Music Festival Sponsorship:
In Investigation of the Role of Brand-Event Congruence
Petr Stejskal Student ID: 10602488
Master Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s Program Communication Science
Track: Persuasive Communication Supervisor: Arie den Boon Date of Completion: 31.01.2015
Abstract
Sponsorship of music festivals is an increasingly attractive way for brands to bond with a young target audience and build their brand image. The purpose of this research is to determine, whether brand-event congruence – the perceived fit between brand and festival, affects brand memory and brand attitude. Moreover, the moderating effect of a person’s persuasion knowledge, and a brand’s ubiquity on the main relationship is under scrutiny. This cross sectional study aims to help brands’ to optimize marketing expenditures and guide their sponsorship decisions. In addition to that, it contributes to the existing body of sponsorship research by extending it to the domain of music festivals. Congruence is studied in light of the schema congruity framework, while advertising effects are considered under the
paradigm of the elaboration likelihood model. A questionnaire from a convenience sample of festival attendants on the camping grounds served as the primary data collection tool. Results indicate that congruence has little impact on brand memory, yet positively affects brand attitude in four out of four cases, and is thus instrument in building brand sympathy. Neither persuasion knowledge, nor brand ubiquity played a major role in affecting brand memory, or brand attitudes.
Introduction
With an ever-increasing advertisement clutter, the marketing landscape has changed significantly over the last few decades. On the one hand, the consumer market is becoming increasingly fragmented; on the other hand, consumers are becoming increasingly resilient to commercial messages (Roy & Cornwell, 2003). The corporate had to rethink their marketing strategy to break through the clutter and find new ways to target their consumers. Hereby, sponsorship offers corporations an attractive remedy and has become a steady component of the promotional mix (Lee, Sandler & Shani, 1997). Sponsorship encompasses a financial remuneration for the festival in order to purchase the rights to associate with the image of an event and exploit this association for commercial means (Meenaghan & Shipley, 1999). According to The International Events Group report, global sponsorship expenditures are on a steady rise and account for $53,3 billion (IEG, 2013). In recent years, sponsorship has entered a fairly new domain – music festivals. The extent to which brands are involved in festivals differs greatly. Virgin is the only brand behind it’s very own festival – V festival ("V festival," 2014), while Exit Festival benefits from a multitude of sponsors, such as Huawei - a Chinese electronics producer, or UNIQA – an insurance company (“Exit festival,” 2014). The relationship between sponsors and music festivals is of mutual benefit: for festivals,
sponsorship is a welcome revenue stream that supplements tickets revenue; for sponsors, festivals offer an attractive opportunity to connect with a relatively homogenous target audience in terms of lifestyle and demographics (Rowley & Williams, 2008).
By associating with events that matter to their target audience, brands are gaining attention and interest of younger generations (Roy & Cornwell, 2003). In addition to that, sponsorship is less expensive than traditional media and with rising marketing cost, it is crucial that the money spent operates efficiently (Meenaghan, 2001). The promised benefits of sponsorship range from increased “brand awareness, brand enhancement, brand loyalty,
organizational promotion and sales increase” (Choi, Tsuji, Hutchinson & Bouchet, 2011, p.108-109), to the creation of a brand image, re-positioning of a brand or a product, or a short-term profit increase (Rowley & Williams, 2008). Furthermore, festivals offer
companies an opportunity to demonstrate product offerings and facilitate product trial (Cliffe & Motion, 2005). But more importantly, when a brand is incorporated “within an
entertainment experience, the sponsoring brand and the brand that is the entertainment mutually reinforce each other and provide a rich context for identity formation. Under this paradigm, brand sponsorship of the arts has more to do with embedding the brand in cultures and identities, than with the more peripheral notions of recall, awareness, attitudes and use” (Rowley & Williams, 2008, p. 783). From a researcher and sponsor’s point of view, it is crucial to determine whether the investment has been fruitful, which this study attempts to do.
The domain of sponsorship has received extensive attention in academia. Cornwell and Maignan (1998) have compiled a comprehensive review of international sponsorship literature. It becomes evident, that sponsorship has been widely studied in the context of sports sponsorship, cultural, as well as non-profit events. However, the literature concerning the sponsorship of music festivals is scarce, but a research article by Rowley &Williams (2008) tackles the topic. In addition to that, a survey among sponsors revealed that to a great extent, sponsors either dedicate very little money and effort in measuring the effectiveness of their communication goals, or utilize inappropriate measures to do so (Olson, 2010). For these reasons, this research attempts to fill the gap in the literature and provide an appreciation as well as evaluation of sponsorship effects. The aim of this research is
understand, whether congruence plays a role in the unique context of music festivals, in light of the schema congruity framework. To what extent does congruence impact brand memory effects, brand attitude, and purchase intention? Moreover, does brand ubiquity – the
effect of congruence? Finally, how does a person’s attitude toward sponsorship, attitude towards the commercialization of the event, and persuasion knowledge moderate the effects of congruence on brand attitude and brand recall, as well as recognition? Hereby advertisers will gain insights into the benefits of music festival sponsorship and improve their decision making in how to make the most out of their marketing budgets. Likewise, festival organizers can use the findings of this study to attract high-profile sponsors.
Theoretical Framework
The learning of new stimuli, such as the association of a brand with a festival is instrument in building brand equity. Keller (1998) brought forward the argument that customer-based brand equity comprises brand awareness and brand image. By sponsoring festivals, brand logos become visible in the environment and media surrounding the event. The association with a festival has many benefits for a sponsor. The mere exposure theory posits, that “in the absence of other stimuli” (Woisetschläger & Michaelis, 2012, p.511) the repeated exposure to a brand leads to enhanced positive affect towards the brand or has the potential to decrease negative feelings towards a brand (van Reijmersdal, Neijens & Smit, 2007). People are particularly susceptible to affective branding strategies in a positive environment such as a music festival, where people enjoy themselves. These effects have been found in the context of sports sponsorship (Choi et al., 2011). The aim of this study is to evaluate, whether these effects apply to music festivals as well. Traditionally, empirical studies consider sponsorship a marketing tool. For this reason, prominent ad effects measures such as brand recall, - recognition, - attitude, or purchase intention are the evaluation subject of these studies, also applied in this research (Lee, Sandler, Shani 1997).
