How does Sponsorship Brand Exposure influence
Consumer Attitudes towards the sponsor?
The Mediating Role of Persuasion Knowledge and Perceived
Competitive Motive
DISSERTATION
By
Suzanne Groen
Msc Advanced International Business Management and Marketing 08-12-2014
University of Groningen: Faculty of Economic & Business (NL)
Supervisor: Drs. Ad Visscher
Newcastle University Business School ( UK)
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Markus Blut
Abbenesstraat 13.3 1059 TB Groningen +31 (0)6 345 79 590 sh.groen@gmail.com S1904779 (NL) B140173770 (UK)
2
ABSTRACT
This dissertation contains an explanatory quantitative research which aims to answer the research question: “How does Sponsorship Brand Exposure influence Consumer Attitudes towards the Sponsor?” by conducting an experiment (n=183). Furthermore it addresses three research gaps, which include the role of contextual factors (brand exposure), individual traits (persuasion knowledge) and the lack of research in the field of art event sponsorship. Two artistic events are distinguished, i.e. a mass art event and an elite art event. The most important finding includes significant differences between these two types of events considering the influence of brand exposure. While in the case of a music festival brand exposure influence persuasion knowledge, brand exposure, in case of a classical concert, has a negative relationship with consumer’s attitude towards the brand. Practically this means that firms may be wise to aim for less exposure instead of spending significantly to become a high-level sponsor. Furthermore the influence of congruence was not supported for none of the hypotheses. The sequential linkage between loop via persuasion knowledge perceived company motive consumer attitude is only confirmed for one of the eight scenarios, which means that although these constructs are significant they may not be relevant for managerial decisions.
Key words: Sponsorship, Brand Exposure, Persuasion Knowledge, Perceived Company
Motive, Congruence, Event Involvement
3
INDEX
1. Introduction ... 4
2. Review of the Literature ... 10
2.1 Brand Exposure ... 10
2.2 Persuasion Knowledge ... 13
2.3 Perceived Company Motive ... 16
2.4 Congruence ... 20
2.5 Consumer’s Identification with the Event ... 23
2.6 Conceptual Model and Hypotheses ... 25
2.7 Sponsorship Category ... 29 3. Methodology ... 32 3.1 Overview ... 32 3.2 Survey ... 33 3.3 Design ... 34 3.4 Pre-test ... 35 3.5 Measures ... 38 3.6 Methods ... 39 3.7 Respondents... 40 4. Results ... 42 4.1 Data preparation ... 42 4.2 Reliability analysis ... 42 4.3 Correlations ... 44 4.4 Assumptions ... 44 4.5 Analysis ... 45
4.6 Comparison Studies and Scenarios ... 55
5. Discussion ... 57
5.1 Conclusion & Theoretical Contribution ... 57
5.2 Managerial Implications ... 61
5.3 Limitations and future research ... 63
6. References ... 66
Appendix 1: Summary previous research ... 73
Appendix 2: Questionnaire Items ... 74
Appendix 3: Introduction Survey ... 75
Appendix 4: Study 1 Scenarios ... 76
4
1. INTRODUCTION
As a result of widespread and growing distrust of large corporations (Verschoor, 2008), firms are increasingly turning to corporate image advertising (Pomering and Johnson, 2009). Corporate image advertising is one way to create “manufactured publicity” (Rossiter and Bellman, 2006) and it is a popular communication tool which is not used to promote a specific product or service, but focuses on the desired corporate identity cues. Corporate image advertising permits the company more flexibility to reach its target audience (Pomering and Johnson, 2009). An frequently used form of corporate image advertising is sponsorship. Sponsorship is one way to communicate the desired corporate image to the key stakeholder audiences (Meenaghan, 2001; Pomering and Johnson, 2009).
5
In this study, sponsorship refers to a financial assistance sponsorship strategy which implies that for leveraging financial support a company can receive multiple types of brand exposure in return. The brand exposure possibilities include: visual presence with the name/logo on the location of the event, being recognized as an official partner of the event, or naming the event after the sponsor (Carrilat and d’Astous, 2012). Although the term “sponsorship” is often interchangeably used with corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Brennan et al., 2012), they include different goals and processes. Commercial sponsorship is an activity with a set commercial objective in mind (Dolphin, 2003). While commercial sponsorship excludes patronage (Meenaghan, 2001), CSR, in the pure sense of the word, is a philanthropic activity. Even though the constructs are different it is important to consider the overlap when looking at the consumers cognitive responses towards such actions. CSR sponsorship literature, also called cause-related marketing literature, is partially included in this study because of the many similarities with sponsorship, for example in terms of desire of high-level effects (Olson, 2010).
Sponsorship expenditures increased significantly over the last two decades and a growing number of sponsors are being drawn into the fields of sponsorship (Meenaghan, 2013), nonetheless research is scarce (Papadimitriou et al., 2008) and inconsistent. As a marketing communication tool, sponsorship is considered to have another key advantage: consumers are likely to have lowered defence mechanisms compared to general advertising (Kim et al., 2011). Sponsorships can influence consumer recall, awareness, attitude toward the sponsor and purchase intention (Rifon et al, 2004) but sponsorship is mainly used to improve brand image and reputation (Amis et al., 1999; Sneath et al., 2005; Papadimitriou et al., 2008; Chebli et Gharbi, 2014). The positive association between a sponsor and an event is an important resource to impact customer behaviour (Rifon et al., 2004). Some authors even argue that sponsorship can no longer just be seen as a form of marketing but should be considered as strategic investments which can be developed into a distinctive competence (Amis et al., 1999). Many sponsors nowadays indeed view sponsorship in a more strategic and holistic way (Meenaghan, 2013).
6
and O’Sullivan, 2013). This is due to moderators such as the cognitive responses to brand exposure, Brand exposure results can be enduring (Pomering and Johnson, 2009). Obviously, business returns of sponsorship, either as a social initiative or as a commercial campaign, are contingent on stakeholder awareness of a company’s activities (Du et al., 2010; Meenaghan and O’Sullivan, 2013) but brand exposure on its own is not comprehensive as a success indicator. Sneath et al. (2005) argue that, according to the integrated marketing communication approach, it may indeed be more appropriate to measure sponsorship effectiveness using measures that are focused on e.g. consumer attitude. Previous literature is not straightforward about how attributions linked to sponsorship should be measured if they are not measured by exposure and publicity. The most frequently used alternative measurements include sponsor image (Groh and Reisinger, 2014), corporate reputation (Eberle et al., 2013), corporate credibility (Becker-Olson et al , 2006) and purchase intention (Becker-(Becker-Olson et al., 2006; Meng-Lewis et al., 2013). Results of the research by Meng-Lewis et al. (2013) show that the relationship between event involvement and willingness to buy was completely motivated by attitudes towards the sponsor which is another often used measurement (Becker-Olson et al , 2006). One way to define
attitude is as “a predisposition to respond in a consistently favourable manner with respect to a
given object” (Fishbein and Azjen, 1975, p.6). Attitude can also be defined as “a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour” (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p.1). In short, sponsorship attitude can lead to several new constructs which could be relevant to the sponsor. Although there is also literature which questions the predictability of sponsorship attitudes (Meng-Lewis et al., 2013) consumer attitudes are often argued to predict consumer behaviour and thereby often serves as dependent variable in sponsorship literature (MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989; Rifon et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2011; Olson & Thjomoe, 2011; Deitz et al., 2012). This study will therefore use the construct
attitude towards the sponsor to measure consumer response.
