Does Fit Matter in Event Sponsorship-Linked Marketing? - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Does Fit Matter in Event Sponsorship-Linked Marketing? Angeline Close, University of Texas, AustinRussell Lacey, Xavier University, Cincinnati2012 American Marketing Association Summer Educators’ ConferenceConsumer Behavior and Sports & Special Event Marketing SIG SessionAugust 18, 2012Slide2

Role of Fit Over 40,000 sponsored events annually take place in US (IEG 2011)Managers keenly interested in how event sponsorship strengthen their brands; event marketers depend on sponsors to raise revenues and help absorb costs Event marketers provide value to sponsors by looking for ways to enhance fit between their hosted experience and sponsorDoes fit matter to event and sponsor? Slide3

Affect Transfer Sponsorship may act as conduit to transfer affect associated with sponsored event to sponsor brand Keller’s (1993) theory on brand linkages--this link influences consumers’ brand associations Such extant associations regarding an event become linked in memory with sponsoring brand and its imageEvent experience transfers to sponsoring brand; for affect transfer to occur, there should be a sponsor-event-consumer fit (Close et al. 2009)Slide4

Congruity TheoryExtent to which consumers’ perceive event and sponsor having similar image, values, and logical connection (Simmons & Becker-Olsen 2006)Helps explain attitudes when event and sponsor connect; event-sponsor congruity leads to positive attitudes toward sponsor (e.g., Ellen et al. 2000; Rifon et al. 2004)Congruity routinely assesses impact on sponsor, rather than simultaneously considering its respective impact on sponsored event (Coppetti et al. 2009)Slide5

Conceptual ModelModerating Impact of Event-Sponsor CongruityEvent Entertain-ment

Activeness in Event DomainAttitude toward EventSponsor’s CSRBrand Knowledge of SponsorBrand CommitmentPurchase Intent

Event-Sponsor Congruity

H5

H2

H3

H4

H1

H6

H7

H8Slide6

Event EntertainmentSocial events are hedonic, with intangible features producing personal pleasure or enjoyment (Holbrook & Hirchman 1982) Consumers exposed to promotional messages under favorable conditions where there is enthusiasm, excitement, and enjoyment (Nicholls et al. 1999) Congruity between sponsor and event favorably influences attitudes toward event (Ruth & Simonin 2003)

H1: Higher congruity sponsorships intensify positive association between event entertainment and favorable attitude toward eventSlide7

Activeness in Event DomainConsumers drawn to events congruent with their lifestyles (Kahle et al. 1996)Attendees who feel passion about domain of event are more likely to hold favorable attitudes toward event (Close et al. 2006)

Congruity influences relationship between attendee’s familiarity with event and thoughts about it (Roy & Cornwell 2004)H2: Higher congruity sponsorships intensify positive association between activeness in event domain and attitude toward event Slide8

Attitude Toward EventAttitudes are relatively stable internal evaluations; once attitudes toward event formed, they can have strong impact on sponsor (Dean 2002)Consumers more likely to perceive congruity if they perceive sponsor doing what is right (Becker-Olsen & Hill 2006)Positive sentiments about sponsorship play valuable role in strengthening sponsor’s CSR (Geue & Plewa 2010)

H3: Higher congruity sponsorships intensify positive association between attitude toward event and perceived CSR of sponsor Slide9

Sponsor’s Perceived CSRCSR refers to firm’s activities and status relative to its societal or stakeholder obligations (Sen & Bhattacharya 2001) Knowledgeable consumers more engaged with brand and its CSR activities (Algeshheimer et al. 2005); congruity studies should relate to varying brand knowledge conditions (Sen & Bhattacharya 2001)

H4: Higher congruity sponsorships intensify positive association between brand knowledge of sponsor and perceived CSR of sponsor Slide10

Brand KnowledgeBrand knowledge in sponsorship terms relates to more abstract and intangible brand associations held in minds of consumers about sponsor (Roy & Cornwell 2003)Consumers need brand knowledge to establish commitment to sponsor’s brands (Keller 1993)Consumers’ familiarity with sponsor impacts what they think about sponsor’s brand when they link brand to sponsored events (Carrillat et al. 2010)H5: Higher congruity sponsorships intensify positive association between brand knowledge and brand commitment

 Slide11

Brand CommitmentBrand commitment entails preference and reluctance to seek competing brands (Raju et al. 2009) Sponsored events with a CSR benefactor strengthens brand commitment driven by favorable affective association consumers make about sponsor Strong CSR perceptions by strengthening consumer’s emotional attachment to brand (Lichtenstein et al. 2004); consumers may transfer impressions of sponsor’s CSR efforts to commitment to sponsor’s brands