Brand Attitude
Branding as a marketing discipline is concerned with the cultivation of a brands image. Keller (1993) defines brand image as a consumers’ perception of a brand, which is
reflected in the associations that a brand evokes. Attitude towards the sponsoring brand is a crucial advertisement effect measure in both experimental and survey based sponsorship research. The reasoning behind it is very straightforward: if a person has favorable attitudes towards a brand, he or she is more inclined to buy the brands products and will evaluate the sponsorship in a positive light. Vice versa, if one views a festival in a positive way and has a good time while visiting, the feelings might spill over on the evaluation of the sponsoring brand, based on a classical conditioning effect (Speed & Thompson, 2000). Rifon, Choi, Trimble and Li (2004) found that, the credibility and attitude towards a sponsor are important determinants of outcome variables such as attitude towards the advertising, brand attitude, or purchase intention. For this reason, the study of their antecedents is necessary in order to understand and be able to predict sponsorship effects. Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) elaboration likelihood model (in short: ELM) proposes two ways in which information is processed: the central and peripheral route. The central route involves high elaboration of a given stimuli, whereas the peripheral route relies on peripheral cues, in which information are processed superficially (Moorman & van den Putte, 2008). In a festival setting, the exposure to brand logos is of relatively low involvement nature, as the visitor pays mostly attention to other stimuli such as music. Based on this assumption, brands are processed through the peripheral route on music festivals. The exposure and repetition of brand logos under these circumstances leads to positive brand effects (Woisetschläger, 2012).
Brand Awareness
Brand awareness is a standardly applied construct in sponsorship research.
Meenaghan and O’Sullivan (2013), describe it as the degree, to which festival attendants are aware and can confirm that a particular brand is the sponsor of a given event. As a first-line measure of cognition, it determines how present the association of sponsor-festival is in attendants’ memory. Any place that exposes or lets a consumer experience a brand is
instrument in building brand awareness. Traditionally, sponsorship awareness is measured with two constructs: “unprompted / spontaneous or prompted / aided awareness” (p.411), known better as brand recall and recognition tests. Brand recall usually yields lower awareness scores, but is genuinely regarded as a more truthful awareness measure, as the consumer has to generate the brand from memory as opposed to simply identify the correct brand from a set of brands. Moreover brand recall is the result of top of the mind awareness, suggesting, that the brand is the first out of a product category that comes to a consumer’s mind. This in return implies, that an association is strongly present in the consumer’s mind (Hakala, Svensson & Vincze, 2012). The outcomes of brand recall and recognition measures are influenced by several variables such as question wording, the composition of sponsors in terms of type and amount of sponsors, or the ratio of real to dummy sponsors. Prior research found that sponsor category as well as object involvement significantly predicted sponsor recall (Olson, 2010). Brand recall and recognition are used as explanatory variables in existing field studies, in spite of associated causality issues (Woisetschläger & Michaelis, 2012). Brand awareness might not be sufficient to directly lead to the purchase of a product, yet brands that are easily recalled are more likely to be chosen in a purchase decision (Hakala, Svensson & Vincze, 2012).This research utilizes recall and recognition as dependent
variables, to test whether attendants remember or recognize the name sponsoring brands. Brand Event Congruence
One concept in particular has been under the scrutiny of scholars in regards to sponsorship research – brand event congruence, the perceived fit between the event image and sponsor image (Rifon et al., 2004). In fact, it is the most applied construct in sponsorship research (Cornwell & Coote, 2005). How fitting a relationship between sponsor and event is, rests on two characteristics: category and attributes. The category of a sponsorship is the character of the event, be it a sports event, an arts event, a charity gala, or as in this case – a
music festival (Gwinner, 1997). On the other hand, attributes are so to speak personality traits of both, sponsor and event. Congruence is hence established based upon these two
characteristics: sponsorship category relatedness (SCR), as in how does the category of the event match the portfolio of the brand, and event personality fit (EFP), when the personality traits of event and brand are alike (Chien, Cornwell & Pappu, 2010). Other factors that play into how congruent a sponsorship is perceived are nature and intensity of exploitation (Meenaghan & Shipley, 1999). Intensity of exploitation refers to the extent to which the consumer perceives a sponsorship as intrusive or imposing, for instance by the omnipresence of the brand logo on festival grounds.
Studies assessing sponsorship effects at a single point in time predominantly evaluate effects on the basis of “learning- and consistency-theories, i.e. congruity and balance
theory”(p.511). Overall, “people generally strive for balanced (congruent) structures between cognitive elements” (Woisetschläger & Michaelis, 2012, 512). Previous studies revealed that congruence between brand and event benefits the recognition and favorability of the sponsor, and facilitates the image transfer from event to sponsor (Roy & Cornwell, 2003). Opposing arguments propose the notion that congruence is not essential to impact a person’s view of a brand. In addition to that, a sponsorship, which might initially be evaluated as incongruent, might grow on a person over time. Finally, a poor fit might lead consumers to engage in greater elaboration (Rifon et al., 2004; Uhrich, Koenigstorfer & Groeppel-Klein, 2014). A low or poor fit might be stimulating to consumers, cause psychological tensions and thus arouses and leads to higher elaboration to resolve the incongruence (Fleck & Quester, 2007). If the discrepancy is resolved successfully, a brand is evaluated in a positive light (Uhrich, Koenigstorfer & Groeppel-Klein, 2014). The clashing evidence and contradictory findings require a further examination of brand – event congruence within the context of a music festival.
Speed and Thompson (2000) utilized classical conditioning to explain the underlying effects of pairing a stimulus (e.g. a festival) with a brand. Yet, the schema congruity
framework, with the underlying schema theory and related the match up hypothesis (Rifon et al., 2004) better addresses how image transfer occurs. Additionally it tackles how consumers use the pairing of product and event to construct their self-image, by purchasing products that reflect their ideal and desired self (Cornwell & Coote, 2005). The schema congruity
framework, proposed by George Mandler (1982) beholds, that over time and as a result of experience a person acquires so-called schema, mental cognitive structures, about people, events, or brands. Based on these schemas a person navigates through his environment and makes inferences about and associations with brands, for instance. These schemas “influence information processing, including encoding, comprehension, retention and retrieval
information” (Rifon et al., 2004, p.30). When presented with new stimuli, such as the peripheral cue of sponsorship exposure, the brain automatically compares the schemas of brand and event and evaluates whether the sponsorship relationship is an appropriate fit (Rifon et al., 2004). A schema is congruent, when new information conforms to the
expectations that a consumer has, based on the schemas that are already present in a persons mind. Contrary incongruity occurs when the stimuli is discrepant with previous expectations (Mandler, 1982).