7
consumers cognitively infer a sponsor motive to the sponsor. The perception of the sponsorship motive is a critical part of the sponsorship response (Han et al., 2013). On one hand the motive could be defined as altruistic, which could lead to sponsor credibility and subsequent positive attitude towards the sponsor, on the other hand the motive could also be defined as being profit driven, which would generate a less desirable sponsor image. For example, it is stated that the perception of self-serving motives is related to consumer perceptions of corporate exploitation (Rifon et al., 2004). Consumers perceived company motive can have profound consequences for organizations. While research points out that if consumers believe that a sponsor’s motives are sincere and supportive of the event, they are more apt to receive and process marketing communications (Kim et al., 2011), the opposite can be true for profit-driven motives. As sponsorship spending represents one of marketing’s most striking investment categories (Meenaghan, 2013) it is important to understand how perceived company motive can either strengthen positive outcomes or weaken them. Suspicion of a company’s motive may lead to consumers having a more negative attitude towards the brand (Menon and Kahn, 2003; Szykman et al., 2004; Becker-Olson et al., 2005), in that case attributed motives can decrease the value of sponsorship investments. Questioning the results of Rifon et al. (2004), Kim et al. (2011) argue that consumers vary in in attributing motives of sponsors. Either way scepticism needs to be overcome if a company plans to promote its desired corporate image (Pomering and Johnson, 2009). Given the increasing popularity of the sponsorship strategy (Rifon et al., 2004) these results highlight the importance of further examination of the theoretical explanations of sponsorship effects and the role of perceived company motive.
8
and d’Astous, 2012). Although there are some exceptions which do include this contextual factors (e.g. Campbell, 1995; Carrilat and D’Astous,2012; Groh and Reisinger, 2014) and suggest that contextual factors influence the cognitive processes of consumers and their attributions to the sponsor (Deitz et al., 2012) there is little empirical evidence to support this view.
The second research gap that can distinguished exists in the combination of individual traits and sponsorship (Deitz et al., 2014). Although there is research explaining the relevance of the Persuasion Knowledge Model, there is little research focusing on the link of this model within other sponsorship literature. Exceptions include Buijzen et al. (2010) and Boerman et al. (2012), but it should be noted that these authors both focus on the commercialized media environment and not on the sponsorship of events. While it is argued that consumers have a lowered defence mechanism during sponsored events( Kim et al., 2011), consumers are still likely to react to brand exposure. A lot of brand exposure during an event can lead consumers to infer it as an influence attempt which would activate the persuasion knowledge creating a negative cognitive response (Carrilat and d’Astous, 2012). The more commercial the sponsor’s message becomes, the more likely it is that consumer thoughts of corporate profit will be activated. These cognitive processes are individual traits but are dependent on external triggers. Multiple scholars call for more research on the new explanations of the processes and effects of sponsorship (Dophin, 2005; Olson, 2010; Meenaghan and O’Sullivan, 2013; Grohs and Reisinger, 2014). This study will consider this question.
The last research gap concerns the monotony of the sponsorship category examined.
9
two events is the level of commercialization. This study will include both types of artistic events.
Using different theories, previous literature and an empirical study, this study will attempt to fulfil the foregoing objectives by investigating the following research question:
How does Sponsorship Brand Exposure influence Consumer Attitudes towards the Sponsor?
10
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.1 Brand Exposure
Brand exposure might occur during an event or in the mass media before or after an event (Grohs and Reisinger, 2014). Even though Chebli et Gharbi (2014) empirically show that exposure during sponsorship influences sponsorship effectiveness, little research has addressed the role of brand exposure during sponsorship. One exception is the study by Grohs and Reisinger (2014) who show the moderating role of brand exposure on event image, event-sponsor fit and event commercialization. They found that indeed, event-sponsorship exposure negatively moderates the relationship between event-sponsor fit and sponsor image, and negatively moderates the relationship between event commercialization and sponsor image, but their results also show that sponsorship exposure does not influence the relationship between event image and sponsor image. This chapter aims to clarify this construct and its consequences regarding the interpretation of sponsorship as a marketing tool. First it will amplify the thin line between advertisements and sponsorship, after which it will elaborate on the possible consequences.
11
Even though these differences between sponsorship and advertising are more or less accepted within sponsorship literature (Meenaghan, 2001; Brennan et al., 2012), it should be noted that the three assumptions regarding sponsorship, as displayed in figure 3.3, are all dependent on the level of brand exposure during the event. First of all, logically the way the
approach is perceived depends on the degree of overlap between the sponsorship focus and a
general advertising approach, which leads to the question if sponsorship is indeed always more subtle than advertising. Furthermore, how persuasion intent is perceived also depends on the forms and frequency of the brand exposure in the context examined. Regarding defence
mechanism, it is important to understand that for persuasion to occur the consumer must be
motivated to alter the commercial message (Pomering and Johnson, 2009). Adding an extra dimension to advertising, including the sponsored event, increases the complicatedness of the consumer’s processing task (Pomering and Johnson, 2009) as they have to link the sponsor to the event and the other way around. When consumer experience increased processing attention, it may lead them to second guess the advertiser, thinking about why the advertiser has created the ad in a particular fashion (Campbell, 1995), as will be explained in chapter 2.2. It can therefore be argued that these differences between sponsorship and advertising are not as black-and-white as presented by Meenaghan (2001). As stated by Carrilat and d’Astous (2012), maximizing brand exposure may not be an optimal strategy, because it could lead to formation of attributions normally linked to advertising.
