Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Business Studies -‐ Marketing
Understanding Multiple Sponsor Effects
The influence of sponsor-‐event fit on the sponsor attitude, event attitude, and attitudetowards the sponsorship and the moderating effect of multiple sponsors Thesis January 30th, 2014 Author Marc ter Beek
10514872
Supervisor University of Amsterdam Dr. K.A. Venetis
Preface
After almost 7 years of studying, this master thesis represents my final chapter as a student. Looking back at this time, it was an intense and especially exciting period in my life. Besides studying, a lot of things have happened during my time as a student. The study trip to South Africa, and the one-‐year fulltime internship at Royal Grolsch are just few of them.
First of all, I would like to thank my parents. You made everything possible and always supported me. Without this support, it would have been a lot harder to accomplish my goals and I am grateful for every bit of it. Beside my parents I would like to thank my close friend Niek. Together we started our master Marketing in Amsterdam and throughout the year we challenged and helped each other a lot.
Last but not least, I would like to thank Dr. Karin A. Venetis for supervising my master thesis. Your support and clear guidance helped me to accomplish my thesis within the time required.
But overall, I want to devote this moment and my thesis to my grandmother. As one of the most important persons in my life, it was your last goal to see me finishing my Master. Unfortunately I was too late, but your desire to see me finishing my Master was very inspiring and helped me to stay focused on my study at all times.
Marc ter Beek
Management Summary
Developments in the field of sponsorship-‐linked marketing in the past decades have led to a shift in theoretical and particular managerial attention. Whereas previously only one or few sponsors sponsored an event, nowadays major events, wherein multiple companies sponsor an event simultaneously, have become the norm. Despite the considerable corporate popularity, it must be recognized that current research of sponsorship lacks behind marketing practice.
This study aimed to investigate the importance of event-‐sponsor fit in a sponsorship setting. Through an experimental design this study examined the effect of event-‐sponsor fit on a) event attitude, b) sponsor attitude, and c) attitude towards the sponsorship. In addition, the impact of the number of participating sponsors on this effect was examined.
Overall, it is proven that high event-‐sponsor fit is more favorable than low event-‐ sponsor fit, since consumers’ attitudes towards the sponsor and towards the sponsorship were more favorable in the high event-‐sponsor fit condition. In addition to this, it is also proven that brands entering a low-‐fit sponsorship could harm brand-‐ (sponsor)-‐attitude by doing so.
Finally, no significant moderating effect of the number of sponsors was found on the effect of fit on a) event attitude, b) sponsor attitude, and c) attitude towards the sponsorship.
Keywords: Sponsorship-‐linked Marketing, Fit, Sponsorship, Sponsor attitude, Event
Table of Content
Preface ... III Management Summary ... V
Table of Content ... VII
List of figures & tables ... IX
1. Introduction ... 1
1.1 Introduction of the research ... 1
1.2 Research Question & Sub-‐questions ... 4
1.3 Theoretical Relevance ... 5
1.4 Practical Relevance ... 6
1.5 Research objectives ... 7
1.6 Research structure ... 7
2. Theoretical framework & Hypotheses ... 9
2.1 Sponsorship in general ... 9
2.2 Event-‐sponsor fit ... 10
2.2.1 Sponsor attitude ... 11
2.2.2 Event attitude ... 12
2.2.3 Attitude towards the sponsorship ... 13
2.3 Other important conditions for sponsorship ... 14
2.4 Multiple sponsors ... 15 2.5 Conceptual model ... 20 3. Methodology ... 21 3.1. Research method ... 21 3.1.1 Data collection ... 22 3.1.2 Variables ... 23 3.2 Research design ... 23 3.2.1 Pre-‐test ... 24 3.2.2 Main Research ... 26 3.2.3 Constructs ... 27
4. Results ... 29 4.1 Pre-‐test ... 29 4.2 Main experiment ... 30 4.2.1 Reliability Analysis ... 31 4.2.2 Descriptive statistics ... 31 4.2.3 Response analysis ... 33
4.2.4 Fit manipulation check ... 34
4.2.5 Number of sponsors manipulation check ... 34
4.2.6 Correlation ... 36 4.2.7 Sponsorship effects ... 37 4.2.8 Hypothesis testing ... 38 4.2.9 Additional analysis ... 40 4.2.10 Overview hypotheses ... 42 5. Discussion ... 43 5.1 Discussion ... 43 5.2 Theoretical implications ... 47 5.3 Managerial implications ... 48 6. Limitations and future research ... 49
6.1 Conclusion ... 51 7. References ... 53 8. Appendix ... 57
Appendix A: Experimental group examples ... 57
