Sponsor knowledge and credibility:
Gratification for awareness
~An empirical investigation about the influence of sponsorship awareness on
sponsor credibility and knowledge in the Netherlands ~
Master Thesis, MScBa, specialization Marketing Management Universtiy of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Sponsor knowledge and credibility:
Gratification for awareness
~ An empirical investigation about the influence of sponsorship awareness on sponsor credibility and knowledge in the Netherlands ~
Groningen, August 21th 2012 Master Thesis
Master of Business Administration Marketing Management
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Business University of Groningen The Netherlands Gerbrich Lemstra C H Petersstraat 37A 9714 CH Groningen The Netherlands Telephone: +31 628642606 E-mail: g.g.lemstra@gmail.com Student number: 1610147 Supervision:
First supervisor: Drs. J. (Hans) Berger
PREFACE
With writing this master thesis, I finalize my study MBA- Marketing Management at the University of Groningen. First of all I would like to thank Merel Walraven and the Rabobank for giving me the opportunity to use the dataset of the ‘communicatimonitor’ of the
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
This study focuses on the influence of sponsorship awareness on the intensity of sponsor knowledge and sponsor credibility. Thereby, the moderating effects of perceived fit and sponsor object participation are tested. Sponsor knowledge is the ability of consumers to recognize, recall and form images about a sponsor and is a key factor in creating sponsor equity. Sponsor credibility is the extent to which a sponsor is observed as being trustable and believable. These two variables are necessary to distinguish the company from its
competitors.
Outcomes of this research suggest that sponsorship awareness improves sponsor knowledge (H1). Sponsorship awareness improves the familiarity with the sponsor. The more people are familiar with the sponsorship, the more they know about the sponsor and its reputation. Results do however not suggest that there is a difference in the degree of sponsor credibility when consumers are aware of the sponsorship or if they are not aware (H2). A positive fit between sponsor and sponsor object could improve a sponsor’s image. Perceived fit in sponsoring refers to the relevance, relatedness, compatibility or fitness between two authorities. Results point out that perceived fit also moderates the relationship between sponsorship awareness and sponsor image. When consumers are aware of the sponsorship and they also perceive a fit, the degree of sponsor image is higher than if there is no fit perceived. A fit between the sponsor and sponsor object has however no effect on the relationship between sponsorship awareness and other sponsor elements tested in this report(recall, recognition and credibility) (H3a/H3b)
Participation in an event mostly means that the person find details personally relevant or important and these individuals spent considerably more attention to the content. Results indicate that participation moderates the relation between sponsorship awareness and sponsor recognition. So when consumers participate in cycling and they are aware of the sponsorship, this improves the degree of sponsor recognition (H4a and H4b).
To test the hypotheses of this report, data is used from the communication monitor of the Rabobank. Consumers are asked about their knowledge and opinions concerning
Rabobank’s sponsorships. Rabobank sponsors both local as national events, as well as
professional and recreation sports. A total of 23.205 male and female individuals with mostly the Dutch nationality participated in this survey from 2007 till 2009.
sponsor knowledge, this research tested the effect on all elements. (2) The effect of
sponsorship awareness on sponsor credibility is not previously tested in a sport area context. This research tested the effect on sponsorship awareness on sponsor credibility with the use of sport sponsoring data. (3) The variable ‘participation’ explains a relationship between an individual and an object. It is not earlier investigated in which way this variable influences sponsor outcomes. (4) Perceived fit can reinforce the firms’ position in the market and improves memory (Simmons and Becker-Olson 2006, Cornwell et al 2006), but it is not known if it has a moderating effect too. This research tests this moderating effect. (5) Some authors mentioned that ‘exposure’ is necessary for consumers to form an opinion about a sponsor. If consumers have not the ability and opportunity to see a communication
expression, they cannot react (Hoyer and MacInnis 2008). This is the reason that the variable ‘sponsorship awareness’ is included in this study. How does this variable influence sponsor knowledge and sponsor credibility?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ... 8
1.1 Context and contribution ... 8
1.2 Relevant variables and problem statement ... 10
1.3 Thesis structure ... 11
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK... 12
2.1 The concept of sponsor knowledge ... 12
2.1.1. Sponsor knowledge ... 12
2.1.2. Sponsor recall and recognition ... 13
2.1.3. Sponsor image ... 13
2.2 The concept of sponsor credibility... 14
2.2.1 Elements of sponsor credibility ... 15
2.3 Awareness of the sponsorship ... 16
2.3.1 Influence of awareness of the sponsorship on sponsor knowledge and sponsor credibility ... 16
2.4 Perceived fit ... 17
2.4.1 Perceived fit in sponsorships ... 18
2.4.2 Overcoming the illogical fit ... 18
2.4.3 Moderating effect of perceived fit ... 18
2.5 Sponsor object participation ... 20
2.5.1 Relationship consumer-stimulus; several degrees ... 20
2.5.2 Participation in sponsorships ... 21
2.5.3 Moderating effect of sponsor object participation ... 21
4. RESULTS ... 26
4.1 Demographics ... 26
4.2 Reliability multi-item scales ... 27
4.3 Multicollinearity ... 27
4.4 Variables which explain the dependent variables ... 27
4.5 Variables to test the hypotheses ... 28
4.6 Sponsor knowledge ... 28 4.6.1 Sponsor recall... 28 4.6.2 Sponsor recognition ... 29 4.6.3 Sponsor image ... 30 4.6.4 Hypotheses 1, 3a and 4a ... 31 4.7 Sponsor credibility ... 31 4.8 Summary results ... 34
5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ... 35
5.1 Summary ... 35
5.2 Scientific and practical implications ... 35
5.3 Limitations of research and recommendations ... 37
5.4 Conclusion ... 38
REFERENCES ... 40
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONS RABOBANK DATABASE ... 46
APPENDIX B: RELIABILITY CHECK ... 48
APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHICS ... 49
APPENDIX D: CORRELATIONS ... 52
APPENDIX F: OUTCOMES HYPOTHESES SPONSOR KNOWLEDGE FOR HOCKEY AND HORSE RIDING ... 58
INTRODUCTION
The tail that wags the dog; sponsorships
Sponsorships, which are a complementary part of a company’s marketing communication mix, are extensively used for marketing campaigns during the last years (Cornwell 2008). The worldwide investments in sponsorships grew from $16.6 billion in 1996 to $ 46 billion in 2010 (IEG 2010). In particular, major sporting events became dependent on sponsor
investments (Speed and Thompson 2000). For the Olympic Games in London (summer 2012) is $ 1 billion received from sponsors.
1.1 Context and contribution
As stated before, one of the available marketing tools is sponsoring. Sponsorships differ from advertisements in the way that in sponsorships another party is engaged. Although there are various sponsorship opportunities (e.g. charity sponsoring, science- and education
sponsoring, television sponsoring and culture sponsoring), sport sponsoring is probably the
most widely used method to reach a certain target group (Roy and Cornwell 2004), to
improve a firm’s competitive advantage (Simmons and Becker-Olsen 2006) or to strengthen a company’s equity (Roy 2005).