12
13
2.2 Persuasion Knowledge
In chapter one the lack of research into the influence of individual traits is shortly mentioned. One theory which takes up the cognitive processes which influence attitudes and behaviours is the Attribution theory. This addresses the processes by which consumers cognitively infer a sponsor motive for the sponsorship behaviour and explains how these perceived company motives influence subsequent attitudes towards the firm (Friestad and Wright, 1994; Forehand and Grier, 2003; Rifon et al., 2004).This theory acknowledges that consumers, as experienced users and targets of persuasion attempts, build up knowledge about persuasion and persuasive tactics (Friestad and Wright, 1994). Whenever a situation is perceived as being a persuasion attempt, this persuasion knowledge is likely to be activated (Carrilat rand d’Astous, 2012). Consumers develop “schemer-schemes”, i.e. implicit beliefs, to judge the appropriateness of a sponsor’s various persuasion tactics (Menon & Kahn, 2003). Boerman et al. (2012) already found that sponsorship disclosure activates conceptual persuasion knowledge. Their research also showed that, as a result of this activation, viewers show more distrust of the sponsored item. One of the models underlying this statement is the Persuasion Knowledge Model, which tries to explain, inter alia, why some corporate image advertising claims work better than others (Pomering et al., 2013). This chapter will summarise previous research about persuasion knowledge and will analyse how persuasion knowledge interferes with the relationship between brand exposure and attributions linked to sponsorship.
14
dealing with advertising (Boerman et al, 2012). These attitudinal mechanism are a result of conceptual persuasion knowledge. Attitudinal persuasion knowledge incorporates the attitude towards the company. This study focuses on the skills of analysing and evaluating persuasive messages as an element of persuasion knowledge. The consequences of cognitive persuasions knowledge are already accounted for by perceived company motive (chapter 2.3) and consumer attitude towards the sponsor, therefor this study will view persuasion knowledge solely as conceptual persuasion knowledge.
When a persuasion attempt is subtle, persuasion knowledge is less likely to be activated. For this reason conceptual advertising knowledge may be less triggered in non-traditional types of advertisements. On the other hand, when sponsorship leads to the formation of attributions normally linked to advertising, as explained in chapter 1, conceptual persuasion knowledge is more likely to occur. Carrilat and d’Astous (2012) already found that the greater perceived exploitation, the more likely it is that persuasion knowledge will be activated. It can therefore be assumed that the greater the brand exposure, the higher the probability of persuasion knowledge being affected.
15
a company’s motive with more suspicion that the company is self-motivated (Becker-Olson et al , 2006). In other words, the more persuasion knowledge will be activated, the less likely it is the company motive will be perceived as being altruistic versus profit driven (Carrilat and d’Ástous, 2012).
16
2.3 Perceived Company Motive
Scepticisms towards unequal benefits, as a result of persuasion knowledge, can lead to distrust of the company’s motives (Szykman et al., 2004; Pomering and Johnson, 2009). Multiple researchers underline that consumers routinely question the motives of advertisers which can lead to less favourable brand evaluations (Forehand and Grier, 2003; Skyman et al, 2004; Becker-Olson et al , 2006). Consumers perceptions of the advertiser’s expected benefits from exposure significantly affects the interference of manipulative intent (Campbell, 1995). While sincerity and company motive have often been recalled within sponsorship literature, there is little research taking into account the importance of perceived company motive, its consequences (Olson, 2013) and its relation to brand exposure. This chapter will explore how perceived company motive can mediate the relationship between brand exposure and consumer attitudes. First its definition will be clarified after which the effects of brand exposure on perceived company motive will be discussed. The chapter will close with the consequences of the different perceived company motives and a short conclusion.
17
As previously mentioned, when sponsorship becomes more like advertisement it is likely that consumer thought about a exploitative motive will be activated. In other words when more brand-level information is included it is more likely that consumers will judge a company for having a profit motive. It can be assumed that when the message merely states the involvement of a company it may reduce the likelihood of this judgement. Although Rifon and al. (2004) find a clear reasoning for this assumption their results do not support their hypothesis. One reason is offered by Pomering and Johnson (2009) who show that stakeholders seek information. By fulfilling these demands scepticism towards communication efforts can be reduced. One way to do this is by providing more diagnostic corporate image advertising appeals.
18
implicit measures such as implicit brand recognition, attitude and choice (Buijzen et al., 2010). It can therefore be argued that a low level of brand exposure will lead to a more altruistic motive perceived by the consumers.
Chang (2007) indicate a different view on advertising abundance. Her research showed that for persuasion to occur, the resources required to process an advertisement are more dependent on ad content rather than just a large amount of supply. However, as one of the main differences between sponsorship and advertising is the relatively simple context promotions of sponsors during events, the effect is likely to be different for this study. It can therefore be argued that advertising abundance is relatively more critical within sponsorship, because advertising content is not a variable factor. In other words, for sponsorship, where advertisement is mainly shaped by distribution of a company’s logo, frequency and the published amount of the company logo and name are likely to play an even more significant role.
19
20
2.4 Congruence
Fit between an event and a sponsor, also called congruence, is an often discussed phenomenon in sponsorship literature (Rifon et al. 2004; Olson, 2010; Deitz et al., 2012; Olson and Thjomoe, 2011; Han et al., 2013). Congruence can be defined as the consumers perception of similarity between two different entities but this definition differs across different fields of research. Research terms which are used similarly include: relatedness, relevance and/or compatibility (sponsorship literature) and “fit” (cause-related marketing research) (Rifon et al., 2004, Becker-Olson et al., 2005). Congruence is determined by consumer knowledge about both the sponsor and the event and the level of perceived fit between the two (Meenaghan, 2001). Within this study, which combines the two directions of research, the term “congruence” comprises all concepts mentioned above. An insightful paper by Beck-Olson et al. (2005) finds proof that congruence influences (1) the number of thoughts, (2) the favourability of the thoughts, (3) the focus on firm motive, (4) the perceived credibility of the firm and (5) the attitudes towards the firm. This chapter the study by Becker-olson et al. (2005) will combined with other relevant research in the field of congruence. This previous knowledge will be elaborated on related to the already defined constructs.
21
Besides the influence of congruence on the number of thoughts, congruence is also proven to affect the favourability of the thoughts, the focus on firm motive and the believed credibility assigned to the firm (Becker-Olson et al., 2005). Low congruence in research by Becker-Olson et al. (2005) leads to less favourable thoughts, more motive focussed thoughts and companies being perceived as less credible. Campbell’s (1991) research also shows that if is there is a low (versus high) perceived fit between the brand and the appeal, consumers are more likely to draw inferences of manipulative intent on the part of the advertiser. Finally Rifon et al. (2004) found idem results stating the moderating effect of congruence on sponsor credibility in which high congruence led to higher evaluated credibility and perceived sponsor altruism. Olson (2010) confirms this view by claiming that a scepticism about company motives is more likely to occur when a congruence is high. This positive relationship is, among others, commonly attributed to less questioning of sponsor motives (Olson, 2010). On the other hand, Menon and Kahn (2003) propose a different view, stating that choosing an event which is not logically related to the company’s business may lead to a less self-interested perception because it underlines that corporate intentions are not related to profit motives. When congruence is low, consumers would therefore be less concerned about extrinsic motives and be less sceptical about the company’s credibility (Du et al., 2010). Because of the majority of research proving the positive influence of high congruence on the attribution of sponsor motives this study will argue in favour of high congruence and its positive influence on perceived company motive.