Previous research indicates, that whether new information is congruent or incongruent impacts the judgment of this piece of information. If the consumer finds a sponsorship fitting in terms of previously established category schema, he or she is more likely to evaluate it positively due to affect transfer (Wansink & Ray, 1996). This is due to the fact that a
congruent schema is in line with a consumer’s expectations, facilitates predictability and little effort has to be put into the processing of the stimulus (Lee & Thorson, 2008). On the other hand incongruent matches yield a higher number inferences, which consequently leads to
higher recall due to a strong, memorable and elaborate schema. Even though higher
elaboration might be the case with incongruence, schema theory cannot predict, whether the sponsorship will be evaluated positively or not (Rifon et al., 2004).
Lee & Thorson (2008) utilized the schema congruity framework in the context of celebrity advertisement, yet its applicability stretches beyond this domain. If a person
considers a brand sponsoring a festival, the brain actively compares the schema of the festival and compares it with the schema of the brand and assesses their fit. In congruent conditions the brand is perceived as credible, leading to positive appraisal, while with incongruency the schemas are a mismatch, incoherent so that cognitive dissonance takes place. Positive affect does not only occur with a perfect fit - a moderately incongruent match is also of value. In fact, a moderate incongruence causes stronger affect than the response to perfectly congruent, or extremely incongruent matches, because perfectly congruent matches are not noteworthy or interesting for that matter (Peracchio & Tybout, 1996). Based on Mandler’s framework the extent to which a person perceives a fit as favorable or unfavorable is dependent on how promptly a person can resolve the incongruity satisfactorily. If the activated schemas do not reconcile the incongruency by shifting cognitive structures accordingly, the stimulus is discarded and evaluated negatively; feelings of frustration and helplessness are the result (Mandler, 1982). On the other hand, the resolution of a mildly incongruent match is rewarding, as the consumer successfully accommodated prior knowledge structures
(Peracchio & Tybout, 1996). Empirical support almost universally promotes the notion that congruence causes higher effects, be it in sports or non-sports contexts (Olson, 2010). Drawing from the elaboration likelihood model and schema congruity framework, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1: Higher brand event congruence leads to higher brand recall and brand recognition.
Persuasion Knowledge
With an increasing advertisement clutter, consumers are becoming increasingly immune and resistant towards commercial messages. This is where sponsorship offers an attractive remedy, as the persuasive intent of the sponsorship message is not as overt as with advertisements. If consumers recognize sponsorship as such, they will oppose it and react more critically towards the sponsored content (Boerman, van Reijmersdal & Neijens, 2012). This is an effect described by the reactance theory (Brehm, 1966), rooted in the persuasion knowledge model. According to this model, people infer a communicator’s motives, which guides their evaluation of a message. The suspicion of hidden, or even ulterior motives such as the attempt to sell produces higher recipient resistance, diminishing the message’s
persuasiveness (Verlegh, Ryu, Tuk & Feick, 2013). People want to be free in their decision making, not manipulated. A synonym for persuasion knowledge is advertisement literacy, which describes to what extent people recognize the persuasive appeal of a commercial message (Boerman, van Reijmersdal & Neijens, 2012). In light of the assumptions, it is important to evaluate the connection between brand event congruence, persuasion knowledge and brand attitude. As previously stated, people evaluate the appropriateness of a match between sponsor and event according to schemas. Congruent schemas might not be assessed too critically, while incongruent schemas may trigger suspicion and skepticism about the sponsorship, possibly lowering brand attitude perceptions (Roy & Cornwell, 2003). Following this reasoning, if persuasion knowledge is high, it will negatively moderate the relationship between brand-event congruence and brand attitude.
H3: High persuasion knowledge negatively moderates the effect of congruence on brand attitude.
Brand Ubiquity
Sponsorship differentiates itself from other forms of marketing due to its mostly non-intrusive nature, but mainly because it supports an event. It is so to speak a philanthropic deed in disguise (Meenaghan, 1983). Because of the widespread success of sponsorship, brands do not rely on a single sponsorship, but manifest themselves complex portfolios consisting of multiple sponsorships (Chien, Cornwell, Pappu, 2011). By sponsoring multiple events, a brand becomes omnipresent and ubiquitous. Ubiquity hence refers to the overall extent of sponsorship activities, in terms of frequency and selectivity. In their research on sponsorship effects Speed & Thompson (2000) found partial support for their hypothesis, that perceived ubiquity of a given sponsor among attendants of an event was negatively
associated with the response to the relationship. The dynamics underlying these effects can be explained by the signaling theory. It suggests, that sponsorship shapes consumer’s
perceptions by relying on extrinsic cues such as the ubiquity of a sponsor. If a brand sponsors a multitude of events, this may signal lower commitment of the sponsor to the event in
question, lowering credibility perceptions and making believe, that the brand does not want to support the event but merely use it for profit (Mazodier & Merunka, 2012). Prior research by Speed and Thompson (2000) illustrates that a brand with fewer sponsorship activities was perceived as more focused and goal-oriented, thus perceived as less ubiquitous – this in turn, generated more favorable brand attitudes. A possible explanation is the sponsor’s dedicated involvement with the event. The more events a brand sponsors, the likelier it is that it will be recognized, thus positively moderating brand recall and brand recognition. Moreover, it shall be established to what extent ubiquity in conjunction with persuasion knowledge moderate brand attitude, leading to the following assumption:
H4: Perceived sponsor ubiquity positively moderates the effect of congruence and brand recognition, as well as brand recall.
H5: Perceived sponsor ubiquity negatively moderates the effect of congruence on brand attitudes.
In sum, the following conceptual model is proposed. Brand event congruence serves as the main independent variable. It positively affects brand recall, brand recognition and brand attitude. The relationship between congruence and brand recall /recognition is moderated by brand ubiquity, while the main effect of congruence on brand attitude is moderated once by, ubiquity and in another model by persuasion knowledge.