A first contribution of this research towards the existing literature is the including of the variable sponsor knowledge. Sponsor knowledge, which is the ability of consumers to recognize, recall and form images about a sponsor, is a key factor in creating sponsor equity (Keller 2003). It creates the differential effect that improves a company’s position in the market (Keller 1993). Previous done research showed that sponsorships influence both sponsor image (Cornwell, Roy and Steinard 2001) and the easiness of consumers to recall a sponsor his name (Johar and Pham 1999, Lardinoit and Derbaix 2001). Corporate
sponsorships contribute for example significantly to sponsor awareness (Corwell et al 2006). Next to that, perceived fit between the sponsor and a sponsor object improves a sponsor’s image (Koo, Quarterman and Flynn 2006). As far as known, the influence of sponsorships is only examined for parts of the variable ‘sponsor knowledge’. No one investigated the
influence of sponsorships on all elements of sponsor knowledge simultaneously (e.g. sponsor
recall, sponsor recognition, sponsor image). This is strange since sponsor knowledge is an
Another unique contribution of this study to the academic world is that the influence of sponsorships on sponsor credibility in a sport sponsoring context will be investigated. Sponsor credibility is the degree to which a sponsor is observed as being trustable and believable (Goldsmith et al 2000, Ohanian 1990). In previous done research, the influence of sponsorships on sponsor credibility is not deeply investigated and documented in a sport sponsoring context. Speed and Thompson (2000) investigate the influence of several sponsorship items on sponsorship response, but did not investigate the influence of these items on sponsor factors as sponsor credibility. They suggest that sponsorships could have an influence on sponsor sincerity, but did not investigate this hypothesis yet. Other researchers investigate the influence of perceived fit on sponsor credibility (Wang et al 2011, Lafferty 2007), but this was not in a sport sponsoring context. It is regrettable that the influence of sponsorships is not deeply studied in a sport sponsoring context, because sponsor credibility significantly contributes to the behavior of a company (Keller 2003). Sponsor credibility for example, positively affects a consumer’s willingness to pay premium prices (Keller 1993).
A third contribution is the including of the variable ‘perceived fit’. It is not new that a low perceived fit between sponsor and sponsor object can harm a company (e.g. Simmons and Becker-Olsen 2006, Aaker and Keller 1992). Perceived fit in sponsoring refers to the
relevance, relatedness, compatibility or fitness between two authorities (Rifon et al 2004). As stated, perceived fit can influence sponsor factors as sponsor credibility or image (Cornwell et al 2006), but the moderating effect of perceived fit on sponsorship variables and sponsor outcomes is not previously investigated.
Another academic contribution of this study is the including of the variable
participation. If consumers are highly involved, this increases the accessibility of details in messages and improves the thoughts about the message (Fennis and Stroebe 2010).
Lastly, Speed and Thompson (2000) mentioned that the variable ‘exposure’ is
necessary for consumers to form an opinion about a sponsor. However, if consumers have not the ability and opportunity to see a communication expression, they cannot react (Hoyer and MacInnis 2008). This is the reason that the variable ‘sponsorship awareness’ is included in this study. How does this variable influence sponsor knowledge and sponsor credibility? The managerial contribution of this research is twofold. To improve strategies and decision making of a company, managers need relevant information about opportunities in the market. This research guides managers to integrate and manage the information in complex and turbulent environments as the market for sport sponsorships. In this time with the growing information clutter, is it hard for marketers to reach the target group. Sponsorships are
different than traditional media and can help to influence the audience of a sponsored item (Rifon et al 2004). With this research, information about how to strengthen a company’s position in the market with the aid of sponsorships is provided. Besides, details are given about how to use sponsorships to improve a firm’s equity.
Secondly, although there is some research done in this field, the studies are mostly conducted in the United States. Different norms, values and behaviors, different marketing communication expressions and different sporting events could result in a variety of
outcomes. Therefore, this study will be conducted to investigate if there are differences in the outcomes.
1.2 Relevant variables and problem statement
The paragraph above already described the contribution of this study towards the academic literature and towards managers. To sum up, why study these variables and not others?
(1) To react to a communication message, consumers need some ability and opportunity to form an opinion. Only exposure to a sponsorship is therefore not always sufficient. This is the reason that the variable ‘sponsorship awareness’ is included in this study. How does this variable influence sponsor knowledge and sponsor credibility?
(2) The variable ‘participation’ explains a relationship between an individual and an object. It is not earlier investigated in which way this variable influences sponsor outcomes.
(4) Creating sponsor knowledge is an important factor for a company to gain a competitive advantage (Bharadwaj, Varadarajan and Fahy 1993) and high sponsor credibility improves purchase intentions (Keller 2003). Both variables are important in sponsorships (Keller 1993) but are not deeply investigated in a sport sponsoring context. Combining this leads to the following problem statement:
What is the effect of consumers’ awareness of a sponsorship on the knowledge as well
as the perceived credibility of Dutch consumers towards a particular sponsor?
Next to that,
What is the moderating effect of perceived fit between sponsor and sponsor object on the relationship between ‘awareness of the sponsorship’ and sponsor knowledge and credibility? What is the moderating effect of sponsor
object participation on the relationship between ‘awareness of the sponsorship’ and sponsor knowledge and credibility? (figure 1)
The interaction and direction of these variables will be explained in chapter two.
1.3 Thesis structure
The thesis consists of two parts: a detailed review on the existing literature of the subject and an empirical research about the sponsorship of a particular commercial institution in The Netherlands. The rest of this report is organized as follows: first the theoretical
framework with a discussion about the variables sponsor knowledge, sponsor credibility, awareness, participation and perceived fit will be described. Thereafter, the report presents the research design with the used method, procedure, samples and data collection. After
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 The concept of sponsor knowledge
Branding became a priority for a lot of marketers and valuable insights from academic literature are therefore useful (Keller 2003). Describing a brand can be in terms of name, sign, symbol or design. A brand its function is to identify the goods and services for a seller. It differentiates a brand from its competitors (American Marketing Association 2008). Especially in high competitive markets, there is a need to distinguish brands. This is to improve the sustainable competitive advantage of a brand. In order to gain this advantage, managers have to understand the concepts of brand recall, recognition and image (brand knowledge) (Keller 2003). Brand knowledge is a usable term to explain brands; it is the information people have about a brand. The term sponsor knowledge is very much alike and explains the knowledge consumers have about a particular sponsor of the event/sport. The following paragraphs will explain the concept of sponsor knowledge as displayed in figure 2.
Figure 2: Sponsor knowledge
(Keller 2008)
2.1.1. Sponsor knowledge
Sponsor knowledge is the ability of a person to easily identify and name the sponsor under different conditions and consists of three elements (Keller 2003). Sponsor knowledge is in fact the meaning individuals have about a certain sponsor. This knowledge should link the sponsor to other objects. When Accenture is sponsoring the national golf league in the
Netherlands, this company will link to the higher society. The consumer can have descriptive sponsor related information as the sponsor’s name, or evaluative associations like a
comparison of the sponsor with other competitors (Keller 1993). The soccer league in The Netherlands is called Holland Casino Eredivisie for years now. Holland Casino perfectly
Sponsor knowledge
Sponsor recall Sponsor Sponsor image
succeeds in linking their company towards other entities. At first the company improved consumer recall and recognition, thereafter individuals form an image about the company. Sponsor knowledge is the first step to build equity for the company, which is most important goal of a company. A favourable reaction of a consumer means that a sponsor has a positive customer based brand equity (Keller 1993). It is an extremely important element for a
company to strengthen the company’s character and to improve a firm’s competitive
advantage. So without sponsor knowledge, a firm cannot survive in the market (Keller 1993). The following paragraphs describe the elements of sponsor knowledge.