22
can achieve for low-fit activities as compared to activities with a high perceived fit (Sohn et al., 2012), and underlines the importance of highlighting a good fit or explaining an unnatural fit (Du et al., 2010; Olson, 2010).
It is also argued that companies can conceivably influence consumer’s understanding of fit through use of certain contextual cues as fit is subject to perceptual judgement by consumers (Sohn et al., 2012). This would mean that fit is something that could be influenced by the company and its advertisements. Two forms of advertising are used to improve both low and high-fit cases; a relational communication strategy or an elaborational communication strategy (Sohn et al., 2012). Olson and Tjomoe’s (2011) results also suggest that poor “natural” fit can be at least partially overcome with effective communications regarding a firm’s sponsorship of a particular object. Nonetheless, as this study focuses on the influence of perceived fit/congruence and the advertisements of the sponsor will not include relational nor elaborational communication strategies, congruence will be described as an independent variable determined by the consumer’s perception of the fit between the brand and an event.
23
2.5 Consumer’s Identification with the Event
Both consumer beliefs and the perceived importance of those beliefs influence the willingness to engage in particular forms of behaviour (Madrigal, 2001). Activity involvement can be defined as “a genuine enthusiasm caused by a strong and solid interest in a specific activity that results from the perceived personal relevance of the activity” (Grohs and Reisinger, 2014 p.1020). Consumers’ emotional connection or attachment to an event can be conceptualized in terms of social identity theory (Madrigal, 2001). The social identity relevant in this study is an individual’s sense of unanimity with the event. Madrigal’s (2001) empirical research shows the relevance of considering the effects of social identification in sponsorship contexts. There are multiple ways previous research has integrated the construct consumer
identification with the event into sponsorship literature. This chapter will shortly elaborate on
these different hypothesis and will close with the expected influence it will have on the other relevant constructs.
Consumer identification with the event is also referred to involvement with the event. One
way to integrate consumer identification with the event in the already mentioned constructs is the statement that it is needed for persuasion to be effective on consumer response (Pomering and Johnson, 2009; Du et al., 2010). Issue support reflects stakeholders’ personal beliefs and needs, and as a result it can also be argued that when the stakeholders perceive the event as more important or personally relevant, promotion is likely to better stand out and be more effective (Du et al., 2010). Furthermore it is argued that high (versus low) levels of activity involvement increase the awareness of a consumer for the sponsor (Grohs and Reisinger, 2014). Research by Madrigal (2001) suggests that the identification moderates the effect of attitude on intentions to purchase, in which identified consumers appear more likely to form behavioural intentions.
24
might affect persuasion by acting as heuristic cue or trigger amplification. This can lead to deeply involved consumers who can be won over by sponsorship. In addition, individual awareness and knowledge of the social value of the event can increase positive attitudes towards the company and or event (Deitx et al., 2010). Moreover, involved consumers are expected to apply a greater amount of attention to sponsorship which may lead to more favourable attitudes (Eisend, 2007; Deitz et al., 2012).
One study stands out when the prior constructs are taken into account. Grohs and Reisinger (2014) argue that if consumers perceive the sponsor to be exploiting the event, involved persons are more likely to reject the company. Their result indeed confirms that event involvement positively moderates the relationship between event commercialization and sponsor image. Involved customers will be extremely sensitive to the treatment of their favoured event (Grohs and Reisinger, 2014). As they might feel a higher sense of unanimity with the event they are expected to react stronger to the perceived company motive. Regarding the previously mentioned dependent and independent variables it is likely that consumer
identification with the event will mediate the relationship between perceived company motive
25
2.6 Conceptual Model and Hypotheses
Previous literature as summarized in chapter 2.1-2.5 leads to multiple hypotheses. This chapter will shortly repeat the most important statements and subsequently extract the associated hypothesis, it will do so according to the aforementioned constructs. The chapter will conclude with a conceptual model which visualizes these relationships.
Brand Exposure
An increased amount of firms invests in sponsorship. In general, the more you pay the more possibilities you receive including superior visibility (Wakefield et al., 2007). As firms are willing to pay significantly higher amounts to be a higher ranked sponsor and have the associated advantages, this suggests that the general assumption holds that having high levels of visibility and integration leads to the positive benefits for the company. This assumption is formulated in hypothesis 1a:
H1a. The higher the level of brand exposure the more positive consumers attitude towards the sponsor will be
The simple relationship recalled in hypothesis 1a might be overly simplistic, because brand exposure is also likely to influence cognitive processes of consumers. But this will only happen if the persuasion attempt is identified by the consumer. When a persuasion attempt is subtle, there will be low levels of message elaboration and thus lower levels of conceptual persuasion knowledge (Buijzen et al., 2010; Rozendaal et al., 2011). The greater perceived exploitation, the more likely it is that persuasion knowledge will be activated (Carrilat and d’Astous, 2012). The following hypothesis can therefore be formed:
H1b. Brand exposure will positively influence persuasion knowledge
Persuasion Knowledge
26
can include the questioning of sponsor motives. It is argued that higher cognitive elaboration is likely to result in greater cognitive elaboration in the evaluation of a firm’s motivation. This persuasion knowledge will be used to correct primary positive beliefs about a company’s motive with more suspicion that the company is self-motivated (Becker-Olson et al , 2006). This study will start with the following hypothesis:
H2. Activated persuasion knowledge leads to more profit motives attributed to the sponsor
Perceived Company Motive
Following Olsen (2013) this study acknowledges the importance of perceived company motive, stating that it can be assumed it will mediate the relationship between (conceptual) persuasion knowledge and consumer attitudes. Carrilat and d’Astous (2012) and Han et al. (2013) already found that, in their research settings, profit driven attributions versus altruistic ones are more likely to generate cognitive responses that may damage the brand attitude. Taken into account these findings and additional previous research regarding this topic the following hypothesis will be tested:
H3. The more the company is perceived as having altruistic motives the more positive consumers attitude towards the sponsor will be
Congruence
Low levels of congruence increase the number of thoughts spent on sponsorship (Becker-Olson et al., 2005), The number of thoughts relate to the activation of cognitive processes. As persuasion knowledge can only be applied when a persuasion attempt is identified, it is important to note that sponsoring an event which is not logically related to the company’s core business may fuel the appearance of persuasion knowledge. The following hypothesis can therefore be formulated:
27
Congruence is also argued to affect the favourability of the thoughts, the focus on firm motive and the believed credibility assigned to the firm (Becker-Olson et al., 2005). Scepticism about company motives is more likely to occur when congruence is high (Olson, 2010). Although there are scholars who counteract this statement by claiming the opposite (Menon and Kahn, 2003) it is generally assumed that consumers are more likely to draw inferences of manipulative intent on the part of the advertiser when congruence is low (Campbell, 1991). This study therefore assumes:
H4b. Low levels of congruence lead to more profit-driven (versus altruistic) motives attributed towards the sponsor.