H6: Higher congruity sponsorships intensify positive association between perceived CSR of sponsor and brand commitmentSlide12

Purchase IntentIn addition to brand commitment, companies sponsor events to increase consumers’ willingness to buy the sponsor’s products; CSR initiatives create context for purchase decisions (Pirsch et al. 2007)Perceived congruity influences whether consumers reward sponsor for its community activities; higher fit between entities contribute to higher purchase intent (Roth & Romeo 2000)

H7: Higher congruity sponsorships intensify positive association between perceptions of CSR and purchase intent H8: Higher congruity sponsorships intensify positive association between brand commitment and purchase intentSlide13

Field Study Research ContextContext to examine: fit, CSR, consumer attitudes and purchase intentEvent: fifth annual Tour de Georgia (TDG)Presenting sponsor: AT&T Beneficiary: GA Cancer CoalitionAs one of the premier cycling races in North America, drew an estimated 515,000 spectatorsGenerated $27.6 million in direct economic impact to the State of Georgia

AT&T received branding at all venues during race week, pre-event promotions, TDG website, and leader jerseySlide14

Field Study Method & SampleIntercept survey conducted by field-research team; surveys were distributed throughout all 12 TDG host venues (n=1,615)44% are 20-39 years old, 59%

male53% reported annual household incomes exceeding $60,000; 27% > $100,00041% traveled from another state or country to attend TDGSlide15

Measurement & Scale ItemsAll constructs used 5-point Likert

-type scales, anchored by 1=strongly disagree/ 5=strongly agree: Modified 5-item scale tapping Event-Sponsor Congruity from Speed & Thompson (2000)Adapted Lichtenstein et al.’s (2004) 5-item scale to measure CSR perceptions Lumpkin & Darden (1989) provided 3 measures of Activeness in Event Domain Chandon et al. (2000) developed separate 3-item scales to measure Event Entertainment and Attitude toward the Event Adapted Bloch et al.’s (1989) 3-item scale to measure Brand Knowledge

Yoo

et al. (2000) provided 3-item

scale to measure Brand Commitment

Adapted Baker & Churchill (1977) 4-item scale to meas

ure Purchase IntentSlide16

Structural Model ResultsEvent Entertainment  Attitude toward Event Activeness in Event Domain

Attitude toward Event Attitude toward Event  Sponsor’s CSR Brand Knowledge Sponsor’s CSR Brand Knowledge Brand Commitment Sponsor’s CSR  Brand Commitment Sponsor’s CSR Purchase Intent Brand Commitment to Sponsor  Purchase IntentStructural model results: NFI=.99; NNFI=.99, CFI=.99; IFI=.99, RMSEA=.071; and SRMR=.035Estimate t-value .89 42.11.10 6.33.25 12.41.66 27.65

.49 17.63.41 14.72

.28 14.58

.72 33.43

Slide17

Multi-group ResultsChi-square Difference Results Among Fit CategoriesH1: Event Entertainment  Attitude toward Event H2: Activeness in Event Domain

Attitude toward Event H3: Attitude toward Event  Sponsor’s CSR H4: Brand Knowledge Sponsor’s CSR H5: Brand Knowledge Brand Commitment H6: Sponsor’s CSR  Brand Commitment H7: Sponsor’s CSR Purchase Intent H8: Brand Commitment to Sponsor  Purchase IntentHigh Fit mean=4.81, n=649; Med Fit mean=3.51, n=613; Low Fit mean=1.78, n=353 1 degree of freedom comparison *p<.01; **p<.001 High Fit vs. Med Fit vs. High Fit vs. Med Fit Low Fit Low Fit

2.65 0.09 1.040.33 0.01 0.070.11 1.59 2.00

0.35 10.87** 16.85**

19.21** 0.90 31.38**

18.15* 3.20 29.07**

17.49** 0.01 9.64*

30.04** 0.37 16.31**Slide18

DiscussionReal-world evidence that event-sponsor fit promotes positive marketing outcomes to sponsorModel illustrates how CSR serves as mediator for transcending favorable attitudes towards event to enhancing attitudes and preferences for sponsorWe uncovered asymmetrical impact of fit on sponsor and eventResults show congruity plays role in consumers’ perceptions of sponsor brand and purchase intentionsFit did not influence consumers’ evaluation of event