International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship

Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Analysis

Janet Hoek
Article information:
To cite this document:
Janet Hoek , (1999),"Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Analysis", International Journal of Sports Marketing
and Sponsorship, Vol. 1 Iss 4 pp. 16 - 32
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-01-04-1999-B003
Downloaded on: 26 March 2016, At: 15:31 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1 times since 2006*
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:203778 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio
of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of
online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Analysis

● Keywords: Sponsorship, Behavioural Measures, Evaluation, Behaviour Modification

Sports Sponsorship Evaluation:

A Behavioural Analysis

Received: 22 October, 1999 This more general theory of Consumer

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

Behaviour is related specifically to promotion

Executive Summary in Ehrenberg’s Awareness-Trial-Reinforcement
Investment in sponsorship has increased dra- model, which represents a possible framework
matically over the past decade, a growth that for managing or evaluating sponsorship. This
shows every sign of continuing in the foresee- model was thus used as the basis of a pilot
able future. Researchers are generally in study designed to examine how well the frame-
agreement that sponsorship can increase con- work could explain the effect of sponsorship on
Janet Hoek
sumers’ awareness of a brand or an institu- consumers’ behaviour.
Senior Lecturer,
Dept of Marketing, tion, and can improve knowledge of the rela- A sample of respondents drawn from a pool
Massey University, tionship between a brand and a sponsored of contestants to a sponsorship-related compe-
Private Bag 11-222, event. Yet although managers are arguably tition was compared to a sample who had not
Palmerston North, more interested in the behavioural conse- been exposed to the event. As predicted, the
New Zealand results suggested that awareness of the spon-
quences of sponsorship, comparatively few
Tel: +64 6350 5583 researchers have examined this question. sor was higher among users of the sponsor’s
Fax: +64 6350 2260 Instead, managers have assumed awareness product. When respondents were asked to
Email: J.A.Hoek
and image measures bear a strong and direct indicate whether they would buy the sponsored
@massey.ac.nz
relationship with behaviour, although the evi- brand or competing brands if they were mak-
dence in support of this view is arguably tenu- ing a purchase in this product category, their
ous. responses did not vary significantly across
This paper outlines an alternative to the cog- exposure to the sponsoring event or recall of
nitive paradigm that has dominated advertis- the sponsor. These findings suggest the spon-
ing and sponsorship practice and research: sorship did not move respondents along the
the Behaviour Modification Perspective. continuum to purchase behaviour, but rather
Based on the twin notions of respondent and reinforced the sponsored brand’s place in the
operant conditioning, the Behaviour overall market structure.
Modification Perspective provides a frame- The consistency between these results and
work for viewing sponsorship in two ways. the ATR model suggests managers could make
First, respondent conditioning pairs an event greater use of behavioural goals (rather than
or a team with a brand, facilitating transferral of the intermediaries assumed to lead to
of the former’s characteristics to the latter. these). Furthermore, our findings suggest that
Second, operant conditioning views sponsor- specific calls to action such as those used in
ship as a reinforcer, or reward, of existing pur- direct marketing or cause-related marketing
chase behaviour, serving to maintain patterns could also be incorporated to enable more
of behaviour in an established market. specific evaluations, and to ensure that man-

16 International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship ● November/December 1999

 Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Anal

agers can, finally, begin to appreciate the proportion of organisations that routinely
behavioural consequences of their sponsor- appraise their sponsorship campaigns is low
ship investments. and it is clear that at least some managers
assume rather than evaluate the outcomes of
Introduction their investment (Cornwell & Maignan, 1998;
The growth in sponsorship expenditure, both Marshall & Cook, 1992; Pope, 1998)
in real terms and as a proportion of promotion Ironically, managers’ use of other promotion
budgets, has been well-documented (see tools has come under increasing scrutiny and it
Meenaghan, 1988; Meenaghan & Shipley, seems both prudent and logical to investigate
1999, for example). Otker (1988) and how sponsorship investments can be evaluated
Meenaghan (1991) suggested that two factors and, more specifically, how its effect on con-
promoted this growth: first, the increasing sumers’ behaviour can be measured.
number of opportunities associated with spon- In this paper, we begin by considering dif-
sorship as event owners recognised the com- ferent theoretical bases for sponsorship before
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

mercial potential of their events; and second, a reviewing the research to date on sponsorship
growing disillusionment with mass media evaluation; we then present the results of a
advertising and the clutter which arguably small-scale empirical study and develop
diminished the effectiveness of traditional guidelines which could assist managers to
media vehicles (see also Crowley, 1991; examine the behavioural consequences of
Thwaites, Aguilar-Manjarrez & Kidd, 1998). sports sponsorship.
Meenaghan (1998) subsequently suggested
that new technological developments and A Theoretical Framework Philip Gendall
sponsorship’s ability to reach consumers at Advertising and Sponsorship Dept of Marketing,
leisure were on-going advantages that would Researchers have differed over whether they Massey University,
continue to fuel its growth. view sponsorship as an extension of advertis- Private Bag 11-222,
Palmerston North,
Although managers may sponsor almost any ing or as a distinct promotion vehicle.
New Zealand
event they choose, the vast majority of spon- Hastings (1984) argued that managers had a
sorship contracts relate to a sporting event or higher level of control over advertising mes- Tel: +64 6350 5582
Fax: +64 6350 2260
team. The reasons for this are self-evident: sages whereas sponsorship messages were less Email: P.Gendall
major sports events attract large on-site crowds easily manipulated. McDaniel and Kinney @massey.ac.nz
and even larger media audiences. Because of (1999) also noted that billboards and hoardings
its ability to transcend national boundaries, offered less space for messages and were typi-
sponsorship also offers multinational compa- cally dominated by the brand name, again pro-
Katie Theed
nies the potential to reach global audiences viding few opportunities for message manipu-
Former graduate student
more cost-effectively than with other promo- lation compared to mass media advertising.
tion tools (see Thwaites, 1995). As well as the Meenaghan (1991) concluded that advertising
on-site and media exposure potential, sports and sponsorship were complementary and
sponsorships may also offer licensing and mer- described sponsorship as a “mute non-verbal
chandising opportunities; in some cases, spon- medium” (p. 8) which required advertising
sors can also develop line extensions and sales support to be effective. Sponsorship of recent
promotions featuring the sponsorship. Thus major sporting events, such as the Rugby
sponsorship may extend beyond the event, World Cup, also suggests that a symbiotic rela-
team or individual sponsored by offering spe- tionship exists between sponsorship and
cific revenue-generating possibilities. advertising.
However, despite managers’ increasing use However Witcher, Craigen, Culligan and
of sponsorship, many questions still remain Harvey (1991) suggested that since both
about how sponsorship works and its overall advertising and sponsorship aimed to influ-
contribution to revenue or profit. Indeed, the ence consumers’ behaviour, sponsorship acted

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship ● November/December 1999 17

 Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Analysis

as a specific form of advertising, even if its Alternative views, that consumers’ purchase
communication format was more limited. behaviour is based on habit, or is prompted in
Given these differing views of sponsorship, it response to environmental stimuli, are gaining
is logical to examine whether sponsorship fits increasing support (East 1997, Nord & Peter,
into a coherent theoretical framework and to 1980). These views of consumers’ behaviour
explore its relationship with advertising, have more in common with behaviour modifi-
before questions of evaluation can be cation theory, which examines the environ-
addressed. ments within which behaviour occurs rather
than the internal processes thought to lead to
Cognitivism and Behaviourism behaviour. Promotion activities such as adver-
Marketing has traditionally been dominated by tising and sponsorship are thus stimuli used to
the cognitive information processing model elicit specific responses (such as behaviour) or
which views consumers as rational decision to reinforce existing behaviours (maintenance
makers who seek out and evaluate information of a brand within consumers’ brand repertoire
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

prior to making purchase decisions. Foxall or continuation of an established purchase

(1992) summarised this approach: “The ‘cog- habit).
nitive consumer’ is credited with the capacity In a behaviourist context, sponsorship draws
to receive and handle considerable quantities on aspects of both respondent and operant con-
of information, to engage actively in the com- ditioning. Respondent conditioning uses “an
parative evaluation of alternative products and established relationship between a stimulus
brands, and to select rationally among them” and a response to bring about a learning of the
(from East, 1997, p. 8). Although many dif- same response to a different stimulus”
ferent models exist, they typically posit a path- (Hawkins, Best & Coney 1989, p. 322).
way along which consumers progress until According to this, the connotations of excel-
some behaviour (usually purchase) occurs. lence, success and commitment associated
For example, the Fishbein-Ajzen Theory of with a highly successful sports team would
Reasoned Action suggests consumers first thus become paired with the brand or organi-
develop beliefs about a behaviour, then atti- sation sponsoring the team or the event in
tudes towards it and later intentions which, which the team performed. The team’s use of
logically, culminate in the behaviour itself a given brand, and the pairing of attributes that
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). This theory has occurred, would act as a stimulus intended to
informed more specific consumer behaviour prompt purchase of the brand. For example,
theories such as the Engel, Blackwell and sponsorship of a sports team by adidas or
Miniard model and the Howard-Sheth model, Nike, immediately links the brand to heroes or
which in turn have formed the basis of more role models, and this alone may be powerful
specific models of advertising. enough to stimulate purchase of the brand.
Despite the intuitive appeal of the models, Sponsorship also reassures team followers
however, there is surprisingly little empirical who already own the sponsoring brand that the
evidence to support the pathways proposed. brand’s values and priorities continue to mirror
For example, Kraus’ (1995) review of attitude- their own.
behaviour studies found low correlations and, Unlike respondent conditioning which cre-
even where these were significant, a high pro- ates associations that precede or simulate
portion of the variance remained unexplained. behaviour, operant conditioning reinforces
Other researchers, such as Foxall (1983, 1993) behaviours that have occurred. Nord and Peter
have argued that although cognitive pathways (1980, p. 25) describe it thus: “Operant condi-
might be interesting, it is not necessary to tioning has occurred when the probability that
understand them in order to shape or predict an individual will emit one or more behaviours
consumers’ behaviour. is altered by changing the events or conse-

18 International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship ● November/December 1999

 Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Anal

quences which follow the particular Theories of Advertising

behaviour”. Advertising explicitly highlights AIDA Model
the benefits thought to arise from use of a par- The Awareness-Interest-Desire-Action
ticular brand and so provides consumers with (AIDA) model, which arises from more cogni-
reassurance about their choice. Sponsorship tive models of behaviour, has been extensively
works less overtly since, as noted, it offers less applied in advertising evaluation and has also
control over the messages promoted. been used in sponsorship evaluation.
However, sponsorship of successful sports Advertising’s role, according to this school of
teams means that, through respondent condi- thought, is to inform and persuade consumers
tioning, they come to symbolise the qualities and thus to promote movement from one phase
associated with the sponsoring brand and so of the model to another. Advertising thus
also reassure consumers about their choices. seeks to change consumers’ behaviour by
On a more abstract level, many consumers inducing them to purchase brands, or even
view sponsorship as a demonstration of good product categories, they had not hitherto pur-
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

corporate citizenship, thus the very act of pro- chased. According to the AIDA model, spon-
viding funding to a sporting or community sorship should increase awareness and
group may also be reinforcing attributes con- improve the organisation’s and brand’s image
sumers view as desirable in the organisations by enhancing consumers’ attitudes. Like
with which they do business. In a practical advertising, therefore, sponsorship should
sense, Steinlager’s sponsorship of the All result in discernible shifts along the decision-
Blacks has created connotations of rugged- making pathway. For example, sponsors of the
ness, determination, strength and perseverance 1998 Soccer World Cup would measure
which are now intrinsic parts of the Steinlager awareness of their brand, of the event and of
brand. Consumers of the brand thus share in the relationship between the two. They would
these characteristics every time they drink also take pre-post measurements of attitude to
Steinlager, and the pairing serves also to main- assess whether improvements in brand or cor-
tain or enhance the brand’s position in their porate image had resulted.
purchase hierarchy. Given the role attributed to advertising, the
Behaviour modification also employs vicari- logic of using measures such as awareness and
ous learning, or role models, to educate con- recognition, and of monitoring changes in atti-
sumers and to increase the probability that they tudes, is easily apparent and has attracted con-
will purchase the promoted brand. Thus if siderable research attention. Since some
sporting heroes become paired with a certain researchers view advertising and sponsorship
snack food, type of car, brand of beer or range as similar, many of the measures used to exam-
of clothing, those brands may also take on the ine advertising effectiveness have also been
characteristics for which the sports person is used to evaluate sponsorship (see Pope, 1998).
renowned. For ordinary consumers, the clear Initially the use of borrowed measures appears
message is that they too can enjoy these char- to have arisen from convenience, rather than
acteristics (prowess, status) by purchasing the from a clear rationale that the measures were
same brands that the hero uses. logically consistent with sponsorship evalua-
These two theories of consumer behaviour tion. However, more recently, researchers
have also given rise to two quite different have attempted to link their use of these mea-
models of how advertising works and, by sures to an underlying theoretical rationale.
implication, how sponsorship might also work. For example, Cornwell (1997) suggested man-
The remainder of this section evaluates these agers make greater use of the information pro-
theories and their implications for sponsorship cessing paradigm, a suggestion adopted by
evaluation. Speed and Thompson (1997) who used a hier-
archy of effects model to examine the effects

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship ● November/December 1999 19

 Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Analysis

and measurement of sponsorship. Lee, before purchase. Although both models

Sandler and Shani (1997) also pursued this line attribute an initial role to awareness, the ATR
of reasoning and modified the AIDA model to model places strong emphasis on behavioural
orient it more specifically to sponsorship. variables, such as trial and repeat purchase,
They suggested that attitude towards the event, both of which can be measured directly. Thus
towards the promotion of the event and instead of attempting to observe consumers’
towards behavioural intention were the keys to internal thought processes and changes in
examining how sponsorship affected con- these, the ATR model examines specific
sumers. However, this line of enquiry remains behaviours and the environmental factors
comparatively undeveloped and, before it is which shape them.
extended further, it is logical to consider criti- In explicit contrast to the AIDA model, the
cisms levelled at the AIDA and similar mod- ATR model suggests that advertising main-
els, and to examine the alternatives that exist. tains rather than changes the status quo. That
is, advertising works defensively to maintain a
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

Evolution of the ATR Model brand’s market share in the face of competitive
Joyce (1967) argued that there was little evi- pressures. Given this, advertising is not
dence to support the view that consumers expected to bring about long-term changes in
formed or experienced strong desire and market share, although it will cause short-term
Ehrenberg (1974 and 1992) suggested that fluctuations. If sponsorship also works in this
belief in advertising as persuasive offended way, its role will be to maintain a brand’s
common sense. Ehrenberg (1974) also argued salience and to remind consumers of the bene-
that the causal sequence set out in the Theory fits they associate with it. Sponsorship, like
of Reasoned Action and advertising models advertising, will be a cost of being in business
such as AIDA which arose from it, were not and is unlikely to generate long-term changes
well based, as the factors thought to lead to in a market. This reasoning explains the argu-
behaviour were often generated by the ment that sponsors may support an event not
behaviour. Thus he suggested that advertising because the pairing offers them any specific
was noticed mainly by existing users of a benefit, but because if they do not, the oppor-
brand who were already knowledgeable about tunity will pass to a competitor.
it. He further argued that consumers “tend to If sponsorship works defensively, its evalua-
perceive advertising for the brands [they] are tion becomes more of a monitoring exercise
already buying, and repetitive advertising where researchers examine the overall market
allows the habit to continue to operate in the structure and its stability over time. From a
face of competition” (1974, p.32). Advertising more political point of view, this vision of
therefore fulfils a defensive role as a positive sponsorship is less appealing, since it suggests
reinforcer that helps retain existing customers that there is little return on the investment,
and which may, possibly, attract new users other than preservation of the status quo. As
(Barnard and Ehrenberg, 1997, later conceded Javalgi, Traylor, Gross and Lampman (1994)
that advertising might “nudge” consumers argued, this outcome may not augur well for
towards trial). sponsorship managers’ long-term career
These criticisms gave rise to an alternative prospects. This reasoning alone may explain
view, the weak theory, which views advertis- why almost all sponsorship research examines
ing as analogous to operant conditioning, a awareness, attitude, image or preference, or
reinforcer which reassures consumers about variables which are proxies for these, since
their purchases and the benefits these are like- they are more responsive to changes in spon-
ly to bring. Known as the Awareness-Trial- sorship activity and thus demonstrate that
Reinforcement (ATR) model, this theory sug- something has happened as a result of the
gests advertising’s role occurs after rather than investment.

20 International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship ● November/December 1999

 Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Anal

From the point of view of the ATR model, the brand’s name and attributes and to main-
however, both advertising and sponsorship are tain its position in consumers’ brand repertoire
reinforcers which can reassure existing users, hierarchy; McDonald’s conclusion suggests
maintain or increase the probability of repeat- that sponsorship works in exactly the same
purchase, and possibly help stimulate trial, but way, to maintain the status quo rather than to
which are unlikely to create long-term produce an increase in sales. For example,
changes to the market structure. Few naming rights, logo exposure, on-air mentions
researchers have explicitly examined sponsor- by commentators and advertising support all
ship in terms of the ATR model (although assist a brand’s profile in a cluttered market-
Hoek, Gendall, Jeffcoat & Orsman, 1997, used place.
the ATR model to evaluate sponsorship of the Debate over these models, their empirical
1994 Soccer World Cup). Some of the support, their usefulness in explaining or pre-
research based on the AIDA model has, how- dicting different purchase categories and their
ever, yielded findings which are more in keep- ability to guide managers’ decisions continues
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

ing with the ATR model. Crimmins and Horn (see Ehrenberg, 1997; Jones, 1997; Dyson,
(1996) used the AIDA model to argue that Hollis & Farr, 1996, 1997). However, the ATR
sponsorship fulfills a persuasive role, analo- model has growing empirical support and, in
gous to that played by advertising. However, addition, is more parsimonious, contains vari-
their claim that: “sponsorship improves the ables more open to direct measurement, and
perception of a brand by flanking our beliefs displays greater conformity to principles of
about the brand and linking the brand to an empirical generalisations (Barwise, 1995).
event or organisation that the target audience The purpose of this paper is not to resolve the
already values highly” (p. 12) uses the debate, but to examine whether the ATR model
behaviourist theory of respondent condition- could help explain how sponsorship works and
ing, not the cognitive theory of persuasion, to offer more useful insights into how it should
establish how sponsorship works (see also be managed and evaluated.
Meenaghan, 1983, p. 29 and Hansen &
Scotwin, 1995, p. 176). Similarly, Javalgi et Sponsorship Evaluation
al. (1994) noted the presence of operant condi- For over a decade, researchers have pointed to
tioning (or reinforcement) when they suggest- a general lack of work examining the effects of
ed that sponsorship may enhance corporate sponsorship (see Meenaghan, 1998; Farrelly,
image “if the company has a good image Quester & Burton, 1997, for example).
before the sponsorship” (p. 57). Thus spon- Despite this, the void remains, as Pope (1998a)
sorship, like advertising, reinforces existing notes: “Micro-level issues, such as sponsor-
attributes, beliefs and behaviours. ship’s effect on the consumer have been large-
More generally, it can be argued that spon- ly ignored” (p. 2).
sorship works in a similar way to advertising, The work undertaken has examined four
as a form of operant conditioning that serves to areas: media coverage, awareness, image and
maintain behaviour patterns. Thus McDonald attitude, and persuasion and preference. Media
(1991) argued: “As more people have the audits, (which report the number of column cen-
sponsorship brought to their notice by publici- timetres of press reporting, or the seconds of
ty, they are reminded of something they broadcast exposure) are comparatively easy to
already approve of; it is brought to the front of undertake, but give little indication of the effect
their mind. It does not follow that anybody’s a given message has had, or of the number of
mind has been changed about the company people potentially exposed to it. Although this
because of the sponsorship” (p. 33). Barnard measure is widely used, media audits seem to
and Ehrenberg (1997) argued that advertising’s have limited practical usefulness (see
role was to maintain salience, to foreground Meenaghan, 1994; Crimmins & Horn, 1996).