A lot of scholars in the sponsorship field assumed that congruence it is likely to positively influence consumer attitudes (Simmons and Becker-Olson, 2006; Han et al., 2013). High-congruence initiatives are consistent with prior expectations from both the event and the firm and can therefore reinforce a firm’s market position. This suggests a positive relationship between high congruence and sponsorship response. Similar effects are expected in this study:
H4c. Higher levels of congruence between a sponsor and event will lead to more positive consumer attitudes
Consumers identification with the event
Research by Grohs and Reisinger (2014) arguments that if consumers perceive sponsor to be exploiting the event involved persons are more likely to reject the company. Their research shows that involved customer will be extremely sensitive to the treatment of their favoured event (Grohs and Reisinger, 2014). To test whether this is also true when the relationship is mediated by perceived company motive the following hypothesis is formulated:
H5a. The more consumers are involved with the event, the stronger they will react on the perceived company motive.
28
sponsorship which may lead to more favourable attitudes (Eisend, 2007; Deitz et al., 2012). These insights lead to the following hypothesis:
H5b. The more consumers are involved with the event, the stronger they will react to the perceived company motive.
Based on these hypotheses the following conceptual model can be created:
* profit-driven (low) versus altruistic (high)
29
2.7 Sponsorship Category
Besides sponsorship at the generic level and the way it differs from advertising as explained in chapter 2.1, sponsorship category also influences sponsorship evaluations. In a broad sense corporations sponsor sports and cultural events and social causes or initiatives (Rifon et al., 2004) on a local, national or international level (Papadimitriou et al., 2008). Of these different events, sporting events, which count for 2/3 of all sponsorship spending in North America (Lacey et al., 2010) have been the most studied in sponsorship literature (Rifon et al., 2004). But things are slowly turning around as other investment categories come to greater prominence (Meenaghan, 2013). Sponsors make use of art events in order to appear philanthropic, they do this by providing funds for traditionally under-funded arts event and creating social benefits (Hackley, 2005). One other reason to choose for art sponsorship is that this more prestigious kind of sponsorship may reach a different target group and may benefit the perceptions of other stakeholders. Furthermore the support of events in a more cultural context, that are perhaps seen as more worthy of support by their devoted followers/supporters, might be more effective (Olson, 2010). Both Deitz et al. (2012) and Carrilat and d’Astous (2013) call for further research which goes beyond sport sponsorship literature to enhance the understanding and generalizability of the results. Moreover Carrilat and d’Astous (2013) underline the need for research which takes into account the prestige of the event with which a sponsor is associated, i.e. either a mass event or an elite event. According to Meenaghan Shipley (1999) the prestige of the event impacts the response of consumers. This study responds to this call by focusing on two types of art events, a mass event and an elite event, as will be explained in the following chapter.
30
objectives. One of the reasons is that goodwill effects vary among different categories (Meenaghan, 2001).
31
Figure 2.3 also underlines the interesting aspect of sponsoring the arts industry, showing the greatest mutual distance between the two forms of arts sponsoring while both being in the middle of distribution. The two art sponsorships that can be distinguished are mass arts and
elite arts. Elite arts, i.e. High-Brow arts, is associated with the following values: sophisticated,
elite, discriminating, up-market, serious and pretentious, while mass arts is linked to: young, accessible, friendly, current, innovative and commercial (Meenaghan & Shipley, 1999). These image values can also be found in figure 3.3.
Mass arts includes, among others, art festivals. Finkel (2010) highlights that the nature
32
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Overview
33
3.2 Survey
As this study aims to test explanatory propositions, a sample survey is used to provide information from a subset of the population as a basis for estimating population values or parameters (Thomas, 2004). An survey was distributed through the internet to students in the Netherlands and England. Students were contacted through their (student) email addresses and through social media. To account for ethical issues raised with a survey it was pointed out to all participants that their participation was voluntary, that they were able to withdraw from the research at any time without reason and that their data would be anonymous. On the first introduction page of the online survey participants had to participants were asked if they voluntarily decided to participate as can be found in appendix 3. When participants agreed they were sent to the first question of the survey. During the survey, if participants decided not to answer a questions or forgot to answer a question, they were reminded once, after which they could choose to answer the question or move on to the next question. At the beginning and at the end of the survey personal data of the researcher was distributed. At the end of the survey participants could choose to leave their email-address behind to receive further information regarding the results of the survey.
34
3.3 Design
35
3.4 Pre-test
The group for the pre-test consisted of 12 participants, of which 8 female students and 4 male students. The pre-test consisted of two documents which both included a different part of the pre-test. The test was personally distributed via the internet but was not anonymous. Participants were warned that their personal data might be used but only for the purpose of formulating the definite survey. After finishing the test participants were met or called by phone to discuss the answers and results and get a more thorough understanding of the data.
36
Six types of artistic events were tested according to the designed values and the event involvement of each participant. For each event participants had to choose six values of the 14 presented. The 14 presented included the twelve values presented in figure 3.3 and two dummy variables: healthy and caring. Two musical art events were tested, namely a music festival (mass art event) versus a classical concert (high-brow art event). Furthermore The World Press Photo (mass art event) versus a gallery opening (high-brow art event) and a musical (mass art event) versus an opera (high-brow art event) were tested.
37
future target group. As all other image values score very high the absence of this value image will not be accounted for in the research. The choice between the residual events is based on
event involvement. As event involvement is one of the variables tested for in this study it is
important to have both uninvolved and involved participants. When analysing the data the event opera turned out to have no involved participants within the pre-test sample. Opera is therefore excluded, which leads to the choice of classical concert as high-brow art event. As a music festival scores higher on the percentages of participants who chose these variables and fits in to the same music art category as a classical concert, a music festival was chosen to account for a mass art event.