Method
This section describes the data collection, sample, context of the festival in question, as well as conceptualization of the variables. Typically, music festivals are held in summer months between May and August. The context of this study is the music festival Let it Roll
the capital of the Czech Republic, on the first weekend of August (www.letitroll.eu). Let it
Roll focuses predominantly on a niche genre of electronic music called Drum & Bass – a
genre that emerged in the UK in the 1980s and is on a steady rise in popularity since. After only 8 years since its foundation, the 2014 edition of the summer festival attracted about 25.000 visitors from all over the world. The investigator has witnessed the transformation of the festival from a small club-night to an internationally acclaimed festival over a time frame of eight years. He also observed curiously how corporate presence increased manifold and shifted from small brands to international mega brands. A personal interest in the festival and branding was crucial factors to conduct research of this particular festival.
The research was a cross sectional study, with a survey serving as the main data collection tool, evaluating the effects of the real sponsors of the festival: Finlandia, Red Bull,
Benson & Hedges, and Budejovicky Budvar. Finlandia is a vodka producer, Red Bull an
energy drink company, Benson & Hedges are a cigarette manufacturer, and Budejoviky
Budvar is the original Budweiser beer brand from the Czech Republic. Within the context of
congruity, Gwinner (1997) distinguishes between functional and image based similarity. Functional congruence is given when the products of a sponsoring brand are available to purchase and use at a given event. Since all of the brands were available at the festival, functional congruence is given. The evaluation of congruence was thus image related. The collection of real life data and the difficulty of creating a genuine experimental festival setting were decisive factors to conduct survey-based research. Although internal validity is hereby comprised, the high number of participants and study of real-life brands enhances external validity of the research. Moreover, the convenient and easily feasible method of using printed questionnaires enabled the collection of 207 participants, drawn from a sample of roughly 25.000 participants.
Because of the immense success of the 2013 festival edition, the organizers were able to score new high-profile sponsorship deals. Hence, all sponsors were associated with the festival for the first time, so there was no bias in sponsorship effects from previous festival sponsorship exposures. Data were collected at a single point in time, on Saturday, the 2nd of August 2014, the day of rest in between Friday and Saturday night, between 11am and 5pm on the festival campsite. A convenience sample of people attending the festival the previous night was applied. The principal investigator approached participants directly and asked whether they would like to participate in a research about sponsorship. After distributing the questionnaire the participants were given sufficient time to fill in the questionnaire. Upon completion of the questionnaire, participants were rewarded for their efforts with a piece of candy. Questionnaires in three languages were distributed: Czech, German and English. The questionnaire contained a total of 39 questions, out of which 12 were utilized during analysis in this research. The remaining questions were utilized for commercial and informative purposes for festival organizers and sponsors. The questionnaire was divided into three main parts: 1.demographics and participant information; background variables; 2.brand recall and brand recognition; 3.questions about brand attitude, congruence, persuasion knowledge and ubiquity.
The main concepts were measured with one-item scales in order to prevent survey fatigue and receive completed questionnaires. One-item scales are reliable measures that adequately replace multiple question items, and reduce the burden of respondents to answer many questions (Davey, Barratt, Butow & Deeks, 2007; Nagy, 2002). To facilitate analysis, all variables were measured on 7-point Likert scales with answer categories from 1 – strongly disagree, to 7 strongly agree. Brand event congruence was measured with the question: “the image of festival and the brand fit well together.” In the context of this research, brand recall was tested with an unaided recall test, asking participants to write down any festival sponsors
they remembered being exposed to from the previous night. Subsequently, brand recognition was measured with an aided recall test on the following page, in which participants were asked to identify the correct sponsors out of a set of 25 brands from different industries, including real and ‘dummy’ sponsors. If a participant either remembered the brand with the brand recall test, or recognized it correctly in the brand recognition test, the answer was coded with a 1. Contrary, if the participant did not recall or recognize the brand, the answer was coded with a 0. Brand attitude was measured with the question “overall, I view the brand in a positive way.” The concept persuasion knowledge was measured by indicating the level of agreement to the question “sponsorship is manipulative,” and lastly, sponsorship ubiquity was measured with the question item: “I feel the brand sponsors too many events.”
Results
The majority of approached festival attendants were willing to participate in the research. 207 respondents with an age span of 16-38, with a mean age of 22,98 (M=22,98,
SD=3.84) filled in the survey. 12 surveys were excluded due to missing data attributed to
survey fatigue. On average, participants have visited LIR two times prior to the 2014 summer edition and visited the festival with 14 people on average. 144 respondents (69,6%) were male, and 63 respondents (20,4%) were female. Participants hailed from 15 different countries. 30% of respondents were Czech, 27,1% were German, and 21,3% from Austria. Other nationalities included, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Great Britain, Belgium, Slovakia, Serbia, France, Macedonia, Italy, Canada, and the Philippines. The high number of German and Austrian respondents is explained by the geographical proximity of the countries to the Czech Republic. Overall, the sample accurately reflects the international festival crowd. Even the gender distribution seems plausible, as the music genre Drum and Bass is to a great extent domain dominated by men. Czech people travelled on average 180km to the festival, while foreigners had to undertake a longer journey of 661,48km on average.
In order to control for alternative explanations, a bivariate correlation analysis with the demographic variables age, gender, nationality, and the dependent variables has been conducted. Overall, gender did not correlate significantly with any of the variables and hence it can be excluded as an alternative explanation for the effects. Age significantly and
negatively correlated with brand attitude (r= -.206, p= .003) of the brand Benson & Hedges. Consequently, the older you are, the lower is the brand attitude and perceived congruence of the brand. Younger participants thus find it appropriate that a cigarette brand sponsors a festival, and the more you grow up, the promotion of a smoking becomes inacceptable. Nationality significantly correlated with the recognition (r= -.282, p= .000) of Budejovicky
Budvar. This is easily attributed to the fact that since it is a Czech brand, 71% of Czechs
(M=.71) have recognized the brand as a sponsor compared to only 34 % of Germans (M=.34) for instance. Nationality correlated with brand attitude of Benson & Hedges (r= .226,
p= .001).
Before delving into the results section of hypothesis one, the following table I gives an overview of the descriptive statistics for brand recall and recognition, independent of effect of congruence. Both variables were of binary nature, if they correctly remembered the brand, their answer was coded with a 1, if they failed to recall it, their answer was coded as 0. A perfect recall / recognition would thus lead to a mean of 1, and no recall / recognition at all would be indicated by a mean closer to 0.