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship ● November/December 1999 21

 Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Analysis

As a popular measure of advertising effec- variable which should be included in sponsor-

tiveness, awareness has also been frequently ship evaluation studies. If existing users are
employed in sponsorship evaluation. aware of the sponsorship, then the ATR model
Researchers have examined awareness of the suggests that the sponsorship will reinforce
event, of sponsors of the event and of sub- their behaviour by (at least) maintaining the
branding that may have been undertaken, and brand’s position in consumers’ portfolio, and
there is general consensus that sponsorship can its repeat purchase probability. However, the
provide marked increases in awareness. implications of non-users’ awareness of the
However, although awareness is the first vari- sponsorship are less clear and would seem to
able in both the ATR and AIDA models, the offer fewer insights into their likely behaviour.
evidence that changes in this are directly cor- Future research could track the behaviour of
related with changes in sales or other non-users who are aware of a brand and exam-
behaviours is tenuous. Haley and Baldinger’s ine what proportion of this group eventually
(1993) study suggested that awareness has trialed and repeat purchased the brand.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

only a weak link with purchase behaviour and As well as examining awareness, researchers
their conclusions questioned researchers’ have also explored how sponsorship affects the
reliance on awareness as a performance mea- image consumers have of an organisation or a
sure. In other words, the fact that consumers brand, and the attitudes they hold towards it
display increasingly high levels of awareness (see Abratt & Grobler, 1988; Parker, 1991;
of a sponsoring brand does not mean that the Javalgi et al. , 1994 or Stipp & Schiavone,
brand’s satisfaction will grow or that new users 1996, for example). Pope and Voges (1994)
are being attracted to the brand. suggested that sponsorship’s value as a pro-
Barwise and Ehrenberg’s (1985 and 1987) motion vehicle resided in its ability to shape
work into descriptive and evaluative attributes image as opposed to changing purchase inten-
offers some insight into why awareness may tion or even purchase behaviour. However,
not have a high correlation with sales. They the results have been somewhat inconclusive
suggested consumers could hold two different (Javalgi et al., 1994; Hansen & Scotwin, 1995;
types of attribute beliefs about brands: descrip- Nicholls et al., 1999) and confounding vari-
tive beliefs, which reflected heavily advertised ables, such as the relationship between respon-
attributes that had become strongly paired with dents’ interests and the sponsorship, have not
a brand and thus differentiated between been clearly identified or treated (but cf
brands, but not between users; and evaluative d’Astous & Bitz, 1995). Even where improve-
attributes which, by contrast, are generated by ments in image have been documented (Stipp
consumers’ experience of the brand and their & Schiavone, 1996; Rajaretnam, 1994), the
beliefs about its performance, and thus differ- relationship between these and behaviour has
entiate between users and non-users of the not been examined and managers have
brand. If awareness reflects only descriptive received no guidance about whether the spon-
attributes, associations arising from awareness sorships have stimulated trial or maintained
of slogans or other heavily-promoted charac- current levels of performance. For managers,
teristics, then its relationship with sales or this implies that improvements in image or
other behaviours will be weak. It is possible attitude scores will not necessarily be mirrored
that, over time, on-going pairing of a brand in improvements in sales.
and a team or event will give rise to beliefs that Similarly, work examining preference and
do shape or stimulate behaviour; however, this persuasion has also stopped short of linking
question has not been addressed in the research the measures used with specific behavioural
literature. outcomes (Crimmins & Horn, 1996; Lee et al.,
Overall, Barwise and Ehrenberg’s conclu- 1997). Given the questions Ehrenberg, Foxall,
sions suggest that brand usage is an important East, and others have raised about these vari-

22 International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship ● November/December 1999

 Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Anal

ables and their assumed relationship with ● Whether awareness of the sponsorship var-
behaviour, there is, as yet, no compelling evi- ied by brand usage;
dence that changes in either preference or per-
suasion will also lead to changes in con- ● Whether respondents who entered the com-
sumers’ behaviour. petition had a higher probability of purchasing
Overall, the work undertaken to date sug- the sponsored brand than those who had not
gests that, like advertising, sponsorship can entered, and who had not viewed the spon-
generate awareness of a brand, an event, and of sored event.
the relationship between the two (Sandler &
Shani, 1993; d’Astous & Bitz, 1995; Quester, Methodology
1997). There is some evidence that sponsor- The Case
ship can alter the values or belief attributes This study examined sponsorship of the New
consumers associate with a brand or an organ- Zealand netball team and, more specifically, of
isation (Pope, 1998). However, as Pope con- a particular series between New Zealand and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

cluded, “there is no guarantee that aspects of Australia which has been the subject of strong
those values that are affected will necessarily trans-Tasman rivalry. As a female-dominated
be those that discriminate between brands or sport that receives good media coverage, net-
necessarily impact on product use” (p. 132). ball offers opportunities to reach a sizeable
Attempts to examine the relationship between proportion of the female population and was
recall and preference and sponsorship have sponsored by Fisher & Paykel, a New
also produced rather inconclusive findings Zealand-based manufacturer of domestic prod-
(Nicholls, Roslow & Dublish, 1999). ucts such as washing machines, ovens and
In summary, researchers have enjoyed mixed dishwashers.
success in examining the relationship between In return for their sponsorship, Fisher &
variables from hierarchy of effects models and Paykel received naming rights to the test
sponsorship, and the over-riding question of series. In addition, they purchased 30-second
whether the variables explored relate to advertising slots during each of the advertise-
behaviour has yet to be satisfactorily addressed. ment breaks scheduled during the telecast (a
Pope’s (1998) rather pessimistic conclusion that total of approximately 150 seconds of adver-
“the relationship between sales volume and tising time).
sponsorship activity remains both tenuous and The Fisher & Paykel logo was also displayed
contentious” (p. 124) has not yet been seriously on the court and so occasionally featured dur-
challenged by any research findings. ing action shots; the commentators regularly
From a management perspective, this situa- referred to the Fisher & Paykel series; a Fisher
tion is rather unsatisfactory: there is strong & Paykel mascot appeared during quarter- and
anecdotal evidence to suggest that some spon- half-time breaks; and Fisher & Paykel received
sorships work, while others do not, but there is court-side signage.
no over-arching framework to explain why this In addition, Fisher & Paykel donated white-
is so. The remainder of this paper examines a ware items to be used as prizes during a com-
sponsorship which included a specific petition that ran for the duration of the game.
response mechanism, a phone-in competition, Details of the competition were announced
and analyses how the results of this fit with the immediately prior to each game as part of the
various theories discussed above. introductory material that preceded each tele-
More specifically, the following research cast.
questions were addressed: A direct-dial telephone number was avail-
able throughout the game and the prize was
● Whether respondents who entered the com- drawn and announced at the conclusion of
petition had higher awareness of the sponsor; each game.