2.1.2. Sponsor recall and recognition
The degree of sponsor recognition and recall is dependent on the motivation, ability and opportunity of an individual to recognize and recall a sponsor (Hoyer and MacInnis 2008) Is it personally relevant and consistent with the values and needs? Do they have the
knowledge and experience? And do they have time to recognize and recall? Sponsor recall and recognition influence the decision making of an individual (Rong and Sarigöllü 2011). High known sponsors are mostly preferred by consumers above unknown sponsors.
Familiarity is thereby a relevant issue, consumers know what they get if choose for a brand of a known sponsor (Hoyer and Brown 1990). Sponsor recognition is the capacity of individuals to identify the particular sponsor or company. Sponsor recall refers to the ability of
individuals to reproduce earlier presented items. It is the competence to pick up the sponsor name from memory when a certain product.
Sponsor recall and recognition are important for several reasons. Firstly, the sponsor should be part of the consideration set of the consumers if they need something from the certain product category where the sponsor belongs to. The product of the sponsor should be a serious option to purchase (Nedungadi 1990). Besides, when the motivation, ability and opportunity are low, recognizing a brand may be sufficient to buy the brand. No other sponsor associations are necessary for a consumer to purchase a product of the sponsor (Bettman and Park 1980, Hoyer and Brown 1990). Moreover, recall and recognition are prerequisites for sponsor image. They influence namely the creation and strength of sponsor associations which are a part of the sponsor’s image (Keller 1993). Sponsor image is important for the creation of a competitive advantage which will be explained in the next paragraph.
2.1.3. Sponsor image
(Keller 1993). Sponsor-image associations are important factors for sponsor equity. They are meaningful for consumers to make selections of brands (sponsors) and to review the
particular products (Van Osselaer and Janiszewski 2001, Broniarczyk and Alba 1994). Many types of associations exist in literature, for example the distinction between tangible and intangible associations or the difference between attributes and non-attributes. Good or bad contributions towards a sponsors’ customer based equity are however not dependent on the type of association. As long as associations are salient, favorable, relevant and unique,
sponsor associations influence brand equity (Aaker and Keller 1992). Research that is done in the field of brand knowledge resulted in an enormous quantity of data that may become linked to a sponsor as well. Examples are attributes, benefits, thoughts, feelings, attitudes and
experiences (Keller 2003, Keller 2008). All these elements help to form arepresentation of the sponsor in an individual’s memory and affect a consumer’s response to marketing activities of the sponsor (Keller 2003).
2.2 The concept of sponsor credibility
Credibility is the degree to which consumers think that a firm can satisfy their needs and wishes in an honest and reliable way (Keller 2008). Reputation is thereby important, in order to sell product, to shape brand attitudes and influence consumer reactions, firms need to be honest and trustful (Goldsmith, Lafferty and Newell 2000, Newell and Goldsmith 2001). When consumers form judgements about the company or organization behind the sponsoring event or instance, this is called sponsor credibility. Accenture, a consulting firm, withdraws its sponsorship with Tiger Woods after the world became aware of Tiger Woods’ sex-scandal in 2009. According to Accenture, ‘Tiger Woods is not longer the appropriate representative for
our company’. Firms which do not receive positive credibility have trouble to achieve brand
preferences and thereby to increase their turnover (LaBarbera 1982). In order to be credible, the company needs the believability to provide an objective opinion towards all the
stakeholders (Ohanian 1990). Consumers expect that the sponsor has the expertise and knowhow to fulfil consumer needs en that the company makes the right decisions.
2.2.1 Elements of sponsor credibility
Sponsor credibility consists of three elements and relates to the perceived expertise,
trustworthiness and attractiveness of a spokesman, celebrity or individual communicating a message of the brand (Ohanian 1990, Baker and Churchill 1977) (see figure 3). According to Aaker and Keller (1992), expertise is the overall quality, the degree of inferior products and the quality of the production of a particular sponsor. How high is the quality of the brand in comparison with its competitors?
Figure 3: Sponsor credibility
(Keller 2008)
Perceived trustworthiness is the extent to which individuals think the sponsor is trustworthy and concerned about the consumers. Reputation is thereby an important part of the success for a company. Reputations are combinations of a firm’s past actions and future plans based on subjective opinions of individuals (Goldsmith, Lafferty and Newell 2000). An example of perceived reputation is Ahold, which continues in suffering from its accountancy scandal. Although prices of the Dutch supermarket Albert Heijn are almost the same as its competitors, the prices of the supermarket are still perceived as rather expensive. CEO of Albert Heijn (Distrifood 2011) explains this image as follows: “If you see someone who has
troubles with parking, than you think ‘this should be a woman’. If it turns out that the person is a man, you will forgive him directly. When the driver was a woman, than everyone thinks directly ‘you see? Women cannot drive’. The same applies for Albert Heijn. If they raise the price, individuals directly think ‘they are more expensive, they have always been more expensive. Women and Albert Heijn, they both cannot delete their image.” As shown with
Sponsor credibility
Sponsor expertise Sponsor
trustworthiness
Albert Heijn, when a company has bad reputations, this results mostly in a decline in trust and expertise of the company (LaBarbera 1982).
Another element which is occasionally used in to explain the term sponsor credibility, is ‘attractiveness’ (Wang and Yang 2010, Wu and Shaffer 1987, Aaker and Keller 1992, Harmon and Coney 1982). The term is handy when a person is used as information source. The likability of attractive persons is often higher than the likability of unattractive persons (Fennis and Stroebe 2010). Positive attitude changes and improved product evaluations are frequently generated by attractive sales persons (Goldsmith, Lafferty and Newell 2000). For that reason, firms spent a lot of time and resources to select an appropriate person to spread their message. Nespresso uses George Clooney as an endorser for its brand for several years. George Clooney is a credible source to influence individual’s attitudes, purchase intentions and loyalty (Goldsmith, Lafferty and Newell 2000, Chaudhuri and Hoibrook 2001). Using attractiveness as an element in sponsor credibility is however not always useful. When information is not provided by a person, attractiveness cannot be measured (Newell and Goldsmith 2001).
2.3 Awareness of the sponsorship
As stated earlier, sponsorship awareness significantly contributes towards sponsorship response (Speed and Thompson 2000). Awareness of the sponsorship means that consumers realize that a firm is sponsoring a particular object. This sponsorship is a commitment between sponsor and sponsor object (Rifion et al 2004). Some researchers conclude that linking the sponsor is not necessary for sponsorship response, because some kind of awareness might be sufficient (Bornstein 1989). In low-involvement situation, when
consumers do not care which brand they buying, repetition is the key to sponsorship response. Consumers automatically and unconsciously respond to an expression and buy the brand they recognize. Awareness and familiarity are enough to prefer the product above others (Grunert 1996).