Appendix B: t-‐test pre-‐test fit ... 58
Appendix C: Reliability analyses main experiment ... 59
Appendix D: Avona’s main characteristics ... 60
Appendix E: Response Analysis ... 62
Appendix F: Fit manipulation check main experiment ... 63
Appendix G: Correlation matrix main research ... 64
Appendix H: Sponsorship effects ... 65
Appendix I: Hypothesis testing ... 66
Appendix I-‐I: Hypothesis 1 ... 66
Appendix I-‐II: Hypothesis 2 ... 67
Appendix I-‐III: Hypothesis 3 ... 68
Appendix I-‐IV: Hypotheses 4, 5, and 6 ... 69
Appendix J: Additional Analysis ... 71
List of figures & tables
FIGURE 1: CONCEPTUAL MODEL ... 20
FIGURE 2: INTERACTION EFFECTS ... 40
TABLE 1: MEASUREMENT SCALES PRE-‐TEST ... 25
TABLE 2: EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS ... 26
TABLE 3: MEASUREMENT SCALES MAIN RESEARCH ... 27
TABLE 4: OUTCOMES PRE-‐TEST ... 30
TABLE 5: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS MAIN CHARACTERISTICS AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES ... 32
TABLE 6: RESPONSE ANALYSIS ... 33
TABLE 7: NUMBER OF SPONSORS CHECK ... 35
TABLE 8: INTER-‐ITEM CORRELATION MATRIX ... 36
TABLE 9: OVERVIEW HYPOTHESES ... 42
1. Introduction
In the main introduction, a brief overview of this research is provided, followed by the research questions, the theoretical and practical relevance of this research, the desired objectives of this research, and the overall structure of this research
1.1 Introduction of the research
Firms have a variety of options to choose from when constructing a marketing program to reach existing and potentially new customers. According to Meenaghan (2001), commercial sponsorship represents one of the most fast growing areas of marketing activity. Examples of (corporate) sponsorships exists for many years, however, the last three decades have seen the development of a more structured, professional, and commercial version of sponsorship, which is becoming more and more pragmatic in business terms, and operate on a more global scale (Meenaghan, 2001). More recently, the International Events Group (IEG) strengthens this line of reasoning. According to the IEG (2013), worldwide sponsorship spending have increased from 44 billion in 2009 to 51.1 billion in 2012. In addition, IEG forecasts a 4.2% growth in 2013; which means that total worldwide sponsorship spending will be worth around 53.3 billion dollars. The IEG also indicates a shift in spending from advertising and sales promotion towards sponsorship agreements. According to Tolk (2011) this trend is also visible in The Netherlands. Despite the financial crisis, total Dutch sponsorship spending increased from 850 million euro in 2010 to a total of 875 million euro in 2011. Reflecting this importance in marketing practice, sponsorship-‐linked marketing has become an increasingly important field in marketing research.
Several researches have examined important factors of sponsorship agreements. So-‐ called fit between the sponsor and the event has been argued to be important for several sponsorship outcomes. In their meta-‐analysis, Olson and Thjomoe (2011) provided an extensive overview of fit-‐related research in sponsorship context and indicated that current research is highly fragmentized and often had a different focus. Therefore, this research aims to include three important sponsorship outcomes, influenced by event-‐ sponsor fit: sponsor attitude, event attitude and sponsorship attitude. First, sponsor attitude can be defined as the consumer (visitor) attitude towards the sponsor. According to Speed and Thompson (2000), sponsor attitude is strongly influenced by perceived event-‐sponsor fit. Second and in line with sponsor attitude, event attitude can be defined as the consumer (visitor) attitude towards the event. In their sponsorship study, Martensen et al. (2007) found a positive relationship between event-‐sponsor fit and event attitude. Third, fit between sponsor and the event have been argued to be important for the “attitude towards the sponsorship” by several researches, which in turn has several other outcomes, depending on the actual focus of the research (e.g. Mazodier & Merunka. 2011; Cornwell et al., 2005). Attitude towards the sponsorship can be described as the consumers’ attitude towards the event-‐ and sponsor combination. So it is not merely the sponsor-‐ or event attitude, but the combined event-‐sponsor-‐package, as perceived by the consumer. In addition, sponsor attitude, event attitude, and attitude towards the sponsorship will result in various (marketing) outcomes/objectives. Although these outcomes are important for event-‐ and business managers, these outcomes fall outside the scope of this research.