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship ● November/December 1999 23

 Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Analysis

Table 1: Awareness by Event Exposure and Brand Awareness

Exposed to Netball Test Not Exposed to Netball Test

F&P Owners Not F&P Owners F&P Owners Not F&P Owners
(n=54) (n=69) (n=30) (n=36)

% % % %
Recall of F&P
as sponsor 91 80 67 50

Procedure and Sample respondent). Respondents from the telephone

Fisher & Paykel gave permission to access a directories’ sample were initially asked a
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

sample of people who responded to their com- screening question to ensure they had neither
petition during a New Zealand vs Australia watched the netball test nor participated in the
netball test held in July 1997. The software competition, and to make certain that they dif-
used to respond to calls was altered to include fered from the competition-generated sample
a question requesting respondents’ assistance in these respects. Respondents from both sam-
in the project and a processing sample of 123 ples were then asked a series of questions
people was obtained from the group who con- about the event, the sponsor, their current
sented to participate in the project. This sam- brand usage and their likely purchase
ple thus comprised people who had been behaviour. Their responses are outlined in the
exposed to the sponsorship (via the competi- following section.
tion they had entered). Entrants answered a
“skill” question and then provided details of Results
their name and telephone number. Awareness
In order to interview respondents who were Both the AIDA and the ATR models include
not aware of the sponsorship and who had not awareness as an initial variable in the series of
participated in the competition, a second sam- relationships they posit. However, if
ple of 180 people (which resulted in a process- Ehrenberg’s (1974) argument that advertising
ing sample of 66 cases) was randomly selected is seen mainly by people who already use the
from telephone directories. Because telephone brand is correct, we would expect awareness
directories do not contain numbers listed as levels to differ according to usage as well as
private and confidential, every selected num- according to whether respondents were
ber had 2 added to the final digit in an attempt exposed to the event. Table 1 contains the
to overcome any bias that might otherwise results relating to this hypothesis.
have resulted. Although the cell sizes mean the differences
Entrants to the competition were, pre- between the estimates are not significant, the
dictably, mainly women; to generate a compa- pattern across both samples is identical:
rable sample from the telephone directories, respondents who own a Fisher & Paykel wash-
interviewers were set a quota of two female for ing machine have a higher level of awareness
every male respondent. Respondents to this of Fisher & Paykel’s sponsorship, irrespective
survey were selected using the next birthday of whether they were exposed to coverage of
method, with the gender requested determined the netball test. Predictably, awareness
by the quota set (interviewers using the next declined amongst respondents who were not
birthday method select the household member exposed to the test, although the same pattern
whose birthday falls next to be the survey was maintained. Overall, respondents exhibit-

24 International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship ● November/December 1999

 Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Anal

ed a very high level of awareness; half the behaviour (see Appendix A). The Juster Scale
respondents who did not own a Fisher & has proven significantly more accurate than
Paykel appliance and who had not watched the intentions scales (Day, Gan, Gendall &
netball test were still aware of Fisher & Esslemont, 1991) and was therefore used in
Paykel’s sponsorship, even though the spon- preference to these.
sorship contract had, at that stage, been in In this study, respondents were asked to
place for less than a year. However, it is also imagine that they needed to purchase a wash-
interesting that, less than a month after enter- ing machine within the next week. They were
ing the competitions, awareness of the spon- asked to assume that the different brands had
sorship had already decreased by between 10% similar attributes and that they were available
to 20% (assuming all competition entrants at the same price. Standardising brand fea-
were aware of the sponsorship link). The high tures thus allowed other factors which could
overall awareness may be attributable to Fisher influence respondents’ choice (such as spon-
& Paykel’s dominance in the New Zealand sorship exposure) to come to the fore.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

whiteware market; the company is well-known Respondents then used the Juster Scale to indi-
and sponsorship promotions can therefore cate the probability that they would purchase
focus on pairing the event and the brand with one of the brands currently represented in the
less concern for establishing the brand name market. Responses to this question were broken
itself. down by respondents’ exposure to the netball
The results reported in Table 1 lend support test and are presented in Table 2, overleaf.
to both the AIDA and the ATR models. It is These results show that between 40% to 50%
clear that sponsorship can generate high levels of both groups would be likely to purchase a
of awareness and that, even where good Fisher & Paykel washing machine; the likeli-
awareness levels exist, exposure to the spon- hood of purchasing the other brands examined
sorship can increase these by around 30%. was also very similar across both groups. The
However, Table 1 suggests that the relation- similarity of the two samples’ estimates may
ship between sponsorship exposure and aware- be interpreted in several ways. First, it could
ness is mediated by brand usage and so sup- suggest that the sponsorship had not had a
ports the argument that sponsorship is rein- marked effect on consumers’ likely behaviour.
forcing current behaviour patterns as well as This explanation is consistent with the rein-
maintaining brand salience. forcing role attributed to advertising by the
ATR model, but is less consistent with models
Purchase Probabilities which suggests that promotions should be
Ultimately, managers are interested in how moving consumers closer to behaviour.
their promotions affect sales, an interest which Alternatively, it could be that exposure to the
also applies to their sponsorship promotions. sponsorship and the act of entering the compe-
The difficulties of isolating the specific effect tition were insufficient to move respondents
of individual components of the promotion along the continuum towards behaviour,
mix has already been noted; in this case the although entering the competition arguably
problem is compounded by whiteware’s con- demonstrates the interest and desire thought to
sumption cycles, which extend over several precede behaviour. Another explanation is
years. Thus rather than examine actual sales, that respondents who were not exposed to the
we explored respondents’ purchase probabili- particular netball test under investigation may
ties using the Juster Scale (Juster, 1966). This still have been aware of the sponsorship
scale, an 11-point probability scale which con- through other sources. That is, the fact that
tains numeric probabilities as well as adjecti- respondents were not exposed to a specific
val descriptions of these, examines the likeli- game does not necessarily mean that they were
hood that consumers will perform a particular unaware of the sponsorship. To explore this

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship ● November/December 1999 25

 Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Analysis

Table 2: Purchase Probabilities by Exposure to Netball Test

Purchase Probability

Exposed to Netball Test Not Exposed to Netball Test

(n=123) (n=66)

Brand

Fisher &Paykel 4.91 4.1

Simpson 2.4 2.4
Smeg 0.9 1.2
AEG 0.7 0.7
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

Note:
1. A purchase probability of 4.9 means that 49% of those questioned would purchase a Fisher & Paykel washing
machine. The purchase probabilities do not sum to 100% because some respondents nominated other brands and
because some indicated that they would not purchase any of the nominated brands.

