005). Dimensions of athletic star power associated with Generation Y sports consumption. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 6 (4), 242267. Retrieved January 24, 2010, from Academic Search Premier database. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 230258. Carlson, B., & Donavan, D. (2008). Concerning the Effect of Athlete Endorsements on Brand and Team -Related Intentions. Sport Marketing Quarterly 17(3), 154162. Carmines, E.G., & McIver, J.P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobservable variables. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. B orgatta ( E ds. ). Social measurement: Current issues (pp. 65 115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Choi & Rifon (2007).Who Is the Celebrity in Advertising? Understanding Dimensions of Celebrity Images. The Journal of Popular Culture 40(2), 304324. Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures for marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 6473. Clifton, R. & Simmons, J., (Ed s .) (2004). Brands and Branding. Princeton, NJ: Bloomberg Press. Daniels, E. (2009). Sex Objects, Ath letes, and Sexy Athletes: How Media Representations of Women Athletes Can Impact Adolescent Girls and College Women. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(4), 399422. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. Dean, D. H. (2004). Evaluating potential b rand associations through conjoint analysis and market simulation. The Journal of Product and Brand Management 13(7), 506513. Retrieved April 25, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 774498221). DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Dobni, D. & Zinkhan, G. (1990). In Search of Brand Image: A Foundation Analysis. I n Marvin, Gorn & Pollay (E ds. ) Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 1 7 ), (pp. 110-19). Probo UT : Association for Consumer Research Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand Credibility, Brand Consideration, and Choice. Journal of Consumer Research 31(1), 191198. Retrieved from EconLit database.

PAGE 89

89 Escalas, Edson, J., and Bettman, J. (2009). Self -brand connections: The role of reference groups and celebrity endorsers in the creation of brand meaning. In D.J. MacInnis, C.W. Park, & J.R. Prister (Ed s .). Handbook of brand relationships (pp. 107123). Armonk, NY US: M E Sharpe. Fornell, C., & Larker, D. F. (1981). Evaluati ng structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 3950. Freedman, J. (2008, June 8). The Fourtunate 50. SI.com. Retrieved January 4, 2009 from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/specials/fortunate50/2008/index.html French, J. R. P. & Raven, B. (1959), Bases of power. In D. Cartwright (Ed s .), Studies in social power (pp. 150167). Ann Arbor, MI: Univer sity of Michigan. Gilchrist, P. (2005). Local heroes or global stars. In L. Allison, (Ed s .), The global politics of sport: the role of global institutions in sport London:Routledge. Gladden, J., & Funk, D. (2002). Developing an understanding of brand associations in team sport: empirical evidence from consumers of professional sport. Journal of Sport Management 16(1), 54 81. Gladden, J., Milne, G., & Sutton, W. (1998). A conceptual framework for assessing brand equity in Division I college athletics. Jour nal of Sport Management 12(1), 1 19. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from SPORTDiscus with Full Text database. Gledhill, C. (E d s .) (1991). Stardom: Industry of Desire London: Routledge. Grant, J. (2006). The brand innovation manifesto: How to build brands, redefine markets, and defy conventions Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Gutman, J. (1982). A means -end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60 72. Hair, J.F., Andersion, R.E., Ta tham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed s .) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hart, J. (2010, January 17). For Danica, its about brand management. Yahoo! SPORT. Retrieved February, 3, 2010, from http://sports.yahoo.com/nascar/news?slug=jh danica061709 Hayduk, L.A. (1996). LISREL Issues, Debates, and Strategies. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press. Homer, P. (2006). Relationships Among A d Induced Affect, Beliefs, And Attitudes. Journal of Advertising 35(1), 35 51. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., and Kelley, H. H., (1953). Communication and persuasion; Psychological studies of opi nion change New Haven: Yale University Press.