Besides this theoretical foundation of fit, practical it makes also more sense that for example Red bull, with a strong extreme sports image, is sponsoring the extreme X-‐ games instead of a company without this extreme image, like for example Libresse.
Despite the considerable corporate popularity in the topic of sponsorship-‐linked marketing, it must be recognized that current research of sponsorship lacks a comprehensive and strong understanding of how sponsorship actually works in the mind of the consumer and in addition, how it might be even more effective (Cornwell, 2008). Although nowadays many events exist of multiple sponsors, past and present research has primary focused on factors, moderators and mediators in a single sponsor-‐ event setting. In fact, major events, wherein multiple companies sponsor an event simultaneously, have become the norm. Visitors at all kind of sport and/or music events are confronted with a variety of companies sponsoring the event. For example, Grolsch, Converse, DE Master Blenders, HI and many other companies were official sponsors of the major Dutch music festival Lowlands 2013. Given in context that academic research primary has focused on single sponsor-‐event settings, current knowledge about sponsoring lacks behind marketing practice. Therefore, this results in several gaps in the literature, and a number of researchers have called for additional research on multiple sponsorships (Cornwell et al., 2005; Cornwell 2008).
The purpose of this research is to address one of the gaps in the sponsorship literature by investigating how the number of sponsors is affecting specific solo sponsor-‐event outcomes. Specifically, this research will examine the moderating effect of the number of sponsors on sponsor attitude, event attitude, and attitude towards the sponsorship, resulting from the fit between the sponsor and the event. By the authors’ knowledge, no single study to date has focused on these three levels of sponsorship outcomes, especially not in a multiple-‐sponsor setting.
1.2 Research Question & Sub-‐questions
Taking the background information as mentioned in the introduction into consideration, the main research question, and associated sub-‐questions can be formulated:
“What is the influence of the fit between the sponsor and the event on the sponsor attitude, event attitude, and attitude towards the sponsorship, and what is the moderating effect of the number of sponsors”
In order to answer this main question, the following sub-‐questions have been formulated as well:
Additional sub-‐questions:
• What is sponsoring, and why is it important?
• What is fit, and what is its role and influence in a sponsor-‐event setting?
• How can sponsor attitude, event attitude, and attitude towards the sponsorship be defined?
• What is the effect of multiple sponsors in a low-‐fit sponsor-‐event setting? • What is the effect of multiple sponsors in a high-‐fit sponsor-‐event setting?
1.3 Theoretical Relevance
Most research conducted by scholars on sponsorship has focused on a sponsor setting wherein only one company sponsors an event. In an integrative review, Cornwell et al. (2005) provided a summarized theoretical understanding of the sponsorship topic. Although they give a overview of current research, Cornwell et al. (2005) argued that due to the use of mainly weakly controlled field studies, current research contributes little to our understanding how individuals process sponsorship-‐linked marketing communications. Therefore, this study will contribute to the existing literature by replicating some of the field studies in an experimental setting, with much more control over all the variables.
As mentioned, most academic research has focused on a single sponsor-‐event setting. Therefore, little is know about the effects of multiple sponsors and numerous gaps in the multiple-‐sponsor literature exist. By the authors knowledge very few researchers have focused on multiple-‐sponsor research, but some research is done. First of all, Carrillat, Lafferty and Harris (2005) investigated the effect of less familiar brands and familiar brands in single and multiple sponsorship arrangements. They found that the effects of sponsorship on attitudes and purchase intentions were greater for low familiarity brands than for high familiarity brands. Second, Ruth and Simonin (2003) found that consumer attitudes towards two concurrent sponsoring brands have a positive impact on attitude towards the event. Third, Ruth and Simonin (2006) found that both perceived positive and negative sponsor-‐intentions were diluted by an increasing number of sponsors, resulting in a shift in attitude towards the event. Finally, Carrillat et al. (2010) conducted a research on image transfer between two concurrent sponsoring brands. They found that, under specific conditions, either image transfer or image contrast occur between two sponsoring brands.