2.3.1 Influence of awareness of the sponsorship on sponsor knowledge and sponsor credibility
One of the aims for managers to engage in a sponsorship is that the visitors of the sponsored object are linked with the expressions of the sponsor. Successful sponsorships are mostly linked with high visitor numbers (Crowley 1991, Meenagham 1991). A successful
perceived awareness of the sponsorship improves memory for the sponsor-sponsor object relationship (Rifon et al 2004, Johar and Pham 1999, Cornwell, Pruitt and Van Ness 2001). After seeing the Champions League final, the recognition of the sponsor Heineken is higher for people which watch the final, than the ones which did not. They can also remember the logo of the sponsor and the final score of the game easier, than consumers which did not watch the game. Awareness of a sponsorship is a first step for consumers to form favourable attitudes and increases brand value (Speed and Thompson 2000). The entire set of perceptions consumers hold about the sponsor is affected by the sponsorship (Newell and Goldsmith 2001). However, sponsorships can only be successful if people are aware of the sponsorship. Therefore, the following hypotheses are suggested (figure 4):
H1: Higher awareness of the sponsorship leads to higher sponsor knowledge: H2: Higher awareness of the sponsorship leads to higher sponsor credibility
2.4 Perceived fit
Funeral insurance company Dela was sponsor of the Dutch women volleyball-team in 2009. At first glance this looked like a bad combination. The link between a young, fresh and healthy team and a funeral insurance company is hard to find. However, the cool charisma of the Dutch volleyball team refreshed the boring character of Dela.
necessary condition for achieving sponsorship goals, but it makes it easier to obtain the goals (Cornwell et al. 2006).
2.4.1 Perceived fit in sponsorships
Perceived fit in sponsoring refers to the relevance, relatedness, compatibility or fitness between two authorities on both functional and symbolic characteristics (Rifon et al 2004, Speed and Thompson 2000). A firm creates a link with an event or item, hoping to influence the audience of the sponsor object (Rifon et al 2004). Mostly there is no previous connection between sponsor and sponsor object (Rogers 2003) and similarity, relatedness and consistency between the two authorities helps (Lafferty 2007). Consumers, fans and attendances gather and adapt information which is related towards the sponsor and sponsor object. If the
individuals observe that the instances have the same objectives, values, beliefs and thoughts, a good convention is made. When the perceived fit is high, sponsor and sponsor object help each other (Rifon et al 2004). In return for exposure, “sponsor objects” receive financial support from the sponsor.
2.4.2 Overcoming the illogical fit
Not all sponsorships have a logical fit between sponsor and sponsor object. Not having a logical fit could be negative, but several companies succeed in creating a fit between sponsor and sponsor object. Even if the fit was not logical at first side (Cornwell et al 2006). There is a difference between native fit and created fit (Becker-Olson and Simmons 2002). Native fit is for example Adidas sponsoring the soccer player Arjan Robben. A firm in sportswear is sponsoring a sport player. Essent was sponsoring speed skater Sven Kramer. At first side there was not a very logical relation between the speed skater and the company. Marketing managers came however up with the promotion campaign “Svengery”. Besides ordering a promotion package about Sven for free, new customers received an introduction discount on their gas bill. This introduction discount was dependent on the amount of gold medals this speed skater won at the Olympic games of Vancouver 2010. After this campaign, the fit became logical and was created.
2.4.3 Moderating effect of perceived fit
Obtained knowledge is better stored in an individuals’ brain and therefore it is easier to retrieve this knowledge when someone needs it. A lack of perceived fit decreases the
beneficial attitudes towards the sponsorship and diminishes also brand values (Becker-Olson and Simmons 2002). Mitchell et al (1995) suggest that when ambient factors are judged to be congruent with the retail setting, this has a positive effect on the buying process. An
incongruent fit could have a negative. These arguments prove the direct relationship between perceived fit and different forms of sponsor knowledge (e.g. recall, recognition, image).
Earlier research suggests that fit has not only a direct effect on sponsor equity, it has a moderating effect too. Perceived fit namely moderates the level of response achieved. It moderates the impact of an attitude towards an ad and a pre-existing attitude towards a brand (Speed and Thompson 2000). This means that a fit between a sponsor and sponsored event increases the effect of personal liking, perceived status of the event and attitude towards the sponsor on sponsor outcomes (Speed and Thompson 2000). A fit could however only be perceived if consumers know which sponsor is sponsoring the event or other object.
Consumers have to be aware of the sponsorship before they can form an opinion. Increasing the fit between sponsor and object will increase sponsor equity (like knowledge and
credibility) when they are aware of the sponsorship. For that reason, the following hypotheses are suggested (figure 5):
H3a: Perceived fit between sponsor and sponsor object positively influences the relationship between awareness of the sponsorship and sponsor knowledge
H3b: Perceived fit between sponsor and sponsor object positively influences the relationship between awareness of the sponsorship and sponsor credibility
2.5 Sponsor object participation
Response to sponsorships (e.g. sponsor knowledge/ credibility) is dependent on several issues. Three of those issues are the motivation, ability and opportunity of consumers to respond to the sponsor, as stated earlier. If consumers share information and are involved in the decision making process of a company, this could positively influence the consumer response to stimuli of the company. The relationship between a customer and a stimulus is in literature defined in many forms and degrees. Sponsor participation, as one of them, is the extent to which customers provide and share information, how they make suggestions and in which way they become involved in the process of decision making (Chan, Kin and Lam 2010). Consumer participation is defined as the extent to which consumers participate and interact with the sponsor object. Customers change the dynamics of the market; they play an active role in creating and competing for value (Prahald and Ramaswamy 2000).
2.5.1 Relationship consumer-stimulus; several degrees
An overlook of the existing literature about behaviour resulted in several terms which can be used to explain the relationship between consumers and different stimuli. Table 1 summarizes the most frequently used terms.
Term Definition
Involvement Involvement can be defined as personal relevance, personal importance or the motivation to process information (Hawkins and Hoch 1992).
Commitment Commitment is the perceived psychological bond that consumers have with a social entity (Johnson, Chang and Yang 2010).
Engagement Engagement is a sort of ongoing, emotional, cognitive and behavioural activation state in individuals. It’s a promise or agreement (Kahn 1990)
Participation Participation is the degree to which the consumers is involved in the processes of the manufacturer (Fang 2008)
Activation Consumers are activated if they become engaged in the actual performance of co-producing activities (Etgar 2008)
Loyalty According to Melnyk, van Osselaer and Bijmolt (2009), loyalty is defined as a relationship between an actor and another party. The actor displays behavioural to the entity instead of going towards a competitor.
