Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Brand Image and Fan Loyalty in Professio
Brand Image and Fan Loyalty in Professio
This study highlights the importance of brand image for fan loyalty in team sport.
A parsimonious 4-factor, 20-indicator structure effectively represents brand image.
In contrast to Keller’s proposed model, relationships between the brand image’s
components were discovered. Thus, in line with means-end theory, a brand-image
model should incorporate causalities among brand attributes, benefits, and attitudes.
Fan loyalty is positively influenced by a fan’s brand attitude. Relationships among
the brand-image dimensions and loyalty are confirmed via structural equation
modeling. The non-product-related brand attributes (i.e., logo or tradition) have
a particularly large impact on attitudes and behavior. They represent promising
starting points for a successful and differentiating team brand strategy.
The authors are with the Dept. of Business Administration and Marketing II, University of Mannheim,
Mannheim, Germany.
205
206 Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, and Exler
One promising strategy for sport marketers to drive sport consumers’ prefer-
ences and loyalty is to build strong, positive, and unique consumer beliefs about
the club—in other words, to construct a strong brand image. Given its highly
competitive nature, branding can play an important role by influencing fan prefer-
ences and perceptions regarding the club and by differentiating it from competing
clubs and other leisure activities. Therefore, it is essential to understand how strong
brands are established in sports. Moreover, Ross (2006) recommends research that
theoretically and empirically investigates the relationship between a strong brand
and such consequences as team loyalty and merchandise sales.
This article develops a parsimonious model to measure brand image in the
team-sport industry while at the same time demonstrates the importance of brand
image for fan loyalty. In so doing, we examine the link between brand image and
fan loyalty. The concept and operationalization of brand loyalty in team sport (fan
loyalty) is first presented. We focus on fans rather than casual spectators because
fans represent the most important customer segment for team-sport clubs. Second,
brand image in team sport is described, and a measurement model is suggested.
Third, relationships among the constructs are examined from a theoretical point of
view and verified through an empirical study of fans of German soccer clubs. Finally,
the results of this study and their implications for sport marketers are discussed.
There are many reasons for choosing soccer as the context for our study. The
key reason is that European soccer clubs enjoy an extensive global popularity and
generate high incomes and revenues. Today, European clubs and federations pro-
duce more than US$12.5 billion of income, and European soccer’s leading clubs
even earn larger revenues than American sports franchises. Manchester United, for
example, generated more than US$300 million in revenues in 2002 and 2003. The
biggest earner in the German Bundesliga is Bayern Munich, with revenues totaling
approximately US$200 million (Deloitte, 2004). In addition, with few exceptions
(e.g., Bauer, Sauer, & Schmitt, 2004), team-sports brands have not been analyzed
by scholars outside the United States. Nevertheless, soccer is only chosen as an
exemplar; our model and theoretical considerations are applicable to other team
sports. The study’s importance lies in the fact that it enhances our understanding of
fan behavior, showing that a parsimonious model of brand image in a team-sport
setting can cover the aspects relevant to sport teams. The model can readily be
applied by managers of sport teams to measure their team’s brand image.
attitudinal dimension of fan loyalty comprises the inner relatedness of fans to their
team and distinguishes between spurious loyalty and “true” loyalty. Spurious loy-
alty characterizes a sport spectator who does not possess a strong positive attitude
but who nevertheless watches games on an ongoing basis (Backman & Crompton,
1991). Although repeat attendance is the most obvious manifestation of a person’s
behavioral attachment to a team, the exclusive use of such a behavioral indicator
ignores important underlying psychological processes such as a deep inner soli-
darity with the team (Mahony, Madrigal, & Howard, 2000). A measure of game
attendance, for instance, does not provide insights into the behavioral pattern of
fans watching the team’s games on a regular basis. For example, games might be
watched regularly because the person was given a season ticket. In another case,
games might be watched as a result of the strong personal attachment the person
has for the team. Consequently, researchers have recently developed both pure
attitudinal and composite (i.e., attitude + behavior) measures of fan loyalty (e.g.,
Gladden & Funk, 2001; Hill & Green, 2000; Mahony, Madrigal, & Howard, 2000;
Pritchard, Havitz, & Howard, 1999). As Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) note, neither
behavioral nor psychological relatedness alone can sufficiently explain consumer
loyalty. Thus, to capture the full content of the loyalty concept, it is necessary to
include both behavior and attitude criteria when examining fan loyalty.
others that the favorite club should be supported (Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2003;
Funk & Pastore, 2000; Gladden & Funk, 2001; Mahony, Madrigal, & Howard,
2000; Shank & Beasley, 1998).