Table 3: Purchase Probabilities by Recall of Sponsor

Purchase Probability

Recalled Test Sponsor Did not Recall Test Sponsor

(n=145) (n=44)
Brand

Fisher &Paykel 4.71 4.4

Simpson 2.5 1.9
Smeg 1.4 1.8
AEG 0.9 1.3

Note:
1. A purchase probability of 4.7 means that 47% of those questioned would purchase a Fisher & Paykel washing
machine. The purchase probabilities do not sum to 100% because some respondents nominated other brands and
because some indicated that they would not purchase any of the nominated brands.

latter possibility further, the purchase probabil- sure to the netball test nor awareness of the test
ities were also analysed according to respon- sponsorship had any real effect on respon-
dents’ ability to recall the test sponsor. These dents’ purchase probabilities. This finding is
results are presented in Table 3. less consistent with the AIDA model, although
These results are virtually identical to those it might be argued that awareness of Fisher &
contained in Table 2; an estimated 40% to 50% Paykel was so high among both groups that the
of the sample would purchase a Fisher & sponsorship could have little influence, since
Paykel product if they had to buy a washing little room for improvement existed. In this
machine within the next week. Neither expo- case, the sponsorship does seem to have rein-

26 International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship ● November/December 1999

 Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Anal

forced the Fisher & Paykel brand amongst in this study was a clear market leader, and
users and maintained its salience within the because the product category had a long con-
wider market. sumption cycle, further research should also
As expected, the purchase probabilities explore how the ATR model explains sponsor-
reflect the overall market structure. Although ship’s effects on fast-moving-consumer-goods
specific market share details were deemed too brands, or brands which are not market lead-
sensitive for wider release, Fisher & Paykel ers. Clarification of how sponsorship works,
dominates the New Zealand whiteware market and whether its effects vary across product cat-
and respondents’ probability of purchasing a egories, will also assist managers in determin-
Fisher & Paykel brand was similar to their ing whether sponsorship prompts trial, as sales
combined probability of purchasing all other promotions do, or whether it reinforces
brands, a result which reflects Fisher & behaviour, as advertising does.
Paykel’s overall position in the market.1 This Notwithstanding a more detailed exploration
result also supports the idea that sponsorship, of this question, it would be logical for man-
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

like advertising, helps brands defend share by agers to consider the behavioural goals they
reminding consumers of the brands’ benefits would like to achieve through sponsorship and
and by reinforcing these attributes through to incorporate specific opportunities to prompt
specific pairings which foreground them. trial, request donations, generate awareness, or
Ehrenberg (1988) has argued that it is diffi- monitor repeat-purchase behaviour. This
cult (though not impossible) to alter the struc- implies that managers should move away from
ture of established markets because of endur- setting objectives in terms of intermediary
ing patterns, such as Double Jeopardy, which variables, such as awareness and image, and
occur so regularly across so many markets that focus specifically on the responses they want
he has suggested it should be treated as a law- to elicit from consumers. It also implies that
like generalisation (Ehrenberg, Goodhardt & managers should use techniques that will allow
Barwise, 1990). Put simply, Double Jeopardy consumers’ behaviour to be attributed to spon-
suggests that small brands suffer in two ways: sorship.
they have a lower penetration (i.e. they are There are several parallels in other promo-
bought by fewer people) and they have a lower tion fields which could also be employed in
repeat purchase rate (those people who do buy sponsorship management. For example, direct
them purchase them less frequently). marketing promotions always contain specific
Conversely, big brands can enjoy the advan- calls to action and these can be incorporated
tages conferred by Double Jeopardy and the into sponsorship campaigns. Cause-related
results of the study reported here, which reveal marketing draws on this idea by linking
Fisher & Paykel’s dominance of the market, behaviour (purchase of a nominated brand) to
can also be explained by Fisher & Paykel’s a sponsorship reinforcer (donation to a specif-
ability to “ride the Double Jeopardy curve” ic beneficiary). In this type of sponsorship,
(Ehrenberg, Goodhardt & Barwise, 1990). behaviour precedes and determines the level of
sponsorship provided and so enables better
Management Guidelines monitoring of the sponsorship’s effects than do
These results are pilot-scale only and so do lit- sponsorships which do not include direct calls
tle more than confirm that sponsorship, like to action. Where the sponsor maintains a
advertising, can fit comfortably within a client database, even greater monitoring
behaviourist paradigm. Detailed research is becomes possible as managers can monitor ini-
now required to test how well the ATR model tial trial, complementary behaviour (purchase
explains sponsorship’s effects on consumers, of brands other than the sponsored brand), and
and how well this explanation compares with client conversion and retention once the spon-
the AIDA model. Since the product examined sorship contract concludes.

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship ● November/December 1999 27

 Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Analysis

For fast-moving-consumer-goods manufac- Conclusions

turers, who do not typically maintain end-user Where sponsorship evaluation is undertaken,
databases, it is possible to use sales promotion managers often rely heavily on cognitive-
techniques to introduce behavioural measures information processing models which do not
into sponsorship. For example, use of spon- offer clear insights into consumers’ likely
sorship-linked competitions, where entries behaviour. The uneasy relationship between
must be accompanied by a certain number of the objectives managers set and the behaviours
barcodes, may increase consumers’ repeat- they hope will result raises serious questions
purchase behaviour and result in the sponsored about the logic of the image and awareness
brand attracting higher share of category goals typically set for sponsorship.
requirements. These variables can be exam- Although the cognitive paradigm has domi-
ined using aggregated grocery market data nated the advertising and promotion literature,
(which would reveal fluctuations in market equally plausible (and arguably more com-
share) and consumer panel data (which would pelling) alternatives to it exist. One such alter-
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

reveal changes in repeat purchase behaviour, native is the behaviourist approach. A

deviations from market norms, and changes in behaviourist framework places more emphasis
share of category requirements). on the outcomes of the sponsorship and corre-
These suggestions link sponsorship to a vari- spondingly less on the processes thought to
ety of purchase behaviours, but such links may mediate these. Use of the behaviourist-based
not be possible in some product categories, in ATR (Awareness-Trial-Reinforcement) model
which case managers may need to examine an offers managers more specific guidelines
intermediary variable. However, instead of about how sponsorship can be linked to specif-
using measures of awareness or attitude as ic behavioural outcomes and thus how its over-
proxies for purchase behaviour, it is possible to all effectiveness can be assessed.
examine precursor behaviours, such as trial. The results reported here suggest that spon-
For example, manufacturers of industrial or sorship effectiveness can be determined using
technical equipment could include on-site the ATR model, and other known regularities
demonstrations as part of their sponsorship in consumers’ behaviour. However, the spe-
contracts and could collect contact details from cific sponsorship examined did not track
trialists which would enable purchases to be entrants’ subsequent behaviour and more
monitored. Similarly, wineries and breweries detailed research is required to explore the
often negotiate exclusive pouring rights for longer-term consequences of sponsorship.
events; these arrangements enable an assessment Nevertheless, it is clear that sponsorship
of the profit earned on event-related sales with management has much to gain from the adop-
the cost of procuring the sponsorship rights. tion of a more behaviourist orientation and, in
In summary, management practice could be particular, its application to sponsorship evalu-
improved by a more explicit focus on ation. Evaluation is a critical, but often
behavioural outcomes and a more eclectic use neglected, phase of any promotion campaign
of other promotion disciplines. Sponsorship and, despite the difficulties in measuring spon-
already draws heavily on advertising and there sorship that have been outlined, there is no rea-
is no apparent reason why aspects of direct- son why the behavioural effects resulting from
response promotions, database marketing, or sponsorship cannot be assessed more straight-
cause-related marketing cannot also be incor- forwardly. To achieve this goal, however, man-
porated. Greater use of these disciplines agers may find it more useful to develop objec-
would also assist managers to achieve the tives in terms of the ATR model by drawing on
behavioural goals they set and would simplify the behaviourist notions of cueing and reinforc-
subsequent evaluations of the sponsorship’s ing behaviour, and by organising their sponsor-
success. ships to include specific calls to action. ●

