-
Building Brand Image Through Event Sponsorship:The Role of Image
TransferKevin P. Gwinner and John Eaton
Past sponsorship research has primarily focused on awareness
building strategies, and has virtually ignoredbrand image issues.
As a result, little guidance is available for firms that seek to
use sponsorship opportuni-ties to aid in brand positioning. This
study reports the results of an experiment using undergraduate
studentsubjects, who assessed the degree to which a sporting
event's image was transferred to a brand through eventsponsorship
activity. Subjects in the sponsorship pairing treatment were more
likely to report similarities onbrand-event personality components
than subjects who were not exposed to the event-brand sponsorship
link,thus supporting the notion that sponsorship results in image
transfer. Further, we found that when event andbrand are matched on
either an image or functional basis the transfer process is
enhanced. Managementimplications for sporting event sponsorship and
future research directions are discussed.
Kevin P. Gwinner (Ph.D., ArizonaState University) is Assistant
Professorof Marketing, Kansas State University.John Elaton (M.B A ,
University ofToledo) is a doctoral candidate inmarketing at Arizona
State University.The authors wish to thank StephenNowlis (Arizona
State University) forguidance related to experimentaldesign issues
and the four anony-mous Journal of Advertisingreviewers and former
editor LesCarlson (Clemson University) fortheir helpful comments on
earlierversions of this manuscript.
Joumal of Advertising,Volume XXVIII. Number 4Winter 1999
While firms enter into sponsorship arrangements for a variety of
reasons,two of the most common are: (1) to increase brand
awareness, and (2) toestablish, strengthen, or change brand image
(Comwell and Maignan 1998;Crowley 1991; Gwinner 1997; Marshall and
Cook 1992; Meenaghan 1991;Meerabeau et al. 1991). Typically,
strategies aimed at increasing brandawareness are implemented using
a multitude of promotional media andare designed to have tbe
sponsoring brand exposed to as many potentialconsumers as possible.
Past researcb has examined the effectiveness ofthese awareness
building strategies through a variety of methods (e.g., totalevent
attendance, exit polls, sales following the event, and number of
mediamentions). Regrettably, far less research attention has
focused on brandimage issues. Indeed, researchers have suggested
that little is understoodabout what makes sponsorship "work,"
particularly with regard to imageassociation (Javalgi et al. 1994;
Lee, Sandier and Shani 1997).
The purpose of this paper is to gain insight into the brand
image aspects ofsponsorsbip. Specifically, based on tbeoretical
perspectives from the celeb-rity endorsement, schema, and
advertising literatures, we propose and testseveral relationships
involving the infiuence of sporting event sponsorshipon the
sponsoring brand's image.
Image Transfer in Sporting Event SponsorshipsBrand image bas
been defined as "perceptions about a brand as reflected
by the brand associations held in memory" (Keller 1993, p. 3).
This defini-tion takes an associate memory network view, in tbat
brand image is basedupon linkages a consumer holds in his/her
memory structure regarding thebrand. These linkages, or in Keller's
terminology, "brand associations," aredeveloped from a variety of
sources including brand and product categoryexperiences, product
attributes, price information, positioning in promo-tional
communications, packaging, user imagery (e.g., typical brand
users),and usage occasion (Keller 1993). From a tbeoretical
position, Keller (1993)suggests tbat brand associations can be
infiuenced when a brand becomeslinked with a celebrity through an
endorsement or linked with a sportingevent through sponsorsbip
activities. In these cases, the pre-existing asso-
-
48 The Journal ofAdvertisingciations held in consumers' memories
regarding a ce-lebrity or sporting event become linked in memory
withthe endorsed or sponsoring brand. In essence, the ce-lebrity or
event image is transferred to the hrand.
This transfer of associations is consistent withMcCracken's
(1989) view ofthe celebrity endorsementprocess. McCracken eschews
the "credibility" and "at-tractiveness" models of endorsement used
to explainthe persuasive nature of endorsers. Instead he offersa
theory of meaning transfer, where "meaning" refersto an overall
assessment of what a celebrity "repre-sents" to the consumer. This
meaning is built uponan individual's interpretation ofthe
celebrity's publicimage as demonstrated in "television, movies,
mili-tary, athletics, and other careers" (McCracken 1989,p. 315).
According to this theory, the meaning attrib-uted to celebrities
moves from the celebrity endorserto the product when the two are
paired in an adver-tisement (McCracken 1989). The transfer process
iscompleted when a consumer acquires/consumes theproduct, thus
transferring the meaning to the user.