The intentional component represents the positive and persistent future behavior
of the fan. It embraces intended loyal behavior and positive word-of-mouth, as well
as cross-buying intentions (Homburg & Giering, 1999). The behavioral intentions
correspond with the activities noted above such as intended stadium visits, intended
merchandise purchases, and so forth. Positive word-of-mouth is referred to as all
informal communication between a consumer and others concerning evaluations
of goods or services, particularly including recommendations to others (Ander-
son, 1998). Cross-buying refers to a fan’s practice of buying additional products
and services from a favorite club brand in addition to the ones he or she currently
purchases or owns (Ngobo, 2004). Cross-buying intentions seem to be particularly
relevant for sport marketers today because most professional clubs now have brand
extension strategies whereby they are expanding the range of branded products and
services beyond club merchandise (Apostolopoulou, 2002; Chadwick & Clowes,
1998). For example, FC Bayern Munich signed a licensing agreement with HypoV-
ereinsbank and now offers “FC Bayern Banking.”
requirement. External aspects of the product or service related to its purchase and
consumption are defined as non-product-related attributes (Keller, 1993).
Two studies that conceptualized and operationalized brand image in the team-
sport industry are important here. Ross, James, and Vargas (2006) introduced a brand
association model, which they dubbed the Team Brand Association Scale (TBAS).
They used both qualitative and quantitative work to identify eight dimensions
of relevant associations, which they measure using 41 items. From a theoretical
standpoint, however, one of the drawbacks of the TBAS is that it does not differen-
tiate product-related and non-product-related attributes, brand benefits, and brand
attitudes; nor does the scale obtain ratings of the favorability or uniqueness of the
items or the dimensions. From practical and theoretical standpoints, this could be
a problem because we do not learn if the association is positive or negative. For
example, if participants only rate the strength of their association with the “head
coach” (an item from the nonplayer personnel dimension of the TBAS), we do not
learn if the association is favorable or unfavorable, which is important to know.
Furthermore, the TBAS treats commitment as an indicator of brand image, although
it is more appropriately treated as a part of brand loyalty.
The second model to conceptualize brand equity is Gladden and Funk’s (2001,
2002) team association model (TAM). That model specifies 13 dimensions of brand
associations that constitute sport teams’ brand equity. The model is particularly
complex, which compromises its utility as a research tool. Furthermore, although
the TAM is intended to operationalize Keller’s (1993) model for team sports, it does
not measure the uniqueness, favorability, or strength of brand associations, which
Keller’s model requires. Rather, consistent with the customer-based brand equity
model, the items are classified into attributes, benefits, and attitudes. Consequently,
in the work that follows, we refine and modify Gladden and Funk’s (2001, 2002)
model in an effort to overcome the aforementioned limitations. Modifications and
additions to the model are based on theoretical and empirical considerations, includ-
ing the results of a pretest, which was carried out in the form of free-association
tasks with six soccer fans.
With respect to product-related attributes, Gladden and Funk (2001, 2002)
propose four dimensions: success, star player, head coach, and management. We
treat product-related attributes as characteristics of or contributors to actual team
performance. They therefore represent the core product. More precisely, all the
people and outcomes that are directly related to the actual games are labeled as
product-related attributes. We further modify Gladden and Funk’s classification
scheme by defining success, star player, head coach, team (members), and team
performance (team play) as product-related attributes. We exclude “management”
from product-related attributes because, from the consumer’s perspective, manage-
ment does not contribute to the team performance in the way that coaches, stars, and
other players do. We add the attributes “team members” and “team performance/
team play” to the brand-image framework because the team itself is an important
success factor and because a team can be unsuccessful despite good performances.
Table 1 provides a summary of the brand image components employed in this study
and compares them to the TAM.