Table I: Descriptive Statistics – Brand Memory
Brand Recall Brand Recognition__________
M SD M SD
Finlandia 0.4 0.49 0.72 0.48
Red Bull 0.44 0.5 0.79 0.41 Budejovicky Budvar 0.16 0.37 0.45 0.51 Benson & Hedges 0.09 0.28 0.42 0.67
To test hypothesis 1, a logistic regression was conducted for each of the four brands, firstly testing brand recall, then brand recognition. A test of the full model against a constant only model was statistically significant for Finlandia, (chi square = 4.649, p = .031, df = 1). Nagelkerke’s R of .031 indicates a very weak relationship between the prediction and grouping. The p-value for Red Bull is not significant (p=.301), so that the model can be rejected. The model for Budejovicky Budwar is significant (chi square = 6.811, p = .009, df = 1), with Nagelkerke’s R of .055 showing a very weak relationship. Lastly, the model for
Benson & Hedges can be rejected due to a non-significant model (p=.583). For recall, two out
of four brands score a significant model, yet their explanatory is very low, explaining 3,1% and 5.5% of variance in their consecutive models. In two cases, a congruent brand was thus more likely to be recalled compared to an incongruent brand. Secondly, a logistic regression analysis to predict brand recognition by congruence being the independent variable was conducted for each brand. None of the models for the four brands revealed a p-value below the crucial .05 significance level. In sum, only two out of eight brand memory models (recall:
Finlandia, recall: Budejovicky Budvar) were significant. In any case, the ones that were
significant had only little explanatory power. Regardless, hypothesis 1 is therefore partially supported.
Hypothesis 2 presumed that congruence would positively affect brand attitude. For each brand, this hypothesis was tested with a simple regression, with brand attitude serving as the dependent variable and congruence as the independent variable. The model for each brand was significant. The regression model for Finlandia R2=.24, F(1, 200)= 63.166,
p< .000, with 23,6% of variance in brand attitude is explained by congruence. Moreover,
there is a moderate association between congruence and brand attitude, b*= 0.490, t=7.948,
p=0.000, 95% CI [0.37, 0.61]. With Red Bull, the significant model R2=.22, F(1, 203)= 57.270, p < .000 explained about 21,6% in variance, b*= 0.469, t=7.568, p=0.000, 95% CI
[0.37, 0.6]. Just like with Finlandia, there is moderately strong relationship between the variables. The significant model of Budejovicky Budvar, R2=.19, F(1, 202)= 49.472, p< .000, explains 19,3% of variance in the dependent variable, b*= 0.444, t=7.034, p<0.000, 95% CI [0.3, 0.53]. Lastly, compared to the previous brands, the regression model for Benson &
Hedges, R2=.12, F(1, 202)= 27.855, p < .000, explained the least variance in the dependent variable with only 11,7% of variance is accounted for by congruence, b*= 0.348, t=2.187,
p=0.029, 95% CI [0.02, 0.4]. The findings are summarized in table II. Altogether, the
prediction of hypothesis 2 has been confirmed with all four brands. In each case, the data were a good fit to the model. Thus predictions about how favorably a brand will be perceived based on brand event congruence can be made. In general, the more congruent a brand is perceived, the more favorably it is evaluated in terms of brand attitude.
Table II: Regression – Congruence & Brand 1 / Brand 2 / Brand 3 / Brand 4 Finlandia Red Bull B. Budvar Benson & Hedges Constant 2.309*** 2.577*** 2.447*** 2.264*** Congruence b 0.487*** 0.494*** 0.417*** 0.326*** Congruence b* 0.490*** 0.469*** 0.444*** 0.348*** R2 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.12 F 63.17*** 57.27*** 49.47*** 27.86*** Note: N = 204, *** = p <.001
The concept persuasion knowledge is assumed to moderate this relationship negatively as presumed by hypothesis 3. A multiple regression model was tested to investigate, whether the level of one’s persuasion knowledge moderates the association of congruence and brand attitudes. To conduct a moderator analysis, the variables persuasion knowledge and congruence were standardized into z-scores. This was achieved with the “save standardized values as variables” option of SPSS. The interaction effect was then measured by a newly computed variable, which was created by multiplying the standardized moderator “persuasion knowledge” with the standardized independent variable congruence.
variables was tested. The first model for the brand Finlandia is significant, R2=.23, F (3, 198) = 21.45, p < .001 and can therefore be used to predict brand attitude. Although the strength of the prediction is weak, as only 23% of the variance in the dependent variable can be explained by the model. Neither the moderator, nor the variable itself revealed a
significant contribution to the model. Only congruence significantly contributed to the prediction. Per unit increase in congruence, brand attitude increased on average by 0.49. The regression model for Red Bull revealed a similar scenario, as the model was significant, R2 =.21, F (3, 201) = 19.16, p < .001, with a weak explanatory power of the model. Other than the main independent variable congruence, the moderator and persuasion knowledge failed to significantly contribute to the model. The regression model of Budejovicky Budvar was also significant, R2=.21, F (3, 200) = 18.98, p < .001, with 21% of variance explained, but differed somewhat form the models of the previous brands. The interaction effect of the moderator did not significantly contribute to the model, but persuasion knowledge itself had a direct effect on the dependent variable. In this model, the variable can thus be regarded as a direct predictor of brand attitude. For every unit increase in persuasion knowledge, brand attitude decreased by 0.13 point on the 7 point Likert scale. The findings of the regression model for Budejovicky Budvar are summarized in table 3 and 4.
Table III: ANOVA – Regression Model for Budejovicky Budvar
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig
.
Regression 126.86 3 42.29 18.98 .000b Residual 445.55 200 2.23
Total 572.41 203
(a) Dependent variable: Brand Attitude
(b) Predictors: I. Congruence, II. Persuasion Knowledge, Interaction Effect I & II
Table IV: Coefficients Regression Model – Budejovicky Budvar
b b* t Sig
.
Constant 2.99 7.84 .00
Congruence 0.43 0.46 7.34 .00 Interaction Effect -0.13 -0.08 -1.31 .19 Persuasion Knowledge -0.13 -0.15 -2.31 .02
Likewise, the data were a good fit for the regression model of brand four, Benson &
Hedges. The model was significant, R2=.14, F (3, 200) = 12.31, p < .001, but explained only 14,3% of the variance in the dependent variable. Similarly as with the regression model of
Budejovicky Budvar, the interaction effect of the moderator persuasion knowledge is
insignificant, but the variable has a direct effect on the dependent variable b*= -0.187, t=-2.854, p=0.05, 95% CI [-0.3, -0.1]. Since the variable persuasion knowledge did not significantly moderate the effect of the main relationship between congruence and brand attitude as assumed, hypothesis 3 is fully rejected.