With regard to implications for brand image, sport-ing event8
and celebrity endorsers are similar on twolevels. First, consumers
can associate both sportingevents and celebrities with particular
meanings. Whilecelebrities derive their meanings from consumer
per-ceptions of their various public activities (e.g.,
movies,athletics, politics, etc.), the meanings associated
withsporting events are derived from the type of event, theevent's
characteristics (e.g., professional status, venue,size, etc.), and
individual consumer factors such as one'spast experiences with the
event (Gwinner 1997). Sec-ond, events may act in a manner analogous
to celebrityendorsers in the transfer of image to sponsoring
brands.That is, just as consumers associate a celebrity's
"mean-ings" with the brand they endorse, consumers may
alsoassociate a sporting event's "memings" with a sponsor-ing
brand. Obviously, if this image transfer process isoccurring, then
brand managers considering sponsor-ship arrangements should not
only consider exposureissues (i.e., brand awareness) but should
also take intoaccount the congruence between a sporting event's
im-age and the image/positioning goals for their brands.While it is
possible that the directionality ofthe imagetransfer may move from
brand to event rather thanevent to brand, this is less likely to
occur when theevent has a strong established image relative to
thesponsoring brand. Further, since the primary focus ofthe
spectator is typically on the activities ofthe sport-ing event
rather than on the sponsors, the event's im-age is likely to be
more salient in their mind, suggest-ing the image transfer process
would move from eventto brand. This discussion leads to the first
hypothesis:
HI: A sporting event's image will transfer toa sponsoring
brand's image when they arelinked through sponsorship.
The Impact of Event and Brand Match-up on Image Transfer
Many scholars have examined or commented onthe importance of
matching the characteristics ofspokespersons with the
characteristics of the prod-ucts they endorse (see Lynch and
Schuler [1994] foran excellent review of this literature).
Generally, thesetypes of studies have found that a match
betweenendorser and brand leads to a variety of positive out-comes
for firms including enhanced spokesperson ex-pertise/credibility, a
more positive attitude towardthe ad, a more positive attitude
toward the brand andhigher brand recall.
Kahle and Homer (1985) were among the first toempirically
examine and propose a "match-up" hy-pothesis in the context of
celebrity endorsement. Theseauthors argued and found support for
the notion thatadvertising effectiveness is increased when the
im-age of the celebrity converges with the image of theendorsed
product. Specifically, they found physicallyattractive celebrity
endorsers of a beauty enhancingproduct (i.e., endorser-brand match)
to have a posi-tive influence on consumer's brand attitudes,
pur-chase intentions, brand recall, and recall of adver-tisement
arguments. Building on Kahle and Homer,many spokesperson-brand
congruence studies havebeen conducted by manipulating some physical
at-tribute of the spokesperson to be in-congruence
orout-of-congruence with a given product. For example,in one
experiment. Lynch and Schuler (1994) ma-nipulated muscularity ofthe
spokesperson to be in orout of congruence with products that either
helped toproduce muscularity (e.g., exercise equipment) or
prod-ucts perceived to be masculine in nature (e.g., carbatteries).
In another study, Kamins (1990) manipu-lated spokesperson
attractiveness to be in or out ofcongruence with an attractiveness
related product.The Kamins study found that when product
andspokesperson physical characteristics were congru-ent, then
spokesperson believability/knowledge wasincreased, while Lynch and
Schuler (1994) found thatcongruency led to high perceived
spokesperson knowl-edge. One notable exception to the manipulation
ofspokesperson physical characteristics is Misra andBeatty (1990)
who examined image congruence in aholistic manner akin to
McCracken's notion of mean-ing. In their study, Misra and Beatty
matched spokes-person characteristics with product
characteristics.
-
Winter 1999 49
For example, in their pretest of celebrities, ClintEastwood was
associated with the characteristics of"tough" and "rugged." In the
congruent condition thiscelebrity was paired with a flctitious
brand of jeans(Unitough jeans), while in the incongruent
conditionhe was paired with a fictitious board game
calledFunnybone. Results of this study indicated that thecongruence
condition resulted in higher recall andmore favorable brand
attitudes than incongruent orneutral congruency pairings. Kamins
and Gupta(1994) also manipulated spokesperson-product con-gruence
in terms of image. They found increased con-gruence resulted in
perceptions of higher believabil-ity and attractiveness ofthe
spokesperson and a morefavorable product attitude.