Non-product-related attributes do not directly affect performance. They are
external aspects of the core product that are relevant to its consumption and, con-
sequently, influence perceptions of the club brand. These are management, logo
Brand Image 211
and club colors, stadium, club history and tradition, club culture and values, fans,
sponsor or owner, and regional provenance. The last four components of the non-
product-related attributes are not included in the TAM (see Table 1).
Our model derives from four considerations. First, because there is no physi-
cal core product that can transport the underlying values, the perception of service
brands is strongly influenced by the organizational culture and the behavior of
the organization’s members (De Chernatony & Segal-Horn, 2001). Successful
team-sport brands such as Manchester United, for example, have clear values that
consumers and employees understand and live. In Germany, major-league soccer
clubs have distinct club cultures. Bayern Munich, for instance, represents an elitist
“celebrity club” that can be clearly distinguished from “working class clubs,” such
as FC Schalke 04. Second, the fans of a club can clearly influence the club’s brand
212 Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, and Exler
image because they play a crucial role in creating the team-sport product. “In other
words, football needs supporters not just as customers but because they form part
of a unique joint product” (Morrow, 1999, p. 13). Third, the image of the spon-
sor or owner (e.g., in the case of Bayer 04 Leverkusen or the Volkswagen-owned
Wolfsburg) can also have spillover effects on the club’s brand image. Recently,
companies have attempted to attract attention by sponsoring stadiums such as the
Allianz Arena in Munich or the AOL Arena in Hamburg. Fourth, the association of
regional provenance corresponds to country-of-origin effects on a local, regional,
or national level. For example, the images of the London-based clubs Arsenal and
Chelsea are influenced by their respective neighborhoods.
Benefits. Marketing research has shown that consumers do not buy product fea-
tures and attributes but rather bundles of benefits (e.g., Lancaster, 1966). Benefits
are the personal value and meaning that consumers attach to the brand’s attributes,
which satisfy underlying needs and motivations (Keller, 1993). The brand’s benefits
depend on the individual consumer’s needs and personal values as represented
by attributes of the product or service (Keller, 1993). Three types of benefits are
suggested by the literature: functional, symbolic, and experiential benefits (e.g.,
Park, Jaworski, & MacInnis 1986). Functional benefits are benefits motivating the
search for products that solve consumption-related problems. They correspond to
a brand’s capacity for functional, utilitarian, or physical performance. Symbolic
benefits derive from products that fulfill internally generated needs for self-enhance-
ment, role position, group membership, or ego identification. Experiential benefits
are obtained from products that provide sensory and emotional pleasure, variety,
or cognitive stimulation. Spectators at sport events typically seek to meet their
experiential and symbolic needs rather than their functional needs, because sport
spectatorship is not related to solving consumption-related problems. For this
reason, functional benefits are not included in our model.
We identified the following symbolic benefits: pride in place, fan identifica-
tion, and peer-group acceptance. In addition, the following experiential benefits
appear to be relevant in the team-sport setting: nostalgia (evoked fond memories),
escape (get away from it all), socializing and companionship, emotions, and enter-
tainment. Therefore, on the basis of the pretest and theoretical considerations, we
added socializing and companionship, emotions, and entertainment to the TAM
(see Table 1). Socializing and companionship refers to developing and maintaining
relations with other fans. Many fans particularly enjoy watching games in com-
pany with people who share their interest in the respective activity (McDonald,
Milne, & Hong, 2002). Second, sport elicits strong emotions. Sport fans regularly
experience joy, pride, or ecstasy, as well as anger, frustration, worry, or shame.
Moreover, fans act out these emotions with less restraint than would be imposed
in other social settings. Third, the entertainment factor is an important benefit for
spectators in the stadium and supporters viewing games on television (Mullin,
Hardy, & Sutton, 2007). These benefits also serve as motivation for spectator and
fan behavior. Because the literature recognizes an even larger number of motives
(e.g., Trail & James, 2001), one could ask why motives such as the acquisition
of knowledge or drama or eustress have not been included in our framework. The
reason is that the benefits included here are those that individuals primarily asso-
ciate with a team brand, whereas others (e.g., acquisition of knowledge) are not
Brand Image 213
Model Structure
The positive relationship between brand image and brand loyalty is frequently
mentioned in the brand literature, although there have been few empirical studies
regarding that relationship. In particular, the relationships between the different
dimensions of brand image or equity and loyalty have, with a few exceptions (e.g.,
Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001), rarely been examined. Keller (1993) points out that
the different categories of brand associations are not independent from each other.