Retention If consumers maintaining business and sales from a company, this is called retention (Carter 2005)
2.5.2 Participation in sponsorships
The terms involvement, loyalty and engagement are used to explain a strong relationship between the consumer and an object. They play a major role in the process of persuasion (Hawkins and Hoch 1992). Marketers create communications that engages the consumer; they get attention, spend time and become involved with the brand or product (Kim, Haley and Koo 2009). The term participation is used to explain a moderate relationship between an object and an individual. Participation is the degree to which an individual is involved in the process of the stimulus (Fang 2008). Participation occurs for example when an individual watches the Olympic Games on television or when a person practices cycle racing to climb the same mountains as professional cyclists. It is easier for firms to obtain a moderate relationship, than a strong relationship (Keller 2008). Consumer participation creates economic and relational values because people are involved in the company. This leads in turn to customer and employee satisfaction (Chan, Kin and Lam 2010). Participation in a sponsored sport or event is a construct that is responding to the benefits individuals receive directly from the sponsor object (Speed and Thompson 2000). It is for example the good feeling persons have after watching Epke Zonderland his golden medal performance on the Olympic Games 2012.
2.5.3 Moderating effect of sponsor object participation
Participation in an event or sport means mostly that individuals are more involved and consider the object as interesting. Higher perceived relatedness and relevance for an
individual helps them to facilitate a positive connection between the sponsor and the sponsor object in which the consumers participates in (Meenaghan 2001, Simmons and Becker-Olson 2006, Lafferty 2007).It is also likely that these individuals spent considerably more attention to the content and process the details with greater accuracy (Park and Young 1986, Greenwald and Leavitt 1984) and this has a strong impact on the sponsor’s image (D’Astous and Bitz 1995).
Watching an event on television or practicing a sport with a particular sponsor could lead to improved sponsor response (e.g. knowledge, credibility). Sponsors benefit from this ‘gratefulness’ of the consumers if they select events that are well liked by their target market (Crimmins and Horn 1996, Speed and Thompson 2000). Awareness of the sponsorship (which
sponsor is sponsoring the event?) is however a requirement. Sponsor knowledge and
H4a: Sponsor object participation positively influences the relationship between awareness of the sponsorship and sponsor knowledge
H4b: Sponsor object participation positively influences the relationship between awareness of the sponsorship and sponsor credibility
2.6 Conceptual model
Combining the hypotheses lead to the
3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 Method
To test the hypotheses of this report, data is used from the communication monitor of the Rabobank. The Rabobank is the biggest financial service provider in The Netherlands with 141 autonomous cooperation’s and 892 local offices. Each week, 100 consumers and/or owners of middle & small enterprises are asked to take part in an online survey. After
participating, these members are ruled out for two years in order to ensure that people do not participate in the same survey twice. This panel of ‘Noties’ and the reports of ‘TNS Nipo’ investigate for example the brain position, evoked set and value consumers assign to the services of the Rabobank. Consumers are also asked about their knowledge and opinions concerning Rabobank’s sponsorships. Rabobank sponsors both local as national events, as well as professional and recreation sports. The company is for example main sponsor of the Royal Dutch Cycling Union (KNWU) for many years now. They support the professional cyclists, but take also care about recreation cyclists and are involved in local cycling events. For fifteen years, Rabobank is partner of the Royal Dutch Hockey Federation (KNHB). The firm is shirt sponsor of the National team, associates its name to the main league, is
supporting the local clubs and is sponsor of international top events as ‘The Champions Trophy’. In addition, the Rabo Talentplan is created to improve horse riding in the
Netherlands. The company is also sponsoring Jumping Amsterdam, Indoor Brabant and the CHIO in Rotterdam. In this research the success of those different sponsorships are
investigated. A total of 23.205 male and female individuals with mostly the Dutch nationality participated in this survey from 2007 till 2009.
3.2 Measures
Independent variable; the effect of sponsorship awareness is measured by using a
Moderator perceived fit; the effect of perceived fit between sponsor and sponsor object is
measured by using a five point semantic differential scale (totally disagree- totally agree) plus a ‘no idea’ option. Participants are asked if there is a logical connection between the
sponsored property and the Rabobank. Three sponsored property’s are used in this survey namely, sponsor of cycling teams, hockey teams and horse riding teams. Since the aim of the research is to find out the different effects of high and low perceived fit on brand knowledge and brand credibility, questionnaires with the answer ‘no idea’ will be deleted from the dataset. The question is asked for three different sports and for that reason; different tests (per sponsored property) are preformed.
Moderator sponsor object participation; the degree of participation in the sponsor object is
measured by asking respondents if they regularly participate in cycling, hockey and/or horse riding. Besides, the question is asked if they regularly watch cycling, hockey or horse riding on television. A four item scale with answer opportunities, ‘I regularly participate in …’, ‘I watch regularly on television…’, ‘I participate and watch regularly…’ and ‘I do not watch and participate regularly …’, is used to compose the different groups. After recoding, the following groups were composed: (1) no participation, (2) moderating participation, (3) high participation. The question is asked for three different sports and for that reason; different tests (per sponsored property) are preformed.
Dependent variables; sponsor knowledge is measured by using the brand knowledge
construct scale as developed by Keller (1993). Sponsor recall (as part of brand awareness) is measured by a correct identification of the brand in a given product category. Sponsor
recognition is investigated by an appropriate distinction of a brand which is previously seen or heard (Keller 1993). The projective technique ‘sentence completion’ will be used to measure the sponsor associations (Keller 1993). This is a useful tool if consumers are unwilling or unable to speak about their emotions. Bravo, Montaner and Pina (2010) developed a brand image scale especially relevant for corporate brand image in retail banking. Several questions about reliability, security, commitment and promise fulfillment are asked to measure the sponsor associations (1= yes, this is a association’, 0 = this is not a
‘Rabobank-association’). After the reliability check (see paragraph 5.2), 10 items about image compose
the variable ‘sponsor image’ (0= very little positive associations, 10= many positive
associations). Sponsor credibility is measured by using the brand credibility scale of Aaker
‘totally not agree’ towards ‘totally agree’. Perceived trustworthiness of the sponsor is measured on a four item – five points scale. Participants can choose between 5 answer
possibilities, beginning with ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. Because of these different scales, the 7 items are standardized and after the reliability check (paragraph 5.2), a new variable (sponsor credibility) is composed. Appendix A. displays the complete questionnaire. 3.3 Secondary data
Data used in this research is secondary data; this has its advantages and its
disadvantages. At first, the reliability of the dataset is high. This is because of the enormous number of consumers which participate in the survey (23 205). Besides, it saves a lot of time when the data is already collected and processed. Moreover, information is collected from different geographic areas, social classes and generations, which improves the reliability too. However, secondary data is not as controllable as primary data is. Users of secondary data do not know exactly where the data is coming from. Besides, the validity of the questions in this dataset is doubtful, since the aim of the communication monitor is not only to measure sponsorship response but to get an overall image of the quality of the Rabobank. Moreover, for a lot of subjects, only one question is asked. Therefore analyses based on multi-item scales cannot be made.