PAGE 90

90 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1 55. IBIS World. (2009, November 11). Celebrity & Sports Agents in the US. Retrieved April, 8, 2009, from http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/retail.aspx?indid=1635&chid=1 IMG. (n.d.). Client Management. Ret rieved February 3, 2010. from http://www.imgworld.com/sports/client_management/default.sps Jowdy, E., & Mcdonald, M. (2002). Tara Nott Case Study: Celebrity Endorsements and Image Matching. Sport Marketing Quarterly 11(3), 186189. Kamins, M. (1990). An Investigation into the Match-Up Hypothesis in Celebrity Advertising: When Beauty May be Only Skin Deep. Journal of Advertising, 19(1), 4 13. Kaynak, E., Salman, G., & Tatoglu, E. (2 008). An integrative framework linking brand associations and brand loyalty in professional sports. Journal of Brand Management 15(5), 336357. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2007.29. Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer -based bra nd equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1 22. Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand equity Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kim, J., Morris, J., & Swait, J. (2008). Antecedents of true brand loyalt y. Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 99 117. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. Kirmani, A., & Shiv, B. (1998). Effects of Source Congruity on Brand Attitudes and Beliefs: The Moderating Role of Issue Relevant Elaboration. Journal of Consumer Psychology (Lawre nce Erlbaum Associates) 7 (1), 25. Retrieved from Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection database. Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Kronics, J. & Petty, R. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R.E. Petty & J.A. Krosnick (Ed s .), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences, (pp. 1 24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations, Inc. Levitt, T. (1960). Marketing Myopia. Harvard Business Review 38(4), 45 56. Retrieve d from Business Source Premier database. L'Etang. J. (2006). Public relations and sport in promotional culture. Public Relations Review 32(4), 386394. Lines, G. (2001). Villains, fools or heroes? Sports stars as role models for young people. Leisure Studies 20(4), 285303. Retrieved September 14, 2009, doi:10.1080/02614360110094661

PAGE 91

91 Ko o, G., & Hardin, R. (2008). Difference in Interrelationship between Spectators' Motives and Behavioral Intentions Based on Emotional Attachment. Sport Marketing Quarterly 1 7 (1), 3043. Lau, P., Cheung, M., & Ransdell, L. (2008). A structural equation model of the relationship between body perception and self -esteem: Global physical self -concept as the mediator. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 9 (4), 493509. Retrieved from SP ORTDiscus with Full Text database. Low, & Lamb (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations. The Journal of Product and Brand Management 9(6), 350368. Lutz, R.J. (1991). The role of attitude theory in marketing. In H.H. Kassarjian & T .S. Robertson (Ed s .), Perspectives in consumer behavior (pp. 317 339). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. McCracken, G. (1989). Who Is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the Endorsement Process. Journal of Consumer Research 16(3), 310321. McGuire, W. J. (1968), The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds ), Ha ndbook of Social Psychology ( 2nd ed s ), (pp. 136314). Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Miller, M., Pomerantz, D. & Rose, L. (2009, June 3) The Celebrity 100. Forbes.com. Retrieved January 4, 2009 from http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/03/forbes 100 -celebrity 09-jolie oprah -madonna_land.html Mowen, & Minor. (1998). Consumer Behavior (5th eds ). New Jersey : Prentice Hall, Inc. Mullin, B. J., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W. A. (2007). Sport marketing. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Neale, L., & Funk, D. (20 06). Investigating motivation, attitudinal loyalty and attendance behaviour with fans of Australian Football. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 7 (4), 307317. Retrieved April 24, 2009, from SPORTDiscus with Full Text database. Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and Applications Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Netemeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W., & Burton, S. (1990). Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural eq uations framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 148157. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd. ed.) New York, NY: Mc Graw Hill.