So why does this match-up hypothesis seem to be ineffect? One of
the more compelling arguments pro-posed is based on schema theory
(Lynch and Schuler1994; Misra and Beatty 1990). A schema is a
cogni-tive structure that represents knowledge about a typeof
stimulus, for example, a person, event, or object(Bartlett 1932;
Lord and Foti 1986). Schema theory isbased on research which found
that memory is not averbatim account of past experiences, but
rather ablend of both specific memories as well as
generalabstractions about tj^es of people, activities, and ob-jects
(Bartlett 1932; Rumelhart and Ortony 1977).Schema represents a
mechanism to allow individualsto function in a complex environment.
That is, in-stead of having to recall from memory what behav-iors
are appropriate in a specific situation (e.g., board-ing a United
Airlines flight) or what evaluations havebeen made of some specific
person (e.g.. Dr. Bemhard)or specific object (Campbell's soup), one
is able tosimply recall knowledge related to the general type
ofsituation (airline boarding), person (heart surgeon),or object
(soup).
With regard to the use of schema theory in support ofthe
match-up hypothesis, Misra and Beatty (1990) foundevidence of a
"filtering model," which suggested spokes-person characteristics
that are incongruent with brandschema characteristics will be
'Tiltered out" and notencoded as well as congruent information.
They arguedthat the better recall demonstrated by subjects in
theircongruent condition is a result of better or more effec-tive
encoding of information. Further, they proposed,but did not test,
that this encoded information associ-ated with a congruent
celebrity spokesperson schemawould become integrated with the
product's schema. Ifthis were to hold true, then one would expect
theschemas of celebrities and the schemas ofthe productsthey
endorse to become more similar, assuming con-gruence of some
salient characteristics.
In an event sponsorship context, McDaniel (1999)has explored an
aspect ofthe match-up hypothesis bymatching event and brand in
terms of involvement.He found that subjects rated attitude toward
the adsignificantly more positively when a highly involvingproduct
(e.g., an automobile) was paired with a highlyinvolving sporting
event (e.g., the Olympics) thanwhen the product was paired with a
low involvementsporting event (e.g., PBA Bowling). In his study,
event-product involvement match was not found to have aneffect on
attitude toward the brand or purchase in-tention. While providing
insight into one match updimension, McDaniel's study did not
attempt to matchthe sporting event and the sponsoring brand on
at-tributes related to their respective "meanings" in themanner
that McCracken (1989) discussed or thatMisra and Beatty (1990)
explored.
This begs the question, "on what basis might wejudge a sporting
event to be similar or dissimilar to aproduct?" McDonald (1991)
discusses the importanceof product relevance to the sponsored
event, suggest-ing that it might occur directly or indirectly.
Thedirect method occurs when the sponsoring firm's prod-ucts are
(or could be) used in the event. Indirectly,relevance can be
achieved if some aspect of thesponsor's image corresponds with the
event. Gwinner(1997) has used the terms "functional based"
and"image based similarity" to refer to the potential con-gruence
between events and the brands/companiesthat act as sponsors.
Consistent with McDonald (1991),Gwinner (1997) has suggested that
functional basedsimilarity can occur when the sponsored brand
"isactually used by the participants during the event;.."(p. 152).
Examples of this type of similarity wouldinclude Seiko being an
official timer at the U.S. OpenTennis Championships or Gatorade
sponsoring theIronman Triathlon. In both cases, functional
similar-ity is present because of the use of the sponsoringbrand in
the event. Image based similarity has beendescribed as occurring
when the "image of the eventis related to the image ofthe brand..."
(Gwinner 1997,p. 152). For example, the Master's Golf Tournamentand
Cadillac Automobiles may be similar in terms ofa prestige image.
Drawing on the earlier schematheory discussion, it can be argued
that congruentevent-brand information in the form of either
func-tional or image based similarity will lead to enhancedimage
transfer. Thus, extending the notion of thematch-up hypothesis
found in the celebrity endorsercontext, we offer the following
two-part hypothesis:
H2a: Similarity between brand and event willinfluence the image
transfer such thatthe image transfer will be stronger for
-
60 The Journal of Advertisingbrands having functional-based
similar-ity with tbe event they are sponsoringthan wben brands have
no similaritywith the event.
H2b: Similarity between brand and event willinfluence the image
transfer such thattbe image transfer will be stronger forbrands
having image-based similaritywith the event they are sponsoring
thanwhen brands have no similarity withthe event.