In line with this view, we examine the links among the different types of brand
associations that constitute brand image.
The linkages among the different types of brand associations can be explained
on the basis of means-end theory (Gutman, 1982). In the means-end approach,
brand or product knowledge is hierarchically organized into three key categories:
attributes, consequences, and values. The underlying idea is that product attributes
are the means for consumers to obtain desired ends (i.e., value) through the con-
sequences of those attributes. Attributes (means) are on the lowest hierarchical
level of the means-end chain. They are ideally linked to desirable consequences
(benefits) for the consumer (Gutman, 1982).
This study examined the linkages among the different types of brand associa-
tions on an aggregate level. Thus, we do not analyze the links among the single
specific associations, such as the relationship between star player and entertain-
ment. We averaged the strength, favorability, and uniqueness of the brand attributes
to develop the variables. We expect both product-related and non-product-related
attributes to affect symbolic and experiential benefits. On these bases, the following
hypotheses were formulated.
H1: The stronger, more favorable, and more unique a fan’s brand associations
are with product-related attributes, the greater the perceived benefits.
H2: The stronger, more favorable, and more unique a fan’s brand associations
are with non-product-related attributes, the greater the perceived benefits.
214 Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, and Exler
The degree to which a brand fulfills the individual’s values and delivers benefits
is expressed in the brand attitude. Especially for brands providing nonfunctional
benefits, attitudes serve as a value expressive function by allowing consumers to
express their self-concept (Lutz, 1991). Therefore, there should be a positive link
between the fan’s experienced emotional and symbolic benefits and his or her
attitude, which leads to the following hypothesis.
H3: The greater a fan’s perceived benefits, the more positive his or her atti-
tude.
The hypothesized causal chain is complemented by psychological commitment (i.e.,
attitudinal loyalty). The relationship between attitudes and commitment represents
the interface between the higher level concepts of brand image and fan loyalty.
Therefore, we expect the following relationship.
H4: The more positive a fan’s attitude, the higher his or her psychological
commitment.
Furthermore, we expect that attitudinal loyalty is an antecedent of behavioral
loyalty. Iwasaki and Havitz (1998, p. 256), for example, suggest that “individuals
go through sequential psychological processes to become loyal participants includ-
ing . . . the development of psychological commitment to a brand.” Moreover,
the connection between these constructs can be justified by the attitude−behavior
relationship, demonstrated in a multitude of studies (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977;
Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Kuo, Chang, and Cheng (2004), conclude that
loyalty studies should be multidimensional. Consequently, we predict that loyal
behavior is based on loyal attitudes.
H5: The higher the psychological commitment of a fan, the higher his or her
behavioral loyalty.
Method
Participants
Data were collected from fans of German soccer teams using an online survey. A
total of 1,298 usable questionnaires were collected. As was expected, the sample
was dominated by male respondents, comprising 85% of the total sample. This was
expected because soccer is a sport predominantly favored by males. The average
age of the respondents was 26.6 years. Thirty-two percent of the respondents were
employed by a third party, 31% were students, 12% were in vocational training,
and 6% were self-employed. Forty-two percent of the respondents have a 13-year
degree, 19% have a 10-year high-school degree, 17% are graduates with a master’s
degree, and 13% own a degree in a practical training. Thus, the sample is somewhat
above average in educational attainment. The sample is also unrepresentative of
the target population in terms of gender and age because estimates by Sportfive
(2002) show that 27.2% of stadium visitors are female and 15.7% are over 50 years
of age. Overall, however, the sample has reasonable representation of people from
relevant age, professional, and social-class groups. Given that the respondents were
recruited via online discussion forums, then asked to name their favorite team and
to respond to the items concerning that team, our sample is biased toward more
Brand Image 215
committed fans. Because that segment is the most relevant target group for sport
marketers, we consider this to be advantageous.
Measures
We adapted items from existing scales and developed additional items based on
our review of the literature. All items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (totally agree). The exact item wordings
are given in the Appendix.