28 International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship ● November/December 1999

 Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Anal

 1999 Winthrop Publications Limited. D., (1991), ‘Predicting Purchase Behaviour’.

Marketing Bulletin, 2, pp. 18-30.
References
Abratt, R., and Grobler, P.S., (1988), ‘The Dyson, P., Farr, A., and Hollis, N., (1996),
Evaluation of Sports Sponsorship’. ‘Understanding, Measuring and Using Brand
International Journal of Advertising, 8 (4), pp. Equity’. Journal of Advertising Research, 36
351-362. (6), pp. 9-21.

Barnard, N., and Ehrenberg, A.S.C., (1997), Dyson, P., Farr, A., and Hollis, N., (1996),
‘Advertising: Strongly Persuasive Or ‘What Does the Marketing Team Need?
Nudging?’ Journal of Advertising Research, Description Or Prescription? A Response to
37 (1), pp. 21-31. Comments by Andrew Ehrenberg’. Journal of
Advertising Research, 37 (1), pp. 13-17.
Barwise, T.P., and Ehrenberg, A.S.C., (1985),
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

‘Consumer Beliefs and Brand Usage’. Journal East, Robert (1997), ‘Consumer Behaviour:
of the Market Research Society, 27 (2), pp. Advances and Applications in Marketing’.
81-93. Prentice Hall, London.

Barwise, T.P., and Ehrenberg, A.S.C., (1987), Ehrenberg, A.S.C., (1974), ‘Repetitive
‘Consumer Beliefs and Brand Awareness’. Advertising and the Consumer’. Journal of
Journal of the Market Research Society, 29 Advertising Research, 14 (2), pp. 22-34.
(1), pp. 88-93.
Ehrenberg, A.S.C., (1988) ‘Repeat Buying:
Cornwell, T.B., (1997), ‘Editorial – Facts, Theory and Applications’ (2nd ed.).
Sponsorship Linked Marketing: Raising Oxford University Press, London.
Research to the Next Level’. International
Marketing Review, 14 (2), pp. 141-144. Ehrenberg, A.S.C., (1992), ‘Comments on
How Advertising Works’. Marketing and
Cornwell, T.B., and Maignan, I., (1998), ‘An Research Today, August, pp. 167-168.
International Review of Sponsorship
Research’. Journal of Advertising, 27 (1), pp. Ehrenberg, A.S.C., (1997), ‘In Search of Holy
1-21. Grails: Two Comments’. Journal of
Advertising Research, Jan./Feb., pp. 9-12.
Crimmins, J., and Horn, M., (1996),
‘Sponsorship: From Management Ego Trip to Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Goodhardt, G., and
Marketing Success’. Journal of Advertising Barwise, T.P., (1990), ‘Double Jeopardy
Research, 36 (4), pp. 11-21. Revisited’. Journal of Marketing, 54, July, pp.
82-91.
Crowley M., (1991), ‘Prioritising the
Sponsorship Audience’. European Journal of Farrelly F., Quester, P.G., and Burton, R.,
Marketing, 25 (11), pp. 11-21. (1997), ‘Integrating Sponsorship Into the
Corporate Marketing Function: An
D’Astous, A., and Bitz, P., (1996), ‘Consumer International Study’. International Marketing
Evaluations of Sponsorship Programmes’. Review, 14 (3), pp.170-182.
European Journal of Marketing, 29 (12), pp.
6-22. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I., (1975), ‘Belief,
Attitude, Intention and Behaviour’. Addison-
Day, D., Gan, B., Gendall, P., and Esslemont, Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship ● November/December 1999 29

 Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Analysis

Foxall, G.R., (1983), ‘Consumer Choice’. Jones, J.P., (1997), ‘Is Advertising Still
Macmillan Press, Hong Kong. Salesmanship?’ Journal of Advertising
Research, 37, May-June, pp.9-15.
Foxall, G.R., (1993), ‘A Behaviourist
Perspective on Purchase and Consumption’. Juster, T., (1996), ‘Consumer Behaviour
European Journal of Marketing, 27 (8), pp. 7- Intentions and Purchase Probability’. National
16. Bureau of Economic Research, Columbia
University Press.
Gardner, M., and Shuman, P., (1987),
‘Sponsorship: an Important Component of the Lee, M.S., Sandler, D.M., and Shani, D.,
Marketing Mix’. Journal of Advertising, 16 (1997), ‘Attitude Constructs Towards
(1), pp. 11-17. Sponsorship: Scale Development Using Three
Global Sporting Events’. International
Haley, R., and Baldinger, A., (1991), ‘The Marketing Review, 14 (3), pp. 159-169.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

ARF Copy Research Validity Project’. Journal

of Advertising Research, 31, pp. 11-32. Marshall, D., and Cook, G., (1992), ‘The
Corporate (Sports) Sponsor’. International
Hansen, F., and Scotwin, L., (1995), ‘An Journal of Advertising, 11, pp. 307-324.
Experimental Enquiry into Sponsoring: What
Effects Can Be Measured?’ Marketing and McDaniel, S., and Kinney, L., (1999),
Research Today, 23 (3), pp. 173-181. ‘Audience Characteristics and Event
Sponsorship Response: the Potential Influence
Hastings G., (1984), ‘Sponsorship Works of Demographics, Personal Interests and
Differently from Advertising’. International Values on Brand Awareness and Brand Image’.
Journal of Advertising, 3 (2), pp. 171-176. International Journal of Sports Marketing and
Sponsorship, 1, pp. 125-145.
Hawkins, D. I., Best, R.J., and Coney, K.A.,
(1989), ‘Consumer Behaviour: Implications McDonald, Colin (1991), ‘Sponsorship and
for Marketing Strategy’ (4th ed.). BPI Irwin, the Image of the Sponsor’. European Journal
Boston. of Marketing, 25 (11), pp. 31-38.