MethodOverview
To test the hypotheses an experiment was conductedusing one
between groups factor (sponsorsbip: [yessponsorship tnd no
sponsorship]) and one repeatedmeasures factor (level of event-brand
similarity: [im-age based, functional based, and no similarity]).
Wbilethere may be many ways to examine image transfer,our
examination uses brand and event personality.Brand personality can
be regarded as "the set of hu-man characteristics associated with a
brand..." (Aaker1997, p. 347). Brand personality has been
describedas an important aspect of brand image tbat is im-pacted by
one's expectations ofthe type of person whowould use a particular
product - user imagery - andin which situations a product might be
used - usageimagery (Aaker 1997; Keller 1993; Plummer 1985).Both
user and usage imagery can be communicatedin an event sponsorship
context. The brand personal-ity concept is important because it
serves as a mecha-nism upon which producers can differentiate
theirgoods and services. This becomes especially criticalwhen other
potentially differentiating features areperceived by consumers as
equal across competingbrands (Plummer 1985).
Prete8t8The first pretest sought to find appropriate pair-
ings of sporting events and sponsoring products torepresent each
of the three types of similarity (func-tional based, image based,
and no similarity) for usein the main experiment. As illustrated in
Table 1,eacb potential sporting event was paired with
threedifferent brands. Gwinner (1997) suggests tbat cer-tain event
characteristics (e.g., size, history, venue,etc.) will influence an
event's image. Using this as aguide, we selected seven sporting
events based ontheir national visibility and rich, long histories.
This
was done because subjects in the main study neededto have some
prior image of the event in order toincrease our confidence in the
image transfer mea-sure. That is, they needed to have an image of
theevent in order to have it transfer to the brand.
We developed scale items to measure functionaland image based
similarity based on the definitionprovided by Gwinner (1997).
Functional based simi-larity was measured using three items
assessed onseven-point strongly disagree/strongly agree scales.The
three items were: (1) "It is likely that (partici-pants) in the
(event name) use (brand name) duringtbe (event name)," (2) "Wben I
watch the (event name),I often see (brand name) being (used)," and
(3) "(Brandname) is not a product that (participants) in tbe
(eventname) would consider (using)." The third item wasreverse
coded. The parenthetical "participants" labelin these questions was
replaced by the appropriateparticipant title, depending upon the
specific event(e.g., player, rider, driver, etc.). Cronbacb's alpha
forthis scale is .89, thus demonstrating good reliability.
Image based similarity was also assessed withseven-point
strongly disagree/strongly agree anchoredscales using the following
three measures: (1) "The(event name) and (brand name) have a
similar im-age," (2) "The ideas I associate with (brand name)
arerelated to the ideas I associate with the (event name),"and (3)
"My image of the (event name) is very differ-ent from the image I
have of (brand name)." Thethird iniage based similarity measure was
reversecoded in the analysis. Cronbach's alpha for this scaleis
.90. The best "No Similarity" pairing wasoperationalized as the
event-product score receivingtbe lowest score on a summed scale
consisting of allsix items listed above.
One hundred and thirty-five undergraduate stu-dents enrolled in
a marketing management courseresponded to the similarity pretest
survey. In orderto reduce respondent fatigue, each subject was
ran-domly assigned to respond to questions regardingthree of the
seven events. This resulted in a useablesample of between 41 and 50
subjects per event.
As indicated in Table 1, for the image similaritycondition, the
pairing of the U.S. Open Golf Champi-onship and Acura Automobiles
was found to be thebest pairing. For functional similarity, the
pretestshowed that the Indianapolis 500 Auto Race andGoodyear Tires
was the best pairing. Finally, the bestillustration of tbe no
similarity condition was WorldCup Soccer and Camel Cigarettes.
These pairingswere assessed after removing those subjects whoscored
below the scale mid-point on a brand familiar-ity question in order
to increase validity.