Fan Loyalty. The fan loyalty construct consists of two dimensions: psychological
commitment and behavioral loyalty. Attitudinal loyalty was measured by items
adapted from the Psychological Commitment to a Team (PCT) scale (Mahony,
Madrigal, & Howard, 2000; Kwon & Trail, 2003) and from the TAM (Gladden &
Funk, 2001). In addition, we added two items embracing the notion that commit-
ted fans deeply care about the future welfare of the club. These items were drawn
from Garbarino and Johnson’s (1999) commitment scale. These scales have not
previously been tested on German soccer fans. For that reason, we included a wide
range of possible items that describe the construct.
We used both general measures of brand loyalty (Homburg & Giering, 1999)
and sport-specific measures (e.g., Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2003) to formulate the
behavioral items. The behavioral-loyalty construct considers both past (e.g., “I
have purchased a lot of club-related merchandise”) and future behaviors (e.g., “I
will purchase a lot of club-related merchandise”). To reduce the complexity for the
construct and structural-equation analyses, we aggregated the item scores for the
past and future behavior items by calculating an average score.
Brand Image. We built on the TAM (Gladden & Funk, 2001, 2002) to develop a
convenient brand-image measure. We therefore had 13 dimensions of brand asso-
ciations that constitute brand equity in the team-sport setting, with each dimension
measured by three or four items. The measure consisted of 40 items.
To measure the fans’ perceptions concerning brand attributes, we formulated
our measures in keeping with Keller’s (1993) suggestions. Consequently, we used
three indicators to measure the favorability, strength, and uniqueness of each brand
attribute. (This measurement departs from Gladden and Funk [2001, 2002], who
did not consider favorability, strength, and uniqueness.). Regarding the associated
benefits, respondents were merely asked for the strength and uniqueness because
benefits are favorable by definition. For the exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses, the mean value of these two or three items for each benefit or attribute
is used, that is, items were aggregated for the analyses. The operationalization of
the constructs is shown in the Appendix. When appropriate, items were aggregated
for analysis. Respondents were merely asked for the strength and uniqueness of
the associated benefits because benefits are favorable by definition. When brand
attributes were measured, the average score of both items was used in analyses.
To operationalize brand attitude, respondents were asked to rate four affective
statements using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(totally agree). Brand attitudes are overall evaluations of a brand, and thus are closely
related to psychological commitment. Because both concepts represent attitudes,
216 Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, and Exler
the distinction between brand attitudes and psychological commitment might not
be clear, so there are potential challenges for measurement discrimination.
Procedure
To test the hypothesized brand-image model and its relationships with commit-
ment and behavioral loyalty, the 18 professional soccer teams of the major German
league Bundesliga were used as study objects. From an economic point of view,
the clubs qualify as medium-scale enterprises today. Three of the clubs (Bayern
Munich, Borussia Dortmund, and Schalke 04) are among Europe’s top 20 clubs
in revenue. League matches have the highest attendance of European top division
leagues, exceeding 35,000 on average. All respondents are fans of one of the 18
German Bundesliga teams.
The questionnaire was distributed by posting brief notes in the online discus-
sion forums of each club. As an incentive, respondents could win subscriptions to
a German soccer magazine or vouchers for the online store, www.amazon.de. To
ensure high-quality responses, each returned questionnaire was screened for formal
and content consistency. Formal consistency required that the entire questionnaire
was completed and that the time to complete it was not less than 5 minutes. (On
average, it took respondents retained in our sample slightly more than 10 minutes
to complete the survey.) Content consistency required that there was some varia-
tion in responses (i.e., all items were not rated using precisely the same value).
Questionnaires that failed to meet formal or content consistency requirements were
dropped from further study.
Analysis
Complex constructs, like brand image in the team-sport industry, are typically
evaluated using a number of reliability and validity criteria. These include classic
techniques, such as exploratory factor analysis (EFA), item-to-total correlation
(ITTC), and Cronbach’s alpha (α), as well as more contemporary techniques such
as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modeling (SEM).
Each of these techniques was employed in this study. Because our data are non-
normally distributed, we applied the Satorra–Bentler adjustment for nonnormality
(Satorra & Bentler, 1994).