PAGE 92

92 Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers' Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 3952. Ohanian, R. (1991). The Impact of Celebrity Spokespersons' Perceived Image on Consumers' Intention to Purchase. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(1), 46 54. P etty, R., & Wegener, D. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology 48(1), 609647. Pfahl, M. (2009, Oct). Green means more than go: Building an individual brand in motorsports. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Sport Marketing Association, Cleveland, OH. Raggio, R., & Leone, R. (2009). Chasing brand value: Fully leveraging brand equity to maximize brand value. Journal of Brand Management 16(4), 248 263. http://search.ebscohost.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu, doi:10.1057/ palgrave.bm.2550142 Rahim, M. A., & Magner, M. R. (1996). Confirmatory factor analysis of the bases of leader power: First -order factor model and its invariance across groups. Multivariate Behav ioral Research, 31 495 516. Rein, I. Kotler, P., & Shields, B. (2006a ). The elusive fan: Reinventing sports in a crowded marketplace. New York: McGrawHill. Rein, I., Kotler, P., & Sh i elds, B. (2006b ). A Sporting Chance at Branding. Brand Strategy 30 31. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from http://www.theelusivefan.com/sports_branding.pdf Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1991). Criteria for Scale Selection and Evaluation. In J. P. Robinson P.R. Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman, (Ed s .). Measure s of Personality and Social Psychiligical Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Rosenberg, M.J., & Hovland, C.I. (1960). Cognitive, affective and behavioral components of attitudes. In M.J. Rosenberg (Ed s .), Attitude organization and change: An analy sis of consistency among attitude components, (pp. 1 14). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Ross, S. (2006). A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Spectator -Based Brand Equity. Journal of Sport Management 20(1), 22 38. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from SPORTDiscus with Full Text database. Ross, S., James, J., & Vargas, P. (2006). Development of a Scale to Measure Team Brand Associations in Professional Sport. Journal of Sport Management 20(2), 260279. Ross, S., Ru ssell, K., & Bang, H. (2008 ). An Empir ical Assessment of Spectator Based Brand Equity. Journal of Sport Management 22(3), 322337.

PAGE 93

93 Sessions, W. (2004). Sportsmanship as Honor. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 31(1), 47 59. Retrieved from SPORTDiscus with Full Text database. Show, J. (2008, October 6). Upstart company will help athletes build their brands. STREET & SMITHS Sports Business JOURNAL. Retrieved January, 28, 2010 from http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/6020 1 Shuart, J. (2007). Heroes in sport: assessing celebrity endorser effectiveness. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 8 (2), 126140. Shields & Bredemeier (1995) Character development and physical activity. Champlain, IL: Human Kinetic s. Stevens, J., Lathrop, A., & Bradish, C. (2003). Who is Your Hero? Implications for Athlete Endorsement Strategies. Sport Marketing Quarterly 12(2), 103110. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from Business Source Premier database. Storie, J. (2008, July 7). Professional athletes, sports: The ultimate branding. Fort Worth Business Press, 13. Retrieved from Regional Business News database. Summers, J., & Johnson Morgan, M. (2008). More than just the media: Considering the role of public relations in the creatio n of sporting celebrity and the management of fan expectations. Public Relations Review 34(2), 176182. Retrieved September 1, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.03.014 Tenser, J. (2004, November 8). Endorser qualities count more than ever. Advertising Age 75(45), S 2 S 4. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from Business Source Premier database. Thomson, M. (2006). Human Brands: Investigating Antecedents to Consumers' Strong Attachments to Celebrities. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 104119. Till, B. (2001, March). Managing athlete endorser image: the effect of endorsed product. Sport Marketing Quarterly 10(1), 35 42. Trail, G., Robinson, M., Dick, R., & Gillentine, A. (2003). Motives and Points of Attachment: Fans Versus Spectators in Intercollegiate Athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly 12(4), 217227. Wielgus, C. (2009, June 8). How a bad economy could change industry for the better. STREET & SMITHS Sports Business JOURNAL. Retrieved February, 23, 2010, from http://www.legacydirectinc.com/pressArticles/thumb_20090608.pdf Wul terkens. Jason (2007, September 7). The Federer brand, then and now. YARDBAKER.com. Retrieved February, 3, 2010, from http://www.yardbarker.com/author/article_ex ternal/26356

PAGE 94

94 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Akiko Arai got her Bachelor D egree of L aw at Keio University, Tokyo, Japan. Akiko Arai is currently a Master Student at University of Florida, with a major in Tourism, Recreation and Sport M anagement Her pri mary research interest is brand management in sport The goal of her research is to improve understanding of the scholarly constructs; specifically focused on brand image, benefits, and brand equity in general. She is going to continue her research in PhD program in Sp orts Management, University of Florida from Fall 2010.