3.4 Analysis plan
To search the causal connection between the independent variable and the dependent variables, regressions will be used to analyze the influence of the variables. Before using these variables, the internal consistency is checked by computing the Cronbach’s alpha. Sponsor recall and sponsor recognition, as part of the variable ‘sponsor knowledge’, are measured by asking only one item, based on a nominal scale. Therefore it is necessary to run logic regressions to investigate the connection between sponsor recall, recognition, the independent variable and the moderators (de Vocht 2008). The degree of sponsor image (as third term of sponsor knowledge) is investigated by running multiple regressions. The same applies for the variable ‘sponsor credibility’. The influence of the moderators on the
relationship between the independent and the other dependent variables are measured by using a regression and by creating interaction terms. All the data is tested and analyzed with a rejection region of 95% and p-values equal or smaller than 0.05 are considered to be
4. RESULTS 4.1 Demographics
The survey was conducted among 23 205 (9 760 men (a) and 13 445 women (b)) Dutch consumers. The Dutch population consists for 50.5% of women. In this survey, 57.9% of the participants were women (table 2). Participants have different educational levels (WO: 13.1%,
HBO: 35.6%, MBO: 39.1%, LWOO: 6.2%) and in comparison with the Dutch population, the
education level in this survey is higher. More consumers have the education level HBO or WO. The table also shows that half of the participants in the survey are between 18 and 44 years old. This percentage is a little bit higher than the population in the Netherlands (c). The demographics of respondents in this survey are not for completely in line with the
demographics of the Dutch population. For that reason, results in this report are not for 100% generalizable across the total Dutch population.
Appendix C. displays more information about the demographics. 30.8% of the respondents consider ‘the Rabobank’ as their primary bank, 21.0 % takes ‘the Postbank’ and another 21.0% view ‘ABN-AMRO’ as their primary bank or financial institute. Most
participants (26.6%) earn between one and two times more than the average income and most households consist of 2 persons (36.4%).
Table 2: Demographics respondents
* (CBS 2012)
Variable The Netherlands* Percentage This survey Percentage
4.2 Reliability multi-item scales
The internal consistency of the questions measuring the dependent variables is checked by using Cronbach’s alpha. Values above 0.6 mean that the questions are internally consistent (Malhotra 2010). The Cronbach’s alpha (appendix B, table 16) for the variable ‘sponsor credibility’ is 0.881 and therefore useful. Sponsor image is measured by using 10 items. The reliability of these 10 items is 0.927 (appendix B, table 17) and therefore also useful. The higher the number of items is in a reliability check, the higher possibility that the variables are internally consistent (Malhotra 2010). However, outcomes of these Cronbach’s alpha are so high, that it is assumed that the variables are anyhow internal consistent. Other variables in this report are based on only one question and therefore a reliability check has no point.
4.3 Multicollinearity
Before measuring the variables sponsor knowledge and sponsor credibility, first the correlation between the independent variable and moderators is tested to prevent
multicollinearity between the variables. Appendix D. shows that all the necessary
relationships are significant (≤ 0.05). No multicollinearity takes place (|r|< 0.9) (de Vocht 2009) for the variables belonging to Rabobank’s sponsorship in cycling. The interaction effect ‘awareness x participation’ (for sponsorships in hockey and horse riding) correlates to much with the variable ‘sponsorship awareness’ (|r|> 0.9). For that reason, the interaction term is deleted from those regressions because the first aim of this survey is to test hypothesis 1. Besides, on the average the interaction term correlates more with the other variables in the regression, than the variable ‘sponsorship awareness’ does.
4.4 Variables which explain the dependent variables
All tests indicate that the independent variable and moderators do not have a strong connection with the dependent variables (Nagelkerke R2). Besides, the variables are also not so important in explaining the variance of the dependent variables (Adjusted R2) (Appendix
E). The variable ‘image’ is for example an important variable in this research to explain
‘sponsor credibility’ (Adjusted R2
, for example 0.655). However, the aim of this study is not to
4.5 Variables to test the hypotheses
The database gives the opportunity to test the hypotheses based on sponsorships in three different sports. In the main text, the results based on the sport cycling are discussed. Appendix F and G give an overview about the outcomes from the sponsorships in hockey and horse riding. The outcomes are also described in table 15.
4.6 Sponsor knowledge
Previously is hypothesized that awareness of the sponsorship positively influences sponsor knowledge (H1) and that this is more true when people participate in the sponsored property (H4a) or if they perceive a fit between sponsor and sponsor object (H3a). This prediction is tested by using regression tests, based on the participants’ self-rating-knowledge about the Rabobank. In order to test the influence of the moderators on the relationship between dependent – and independent variable, interaction terms were created.
To measure the effect of sponsorship awareness on sponsor knowledge, the dependent variable is spilt up into three different ‘sub-variables’. Because of different answer scales (all formative scales) it was not possible to combine the different elements of sponsor knowledge into one variable (Handbook of management scales 2010). Therefore each element of sponsor knowledge is tested independently. In order to conclude if there are also unintended
correlations between the moderators, these moderators are included as ‘control variable’ in both regressions (see table 4 and 5 for example).
4.6.1 Sponsor recall
All tests (table 3, 4 and 5) indicate that sponsorship awareness is significantly influencing sponsor recall (p-value; 0.000) (see also appendix F, tables 45-47 and 54-56). The variables ‘perceived fit’ and ‘sponsor object participation’ also significantly influence sponsor recall
(p-value perceived fit; 0.000, p-(p-value participation; 0.000). The b-(p-values of these variables show
that the variable perceived fit influences sponsor recall in a positive way (0.123 a and 0.122 b),
sponsor object participation in a negative way (-0.111 c and -0.111d). The moderators
(interaction terms) do not significantly influence the relationship between sponsorship awareness and sponsor recall (p-values; 0.189 and 0.570).
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Awareness_Cycling 0.816 0.044 351.246 1 0.000 2.262
Constant 0.988 0.037 724.892 1 0.000 2.686
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Awareness_Cycling 0.263 0.023 127.303 1 0.000 1.301 Perceived fit_Cycling 0.123 a 0.022 32.178 1 0.000 1.131 Interaction A x F 0.028 0.021 1.726 1 0.189 1.028 Control variable: Participation_Cycling -0.111c 0.022 24.974 0.000 0.895 Constant 1.716 0.022 6129.966 1 0.000 5.562
Table 4: Variables influencing ‘sponsor recall’(2)
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Awareness_Cycling 0.257 0.024 115.464 1 0.000 1.293
Participation_Cycling -0.111d 0.023 24.156 1 0.000 0.895
Interaction A x P 0.015 0.026 0.323 1 0.570 1.015
Control variable: Perceived fit_Cycling
0.122 b 0.22 31.188 0.000 1.129
Constant 1.718 0.023 5820.110 1 0.000 5.575
Table 5: Variables influencing ‘sponsor recall’(3)
4.6.2 Sponsor recognition
Tables 6-8 indicate that sponsorship awareness significantly influences sponsor recognition
(p-value; 0.000) (see also appendix F, tables 48-50 and 57-59). Participation also
significantly influences sponsor recognition (p-values; 0.000, b-values; -0.272 and - 0.258). When consumers participate in the sport cycling, this decreases the degree of sponsor
recognition. Perceived fit also influences sponsor recognition (p-values; 0.016 and 0.022), but in a positive way. This moderator does not significantly influence the relationship between sponsorship awareness and sponsor recognition ((p-value; 0.686). The moderator participation however significantly influences the relationship between sponsorship awareness and sponsor recognition (p-value; 0.006 and b-value 0.128). This means that if consumers practice or watch cycling, this improves the relationship between sponsorship awareness and sponsor recognition.