Results
Measurement Models of Study Constructs
The analysis (EFA, ITTC, α, and CFA) of the two fan-loyalty constructs showed
that some indicators did not meet the required goodness-of-fit criteria. In the case
of psychological commitment, both items relating to the “concern for the future
welfare of the club” had to be eliminated. The indicator “watching of the games
on TV” did not meet the required fit criteria. The omitted items are marked with
parentheses in Table A1 of the Appendix. After eliminating these indicators, the
measurement models are satisfactory.
Brand Image 217
Cronbach’s
ITTC alpha FL AVE CR FL t Value FL AVE
Factor/Item (≥.40) (≥.70) (≥.50) (≥.50) (≥.60) (≥.60) (≥1.645) (≥.50)
Brand Image
Product-related attributes .85 .63 .86 .56
team .74 .82 .83 30.10
head coach .54 .68 .63 22.06
success .79 .83 .89 31.11
star player .57 .77 .62 24.39
team performance .70 .87 .74 40.31
Non-product-related attributes .81 .64 .81 .53
logo and club colors .63 .78 .69 25.17
club history and tradition .63 .79 .69 24.90
stadium .58 .79 .65 24.77
fans .69 .85 .85 37.04
Brand benefits .93 .70 .93 .65
identification .80 .85 .86 —
peer-group acceptance .74 .82 .75 33.84
escape from it all .81 .87 .83 39.40
socializing .78 .85 .78 30.92
emotions .81 .86 .87 43.08
nostalgia .76 .82 .81 33.18
entertainment .72 .79 .75 29.96
Brand attitude .83 .67 .88 .65
unique .54 .74 .86 —
trustworthy .64 .86 .75 19.35
positive .79 .86 .83 20.39
likeable .71 .82 .78 17.96
Brand Loyalty
Behavioral loyalty .83 .84 .58
stadium visits .60 .77 .65 —
follow reports in media .50 .58 .54 16.42
purchase club-related
merchandise .81 .89 .85 27.09
wear club colors .74 .94 .93 24.61
Note. AVE = average variance explained/extracted; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; CFI = comparative fit index; CR = construct
reliability; df = degrees of freedom, EFA = exploratory factor analysis; ITTC = item-to-total-correlation; NFI = normed fit index;
RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; TLI = Tucker Lewis index;
Global fit: NFI = .946; TLI = .944; CFI = .950; SRMR = .097; RMSEA = .096; SB-χ2/df = 3,213.52/247
219
220 Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, and Exler
H4B: The more positive a fan’s attitude, the higher his or her behavioral loy-
alty.
As Table 3 shows, discriminant validity among the remaining study constructs
was thus obtained.
To test the relationships specified in hypotheses H1 to H4B, we used the struc-
tural equation model (i.e., LISREL) with the Satorra–Bentler adjustment (by using
the asymptotic covariance matrix). As Table 4 shows, with the exception of the
RMSEA and χ2-values, global fit criteria are satisfactory. In addition, all relation-
ships are highly significant. The model is retained. Its parameters indicate that all
hypotheses can be accepted.
Discussion
This study demonstrates the significant role that a club’s brand image (i.e., fans’
perceptions of a club’s attributes and benefits) plays in fostering loyal fan behavior.
Most important, a club’s brand image consists of product- and non-product-
related brand attributes, as well as brand benefits and brand attitudes. The explicit
Brand attitudes → behavioral loyalty .64 17.19 .409 .096 .946 .944
Note. γ/β = path coefficients; SMC = squared multiple correlation (comparable to R2 in regression analysis);
RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root-mean-square residual; NFI =
normed fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index.
Brand Image 221
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name.
New York: Free Press.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and
review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.
Anderson, E.W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of Service
Research, 1, 5–17.
Apostolopoulou, A. (2002). Brand extensions by U.S. professional sport teams: Motivations
and keys to success. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 205–214.
Backman, S.J., & Crompton, J.L. (1991, Fall). Using loyalty matrix to differentiate between
high, spurious, latent, and loyal participants in two leisure services. Journal of Park
and Recreation Administration, 9, 1–17.
Bauer, H.H., Sauer, N.E., & Schmitt, P. (2004). Die Erfolgsrelevanz der Markenstärke in der
1. Fußball-Bundesliga. [Customer-based brand equity and its impact on the economic
success in the German “Bundesliga”]. (Working Paper, Institute of Market-Oriented
Management). Mannheim, Germany: University of Mannheim Press.