-
Winter 1999
Similarity Type
Image Based
Functional based
No similarity
Tabie 1Pretest 1 Pairings of Sporting Events and Sponsoring
Products
Event Alternatives
Professional Beach Volleyball
KentucKy Derby
U.S. Open Golf Championship
indianapoiis 500 Auto Race
NCAA basketball tournament
Worid Cup Soccer
Rose Bowl
Product Pairing Alternatives
Cuervo Gold tequilaDorito's tortilla chipsNintendo video
gamesAmerican ExpressOldsmobile automobilesJohn Hancock
insurance
) Acura automobiiesSony camcordersMichelob beerGoodyear
tiresPennzoil motor oilShell gasolineChampion brand uniformsReebok
shoesPowerade sports drink
Dell computersClorox bleachCamei cigarettes
Irish Spring soapRenuzit air freshenersLevi's jeans
51
Mean Similarity (std dev)9.99.7ao
10.39.28.8
12.110.59.4
19.217.014.116.916.015.5
Functional6.9 (4.8)6.4 (4.5)4.1 (2.0)Functional
5.3 (3.7)4.7 (2.5)4.1 (2.3)
(5.8)(4.7)(5.3)(5.0)(5.1)(4.0)(5.5)(5.1)(5.2)(2.6)(3.6)(4.8)(3.1)(4.4)(4.3)
image7.8 (4.2)8.4 (5.1)4.8 (3.1)
image7.3 (5.1)5.2 (3.6)7.5 (5.1)
Note: Bold faced event-product combinations were rated as the
best representatives of their respective similarity type category
(based onhigh mean value for image and functional simiiarity
pairings and low mean value for no simiiarity pairing) and were
subsequently used inthe main study.
A second pretest was conducted to create a set
ofpersonality-oriented adjectives that could be used todescribe
image dimensions of each ofthe three eventsselected from the first
pretest. Twenty at^ectives weregenerated by the authors for each
ofthe three sportingevents. In order to increase the saliency of
the task,only adjectives that could potentially describe the
par-ticular event were included (Graeff 1996).
Eighty-oneundergraduate students enrolled in a marketing courseused
a seven-point scale to rate the 60 adjectives ontheir usefulness in
describing each of the three events(20 adjectives per event). The
ten adjectives rated asmost useful in describing the event were
selected foruse in the experiment and are listed in Table 2.
Experimental ProcedureThree hundred and sixty undergraduate
business
students participated in the experiment for extra
credit. Because of the use of sporting events withlong, rich
histories, we believe a student sample willbe familiar with the
events and, therefore, the resultswill be generalizable to a larger
population. Subjectswere randomly assigned to one of the two
sponsor-ship treatments. Randomization assures that the im-pact of
individuals* prior product schemas will notbias the results in any
given treatment. In each con-dition, subjects assessed event-brand
combinationsrepresenting all three similarity conditions (i.e.,
im-age based, functional, no similarity). Cell sizes wereevenly
distributed, resulting in a uniform 180 sub-jects per cell
assignment.
Independent VariablesSponsorship condition. This condition
consisted of
two levels, one in which the event and brand werepaired in a
sponsor relationship ("yes sponsorship")
-
52 The JourncU ofAdvertisingTable 2
Adjectives Used in iMeasurement of Image Transfer from Event to
BrandU.S. Open Golf Championship
(Image Based
Similarity)CalmMatureLeisurelyCleanFormalCivilizedAccuratePressureOrderlySlow
Indianapolis 500 Auto Race(Functional Based Similarity)
FastDangerousExcitingAggressiveMasculineWildHistoricTacticalStrategicMonotonous
World Cup Soccer(No
Similarity)ActiveMulti-culturalEnergeticExcitingForeignThrillingYouthfulTacticalToughBrazen
and one in which they were not ("no sponsorship"). Inthe "yes
sponsorship" level subjects viewed three blackand white
photographs, each depicting one ofthe sport-ing events. Each
picture was designed to resemble amagazine advertisement for the
event and the actual logoofthe sponsoring brand was superimposed on
the photo-graph. In addition, ad copy typical of a sponsorship
ar-rangement was included on the photo (e.g., "Camel ciga-rettes is
proud to sponsor World Cup Soccer W).
The cover page also added to the sponsorship ma-nipulation
through the survey title, 'Troduct Spon-sorship of Sporting Events
Survey" and through thesurvey instructions which referred to the
sponsorshipties in the photographs ("Yes Sponsorship"
instruc-tions: "We are conducting this study to better under-stand
how students feel about corporate sponsorshipof sporting events").
For the "no sponsorship" level nophotos were included; the survey
was titled simply,"Image Survey," and mention ofthe sponsorship
wasnot included in the instructions ("No Sponsorship"instructions:
"We are conducting this study to betterunderstand the images
students have regarding dif-ferent events and products").
Similarity condition. As described in pretest 1, thesimilarity
condition was manipulated by pairing sport-ing events and
sponsoring brands to create three simi-lsirity levels: image
similarity (the U.S. Open GolfChampionship and Acura Automobile),
functionalsimilarity (the Indianapolis 500 Auto Race andGoodyear
Tires), and no similarity (World Cup Soccerand Camel
Cigarettes).