The fourth hypothesis infers, that a brand’s ubiquity, the multitude of events it sponsors, positively moderates brand recall and brand recognition. To test this hypothesis, a moderation analysis using logistic regression was conducted for each brand, separately for both dependent measures brand recall and recognition. Finlandia (p=.068), Red Bull (p=.574), and Benson & Hedges (p=.292) revealed insignificant models. The moderation analysis for Budvejovicky Budvar scored a significant model (chi square = 8.35, p = .039), whilst only explaining 4,5% of the brand being recalled or not (Pseudo R2= .05). Regardless, neither of the variables had a significant contribution to the model. As for the dependent variable brand recognition, the models of Finlandia (p=.736), Red Bull (p=.535), and Benson
& Hedges (p=.304) were insignificant. Again, only Budvejovicky Budvar revealed a
significant model, (chi square = 8.20, p = .042), explaining about 2,9% of variance within the dependent variable (Pseudo R2= .03). But none of the predictors contributed significantly to the explanatory power of the model. Only brand three, Budvejovicky Budvar revealed significant models for both brand recall and recognition analyses. The strength of their prediction was close to zero, and none of the predictors were significant predictors. Consequently, hypothesis 4 was rejected.
The last hypothesis inferred that a multitude of sponsorship efforts negatively moderate the relationship of congruence on brand attitudes. With Finlandia, the model is significant, R2=.29, F (3, 198) = 27.92, p < .001, but the strength of the prediction is moderate, explaining 29% of variance in brand attitude. Congruence, b*= 0.470, t=7.81,
p<.001, 95% CI [0.35, 0.59], and ubiquity, b*= 0.24, t=4, p<.001, 95% CI [0.11, 0.32],
significantly contributed to the model, while the interaction effect of the moderator was insignificant (p=.916). Ubiquity thus directly impacted brand attitude, for every unit increase in ubiquity, attitude rose by 0.21 points on average. Red Bull’s model was also significant, R2 =.27, F (3, 201) = 20.81, p < .001, while 23% of brand attitude is accounted for by the model. Congruence, b*= 0.48, t=7.73, p<.001, 95% CI [0.38, 0.63], and the moderator b*= -0.13,
t=7.81, p<=.037, 95% CI [-0.38, -0.01], were significant contributors to the model, while
ubiquity as a direct predictor did not play a significant role (p=.825). The negative
association between the moderator and the dependent variable indicates that ubiquity had a negative impact on the relationship of congruence on brand attitude. By an increase of congruence of 1 point, ubiquity diminished the effect on brand attitude by 0.2 points. Likewise, the model for Budejovicky Budvar is significant, R2= .19, F (3, 200) = 16.56, p < .001, compared to the previous two brands, the model explains less variance, as the model accounts for only 18,7% of variance in the dependent variable. Here, neither the moderator (p=.465), nor ubiquity (p=.893) contributed to the model. Merely congruence, added to the prediction, b*= -0.44, t=6.97, p = .037, 95% CI [0.3, 0.53]. Finally, the model of Benson &
Hedges was also significant, R2= .14, F (3, 200) = 11.67, p < .001, with an explanatory power of 13,6%. The moderator had no significant contribution (p=.271), yet ubiquity had a direct influence on the dependent variable b*= 0.16, t=2.38, p = .018, 95% CI [0.03, 0.3]. When ubiquity increases by one unit, brand attitude is predicted to rise by 0.16 points. To sum up, the models of all four brands were significant, but the strength of the prediction was
weak in all four cases with a maximum of 29% of variance explained by the model. Only in one out of four cases did the moderator contribute significantly, so that hypothesis four is partially supported. Yet in two out of four cases, ubiquity directly impacted brand attitude, once negatively, once positively.
Discussion & Conclusion
The festival industry is rapidly expanding and so the need of understanding the mutually beneficial sponsorship relationship, how image transfer occurs and what factors play a role is increasing. The findings of this study supports imply, that the positive fit between a brand and a festival is vital element for fostering a positive brand attitude. A congruent brand though, was not likelier to be remembered or recognized as the sponsor than an incongruent brand. The ubiquity of a brand did not impact the effect of congruence on recall and recognition, nor did it negatively impact brand attitudes. Likewise, and contrary to expectations, the extent to which a person was aware of the sponsor’s commercial motivation by sponsorship, did not moderate the effect of congruence on brand attitudes significantly.
Previous research raised conflicting suggestions as to what would spur brand
awareness, a congruent or incongruent brand event match. An incongruent match for instance might be more likely to be remembered than an incongruent match, as the incongruence yields a greater number of inferences, which in return facilitates brand recall, based on the distinctive and salient schema (Rifon et al., 2004). But the findings of this research did not find support for this notion, as there was no difference in the effect of a congruent and incongruent match on brand recall.
Although the results of testing the effect of congruence on brand memory were dispensable, a look at the descriptive statistics without taking congruence into account suggests that the brands were remembered and recognized after all. Brand recall results of
the participants. As one would expect recognition scores were even higher for all four brands, given the fact that the survey gave respondents a cue, and they merely had to identify the correct sponsors. Budejovicky Budvar and Benson & Hedges had the lowest recall and recognition scores. Potentially, the degree of visibility in association with the festival might have contributed to the fact that Red Bull and Finlandia were remembered more than Benson
& Hedges, and Budejovicky Budvar. Red Bull and Finlandia were the two main sponsors.
Since the brand name was featured in the name of two music stages (Finlandia Factory Stage, Red Bull Tour Bus), the brands’ visibility was enhanced. By this paradigm, the greater the sponsorship budget, the higher the visibility, and hence the higher the recall – a hypothesis that has to be scrutinized by future research. Lastly, on festival grounds, attendants are
exposed to a large number of stimuli, amongst others music and social interaction. In addition to that, Oakes (2003) notes that data collection on festivals with numerous sponsors is
complex, and thus the high number of sponsors might impact brand memory negatively. Since sponsorship is not the primary focus of attendants, it might easily go under in the multitude of stimuli. In addition to that, alcohol in-take is omnipresent on occasions such as music festivals, which causes further cognitive distortion and lowers the information
absorbing capacity. Future research must evaluate what decisive factors come in to play, in order improve memorability and retention of a sponsorship, because a recalled association of brand and event correlates strongly with marketing communications success (Keller, 1998).