By the authors knowledge, no single study has examined the interaction of on the one hand the fit between the sponsor and the event, and on the other hand the influence of the number of sponsors on the perceived fit. The current research will add to scarce existing multiple-‐sponsor literature by investigating the influence of fit between the sponsor and the event on a) sponsor attitude, b) event attitude, and c) the attitude towards the sponsorship in an experimental setting, and by examining the moderating effect of multiple sponsors. By doing so, this research will provide a complete understanding of the effect of multiple sponsors on the relationship between event-‐ sponsor fit and the mentioned sponsorship outcomes.
1.4 Practical Relevance
As already mentioned in the introduction, major events wherein multiple companies sponsor an event simultaneously have become the norm. Events are more and more sponsored by numerous companies and often the sponsors have no influence in determining the number of co-‐sponsors or in selecting the co-‐sponsors. The lack of academic attention on multiple-‐sponsor research provides business managers with little to no guidance on how to act within these new borders. The practical relevance of this research therefore lies in making managers aware of the importance of fit between their company and the event and especially the effect of other sponsors on their brand or sponsor agreement.
1.5 Research objectives
Overall this research aims to broaden the current multiple-‐sponsor literature. The main objective of this research can be divided into two parts:
1. Determine the effect of event-‐sponsor fit on a) sponsor attitude, b) event attitude, and c) attitude towards the sponsorship in an experimental setting. 2. Determine the moderating effect of multiple sponsors on the effect of event-‐
sponsor fit on the mentioned sponsorship outcomes.
1.6 Research structure
This paper is structured in the following way. The first chapter provides a general overview of the growing marketing phenomenon sponsorship. Background information is provided and some important variables and gaps in the existing literature are introduced. The concepts of sponsor-‐event fit, sponsor attitude, event attitude, attitude towards the sponsorship, and the concept of multiple-‐sponsors are introduced and will be described in more detail in chapter two. Chapter two consists of an extensive literature review, from which the main hypotheses will be derived. Chapter three provide the research methods and the results are presented in chapter four. The discussion and implications of this research will be discussed in chapter five and chapter six is concerned with the limitations of this research.
2. Theoretical framework & Hypotheses
In this chapter the theoretical framework of this thesis will be provided. The author will discuss the main known variables in a single-‐sponsor event setting and the state of the art research on events with multiple sponsors will be discussed. Overall, the author will derive relevant hypotheses from the literature. Finally, the conceptual model will be presented.
2.1 Sponsorship in general
In existing literature slightly different definitions of the term sponsorship are used. Despite nuances in the actual definition, the emphasis mainly lays on the agreement between on the one hand the sponsor and on the other hand the sponsor object (event). In this research we will adopt the sponsorship definition used by Cornwell et al. (2005), derived from the International Events Group (IEG): “a cash and/or in-‐kind fee paid to a property (typically a sports, entertainment, non-‐profit event or organization) in return for access to the exploitable commercial potential associated with that property”. Thus, sponsorship can be seen as (any form of) investment in an object, to get access to the potential commercial opportunities of this particular object. In addition, sponsorship-‐ linked marketing can be defined as “the orchestration and implementation of marketing activities for the purpose of building and communicating an association to a sponsorship” (Cornwell, 1995). Together, these two definitions indicate the difference between an advertising agreement and a sponsor agreement. Whereas advertising offers a more knowable and measurable option, sponsorship involves a fee paid for access to potential future communication value of the sponsorship. Therefore, the outcomes of a sponsorship agreement are harder to measure and more uncertain in advance.
Meenaghan (2001) stated that the main objectives of sponsorships are to increase brand awareness and improve brand image or consumer attitude towards the brand. Mazodier and Merunka (2011) added to this line of reasoning that improved brand image and attitude towards the brand ultimately would enhance brand loyalty.
Now the concept of sponsorship and its main objectives are defined, it is important to get a better understanding in the underlying mechanisms. What makes a sponsorship agreement successful and what are the main drivers for success? Many authors stressed the importance of fit between the company (sponsor) and the event for a successful sponsorship (e.g. Mazodier & Merunka, 2011; Cornwell et al., 2005).