Dependent MeasuresAdjective based image transfer measure. As
stated
above, this study examines brand/event personality
as a specific aspect of image. Recall that in pretesttwo, three
groups of ten adjectives were selected asbeing useful in describing
each ofthe three events. Inthe experiment each of the 10 adjectives
were ratedas to how well it described the particular event
(l=verywell; 7=not at all) and then, separately, subjects
re-sponded as to how well the same 10 adjectives de-scribed the
brand. If an image transfer is occurring,one would expect the image
of the event and theimage of the brand to be more similar in the
"yessponsorship" condition, as the event's image would
be"transferring" to the brand. Accordingly, we calcu-lated a
measure of congruence/similarity by takingthe sum of the absolute
differences between the cor-responding adjectives in the event and
the brand rat-ings. For example, if a subject rated the
adjective"mature" as a "2" for the event and a "5" for thebrand,
then the absolute difference for those corre-sponding adjectives
would be "3." We summed theten absolute difference scores for each
event-brandpair to create a congruence index. Smaller numbersin the
index indicate greater congruence (i.e., lessdifference between
event and brand). Hypothesis onewould predict that this measure
will be significantlysmaller for those subjects in the "yes
sponsorship"level than in the "no sponsorship" levelindicatingmore
similarity.
Holistic image transfer measure. Although the dif-ference score
method discussed above has been usedby most studies examining
self-image congruence,Sirgy et al. (1997) have argued for a more
parsimoni-ous measure of congruence. These authors suggestthat a
method which directly measures congruencyusing the respondent's own
image dimensions andemploying a holistic evaluation is more
appropriatefor examining image congruence between a brand
-
Winter 1999 63
and one's own image. We extended this advice byadapting the
Sirgy et al. (1997) measure to studyevent-brand congruence.
Specifically, we offered thefollowing instructions (adapted from
Sirgy et al. 1997)and asked subjects to rate the consistency
betweenthe event image and the brand image:
Take a moment to think about the (sporting eventname). Think
about the various images and expe-riences one would encounter when
they attendedor watched this event. Imagine this event in yourmind
and then describe the event using severaladjectives such as:
exciting, traditional, young,conservative, sexy, or whatever
adjectives you thinkdescribe the image of this sporting event."
Subsequent to this mental imagery task, consistencywas scored on
a seven point scale (l=Strongly Agree,7=Strongly Disagree) keyed to
the following ques-tion: "My image of the (sporting event name) is
con-sistent with my image of (brand name)."
ResultsHj^othesis One was analyzed using a one-way
MANOVA, between groups design. With sponsorshiptreatment (yes,
no) as the between groups factor andthe three image congruence
scores (based on summedabsolute differences) as the criterion, a
significantmultivariate effect was found for sponsorship treat-ment
(Wilk's lambda=.89, F [3,324]=12.33; p< .0001).The sample means
are displayed in Table 3. Tuke/sHSD test reveals that subjects who
were exposed tothe sponsorship arrangement had significantly
lowerdifference scores (i.e., higher image congruence) thanthose
subjects not exposed to the sponsorship tie forboth the functional
similarity (Indianapolis 500 andGoodyear tires) and image
similarity (U.S. Open GolfChampionship and Acura automobiles)
event-brandcombinations. There was not a significant
differencebetween subjects in the "yes sponsorship" level and
the"no sponsorship" level with regard to the no
similarityevent-brand combination (World Cup soccer and
Camelcigarettes). Therefore, two ofthe three "absolute differ-ence"
congruence measures support Hypothesis One.
Hypothesis One was also tested using the holisticimage
congruence measures adopted from Sirgy et al.(1997). Again, using a
one-way MANOVA, betweengroups design, we found a significant
multivariateeffect (Wilk's lambda=.92, F [3,3531=10.48; p<
.0001)for sponsorship treatment. As with the adjective
basedcongruence measure, the Tukey HSD test showedsignificantly
higher congruence in the "yes sponsor-ship" treatment level than in
the "no sponsorship"treatment level for both the functional
similarity and
image similarity event-brand combinations. Althougha significant
difTerence does exist for the no similar-ity event-brand pairing,
the means are the oppositeofthe hypothesized direction. That is,
there is greatercongruence between World Cup Soccer and
Camelcigarettes in the "no sponsorship" condition. Thus,Hypothesis
One is supported by two of the three ho-listic congruence measures.