However, the findings did find empirical support for the notion that a positive match of the sponsor and festival image can enhance the evaluation of a sponsor. Herewith, the schema congruity framework can be extended to the realm of music festivals. People strive for congruent schemas that align with their established worldview and do not want make the extra mental effort to resolve incongruent schemas (Woisetschläger & Michaelis, 2012). This
study thus also supports the notion by Rifon et al. (2004), suggesting that congruence indeed facilitates information processing, image transfer and consequently benefits brand affect. In effect this means that brands should conduct preliminary research on whether the target audience evaluates the fit of brand and event positively. Along these lines, a brand whose image is not entirely incongruent to that of a festival can use sponsorship to further refine its image of a young, cool brand. On the other hand, despite the fact that an incongruent brand might initially be evaluated less positively, it might overcome the incongruence by repeatedly sponsoring the same event. In a second year of consecutive festival sponsorship, a
sponsorship relationship might have already grown on attendants who have visited the previous year and the incongruence might be diminished, as brand and event image are not static, but subject to change (Woisetschläger & Michaelis, 2012).
The number of festivals is growing continuously; each has its distinctive image. Congruence thus might also depend on the festival, its personality, and the target audience. The context of this study was an electronic music festival. A rock festival attracts a different crowd with distinct preferences, and so what might work at Let it Roll festival might not apply to a rock festival. Moreover, the products of all four brands were available for purchase as the festival. By sponsoring the festival, the brands also earned the exclusive right to be the sole available brand available for purchase in its consecutive product category. Since
attendants were left with no alternative option but to purchase the sponsoring brand, personal taste and product attitude might have been additional factors in brand evaluation. People might be used to the brands of previous years and dislike the fact that they are stuck with one option that cannot be avoided.
Persuasion knowledge did not affect brand affect negatively as expected. Either the respondents of this study did not acknowledge sponsorship as an advertisement tool, or they were simply aware of its persuasive intent, but it did not alter their brand perception. The
manipulative attempt behind marketing might be an issue when it comes to advertisement, but not with sponsorship. Advertisement is more straightforward, whereas sponsorship is subtler, a distinctive key criterion. Another possibility is that consumers have simply gotten used to the fact that brands are everywhere and are not bothered by being targeted by sponsorship. In fact, a lot of times sponsorship is beneficial for respondents: Finlandia for instance was giving out free trial drinks of their newest products at Let it Roll. Besides, younger generations have been increasingly coined by the term brand blindness. By being exposed to thousands of advertisements and brand logos daily, youngsters have been numbed down by constant ad penetration, which leads to an increased tendency of ignoring corporate messages (Klein, 2010). Especially on a music festival, an occasion of leisure, brand
blindness might set in, since attendants do not want to be bothered by brands and the corporate world.
Even though it might seem obvious that if a brand sponsors more events, it is more likely to be remembered – the ubiquity of a brand did not help it being recalled or recognized. It did not even have an effect with brands such as Budejovicky Budvar or Red Bull, who invest heavily in sponsorship and are thus a prominent encounter on events in the Czech Republic. The increased visibility of brands did not lead to higher brand name retention, yet in one out of four cases ubiquity negatively moderated the relationship between congruence and brand attitude. This was the case for Red Bull, who is a major sponsor of youth events of all sorts. If a brand adds too many events to its sponsorship portfolio, it runs the risk of over exploiting the effect and diminishing the effect of all sponsorships within the portfolio (Speed & Thompson, 2000). On the contrary, ubiquity had a direct effect on brand attitudes in two cases, yet both times the effect had contradictory directions: once positively and once
a broad construct dependent on numerous properties and so continued exploration of the concept would hence be worthwhile.
Limitations
Using real sponsors and collecting data on the campsite contributed to the external validity of the study. Yet, this study was of exploratory nature and has a number of shortcomings. Although the sample was substantial, generalizability of the findings onto other festivals is limited. The scope of this research reflects the case of one festival, with a unique image and specific target audience. Moreover, Budejovicky Budvar was the only Czech sponsoring brand of the festival. The internationally heterogeneous crowd might evaluate the brand differently, than a homogenous, entirely Czech sample, which might have previously been exposed to the brand through national advertisement.
Future Research
The directions which future research can take in music festival research are multifold. In essence, a great majority of other research models that have been previously applied to sports or cultural events sponsorship could be tested in the context of music festivals.
A larger longitudinal study of multiple festivals, with same subjects per festival, measuring brand attitude a T1 before the festival, and T2 immediately after, would result in a
more accurate measure of brand attitude change. Following this procedure, an increase in brand attitude could be clearly attributed to the exposure to the brand on the festival grounds and a comparison of brands on different festivals could be made.
In addition to that, it would be worthwhile pursuing the question how positive brand attitudes transform into real purchase behavior. The primary goal of sponsorship is to build the image of a brand. But in the long run, a brand can only survive, if the brand image is sufficiently appealing to people, so they actually purchase its’ product or service. In order to
receive more rich, in-depth data, multi-item measures for separate variables would be worthwhile exploring, yet compensation for the extra effort would most likely be required.
Brand experience is a growing trend on music festivals. Phone manufacturers can provide attendants with the opportunity to charge their phones, camping equipment
manufacturers could showcase their newest advancements on the spot, and car manufacturers could offer the opportunity to test their newest model. Future research could evaluate,
whether this form of marketing is fruitful. As leading communication figures suggest, the future of successful sponsorship encompasses “brand experience, engagement, and involvement, rather than mere exposure” (Meenaghan & O'Sullivan, 2013, p.413).
References
Boerman, S., van Reijmersdal, E., & Neijens, P. (2012). Sponsorship disclosure: effects of duration on persuasion knowledge and brand responses. Journal of Communication,
62, 1047–1064.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press. Cliffe, S., & Motion, J. (2005). Building contemporary brands: a sponsorship-based strategy.
Journal of Business Research, 58, 1068–1077.
Chien, P. M., Cornwell, T. B. & Pappu, R. (2011). Sponsorship portfolio as a brand- image creation strategy. Journal of Business Research, 64(2), 142-149.
Choi, J., Tsuji, Y., Hutchinson, M., & Bouchet, A. (2011). An investigation of sponsorship implications within a state sports festival: the case of the florida sunshine state games.
International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 12(2), 108-123.