2.2 Event-‐sponsor fit
As stated before, fit between the sponsor and the event is an important condition for a successful sponsorship (e.g. Cornwell, 2005; Fleck & Quester, 2007; Grohs et al., 2004). In a single sponsor-‐event setting, fit reflects the similarity between the company (sponsor) and the event. An important question is how to define fit. What is fit? And what is its role and influence in a sponsor setting? In trying to answer the first question many researchers have gone us before. Fleck and Quester (2007) provided an extensive overview of more than 25 variations of the concept fit (or congruence) used in academic research from 1988 until 2004. As several other researchers have done (e.g. Mazodier and Merunka, 2007), this research will adopt the definition of fit as stated by Speed and Thompson (2002). Speed and Thompson define this construct as: “the degree of which the pairing [of an event and sponsor] is perceived as well matched or a good fit, without any restrictions on the basis used to establish fit”
Important to note is that this is a consumer-‐based conceptualization of fit. Therefore, fit in itself is important for a company when considering a sponsorship. In contrast to, for example the level of sponsorship, fit (or especially no fit) is hard to alter. Fit is a perceived construct in the mind of the consumer, and therefore it is hard to change in a short-‐time period. For the second question, the role and influence of fit, Fleck and Quester (2007) also summarized more than 25 different finding in conducted academic research. Again, Speed and Thompson (2000) offered a quiet extensive and widely applicable explanation of the role and influence of fit. They stated that overall fit between the sponsor and the property (event) improves sponsorship effectiveness. In addition, an important question that arises is what is sponsorship effectiveness. In their meta-‐ analysis, Olson and Thjomoe (2011) provided an extensive overview of the all the fit research in sponsorship contexts. As many researches had a different focus or research approach, this research will focus on three important event-‐sponsor fit outcomes: sponsor attitude, event attitude and attitude towards the sponsorship.
2.2.1 Sponsor attitude
Sponsor attitude has been the primarily focus of sponsorship-‐research. Several authors have indicated the importance of event-‐sponsor fit with regard to the attitude towards the sponsor. Speed and Thompson (2000) stated that consumer evaluation of the sponsor was strongly influenced by the perceived event-‐sponsor fit. According to Speed and Thompson (2000) a high event-‐sponsor fit results in a more positive attitude towards the sponsor. In addition, Becker-‐Olsen & Simmons (2002) found that low-‐fit sponsorships resulted in less favorable thoughts and attitudes towards the sponsor.
Furthermore, enhanced attitude towards the sponsor will eventually lead to e.g. more positive brand attitude, higher purchase intentions, and higher brand loyalty (e.g. Mazodier and Merunka, 2011). Although this falls outside the scope of this research, these outcomes are important for sponsoring firms. Therefore, sponsor attitude, resulting from a sponsorship is a very important outcome for sponsors. Deriving from Speed and Thompson and Becker-‐Olsen & Simmons , the first hypothesis is:
H1a: A high (low) perceived sponsor-‐event fit relates positively (negatively) to attitude towards the sponsor
2.2.2 Event attitude
Besides sponsor-‐attitude, attitude towards the event is also influenced by a high-‐ perceived fit between the sponsor and the event. Event attitude can be defined as the overall consumer attitude towards an event, resulting from a sponsorship. Although the effects on event attitude are way less examined, Martensen et al. (2007) found a positive effect of event-‐sponsor fit on attitude towards the event. Furthermore, they stated that positive event attitude would eventually lead to higher buying intentions. Again, this additional step falls outside the scope of this research. As the main focus of this research is to examine the effect of event-‐sponsor fit and the number of sponsors on several sponsorship outcomes, the second hypothesis will be:
H2: A high perceived sponsor-‐event fit relates positively to attitude towards the event
2.2.3 Attitude towards the sponsorship
Further elaborating on the role and influence of fit, Mazodier and Merunka (2011) conducted a research to determine the effect of fit on sponsorship outcomes. The authors found that perceived fit between the brand and the event relates positively to attitude towards the sponsorship, eventually leading to higher brand loyalty. Furthermore, Simmons and Becker-‐Olsen (2006) stated that a low fit between the sponsor and the event will result in a less favorable attitude towards the sponsorship. The attitude towards the sponsorship can be defined as overall feelings and thoughts of a consumer about the sponsorship. Thus, sponsorship attitude is the perceived feelings and perception of fit when the event and the sponsor are combined. Simmons and Becker-‐Olsen (2006) stated that the attitude towards the sponsorship could be negative or positive, unfavorable or favorable, and bad or good. Thus, a higher perceived sponsor-‐event fit relates positively to attitude towards the sponsorship, leading to the third hypothesis:
H3: A high (low) perceived sponsor-‐event fit relates positively (negatively) to attitude towards the sponsorship
2.3 Other important conditions for sponsorship
Although the focus and scope of this research is on the fit between the sponsor and the event, it is important to have a good understanding of other important conditions for sponsorships. In this way, the author can take into account other influencing variables and control for them in the experimental setting. As stated by several researchers, familiarity is an important variable in an event-‐sponsor setting (e.g. Cornwell et al., 2005; Carrilat et al., 2005). Thus, for this particular research it is important to control this variable in the experimental setting. Furthermore, Gwinner (1997) identified several important variables. First Gwinner (1997) stated that event image is important in a sponsorship. Event image is constructed by means of event type (e.g. sport/musuc), event characteristics (e.g. event size, professional status), and by individual factors (number/strength of meanings). Thus, event image consists of event type, event characteristics and individual factors. Furthermore, Gwinner (1997) indicated several moderating variables: the level of sponsorship, event frequency and product involvement.