As previously argued the company had to be an exciting one. To test which company was most suitable to represent high congruence and which one was most suitable to represent low congruence with a music art event the pre-test tested the 30 largest Dutch companied based on revenues with sufficient familiarity among the general public according to the Reputation Institute (2012). After the pre-test 9 companies had to be excluded because one or more participants were not familiar with the brand. From the 21 companies left there was only one company which scored sufficiently high on congruence: Heineken. There was one company which scored significantly lower than other companies, which could have represented low congruence, this was PostNL (called Whistl in the United Kingdom). For both companies previous reputation was medium to high. Based on these results these companies were chosen to be used in the scenario’s.
The second part of the pre-test was focused on testing the quality and reliability of the
survey. To maximise the quality of responses a pre-test was done in which the following questions are central (Thomas, 2004):
4 Can all the questions be correctly understand by the respondent? 5 Can all answers be correctly understand by the analyst?
38
3.5 Measures
This study combines two approaches to construct image scales. For constructing the level of brand exposure a pre-test was used to test its relevance. All other constructs were formed following an approach suggested by Speed and Thompson (2000). First, established scales were used as a starting point, after which items that suited the purpose of the study were selected. To ensure consistency and clarity all items were based on a seven-point rating scale. Before reading the scenario, participants were asked about corporate reputation, sponsor commitment and event involvement. Corporate reputation was measured on a two-item scale following from Eberle et al. (2013) who based their theory on Fombrum et al. (2000). This measurement was supplemented with three questions concerning sponsor commitment based on Lavey et al. (2009). Following Olson (2010) a three-item scale was used to measure event-involvement but for each item the expected future event-involvement was also tested for as a result of the pre-test. Therefore event involvement was measured using a total of six items.
Attitude towards the sponsor is measured after reading the scenario. This measurement
is based on the generally accepted three-item, seven-point semantic differential scale (MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989; Rifon et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2011; Olson & Thjomoe, 2011; Deitz et al., 2012, Meng-Lewis et al., 2013). Besides these three generally accepted items the fourth often used item “Favourable versus Unfavourable” was added. Perceived company
motive was assessed with both a three-item scale, seven-point semantic differential scale based
on Kim and Park (2010) and two questions of the three question formulated by Deitz et al. (2012), in which the question “It make sense to me that the this company sponsors the event” was erased as it is more likely to measure congruence. The measure of persuasion knowledge relies on a seven-item scale, the first question is based on research by Boerman et al. (2012), the other items were re-formulated according to the three-dimensional conceptualization of children’s advertising literacy by Rozendaal et al. (2011). Congruence was measured on a three-item scale based on research by Deitz et al (2002) and one audit question was added: “It is strange to see the sponsor logo at the event”. The questionnaire items for these constructs can
39
3.6 Methods
41
3.7 Respondents
42
4. RESULTS
4.1 Data preparation
The gathered data had to be prepared and the measuring instruments had to be validated before running the analysis. First all negatively formulated questions had to be reversed. As all measurements used a 7-point Likert scale no changes had to be made regarding the scales. Three extra variables were formulated to differentiate between the different scenarios, high versus low
brand exposure and high versus low congruence. In order to compare the different scenarios
new variable were constructed.
4.2 Reliability analysis
A reliability analysis provides information about the relationship between the individual components within a series of questions that measure the same construct. To determine whether reliability is sufficient Cronbach’s alpha (α) is used. In both business research and psychological research a Cronbach’s alpha of >0.700 is generally accepted. Figure 4.1 shows that all generally tested constructs are sufficiently high and can be generalized to the population. For the specific scenarios results can be found in Figure 4.2. There a few results which do not meet the requirement of α > 0.700 and thus a more extensive explanation is needed. First of all the persuasion knowledge construct leads to α = 0.625. This Cronbach’s alpha will not be higher if one of the questions is removed from the construct. According to Kline (1999) it can be realistically expected that psychological constructs values below 0,7 can be appropriated because of the diversity of the constructs measured. A value of α = 0.625 will therefore be argued to adequate. For scenario 2 (Post NL/Whistl- music festival- high exposure)
perceived company motive a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.689 was calculated. By removing question
3 Cronbach’s alpha became 0.735. The same occurred with scenario 4 (Heineken – music festival – high exposure), by deleting question 3 α = 0.625 became α = 0.714. For the perceived
company motive of scenario 3 (Heineken- music festival- low exposure) both question 3 and 4
43
44
4.3 Correlations
As this sample only includes students within a limited age range, the demographic item
age is excluded from the correlation test. Origin and university location are also excluded from
the test because of the relatively small percentage of non-Dutch students (7,4%) and non-Dutch universities (8,0%). The demographic item gender was tested for correlation with all dependent variables. None of the correlations with this item were significant so no steps had to be taken to account for correlations demographic items.
4.4 Assumptions
45
4.5 Analysis
The following section will show results for the hypotheses as shown in figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3. Proposed conceptual model
46
H1a. The higher the level of brand exposure the more positive consumers attitude towards the sponsor
An independent T-test regression has been conducted to test hypothesis 1a for both study 1, study 2 and study 1 and 2 combined. For Study 1 scenario 1 and 3 (low brand exposure) were grouped into group I and compared to the scenario 2 and 4 (high brand exposure), group II. The difference between the two groups was not significant. This means that, for study 1, no support has been found for H1a. For Study 2 scenario 5 and 6 (low exposure) were also grouped (group III) and subsequently compared to the scenario 7 and 8 (high exposure), group IV. Group III led to M=5.27, SD=1.13 and group IV led to M=4,75, SD=0.94, this means that attitude towards
a sponsor during a high-brow art event is more positive for low exposure. Levene’s test was
not significant (𝛼 = .825) which indicates that equal variance can be assumed. Results therefore show that the difference between the attitude towards the sponsor of group III and group IV, is significant (𝛼 = .018). For study 2 these findings do not support H1, but show that low brand
47
Combining both studies, grouping scenario 1,3,5 and 7 in group V and Scenario 2,4,6 and 8 in group VI results also show an insignificant Levene’s test (𝛼 = .354) and a significant difference (𝛼 = .018) between low and high brand exposure. In which low exposure indicates an attitude
towards the sponsor of M=5.28, SD=1.10 and high brand exposure indicates an attitude towards the sponsor of M=4.89, SD=1.17. Results can be found in figure 4.5. These findings
do not support H1a for study 1 and 2 combined, but show that low brand exposure, versus high
brand exposure, leads to more positive attitudes towards the sponsor. The importance of the
negative relationship found for study 2 and study 1 and 2 combined will be further discussed in chapter 4.