This unexpected patternof results in the no similarity pairing is
considered inmore detail in the discussion section.
Hypotheses 2a and 2b state that image transferwill be stronger
in sponsor relationships when thereis either functional (H2a) or
image (H2b) based simi-larity than when there is no similarity.
Accordingly,these hypotheses were tested using only data fromthose
subjects exposed to the sponsorship relation-ship (data in the top
row of Table 3). Since eachsubject responded to all three
event-brand sponsor-ships these hypotheses were analyzed using a
one-way analysis of variance, repeated measures design.The test
reveals a significant effect for sponsorshipsimilarity using the
summed absolute difference scoresas the dependent congruence
measures, F(2,328)=231.85; p
-
64
"Yes" Sponsorship^"No" Sponsorship^
Table 3Summary of Image Congruence Means and
ImageSimilarity
14.218.6
Adjective Measure^FunctionalSimilarity
20.322.5
WoSimilarity
34.331.9
The Journal of Advertising
Image Transfer Strength
ImageSimilarity
3.34.2
Holistic Measured
FunctionalSimilarity
2.73.3
NoSimilarity
6.45.9
^Sum ofthe absolute differences between the ten corresponding
adjectives in each event-brand pairing, iower numbers indicate
greater con-gruence/image transfer.
^Singie item measure of congruence based on respondent's own
adjectives, iower numbers indicate greater congruence/image
transfer.^Means are significantly different between sponsorship
treatment ieveis (p
-
Winter 1999 55
awareness) are the overriding goal, recent researchhas begun to
document the importance of image re-lated ohjectives to corporate
sponsors (Ahratt, Claytonand Pitt 1987; Hoek, Gendall and Sanders
1993; Irwinand Sutton 1994). Indeed, in their framework
forevaluating the attractiveness of sponsorship opportu-nities,
Irwin and Asimakopoulos (1992) describe im-age association as one
ofthe six primary sport spon-sorship objectives. The point is that
if image transferis of concem, then event selection should be
madewith degree of similarity in mind. To enhance thestrength of
image transfer in cases of event sponsor-ship, it seems plausible
that the marketing managermay wish to alter the communication
regarding theproduct prior to the event, to be more congruent
(oneither a functional or image basis) with the image ofthe event.
For example, a flurry of advertising linkingthe attributes ofthe
event with the advertised product.Our findings indicate that if the
match between theevent and product can be made stronger, then the
re-sulting image transfer will be more pronounced.
Limitations and Directions forFuture Research
The results of this study should be considered inlight of
several constraints. First, due to concernsover our subjects'
available time, we conducted thisexperiment using one event-brand
pairing per simi-larity tjTJe and a single exposure to the
sponsorshipstimuli. Other studies may wish to develop
researchdesigns allowing for a more robust treatment of
thesimilarity condition utilizing multiple sponsorshipties.
Although some experimental control may be lost,a field experiment
at an actual sporting event wouldprovide a context in which
multiple brands coupledwith the dynamic environment of a realistic
eventcould be studied. Further, a field study would be ableto
incorporate other elements that are difficult tocreate in a "lab"
setting (e.g., the influence of otherspectators and the "secondary"
nature ofthe sponsor-ship association versus the "primary" concern
of theevent itself). Second, our use of a student sampleshould be
expanded to include non-student respon-dents. For example, future
studies might explore howdifferent "types" of fans experience the
image trans-fer process. Given the increasing amount of researchon
sports-fan team identification (e.g.. Fisher andWakefield 1998;
Mael and Ashforth 1992; Wann andBranscombe 1995; Wann and Dolan
1994), it wouldbe interesting to test for differences on
sponsorshipissues (e.g., image transfer, sponsor recall,
sponsorpatronage, etc.) between high identified and low iden-
tified sports fans. A third issue is our use of differentsets of
instructions in the "yes" and "no" sponsorshipconditions, as well
as the use of photos only in the"yes" sponsorship condition. Given
our research de-sign, we are unable to assess the influence, if
any,that these differences between conditions may havehad on the
dependent variables above and beyondestablishing the event-brand
linkage. Finally, we ex-amined image congruence afler the exposure
to spon-sorship stimuli. Thus, we assumedrather thantestedthe
direction of the image transfer. Accord-ingly, it is possible that
the image transfer occursfrom the brand to the event rather than
from theevent to the brand. Examining the direction of theimage
flow and under what conditions it might beswitched represents a
fruitful future research direc-tion. The use of known versus
unknown brands mightbe instrumental in understanding these effects
(Tripp,Jensen and Carlson 1994).