In addition, Cornwell et al. (2005) identified some more important variables for sponsorships. First, individual factors like involvement and arousal are important variables. Furthermore, market factors (clutter, brand equity and competitor activities) are important, as well as management factors (sponsorship policy and types of activations/leverage). Finally, specific processing mechanics are important. Overall, these variables are only important for this research in a way that it is important to level/control for these variables in every different experimental setting.
2.4 Multiple sponsors
As stated in the introduction of this research, sponsorship theory is lacking behind marketing practices. Major events, wherein multiple companies sponsor an event simultaneously, have become the norm. A sponsorship with more than one sponsor has many implications for both sponsors and sponsor object.
By the authors’ knowledge only four studies exist to date investigating the influences of multiple sponsors, all with a different focus. The very first article is the article from Ruth and Simonin (2003). They investigated the impact of prior consumer attitude towards two concurrent sponsoring brands on the attitude towards the sponsored event. Their findings suggest that consumer attitudes toward the concurrent sponsoring brands have a positive impact on attitude towards the event. While their work indicates that multiple sponsors can influence attitude towards the event, it does not examine the effect of fit in a multiple sponsor setting on the attitude towards the sponsorship.
Carrillat et al. (2010) examined the concept of image transfer between multiple sponsors. In their study the authors found that concurrent sponsorship of two sponsors lead either to image transfer or image contrast between the sponsoring brands. Their research added to sponsorship literature by providing a better understanding of the effects of multiple sponsorships on consumers’ attitude towards the sponsors. However, this study does not investigate the impact multiple sponsors have on perceived sponsor-‐ event fit.
The last two studies (Carrilat et al., 2005; Ruth and Simonin, 2006) both examined the potential diluting effect of multiple sponsors on specific sponsorship outcomes and therefore these studies are more interesting for this research. In the first research Carrilat et al. (2005) examined the potential diluting effect of multiple sponsors
on the advantages that less familiar brands have over more familiar brands. They expected to find diluting effects of multiple sponsors, because in multiple-‐sponsor setting information processing should be inhabited due to more stimuli. The number of sponsors was increased using real unfamiliar and familiar brands. First they found that the effects of a sponsorship for attitude and purchase intention were greater for low familiarity brand than for high familiarity brands. Furthermore, and against their expectations, Carrillat et al. (2005) found that the impact of (un)familiarity on attitude and purchase intentions for brands was not diluted in a multiple sponsor setting vis-‐à-‐ vis a single sponsor event setting. Carrilat et al. (2005) explained this counter-‐intuitive result by stating that in the multiple-‐sponsor setting the familiar brand could have been so strong, that it also affected the unfamiliar brand. Therefore, it could have been that the unfamiliar brand was less subject to the diluting effect of multiple sponsors. In conclusion, it is very important for the current research to control of these kinds of between-‐brand-‐effects.
The second research on events with multiple sponsors was conducted by Ruth and Simonin (2006). Ruth and Simonin (2006) divided their research into two parts. In the first part of their study, the authors found that the positive attitude towards the event, resulting from goodwill sponsor motives, was influenced negatively by increased number of sponsors. Furthermore, the “negative” effects of sales-‐oriented sponsors on attitude towards the event were positively influences by increased number of sponsors. In the second part of the study the impact of stigmatized and non-‐stigmatized event beneficiaries was examined. Again, Ruth and Simonin (2006) found that when the number of sponsors increased, the effects on attitude towards the event were diluted.