Beatty, S.E., & Kahle, L.R. (1988). Alternative hierarchies of the attitude behavior relation-
ship: The impact of brand commitment and habit. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 16, 1–10.
Chadwick, S., & Clowes, J. (1998). The use of extension strategies by clubs in the English
Football Premier League. Managing Leisure, 3, 194–203.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M.B. (2001). The chain effects from brand trust and brand effect
to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81–93.
De Chernatony, L., & Segal-Horn, S. (2001). Building on services’ characteristics to develop
successful services brands. Journal of Marketing Management, 17, 645–669.
DeSchriver, T.D., & Jensen, P.D. (2002). Determinants of spectator attendance at NCAA
Division II football contests. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 311–330.
Dietz-Uhler, B., Harrick, E.A., End, C., & Jaquemotte, L. (2000). Sex differences in sport fan
behavior and reasons for being a sport fan. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 219–232.
Brand Image 223
Fink, J.S., Trail, G.T., & Anderson, D.F. (2003). Environmental factors associated with
spectator attendance and sport consumption behavior: Gender and team differences.
Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 8–19.
Fornell, C.D., & Larcker, F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement errors. JMR (Journal of Marketing Research), 18, 39–50.
Funk, D.C., Mahony, D.F., & Ridinger, L.L. (2002). Characterizing consumer motivation as
individual difference factors: Augmenting the sport interest inventory (SII) to explain
level of spectator support. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 33–43.
Funk, D.C., & Pastore, D.L. (2000). Equating attitudes to allegiance: The usefulness of
selected attitudinal information in segmenting loyalty to professional sports teams.
Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9, 175–184.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commit-
ment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70–87.
Gladden, J.M., & Funk, D.C. (2001). Understanding brand loyalty in professional sport:
Examining the link between brand associations and brand loyalty. International Journal
of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 3, 67–91.
Gladden, J.M., & Funk, D.C. (2002). Developing an understanding of brand associations
in team sport: Empirical evidence from consumers of professional sport. Journal of
Sport Management, 16, 54–81.
Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes.
Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60–72.
Hansen, H., & Gauthier, R. (1989). Factors affecting attendance at professional sports events.
Journal of Sport Management, 3, 15–32.
Hill, B., & Green, B.C. (2000). Repeat attendance as a function of involvement, loyalty,
and the sportscape across three football contexts. Sport Management Review, 3,
145–162.
Homburg, C., & Giering, A. (1999). Messung von Markenzufriedenheit und Markenloy-
alität [The measurement of brand satisfaction and brand loyalty]. In F-R. Esch (Ed.),
Moderne Markenführung: Grundlagen—innovative Ansätze —praktische Umsetzungen
[Modern brand management: Fundamentals, new approaches, implementations] (pp.
1089–1100). Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
Iwasaki, Y., & Havitz, M.E. (1998). A path analytic model of the relationships between
involvement, psychological commitment, and loyalty. Journal of Leisure Research,
30, 256–280.
Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R.W. (1978). Brand loyalty measurement and management. New
York: Wiley.
Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity.
Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.
Kuo, T-S., Chang, C-M., & Cheng, K-M. (2004). Exploration of consumer loyalty. in
recreational sport/fitness programs. The Sport Journal, 7(1). Retrieved February 20,
2006, from http://www.thesportjournal.org/2004Journal/Vol7-No1/Tian-ShiangChia-
MingKuei-Mei.asp
Kwon, H.H., & Trail, G.T. (2003). A reexamination of the construct and concurrent validity of
the psychological commitment to team scale. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 88–93.
Lancaster, K.J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. The Journal of Political
Economy, 74, 132–157.
Lutz, R.J. (1991). The role of attitude theory in marketing. In H.H. Kassarjian & T.S. Rob-
ertson (Eds.), Perspectives in consumer behavior (pp. 317–339). Glenview, IL: Scott,
Foresman and Company.
Mahony, D.F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D. (2000). Using the psychological commitment
to a team (PCT) scale to segment sport consumer based on loyalty. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 9, 15–25.
224 Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, and Exler
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1984). Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment:
Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372–378.
McDonald, M.A., Milne, G.R., & Hong, J. (2002). Motivational factors evaluating sport
spectator and participant markets. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 100–113.