Hoek, J.A., Gendall, P.J., Jeffcoat, M., and Meenaghan, T., (1983), ‘Commercial
Orsman, D., (1997), ‘Sponsorship and Sponsorship’. European Journal of
Advertising: A Comparison of Their Effects’. Marketing, 17 (7), pp. 1-75.
Journal of Marketing Communications, 3, pp.
21-32. Meenaghan, T., (1991a), ‘Sponsorship-
Legitimising the Medium’. European Journal
Hoek, J.A. (1999), ‘Sponsorship’. Chapter 21 of Marketing, 25 (11), pp. 5-10.
in Kitchen, P., (Ed.) ‘Integrated marketing
communications: Principles and Practice’, pp. Meenaghan, T., (1998), ‘Current
361-380. Developments and Future Directions in
Sponsorship’. International Journal of
Javalgi, R.G., Traylor, M.B., Gross, A.C. , and Advertising, 17 (1), pp. 3-28.
Lampman, E., (1994), ‘Awareness of
Sponsorship and Corporate Image: An Meenaghan, T., (1994), ‘Point-of-View:
Empirical Investigation’. Journal of Ambush Marketing: Immoral or Imaginative
Advertising, 23 (4), pp. 47-58. Practice?’ Journal of Advertising Research,
34 (5), pp. 77-88.

30 International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship ● November/December 1999

 Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Anal

Meenaghan, T., and Shipley, D., (1999), Sandler, D., and Shani, D., (1995),
‘Media Effect in Commercial Sponsorship’. ‘Sponsorship and the Olympic Games: The
European Journal of Marketing, 33 (3/4), pp. Consumer Perspective’. Sports Marketing
365-386. Quarterly, 2 (3), pp. 38-43.

Nicholls, J.A.F., Roslow, S., and Dublish, S., Scott, D.R., and Suchard, H.T., (1992),
(1999), ‘Brand Recall and Brand Preference ‘Motivations for Australian Expenditure on
At Sponsored Golf and Tennis Tournaments’. Sponsorship – An Analysis’. International
European Journal of Marketing, 33 (3/4), pp. Journal of Advertising, 11, pp. 325-332.
365-386.
Speed, R., and Thompson, P., (1997),
Nord, W.R., and Peter, J.P., (1980), ‘A ‘Developing a Model of the Determinants of
Behaviour Modification Perspective on Sports Sponsorship Impact’. Paper presented
Marketing’. Journal of Marketing, 44, Spring, at the 1997 European Marketing Academy
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

pp. 36-47. Conference, Warwick Business School, UK,

May 20-23.
Otker, T., (1988), ‘Exploitation: The Key to
Sponsorship Success’. European Research, 16 Stipp, H., and Schiavone, N.P., (1996),
(2), pp. 77-85. ‘Modelling the Impact of Olympic
Sponsorship on Corporate Image’. Journal of
Parker, K,. (1991), ‘Sponsorship: The Advertising Research, 36, July-August, pp. 22-
Research Contribution’. European Journal of 28.
Marketing, 25 (11), pp. 22-30.
Thwaites, D,. (1995), ‘Professional Football
Pope, Nigel (1998), ‘Overview of Current Sponsorship – Profitable or Profligate?’
Sponsorship Thought’. Cyber Journal of International Journal of Advertising, 14, pp.
Sports Marketing, http://www.cjsm.com/Vol12 149-164.
/pope21.htm.
Thwaites, D., Aguilar-Manjarrez, R., and
Pope, Nigel (1998), ‘Consumption Values, Kidd, C., (1998), ‘Sports Sponsorship in
Sponsorship Awareness, Brand and Product Leading Canadian Companies: Issues and
Use’, Journal of Product and Brand Trends’. International Journal of Advertising,
Management, 7 (2), pp. 124-136. 17, pp. 29-49.

Pope, Nigel and Voges, Kevin (1994), Wilson, Glenn A., (1997), ‘Does Sport
‘Sponsorship Evaluation: Does it Match the Sponsorship Have A Direct Effect on Product
Motive and the Mechanism?’ Sports Sales?’ The Cyber-journal of Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 3 (4), pp. 37-45. Marketing, 1 (4), 1-8. www.cjsm.com/vol1
/wilson.htm
Quester, Pascale (1997), ‘Sponsorship
Returns: Unexpected Results and the Value of Witcher, B., Craigen, G., Culligan, D., and
Naming Rights’. Corporate Communications: Harvey, A., (1991), ‘The Links Between
An International Journal, 2 (13), pp. 101-108. Objectives and Function in Organisational
Sponsorship’. International Journal of
Rajaretnam, J., (1994), ‘The Long Term Advertising, 10, pp. 13-33.
Effects of Sponsorship’. Marketing and
Research Today, 22 (1), pp. 62-74.

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship ● November/December 1999 31

 Sports Sponsorship Evaluation: A Behavioural Analysis

Appendix A: The Juster Scale

- 10 Certain, practically certain (99 in 100)
- 9 Almost sure ( 9 in 10)
- 8 Very probable ( 8 in 10)
- 7 Probable ( 7 in 10)
- 6 Good possibility ( 6 in 10)
- 5 Fairly good possibility ( 5 in 10)
- 4 Fair possibility ( 4 in 10)
- 3 Some possibility ( 3 in 10)
- 2 Slight possibility ( 2 in 10)
- 1 Very slight possibility ( 1 in 10)
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)

Endnote lets such as International Journal of

1 Respondents who recalled the test sponsor Advertising, Public Opinion Quarterly,
had a purchase probability of 47% for Fisher & Journal of the Market Research Society and
Paykel compared to a 48% probability of pur- International Marketing Review.
chasing all the other brands (i.e. the sum of the
purchase probabilities for Simpson, Smeg and Professor Philip Gendall is Head of the
AEG). Estimates for respondents who did not Department of Marketing at Massey
recall the sponsor were 44% and 50%, respec- University. He has a particular interest in
tively. questionnaire design and question wording,
and he also has strong research interests in
pricing and promotion evaluation. Professor
Biographies Gendall heads New Zealand’s involvement in
Dr Janet Hoek is a Senior Lecturer in the International Social Survey Programme
Marketing at Massey University’s main cam- and he has published numerous academic arti-
pus in Palmerston North, New Zealand. Her cles in leading scholarly journals.
research interests include sponsorship evalua-
tion, legal and ethical issues in marketing,
research methodology and the development of Katie Theed is a former graduate student of the
empirical generalisations in marketing. She Department of Marketing at Massey
has published extensively in these areas in out- University.

International Journal of Sports

Marketing & Sponsorship
Volume One, Number Four
Winthrop Publications Ltd
Garfield House
86-88 Edgware Road
London W2 2YW
Tel: +44 (0) 171 915 9634
Tel: +44 (0) 171 915 9636

32 International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship ● November/December 1999

 This article has been cited by:

1. George S Spais, George N Filis. 2008. Measuring stock market reaction to sponsorship announcements: The case of
Fiat and Juventus. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 16, 169-180. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO At 15:31 26 March 2016 (PT)