Another interesting issue surrounding image trans-fer and
related to degree of similarity is that of con-flicting images
among multiple sponsorships. It isnot uncommon for firms to engage
in multiple spon-sorship relationships over the course of any
givenyear (Farrelly, Quester and Burton 1997). It may beinsightful
to consider the effect to a consumer's brandschema when a brand
sponsors multiple events withconflicting images. Would the image
transfer cancelout? Would the most recent image have the
largerimpact? Here schema theory may prove useful forproviding
insight. As discussed, discrepant informa-tion is less likely to
lead to schema change because itis often discounted by the
individual. However, a brandassociated with multiple events, each
having a differ-ent and discrepant meaning, might lend credence
tothe discrepant information, or at least call into ques-tion the
existing schema. Alternatively, social adap-tation theory would
suggest that discrepant eventassociations would, presumably, not be
effectivesources of information and, therefore, would not
fa-cilitate adaptation to environmental conditions (Kahleand Homer
1985). In contrast, it may be possible for afirm to positively
leverage the image transfer by spon-soring multiple events with
consistent images. Ofcourse, the sponsorship of two (or more)
events withconflicting images only becomes an issue when a
giventargeted consumer group is aware of both sponsor-ship ties.
Still, within a single event it may be possibleto have conflicting
similarity types (i.e., functional andimage based). For example, an
interesting future re-search question could address how image
transfer mi^tbe affected when an event-product pairing is high
infunctional similarity, but low in image similarity (and
-
The Journeil ofAdvertisingvice versa). Additionally, will image
transfer be en-hanced when both types of similarity are present
(andconsistent) in the sponsorship arrangement?
A related issue is the impact of multiple sponsors ofa given
event. Gwinner (1997) suggests that the trans-fer of an event's
image to a sponsoring brand will bemoderated by the exclusiveness
of the sponsorshiparrangement as measured by the number of
othersponsors and the level of the sponsorship. He sug-gests
transfer will be less in instances of multiplesponsors and lower
sponsorship levels (e.g., title spon-sor versus perimeter fence
signage). This is consis-tent with recent research in the celebrity
endorserliterature which has found that the number of prod-ucts
endorsed by a celebrity is negatively related toendorser
credibility, likability and attitude towardthe ad (Tripp, Jensen
and Carlson 1994). As such,studies might explore how image transfer
and brandattitudes are impacted by the number of sponsorsand the
level of sponsorship. Further, although ourresults are supportive
of the image transfer hypoth-esis, they do not provide insight into
the enduringnature of this phenomenon. Additional studies areneeded
to assess the long term influence of eventsponsorship as it relates
to image transfer.
ReferenceAaker, Jennifer L. (1997), Ilimensions of Brand
Personality,"
-
Winter 1999 57
Plummer, Joseph T. (1986), "How Personality Makes a
Differ-ence," c/oumoi of Advertising Research, 24 (6), 27-31.
Rumelhart, David E. and Andrew Ortony (1977), The
Representationof Knowledge in Memory," in Schooling and the
Acquisition ofKnowledge, Ridiard C. Anderson, Rand J. Spiro, and
William E.Montague, eda, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence &U>aum
Associates.
Sherif, Muzafer and Carl I. Hovland (1961), Social
Judgement:Aaaimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and
At-titude Change, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sirgy, M. Joseph, Dhniv Grewal, Tamara F. Mangleburg,
Jae-okPark, Kye-Sung Chon, CB. Claihome, J.S. Johar and
HaroldBerkman (1997), "Assessing the Predictive Validity of
TwoMethods of Measuring Self-Image Congruence," Journal ofthe
Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (3), 229-241.
Tripp, Carolyn, Thomas D. Jensen and Les Carlson (1994),
"TheEffects of Multiple Product Endorsements by Celebrities
on(Consumers' Attitudes and Intentions," Joumal of
ConsumerResearch, 20 (4), 535-547.
Wann, Daniel L. and Thomas J. Dolan (1994), "Attributions
ofHighly Identified Sports Spectators," The Joumal of
SocialPsychology, 134 (6), 783-792.
and Nyla R. Branscombe (1995), "Influence of Iden-tification
with a Sports Team On Objective Knowledge andSubjective Beliefs,"
International Joumal of Sports Psychol-ogy, 26 (Oct./Dec.),
551-567.