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Constant 2.832 0.071 1582.421 1 0.000 16.971 Table 6: Variables influencing ‘sponsor recognition’(1)
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Awareness_Cycling 0.324 0.060 29.436 1 0.000 1.382 Perceived fit_Cycling 0.138 0.057 5.750 1 0.016 1.148 Interaction A x F -0.020 0.051 0.163 1 0.686 0.980 Control variable: Participation_Cycling -0.272 0.056 23.771 0.000 0.762 Constant 4.029 0.061 4424.389 1 0.000 56.204
Table 7: Variables influencing ‘sponsor recognition’(2)
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Awareness_Cycling 0.352 0.053 44.792 1 0.000 1.422
Participation_Cycling -0.258 0.054 22.458 1 0.000 0.773
Interaction A x P 0.128 0.047 7.464 1 0.006 1.137
Control variable: Perceived fit_Cycling
0.130 0.057 5.226 1 0.022 1.139
Constant 3.986 0.060 4397.435 1 0.000 53.862
Table 8: Variables influencing ‘sponsor recognition’(3)
4.6.3 Sponsor image
Tables below show that sponsorship awareness also influences sponsor image (p-value;
0.000) (see also appendix F, tables 51-53 and 60-62). The variables ‘perceived fit’ and
‘sponsor object participation’ also significantly influence sponsor image (sig. > 0.05). Besides, the variable perceived fit significantly influences the relationship between sponsorship awareness and sponsor image (p-value; 0.000).
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 2.707 0.061 44.664 0.000
Awareness_Cycling 1.985 0.068 0.209 29.275 0.000
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 4.447 0.029 154.517 0.000 Cycling_Awareness 0.496 0.034 0.123 14.632 0.000 Perceived Fit_Cycling 0.823 0.029 0.218 28.158 0.000 Interaction A x F 0.121 0.032 0.031 3.832 0.000
Control variable: Perceived fit_Cycling
-0.070 0.029 -0.019 -2.418 0.016
Table 10: Variables influencing ‘sponsor image’(2)
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 4.457 0.030 145.348 0.000 Awareness_Cycling 0.479 0.037 0.119 13.069 0.000 Participation_Cycling -0.084 0.031 -0.023 -2.678 0.007 Interaction A x P 0.077 0.042 0.017 1.844 0.065 Control variable: Participation_Cycling 0.833 0.029 0.221 28.636 0.000
Table 11: Variables influencing ‘sponsor image’(3)
4.6.4 Hypotheses 1, 3a and 4a
Outcomes of the previous tests, combined with outcomes in appendix F (see also table 15) show that sponsorship awareness significantly sponsor knowledge. Therefore hypothesis 1 is supported. Some outcomes indicate that perceived fit moderates the relationship between sponsorship awareness and sponsor knowledge. Other outcomes are however not significant. Therefore hypothesis 3a cannot be supported. Because of multicollinearity (see paragraph
4.3) it was only possible to test hypothesis 4a for the sport cycling. Some results are
significant, other not. For that reason hypothesis 4a cannot be supported. 4.7 Sponsor credibility
The tables below show different outcomes for the influence of sponsorship awareness on sponsor credibility. Outcomes of the first test (table 12) indicate that sponsorship
awareness significantly influence sponsor credibility (p-value; 0.001) (see also appendix G,
tables 63-68). When the moderators are included in the regression (tables 13 and 14), the
variable ‘sponsorship awareness’ does not significantly influences ‘sponsor credibility’ (0.182
and 0.767). Results displayed in appendix G show the same outcome. For that reason,
hypothesis 2 cannot be supported. The variable ‘perceived fit’ (b-values; 0.150, 0.149 and
p-values; 0.000) significantly influences sponsor credibility.
The interaction of these variables with the independent and dependent variable are also tested. Table 13 shows that the variable ‘perceived fit’ is not significantly influencing the relationship between sponsorship awareness and sponsor credibility (b-value; 0.000 and
p-value; 0.912). Consumer participation (table 14) does also not significantly influence the
relationship between sponsorship awareness and sponsor credibility (b-value; 0.017 and
p-value; 0.145).
These outcomes are mostly in line with the outcomes in appendix G. Combining the results leads to a rejection of either hypothesis 3b as well as hypothesis 4b. Hypothesis 2 is supported, but it should be mentioned that the results are only significant when ‘sponsorship awareness’ is the only variable in the test.
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 3.809 0.023 16.786 0.000 Awareness_Cycling 0.079 0.025 0.043 3.203 0.001
Table 12: Variables influencing ‘sponsor credibility’(1)
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 3.888 0.008 491.653 0.000 Awareness_Cycling -0.013 0.010 -0.021 -1.334 0.182 Perceived Fit_Cycling 0.150 0.008 0.257 18.469 0.000 Interaction A x F 0.000 0.009 -0.002 -0.111 0.912 Control variable: Participation_Cycling -0.004 0.008 -0.008 -0.558 0.577
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 3.885 0.008 482.106 0.000 Awareness_Cycling -0.003 0.010 -0.005 -0.296 0.767 Participation_Cycling -0.008 0.008 -0.014 -0.964 0.335 Interaction A x P 0.017 0.012 0.024 1.459 0.145
Control variable: Perceived fit_Cycling
0.149 0.008 0.256 18.401 0.000
4.8 Summary results
The table below gives a summary about all the hypotheses and outcomes which are previously discussed.
