Analyzing the Impact of Sponsorship Signage on Brand Awareness and Brand Attitude: An Examination of Mere Exposure Effects in College-Sport Sponsorship.

Analyzing the Impact of Sponsorship

Signage on Brand Awareness and Brand Attitude:

An Examination of Mere Exposure Effects in College-Sport Sponsorship

Contexts

Sanghak LeeIndiana UniversityApril 18, 2009

Advisor: Paul M. Pedersen, Ph.D.

Sponsorship Growth• Sponsorship growth worldwide

− $13.4B in 1996 $43.5B in 2008• Sponsorship growth in North America

• Sport sponsorship makes up about 70% of total sponsorship expenditure

1988 1998 2008

1.75

6.8

16.8(Unit: US$, Billion)

(IEG Sponsorship Report, 2007)

Sponsorship• Financial support to a property for creating

commercial opportunities by building association with the property (Ukman, 1995)

• Sport sponsorship is a part of marketing communication to achieve sponsors’ marketing goals (Madrigal, 2000; Meenaghan, 1983)

− Increasing brand awareness− Enhancing brand image (equity/attitude)− Increasing sales

• Enhancing brand image is the key objectives (Kinney, 2006)

Major Sponsorship Research• Major approaches

− Image transfer model(Gwinner and Eaton, 1999; Meenaghan, 2001)

− Social alliance model(Madrigal, 2000)

• Major findings− Important variables

• Image congruence (Match-up)• Team identification• Demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, education)

− Affective variables > Cognitive variables (Madrigal, 2001)

Good

Match

Bad Match

Limitations of Prior Sponsorship Research

• Limited to the two models

• Potential to utilizing marketing communication theories

• Mere exposure is a widely respected communication theory under low attention and low information contexts (Grimes, 2008; Matthes, Schemer, & Wirth, 2007)

• Sponsorship is low attention (or involvement) and low information conditions (Hansen, 2005)

• Mere exposure would explain sponsorship effects (Cianfrone et al., 2008; Cornwell, 2000; Woisetschläger, 2007)

Theoretical Framework: Mere Exposure

Exposure Awareness

Attitude

(Zajonc, 1968)

Purpose of Study

• To propose a new model to explain

sponsorship effects based on mere

exposure

• Furthermore:

− To understand NASCAR sponsorship

effects among college students

− To suggest practical implications

Research Hypotheses• H1: After accounting for team identification, brand exposing

frequency will be positively related to attitude toward sponsoring brand

• H2: Brand exposing frequency will be positively related to brand recall

• H3: Team identification will be positively related to brand recall

Exposure frequency

Attitude toward brand

Team Identification

Brand Recall

Significance of Study

• No experiment has been conducted to examine mere exposure effects in sport sponsorship context

• Measure NASCAR team identification among college students and its effects on NASCAR sponsorship

Constructs and Variables

• Demographic variables

− Year in college, age, gender, and race

• Independent variables:

− Exposure frequency

− Team identification (covariate)

• Dependent variables:

− Brand recall

− Attitude toward brand

Experimental Design• Pre – stimulus – post test design

• Stimulus: 20-minute edited televised NASCAR race− Two experimental sponsors: Lowe’s and Office Depot− Each sponsor’s logo exposure frequency manipulated− Two crashes included

• One group experiment− Lowe’s – 9 times, Office Depot – 84 times, and others

(DeWALT – 24 times, US Army – 3, Miller Lite – 4, etc.)

Sampling & Group Assignment

• Convenience sampling− University students in the Midwest− 37 subjects

Year Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior Freq. 0 7 15 15

% 0.0% 18.9% 40.5% 40.5%Gender Male Female

Freq. 26 11% 70.3% 29.7%

Age 20-21 22-23 24 & Older Freq. 13 21 3

% 35.1% 56.8% 8.1%Race African American White Asian OthersFreq. 1 33 2 1

% 2.7% 89.2% 5.4% 2.7%

Brand Attitude

• No statistically significant difference between the means (before and after)

Before AfterAttitude toward Lowe's 5.27 5.24

Attitude toward Office Depot 4.81 4.75* Attitude toward brand: 7 point scale (1:Most negative – 7:Most positive) ** Lowe’s: Wilks’ Lambda = .991 (Sig. = .582)*** Office Depot: Wilks’ Lambda = .986 (Sig. = .480)

Brand Recall

Lowe's Office Depot Home Depot DeWALT US Army Miller LiteExposure freq. 9 84 3 24 3 4

Recall 34 30 10 14 10 10% 91.9% 81.1% 27.0% 37.8% 27.0% 27.0%

• Lowe’s and Office Depot show the highest recall• Office Depot: High exposure frequency• Lowe’s: The Sprint Cup Champion and announcer

mentions

• High recall for crash: US Army and Miller Lite

• Home Depot: Confusion with Office Depot

Team Identification and Brand Familiarity

• Most students are weakly identified with NASCAR or NASCAR teams

• Many students are familiar with Lowe’s and Office Depot

Mean SDTeam identification 1.685 1.047

Brand familiarity (Lowe's) 2.739 0.551

Brand familiarity (Office Depot) 2.523 0.616

* Team identification: 7 point scale (1: lowest – 7: highest)** Brand familiarity: 4 point scale (1: lowest – 4: highest)

Team Identification and Brand Recall

• The higher team identification, the more brand recall (Kinney, McDaniel, & DeGaris, 2008)

    Team identification Number of recall

Team identification Pearson Correlation 1 0.430**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.008

N 37 37

Number of recall Pearson Correlation 0.430** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.008

  N 37 37

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Results

Exposure frequency

Attitude toward brand

Team Identification

Brand Recall

• H1: After accounting for team identification, brand exposing frequency will be positively related to attitude toward sponsoring brand – Not Supported

• H2: Brand exposing frequency will be positively related to brand recall – Not Supported (inconclusive)

• H3: Team identification will be positively related to brand recall - Supported

Research Findings: Attitude

• Exposure Attitude (Insignificant)− Possible reasons

• Duration of exposure: 20 min.• Using real and familiar brands (2.5-2.7/4)

• Hypotheses based on the findings− Mere exposure effects need cumulative

exposure for a long period of time − Mere exposure works better with new or

unfamiliar brands

Research Findings: Recall

• Exposure Recall

• Video AND audio affect recall− Lowe’s

• Crash increases recall− Miller Lite and US Army

Research Findings: Recall• Team identification Recall

− Low college students’ team identification toward NASCAR: (1.685/7) less recall expected

Q & A