Figure. 4.5 T-test Study 1 and Study1&2 combined Results Low and High Exposure on Attitude
H1b. Brand exposure will positively influence persuasion knowledge
To test hypothesis H1b an independent T-test has been conducted for both study 1 and study 2 as well as for the combined sample. For Study 1 scenario 1 and 3 (low brand exposure) were grouped into group I and compared to the scenario 2 and 4 (high brand exposure), group II. Group I led to M=5.23, SD=1.05 and group II led to M=5,63, SD=0.75 as can be found in figure 4.6. This means that low brand exposure leads to lower levels of persuasion knowledge. Levene’s test was not significant (𝛼 = .145) which indicates that equal variance can be assumed.
95% CI for
Low Exposure High Exposure Mean
48
Results therefore show that the difference between the persuasion knowledge of group I and group II, is significant (𝛼 = .046). These findings support H1b for Study 1. Notwithstanding the above it should be noticed that the difference between the two means is small, the meaning of this small difference will be discussed in chapter 4. the For Study 2 scenario 5 and 6 (low brand
exposure) were also grouped (group III) and subsequently compared to the scenario 7 and 8
(high brand exposure), group IV. The difference between the two groups was not significant. These findings do not support H1b for study 2. Combining both studies, grouping scenario 1,3,5 and 7 in group V and Scenario 2,4,6 and 8 in group VI results are also not statistically significant at the .05 significance level, therefore H1b is only supports for study 1.
Figure 4.6. T-test Study 1 Results Low and High Exposure on Persuasion Knowledge
H2. Activated persuasion knowledge leads to more profit motives attributed to the sponsor
In order to test hypothesis 2 a simple regression has been conducted to test the linear regression between persuasion knowledge and perceived company motive. The results of the regression for study 1 can be found in figure 4.7, the results reveal that for scenario Heineken-Music Festival- low exposure nog significant results. For the other three scenarios persuasion
knowledge explained 58,4% (S1: R²=.584, F(1,20)= 30.51, p<.001), 51,6% (S2: R²=.516,
F(1,20)=21.30, p=<.001) and 33,4% (S4: R²=.334, F(1,19)=9.54, p=.006) of the variance. It was found that persuasion knowledge significantly predicted perceived company motive for scenario 1,2 and 4. H2 is only supported for these scenarios in study 1.
95% CI for
Low Exposure High Exposure Mean
M SD N M SD N Difference t df
Persuasion 5.23 1.05 45 5.63 0.74 43 (-)0.78, (-)0.01 2.03* 86
Knowledge
49
Figure 4.7. Regression Analysis Persuasion Knowledge - Perceived Company Motive Study 1
The results of the regression for study 2 can be found in figure 4.8, the results reveal only for scenario PostNL- Classical Music- high exposure non-significant results. For the other three scenarios persuasion knowledge explained 16,5% (S5: R²=.165, F(1,22)= 4.35, p=.049), 31,9% (S7: R²=.319, F(1,21)=9.85, p=.005) and 21,0% (S8: R²=.210, F(1,21)= 5.60, p=.006) of the variance. It was found that persuasion knowledge significantly predicted perceived
company motive for scenario 5,7 and 8. For study 2 H2 is supported for these three scenarios.
Figure 4.8. Regression Analysis Persuasion Knowledge - Perceived Company Motive Study 2
When taking all scenarios into account to check the whether the conceptual model has a general value. For the other three scenarios persuasion knowledge explained 19,2% (R²=.192, F(1,179)= 42.40, p<.001) of the variance. This can be found in figure 4.9. It was found that
persuasion knowledge significantly predicted perceived company motive in the general model.
H2 is therefore supported. Unstandardized Standardized coefficients coefficients Hypotheses Predictor B SEB β df1 df2 R R 2 F t p 2 Persuasion Knowledge S1 (PMl) (-) 1.06 .19 (-) .77 1 20 .604 .584 30.51** (-) 5.52** <.001 2 Persuasion Knowledge S2 (PMh) (-) 0.97 .21 (-) .72 1 20 .718 .516 21.30** (-) 4.62** <.001 2 Persuasion Knowledge S3 (HMl) 0.04 .21 .04 1 21 .037 .001 0.029 .17 .867 2 Persuasion Knowledge S4 (HMh) (-) 1.05 .34 (-) .58 1 19 .578 .334 9.54* (-) 3.09* .006
* Coefficient is significant at the .050 level (2-tailed) ** Coefficient is significant at the .001 level (2-tailed)
Unstandardized Standardized coefficients coefficients Hypotheses Predictor B SEB β df1 df2 R R 2 F t p 2 Persuasion Knowledge S5 (PCl) (-) 0.77 .37 (-) .41 1 22 .406 .165 4.35* (-) 2.08* .049 2 Persuasion Knowledge S6 (PCh) (-) 0.38 .24 (-) .33 1 21 .327 .107 2.52 (-) 1.56 .127 2 Persuasion Knowledge S7 (HCl) (-) 0.89 .28 (-) .57 1 21 .565 .319 9.85* (-) 3.14* .005 2 Persuasion Knowledge S8 (HCh) (-) 0.53 .22 (-) .46 1 21 .459 .210 5.60* (-) 2.366* .006 * Coefficient is significant at the .050 level (2-tailed)
50
Figure 4.9. Regression Analysis Persuasion Knowledge - Perceived Company Motive Study 1&2
H3. The more the company is perceived as having altruistic motives the more positive consumers attitude towards the sponsor will be
A regression analysis was conducted to test H3. This relationship was significant for one scenario in study 1 (scenario 4), two scenarios in study 2 (scenario 6 and 8) and for all participants together. For the these three scenarios perceived company motive explained 21,7% (S4: R²=.217, F(1,20)= 5.53, p=.029), 23,1% (S6: R²=.231, F(1,21)=6.31, p=.020) and 49.4% (S8: R²=.492, F(1,21)= 4.53, p<.001) of the variance of attitude towards the sponsor. For the all participants together perceived company motive only explained 7,5% (R²=.075, F(1,181)=6.31, p<.001) of the variance of attitude towards the sponsor. H3 can therefore partly be supported as underpinned by figure 4.10.