In sum, positive attitudes towards the event became less positive and negative attitudes towards the event became less negative when the number of sponsors increased. Ruth and Simonin (2006) also examined the potential diluting effect of multiple sponsors on the attitude towards the named sponsor. Again, contrary to their expectations, but in line with Carrilat et al. (2005) they found no diluting effect for the attitude towards the sponsor. Unfortunately, Ruth and Simonin (2006) provided no potential explanation for this effect. In conclusion, both studies provided several insights concerning our research model. An increased number of sponsors will result in:
• A diluting effect on attitude towards the event (Ruth and Simonin, 2006)
• No diluting effect on attitude towards the sponsor (Carrilat et al., 2005; Ruth and Simonin, 2006)
Although the somewhat counterintuitive findings, the results of both studies cannot be ignored. Therefore, according to the discussed studies from Carrilat et al. (2005) and Ruth and Simonin (2006), the following hypotheses can be formulated:
H4a: An increase in the number of sponsors from one to two in a sponsorship will have a diluting effect on the impact of event-‐sponsor fit on attitude towards the event
H4b: An increase in the number of sponsors from two to five in a sponsorship will have a diluting effect on the impact of event-‐sponsor fit on attitude towards the event
H5a: An increase in the number of sponsors from one to two in a sponsorship will have no diluting effect on the impact of event-‐sponsor fit on attitude towards the sponsor
H5b: An increase in the number of sponsors from two to five in a sponsorship will have no diluting effect on the impact of event-‐sponsor fit on attitude towards the sponsor
A first potential explanation for the difference in effect towards sponsors and events could have been the difference in strength of both entities. It could be, for example in the Ruth & Simonin (2006) article, that the event was not salient enough, resulting in less and weaker nodes in the consumers’ mind. Therefore, the event could have been more vulnerable to the diluting effect of multiple sponsors. Therefore, and as stated before, it is important to level the degree of familiarity in the experimental setting. By doing so, the researcher will rule out differences in dilution between sponsors and events, resulting from different levels of salience/familiarly.
A second explanation could be derived from the celebrity endorsement theory, also used by Ruth and Simonin (2006). Based on the attribution theory as stated by Tripp et al. (1994), the celebrity theory argued that a celebrity who endorses a distinctive brand represents a more distinctive action. In addition, consumers evaluate distinctive actions more favorably than non-‐distinctive actions, resulting in a better attitude towards the endorsed brand. In this line of reasoning, a diluting effect on attitude towards the event can be explained. The positive attitude towards the event,
distinctive action could result in a lower attitude towards the event. On the other hand, co-‐sponsoring brands rarely articulate a multiple-‐sponsor agreement. Instead, they are purely focusing on their own strong sponsor-‐event connection. By doing so, consumer attention is captured on the sponsor-‐event setting and pulled away from the sponsor-‐ sponsor setting. This could explain why brands/sponsors are less vulnerable to diluting effects of multiple sponsors.
In addition, no single study has focused on the potential diluting effect of multiple sponsors on attitude towards the sponsorship. Without studies providing counterintuitive results, and in line with Carrilat et al. (2005) diluting expectations, the researcher expects some diluting effects of multiple sponsors on attitude towards the sponsorship. This because in evaluating the sponsorship as a whole, the consumer would take into account the sponsor on the one hand, and the event on the other hand. As previously argued, the attitude towards event is expected to be diluted by a higher number of sponsors. This lower attitude towards the event could result into a lower attitude towards the sponsorship as a whole. This results into the following hypotheses:
H6a: An increase in the number of sponsors from one to two in a sponsorship will have a diluting effect on the impact of event-‐sponsor fit on attitude towards the sponsorship
H6b: An increase in the number of sponsors from two to five in a sponsorship will have a diluting effect on the impact of event-‐sponsor fit on attitude towards the sponsorship
2.5 Conceptual model
Taken into account all the relevant variables as discussed in the theoretical framework, research hypotheses are developed. Together these hypotheses form the focus and scope of this research. In the conceptual model as seen in figure 1, all the relevant variables are included.
As mentioned before, sponsorships are quite complex entities with many different variables. Because of time constrains and complexity-‐issues, a narrow scope must be chosen. Therefore, moderating variables as e.g. product involvement/level of sponsorship fall outside the scope of this research and must be controlled in the experimental setting. Thus, the focus of this research is on the impact of event-‐sponsor fit on sponsor attitude, event attitude, and attitude towards the sponsorship and the moderating effect of the number of sponsors, everything else being equal.
3. Methodology
In this chapter the overall research method and design will be provided. The author will provide an overview of all the relevant variables, the constructs of measure and the research method for data collection.