Hypothesis Outcome for sponsorship in cycling
Outcome for sponsorship in hockey
Outcome for sponsorship in horse riding Expected P-value Outcome Expected P-value Outcome Expected P-value Outcome H1 + 0.000 + + 0.000 + + 0.000 + H2 + 0.001 + + 0.000 + + 0.000 + H3a (recall) + 0.189 NS + 0.377 NS + 0.166 NS H3a (recognition) + 0.686 NS + 0.074 NS + 0.750 NS H3a (image) + 0.000 + + 0.009 + + 0.156 NS H3b + 0.912 NS + 0.134 NS + 0.009 +
H4a (recall) + 0.570 NS + Not tested + Not tested H4a (recognition) + 0.006 + + Not tested + Not tested
H4a (image) + 0.065 NS + Not tested + Not tested H4b + 0.145 NS + Not tested + Not tested
Table 15: Outcomes regressions
Therefore:
- ‘Sponsorship awareness’ influences sponsor knowledge
- ‘Sponsorship awareness’ significantly influence sponsor credibility (in a particular
situation, see 4.7)
- ‘Perceived fit’ does not influence the relationship between sponsorship awareness and sponsor recall, recognition, image and credibility in most situations
- ‘Perceived fit’ influences the relationship between sponsorship awareness and sponsor image when data is used from the sports cycling and horse riding
5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION 5.1 Summary
This study focuses on the influence of sponsorship awareness on the intensity of sponsor knowledge and sponsor credibility. Thereby, the moderating effects of perceived fit and sponsor object participation are tested. A fixed principle about sponsorships is that perceived awareness of the sponsorship improves memory for the sponsor-sponsor object relationship (Rifon et al 2004, Johar and Pham 1999, Cornwell, Pruitt and Van Ness 2001). Outcome of this research is that sponsorship awareness also improves sponsor knowledge (H1). Sponsorship awareness improves the familiarity with the sponsor. The more people are familiar with the sponsorship, the more they know about the sponsor and its reputation. Therefore a positive relation between sponsorship awareness and sponsor credibility was suggested. Results in this research suggest that there is a difference in the degree of sponsor credibility when consumers are aware of the sponsorship or if they are not aware (H2). Koo, Quarterman and Flynn (2006) described that a positive fit between sponsor and sponsor object could improve a sponsor’s image. Results of this research point out that perceived fit also moderates the relationship between sponsorship awareness and sponsor image. The variable perceived fit is however not moderating the relationship between sponsorship awareness and other sponsor knowledge elements (recall and recognition) (H3a). Perceived trustworthiness and expertise are important parts of the success for a company. When consumers do not perceive a fit between sponsor and sponsor object, it is hard to trust a company. Outcomes of this research however do not suggest that perceived fit has a moderating influence on the relationship between sponsorship awareness and sponsor credibility (H3b). Participation in an event mostly means that the person find details personally relevant or important and these individuals spent considerably more attention to the content. Results indicate that
participation moderates the relation between sponsorship awareness and sponsor recognition. So when consumers participate in cycling and they are aware of the sponsorship, this
improves the degree of sponsor recognition (H4a and H4b). 5.2 Scientific and practical implications
Scientific implications. A lot of research is already done in the field of sponsorships; some
elements which are necessary for an effective sponsorship are however not deeply
knowledge in different situations. Speed and Thompson (2000) mentioned ‘exposure’ as a necessary variable for consumers to form an opinion about a sponsor. However, exposure is mostly not sufficient. Sponsorship awareness significantly influences sponsor knowledge. This is positive because sponsor knowledge is the key factor in creating sponsor equity (Keller 2008). Higher sponsor equity helps to strengthen the company’s character and improves a firm’s competitive advantage.
Perceived fit can reinforce the firms’ position in the market and improves memory (Simmons and Becker-Olson 2006, Cornwell et al 2006). Besides, Koo, Quarterman and Flynn (2006) suggest that perceived fit between sponsor and sponsor object influence sponsor image. This research pointed out that perceived fit also moderates the relationship between sponsorship awareness and sponsor image. This is a valuable insight because now it is known that perceived fit does not only directly influence the dependent variable, but also indirectly.
Besides, this research noted that sponsor object participation sometimes negatively influences the knowledge consumers have about a sponsor. One reason for this might be that participants are busy with the sport, that they have no idea what is happening around them. Participation can drive customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction (Chan, Kin and Lam 2010), but an outcome of this research is that participation can also improve sponsor
credibility. It was already known that involvement could increase sponsor credibility, this research contributes to the academic research that participation can also increase sponsor credibility.
This research was the second step in explaining sponsor credibility. Wang et al (2011) investigate the influence of the mediator sponsor credibility on sponsor equity. According to Keller (2003), sponsor credibility is part of sponsor equity. Therefore special attention is paid to ‘sponsor credibility’ as a dependent variable in this study. It is however much harder to build preferences or improve purchases than to strengthen the company’s name (Cornwell, Roy and Steinard 2001). This research investigates the direct relation between sponsoring variables and sponsor credibility, which fulfills a gap in the literature.
Practical implications. The findings of this research provide some insights for managers
This research indicates that awareness of a sponsorship has a significant influence on the degree of sponsor knowledge. In order to improve its sponsors’ knowledge, managers have to improve the awareness of the sponsorship. If managers want to strengthen the company’s character, or improve the competitive advantage, they have to communicate and make clear the fit between their company and the sponsored object. Outcomes of this research suggest that managers have to spent considerable time in finding a fit between their company and a sponsor object. Besides, improving the participation in a particular sport is a though issue for managers. It is worth it to try to increase the sponsor object participation in order to increase the degree of sponsor credibility. But results show that participation negatively influences some elements of sponsor knowledge.
5.3 Limitations of research and recommendations
Dataset. The used dataset was not only for measuring sponsorship response. For that reason,
some questions relevant for this report were not available or were not useful in the statistical tests. In order to match literature with the dataset, some consensus had to make. For example, sponsor recall was measured by using a nominal data scale with only one yes or no question. Sponsor recall in literature is however mostly measured by using multi-item likert scales (Wang et al 2011). Bennet (1999) used a list of seven questions in order to test spectators’ levels of recall. Therefore, further research with the use of a mulit-item scale should be necessary to measure the effect of sponsorship awareness on sponsor response, based on a more reliable scale.
Encoding of data. Due to the composition and recoding of some questions in the dataset, it
was impossible to use the whole dataset for testing hypotheses 2, 3b and 4b. For these hypotheses it was only possible to use the data of the respondents which consider ‘the
Rabobank’ as their primary bank or financial institute. 7.070 out of 23.205 participants were used to test the hypotheses of the variable sponsor credibility. 23.205 persons for the
hypotheses about the variable sponsor knowledge.
Sponsorship response questions. For future research, attention should be given to the effect
Genaralizability. Outcomes of tests indicate that some sponsorship variables significantly
influence the dependent variables. The marketing budget of the Rabobank is however much bigger than the budget of small- & middle enterprises and therefore more consumers are exposed to a marketing expression of this financial institute. Further research is necessary to test if the results are generalizable across all kind of company types. Are these results also true for multinationals, franchisers or small & middle enterprises? Besides, a comparison of the demographics of these database, with the demographics of the total Dutch population show that the consumers used in this database are not for 100% identical with the Dutch population. Therefore generalizability across all Dutch inhabitants is not possible.
Other directions of the variables. This research investigated that ‘sponsorship awareness’,
‘sponsor object participation’ and ‘sponsor- sponsor object fit’ are influencing brand
credibility and brand knowledge. Regression results of the research of Speed and Thompson (2000) are in line with this research and show that a positive sponsor-event fit improves sponsorship response. Besides, respondents which have a strong personal liking for the sponsor object respond more positive than the average respondent when the sponsor is able to show a fit (Speed and Thompson). However, if consumers know more about a sponsor, will participation in the sponsor object than increase? The number of new members of a hockey club increases enormously when the national team had success at the last championship. Besides, if the trust in a company is high, has this effect on the fit consumers perceive between sponsor and sponsor object? The example of ‘Dela’ earlier in this report shows already this inverse relationship, but more scientific investigations are necessary to prove this relationship.
Direction of variable participation. Improving the participation in a particular sport is a
troublesome issue for managers. Some results indicate that it makes sense to improve the participation other results suggest that it is better not to interfere. Earlier is investigated that consumer participation drives customer satisfaction (Chan, Kin and Lam 2010), but more research is necessary to investigate this relation.
5.4 Conclusion
Although some limitations appear, this research provides some worthwhile and