Figure 4.10. Regression Analysis Perceived Company Motive – Attitude towards the sponsor
Unstandardized Standardized coefficients coefficients Hypotheses Predictor B SEB β df1 df2 R R 2 F t p 2 Persuasion Knowledge (-) 0.59 .09 (-) .44 1 179 .438 .192 42.40** (-) 6.51** < .001 * Coefficient is significant at the .050 level (2-tailed)
** Coefficient is significant at the .001 level (2-tailed)
Unstandardized Standardized coefficients coefficients
Hypotheses Predictor B SEB β df1 df2 R R
2
F t p
3 Perceived Company Motive (S4) .49 .21 .47 1 20 .465 .217 5.53* 2.35* .029 Study 1
3 Perceived Company Motive (S6) .34 .13 .48 1 21 .481 .231 6.31* 2.51* .020 Study 2
3 Perceived Company Motive (S8) .74 .16 .70 1 21 .703 .494 20.51** 4.53** <.001 Study 2
3 Perceived Company Motive (TOTAL) .27 .07 .28 1 181 .080 .075 15.83** 3.98** <.001 Study 1&2
51
H4a. Low levels of congruence will strengthen the effects of brand exposure on persuasion knowledge.
To test hypothesis H4a persuasion knowledge scores were subjected to a Univariate analysis of variance having two levels of brand exposure (high, low) and two levels of
congruence (high, low). Assumptions that hold for variance analysis include that (1)
observations per different scenario are derived from independent, random samples from normally distributed populations and that (2) the variances in different groups are equal to each other (Huizingh, 2009). Both can be assumed. Results for each of the constructs include:
congruence F(1,2)=0.79, p=.455, brand exposure F(1,2) = 2.28, p=.105, combination congruence and brand exposure F(1,2)=.74, p=.477. This means that none of the effects were
statistically significant at the .05 significance level, therefore H4a is unsupported.
H4b. Low levels of congruence lead to more profit-driven (versus altruistic) motives attributed towards the sponsor.
52
were grouped into group I and compared to the scenario 3 and 4 (high congruence), group II. The difference between the two groups was α = .258. This means that the difference is not statistically significant at the .05 significance level, therefore H4b is unsupported for study 1. For Study 1 scenario 5 and 6 (low congruence) were grouped into group III and compared to the scenario 7 and 8 (high congruence), group IV. Cronbach’s alpha was found α = .707. This means that the difference is not statistically significant at the .05 significance level, therefore H4b is unsupported for study 2. The combined sample of study 1 and 2 is also nog significant (α = .551). This means that none of the effects were statistically significant at the .05 significance level, therefore H4b is unsupported
H4c. Higher levels of congruence between a sponsor and event will lead to more positive consumer attitudes
53
H5. The more consumers are involved with the event, the less likely it is that their attitude will be influenced by perceived company motive
First a moderator variable had to be formulated. To formulate this moderator both variables had to be normalized before further analysis could be done. A regression analysis was done to test the moderating effect of identification with the event, also called event involvement.
Event involvement (normalized) times perceived company motive (normalized) formed the
moderator. The moderating effect turned out to be non-significant for all scenarios. Therefore H5a is not supported.
H5b. The more consumers are involved with the event, the stronger they will react on the perceived company motive.
54
of the variance of attitude towards the sponsor. Hypothesis 5b is thereby only supported for scenario 1. For scenario 8 the results are significant but show a negative relationship. Hypothesis 5b is therefore not supported for scenario 8.
Figure 4.11. Regression Analysis Event Involvement – Attitude towards the sponsor
Unstandardized Standardized coefficients coefficients Hypotheses Predictor B SEB β df1 df2 R R2 F t p 5b Event Involvement (S1) .46 .18 .49 1 20 .490 .202 6.31* 2.51* .021 Study 1 5b Event Involvement (S8) (-) . 33 .13 (-) .50 1 21 .499 .249 6.98* (-)2.64* .015 Study 2
55
4.6 Comparison Studies and Scenarios
One of the main objectives of this study was to see whether there was a significant difference between a mass art event and an elite art event. This section will compare differences between the two different studies and both studies combined for the relevant hypotheses (H1a, H1b, H2 (for all studies combined) H4a, H4b, H4c) as can be found in figure 4.11. Furthermore the eight scenarios will be compared in figure 4.12 (Study 1) and 4.13 (Study 2) for the hypotheses H2, H3, H5a, H5b. The interpretation of these results will be looked at in the next section.
56
Figure 4.12. Results scenarios Study 1
57
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Conclusion & Theoretical Contribution
Understanding the cognitive processes of consumers and their followed response is essential for the use of sponsorship as a way to communicate the desired corporate image. This study addressed three gaps within sponsorship literature: (1) the influence of contextual factors (Deitz et al., 2012), (2) the impact of individual traits (Deitz et al., 2012), such as persuasion
knowledge on the cognitive processes as a result of sponsorship exposure, and (3) the lack of
research in upcoming sponsorship events such as artistic events (Deitz et al., 2012). The first gap was approached by adding brand exposure (contextual factor) to the conceptual model. The influence of individual traits was addressed by the concept of persuasion knowledge (individual trait) and its influence on the process of attributing incentives to sponsors. The last gap regarding the sponsorship category was answered by specifically researching two types of artistic music events, a mass art event and a high-brow art event.
This study presents empirical evidence that contextual factors are indeed relevant when it comes to consumers reaction to sponsorship of artistic events. For both Study 2 and Study 1 and 2 combined results show a significant negative relationship between brand exposure and
consumer attitude towards the sponsor. These results show that both low and high levels of brand exposure have a positive influence on consumers attitudes but these outcomes are
58
The most striking difference between Study 1 and Study 2 includes the influence of
brand exposure. For a music festival brand exposure significantly influences persuasion knowledge but does not have significant influence on consumer attitudes towards the sponsor.
On the other hand, for a classical concert results show that brand exposure does not have a significant influence on persuasion knowledge but does influence consumer attitudes towards
the event. One possible reason for the difference between a music festival (mass art event) and
classical concert (elite art event) could be the difference in commercialization of the sponsorship category. It can be argued that for relatively commercialized events (Study 1) more exposure is needed to activate persuasion knowledge while for less commercialized events (Study 2) low or high levels of brand exposure are insignificant because even a little brand
exposure is enough to activate these cognitive processes. Furthermore, consumer attitude towards the event might only be dependent on brand exposure in case of elite art events in
which commercialization is relatively less common. Implementations of these results will be discussed in the next chapter.
Regarding the influence of persuasion knowledge on perceived company motive, significant results could be found for 6 out of the 8 scenarios. These 6 scenarios confirmed the negative relationship as stated in the hypothesis. This finding underlined the importance of individual traits and attributes to development of the perceived company construct. Perceived
company motive in these scenarios is for a significant part (16,5%- 58,4%) predicted by persuasion knowledge. The exceptions (scenario 3 and 6) concern two opposite scenarios,
respectively: Heineken-music festival-low exposure and PostNL-classical concert-high exposure. As will be underlined in chapter 4.3, more research is needed to clarify these findings.