3.1. Research method
This research can be described as quantitative in nature. Using a quantitative method, the respondents were asked questions with pre-‐determined responses. According to Babbie (2007), a quantitative method allows the researcher to compare data more easily and allows the researcher to conduct a statistical analysis on the data. Furthermore, it is important to reach as many respondents as possible, to increase (statistical) validity. Using a hard-‐copy questionnaire, it would be a very time consuming process to reach all the respondents. Therefore, to be able to reach as many respondents as possible, and to make the questionnaire more accessible for a high number of people, the online data collection method “Qualtrics” was used. Qualtrics allowed for a cheap, fast and broad distribution of the survey. A snowball-‐sample method was used, and the survey was mainly distributed via the author’s Facebook and e-‐mail contacts.
The nature of this research required an experimental setting, so that variables could be manipulated or controlled in the various experimental groups. Data analysis was done using the statistical program “SPSS”. This program allowed the researcher to search for statistical correlations. In addition, these statistical analyses let to the research conclusions.
3.1.1 Data collection
As mentioned before, it is important to have enough and reliable respondents to ensure validity. Due to the fact that the researcher was unable to reach the entire population, a nonprobability method was used. Babbie (2007) provided several nonprobability-‐ sampling methods. Because of several reasons and restrictions, both the ‘’reliance on available subjects’’ method and the ‘’snowball sampling’’ method were potential options for this research. Babbie (2007) stated that the snowball sampling method allows the researcher to reach many respondents and therefore is more appropriate for experiments that require many respondents. A negative effect of this method is a potential low response-‐rate and low control over the sampling effect. Overall, in order to reach enough respondents, the author used the snowball sampling method.
The survey was distributed mainly through the author’s Facebook and email-‐ contacts. In addition, the participants were asked to further distribute the survey within their own online (social) space, allowing for a strong snowball-‐sampling effect. Therefore, most participants were expected to be students within the 20-‐30 year range. Furthermore, each respondent was randomly assigned to one of the different experimental groups.
3.1.2 Variables
In this research, multiple variables are used. Variables can be divided into independent variable and dependent variables. As can be seen in the conceptual model in figure 1, the independent variables are the event-‐sponsor fit and the number of sponsors. Again, it is important to mention that many other (independent) variables are active in a real-‐life sponsorship setting, but that the focus of this research is only and specific on the mentioned variables. All other potential influencing variables are not included into the model and fall outside the scope of this research.
The dependent variables are the variables influenced by the independent variables. In this research the dependent variables are the a) sponsor attitude, b) event attitude, and c) attitude towards the sponsorship.
3.2 Research design
The main research had a 2x3 experimental setting. Event-‐sponsor fit was either low or high and the number of sponsors was respectively one, two, or five. The respondents were randomly assigned to one of the six different experiential groups.
In order to select two brands with low/high event-‐sponsor fit, first a pre-‐test was conducted. In this online pre-‐test 26 designated participants were asked to indicate event-‐sponsor fit of numerous brands with a particular event. In this way, the author got insights in the fit between sponsors and the event for the main research.
As stated before, fit was manipulated in the main research using insights from the pre-‐ test. To manipulate the number of sponsors, the author adopted a very similar approach as used by Ruth and Simonin (2006) in their research. In their research, the number of sponsors was manipulated using ‘’blank spots’’ for the additional sponsors. In this way, potential influences of fit between the sponsors are ruled out. In sum, this research used a pre-‐test, and a 2x3 main experiment with an online snowball-‐sampling method for data collection. The pre-‐test and the main experiment will be discussed in more detail below.
3.2.1 Pre-‐test
A pre-‐test was used in order to establish a low sponsor-‐event fit condition and a high sponsor-‐event fit condition for the main experiment. Furthermore, as mentioned in the theoretical framework, it was important to level the degree of familiarity for both the event and the sponsors that are used in the main research. Therefore, the familiarity was measured in the pre-‐test as well. The event was derived from the research from Carrilat et al. (2010). In a pre-‐test the authors found that the student-‐sample had the highest familiarity for the Olympic games. In additions, with the upcoming Olympic games next February, it is very likely that the Olympic games are top of mind for many of the participants.
The survey for the pre-‐test was distributed by using the online tool “Qualtrics”. Participants were selected from the authors’ Facebook and a total of 26 designated Master students of the University of Amsterdam and the University of Twente filled out the pre-‐test and two brands were selected for the main research, respectively Pampers