Morrow, S. (1999). The new business of football. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Mullin, B.J., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W.A. (2007). Sport marketing (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Mussler, D. (1999). Relationship Marketing im Sport. In H. D. Horch (Ed.), Profession-
alisierung im Sportmanagement: Beiträge des 1. Kölner Sportökonomie-Kongresses
[The professionalization of sport management: Proceedings of the 1. sports economics
congress in Cologne] (pp. 278–286). Aachen, Germany: Meyer & Meyer.
Ngobo, P.V. (2004). Drivers of customers’ cross-buying intentions. European Journal of
Marketing, 38, 1129–1157.
O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attach-
ment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial
behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499.
Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J., & MacInnis, D.J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image manage-
ment. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135–145.
Pritchard, M.P., Havitz, M.E., & Howard, D.R. (1999). Analyzing the commitment-loyalty
link in service contexts. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 333–348.
Rifkin, G. (1999). How the Red Sox touch all the branding bases. Strategy & Business,
5(4), 75–83.
Robinson, M.J., & Miller, J.J. (2003). Assessing the impact of Bobby Knight on the brand
equity of the Texas Tech basketball program. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 56–59.
Rosenberg, M.J., & Hovland, C.I. (1960). Cognitive, affective and behavioral components
of attitudes. In M.J. Rosenberg (Ed.), Attitude organization and change: An analysis of
consistency among attitude components (pp. 1–14). New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Ross, S.D. (2006). A conceptual framework for understanding spectator-based brand equity.
Journal of Sport Management, 20, 22–38.
Ross, S.D., James, J.D., & Vargas, P. (2006). Development of a scale to measure team brand
associations in professional sport. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 260–279.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covari-
ance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C.C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis:
Applications for developmental research (pp. 399–419). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Shank, M.D., & Beasley, F.M. (1998). Fan or fanatic: Refining a measure of sports involve-
ment. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21, 435–443.
Trail, G., & James, J.D. (2001). The Motivation Scale of Sport Consumption: Assessment
of the scale’s psychometric properties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 108–127.
Brand Image 225
Appendix
Table A1 Operationalization of Brand Image
Product-related Non-product-related
Benefits
attributes attributes
Team* Logo and club colorsa Identificationb
Head coach* Club history and traditiona (Pride in placeb)
Success* (Managementa) Peer-group acceptanceb
Star player* Stadiuma Escape/Get away from it allb
Team performance* (Club culture and valuesa) Socializing/Companionshipb
Fansa Emotionsb
(Sponsor or ownera) Nostalgia/Evoke fond memoriesb
(Regional provenancea) Entertainmentb
Attitudes:
My favorite club is unique.
My favorite club is trustworthy.
I have positive feelings toward my favorite club.
I like my favorite club.
a
Each of these items was measured by its strength (i.e., “If you hear or read about your favorite club, how strongly do
you associate the following attributes/aspects with the club?” [1 = do not associate at all; 7 = strongly associate]),
favorability (i.e., “How do you feel about the following attributes of your favorite club?” [1 = extremely negative,
7 = extremely positive]), and uniqueness (i.e., “In comparison with other clubs, how unique are the following
attributes/aspects with respect to your favorite club?” [1 = not unique at all, 7 = extremely unique]).
b
Each of these items was measured by its strength and uniqueness. All other items are measured on 7-point scales
with the end points 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. Items in parentheses were eliminated.
Behavioral Loyalty
I have often attended games of my favorite team live in the stadium. / I will often
attend games of my favorite team live in the stadium.
I have watched games of my favorite team on TV. / I will watch games of my
favorite team on TV.
I have often followed reports about my favorite team’s players, coaches, managers
etc. in the media. / I will often follow reports about my favorite team’s players,
coaches, managers etc. in the media.
I have purchased a lot of club-related merchandise. / I will purchase a lot of club-
related merchandise.
I often wore the colors and/or the logo of my favorite team. / I will often wear the
colors and/or the logo of my favorite team.
I have often participated in discussions about my favorite team. / I will often par-
ticipate in discussions about my favorite team.
(Note. All items are measured on 7-point scales with the end points ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree). Items in parentheses were eliminated.)