Cornwell, T., & Coote, L. (2005). Corporate sponsorship of a cause: the role of identification in purchase intent. Journal of Business Research, 58, 268–276.
Cornwell, T., & Humphreys, M. (2013). Memory for sponsorship relationships: A critical juncture in thinking. Psychology and Marketing, 30(5), 394–407.
Cornwell, T., & Maignan, I. (1998). An international review of sponsorship research. Journal
of Advertising, 27(1), 1-21.
Davey, H., Barratt, A., Butow, P., & Deeks, J. (2007). A one-item question with a likert or visual analog scale adequately measured current anxiety. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology, 60(4), 356–360.
Exit festival. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.exitfest.org/en
Fleck, N., & Quester , P. (2007). Birds of a feather flock together . . . definition, role and measure of congruence: an application to sponsorship. Psychology & Marketing, 24(11), 975-1000.
Gwinner, K. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship. International Marketing Review, 14(3), 145-158.
Hakala, U., Svensson, J., & Vincze, Z. (2012). Consumer-based brand
equity and top-of-mind awareness: a cross-country analysis. Journal of Product &
IEG. (2013). 2013 sponsorship outlook: Spending increase is
double-edged sword. Retrieved from
http://www.sponsorship.com/iegsr/2013/01/07/2013-Sponsorship-Outlook--Spending-Increase-Is-Dou.aspx
Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing. 57(1). 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (1998). Strategic brand mangement. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Klein, N. (2000). No logo. (10 ed.). London: Fourth Estate.
Lee, M. S., Sandler, D. M. and Shani, D. (1997), “Attitudinal constructs towards sponsorship: scale development using three global sporting events”, International Marketing Review,
14(3), 159-69.
Lee, J. G. & Thorson, E. (2008). The impact of celebrity-product incongruence on the effect tiveness of product endorsement. Journal Of Advertising Research, 48(3), 433-449. Mandler, G. (1982) Accounting for taste. In Affect and Cognition: The Seventeenth Annual
Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, Margaret S, Clark and Susan T. Fisk, eds.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meenaghan , T. (1983). Commercial sponsorship. European Journal of Marketing, 17, 5-69. Mazodier, M. & Merunka, D. (2012). Achieving brand loyalty through sponsorship: the role
of fit and self-congruity. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 40(6), 807-820. Meenaghan, T. (2001). Understanding sponsorship effects. Psychology and Marketing, 18(2),
95-122.
Meenaghan, T., & O'Sullivan, P. (2013). Metrics in sponsorship research—is credibility an issue?. Psychology and Marketing, 30(5), 408–416.
Meenaghan, T., & Shipley, D. (1999). Media effect in commercial sponsorship. European
Journal of Marketing, 33(3/4), 328-347.
Nagy, M. (2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 77–86.
Oakes, S. (2003). Demographic and sponsorship considerations for jazz and classical musicfestivals. The Service Industries Journal, 23(3), 165-78.
Olson, E. (2010). Does sponsorship work in the same way in different sponsorship contexts?.
European Journal of Marketing, 40(1/2), 180-199.
Peracchio, L., & Tybout, A. (1996). The moderating role of prior knowledge in schema-based product evaluation. Journal Of Consumer Research, 23(3), 177-192.
Rifon, N., Choi, S., Trimble, C., & Li, H. (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship: The mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive.
Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 29-42.
Rowley, J., & Williams, C. (2008). The impact of brand sponsorship of music festivals.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 26(7), 781-792.
Roy, D., & Cornwell, T. (2003). Brand equity’s influence on responses to event sponsorships.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 12(6), 377-393.
Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response. Journal of
the academy of marketing science, 28(2), 226-238.
Uhrich, S., Koenigstorfer, J., & Groeppel-Klein , A. (2014).
Leveraging sponsorship with corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business
Research , 67, 2023–2029.
van Reijmersdal, E., Neijens, P., & Smit, E. (2007). Effects of television brand placement on brand image. Psychology & Marketing, 24(5), 403–420.
V festival. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.vfestival.com
669–682.
Wansink, B., & Ray, M. (1996). Advertising strategies to increase usage frequency. Journal
of Marketing, 60(1), 31-46.
Woisetschläger, D., & Michaelis, M. (2012). Sponsorship congruence and brand image a pre-post event analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 46(3/4), 509-523.
Appendix I. Questionnaire distributed to participants:
Dear participant,
In the context of my Master thesis, I am conducting research about corporate festival sponsorship. I would kindly like to ask you to help me by filling out this questionnaire. Filling it out will take you approximately 5 minutes.
1. Your anonymity is guaranteed
2. You are free to quit this questionnaire at any give time 3. Participating involves no risk
4. There are no misleading questions
In case you are interested in the results of this research, leave me your email address, I will send it over once I am done with this project.
IMPORTANT: Please do not discuss your answers with your friends or people around you – I am interested in YOUR opinion !!!
I understand the above text and approve in participating in this research: ☐ yes, I approve ☐ no, I do not approve
1. How old are you? ______________
2. Are you: ☐ Male ☐ Female
3. What is your nationality: ______________________________________________ 4. How many km have you approx. travelled to LIR: ___________________________ 5. How many times have you been to LIR (summer or winter): __________________ 6. How many people are you visiting LIR with: _______________________________
7. Do you remember any sponsoring companies and brands you saw at the festival site? If so please list as many as you can remember:
Note: The following question 8 was on a separate page 8. Circle which companies you think are sponsoring Let it Roll:
T-Mobile Radio 1 Heineken Google Ticket Portal
GE Desperados Ceska Sporitelna Lucky Strike Budějovický Budvar Coca Cola Staropramen Mercedes Red Bull Skoda
CSA Ray Ben Finlandia Marlboro Absolut Vodka Nescafe Rolex Nike Benson & Hedges Samsung Note: The following information about sponsors was on a separate page The official sponsors are: Finlandia, Red Bull, Budějovický Budvar, Benson & Hedges
9. Sponsorship is manipulative (1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree):
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Question 10 I feel the brand sponsors too many events
Finlandia 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Red Bull 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Budějovický Budvar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Benson & Hedges 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
Question 11 The sponsor and LIR fit well together
Finlandia 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Red Bull 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Budějovický Budvar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Benson & Hedges 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(1=strongly disagree / 7= strongly agree)
Question 25 Overall, I view the brand in a positive way
Finlandia 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Red Bull 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Budějovický Budvar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Benson & Hedges 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
