sport sponsorhip team support.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Bucharest ]On: 08 March 2015, At: 11:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Marketing CommunicationsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmc20
Sport sponsorship, team support andpurchase intentionsAaron Smith a , Brian Graetz b & Hans Westerbeek aa School of Sport, Tourism and Hospitality Management , Facultyof Law and Management , La Trobe University , Melbourne,Australiab School of Business , Faculty of Law and Management , La TrobeUniversity , Melbourne, AustraliaPublished online: 31 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Aaron Smith , Brian Graetz & Hans Westerbeek (2008) Sport sponsorship,team support and purchase intentions, Journal of Marketing Communications, 14:5, 387-404, DOI:10.1080/13527260701852557
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527260701852557
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Sport sponsorship, team support and purchase intentions
Aaron Smitha*, Brian Graetzb and Hans Westerbeeka
aSchool of Sport, Tourism and Hospitality Management, Faculty of Law and Management,La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia; bSchool of Business, Faculty of Law andManagement, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
This research assessed the influence of team support and perception of sponsorson the purchase intentions of sport consumers. In a case study of a not-for-profit,membership-based Australian professional football club, 1647 respondentsreported their perceptions of team support, sponsor integrity and purchaseintentions for the sponsor’s products. Results revealed that the key pathway topurchase intention is associated with fan passion and a perception of sponsorintegrity. This implies that the best mechanism for sponsor return on investmentcomes in the form of activities to bolster both passion for the team andperceptions of sponsor integrity.
Keywords: consumer behaviour; sport sponsorship; purchase intention
Introduction
Despite its importance and the proliferation of work on sponsorship in general, the
nature of the relationship between sponsorship and consumer purchase intentions
remains unclear. Meenaghan and O’Sullivan (2001) lamented that the research into
sponsorship has predominantly focused either on management practices or on recall
and recognition. Furthermore, they noted that awareness and association testing
provides only superficial data about the nature of consumer reaction to, and
engagement with, sponsorship. A paucity of empirical work seeks to explain the
machinations of the relationship between sport sponsors and sport consumers. The
importance of bolstering the limited empirical work in this area is amplified as some
case study descriptions suggest that under the right conditions, sponsorship can be
more effective than traditional advertising or other promotional activities (Verity
2002). This research reports on the results from a survey of members of a
professional Australian (rules) Football League club. It aims to identify the key
variables in the sponsorship relationship and the processes that influence members’
purchase intentions toward the major (naming rights) sponsor’s products. Members
are individuals who have paid an annual fee to ‘belong’ to a not-for-profit sporting
club, comprising a suite of ticket and merchandise benefits along with the right to
vote in the annual general meeting and in elections for positions in the Board of
Management.
This research employs the conventional definition of sport sponsorship proposed
by Meenaghan (1991). Sponsorship therefore involves an investment, in cash or
kind, in a sport property in return for access to the exploitable commercial potential
associated with that property. Return on investment has proven troublesome to
sponsors associated with small sport properties (Ashill, Davis, and Joe 2000;
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Journal of Marketing Communications
Vol. 14, No. 5, December 2008, 387–404
ISSN 1352-7266 print/ISSN 1466-4445 online
# 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13527260701852557
http://www.informaworld.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5
Jackson, Barry, and Scherer 2001; Roy and Graeff 2003). However, there is
persuasive evidence suggesting that sponsors should change their focus from raw
volume of exposure to image matching or fit (Lachowetz et al. 2002), complemented
by an awareness of the dangers of invasive marketing techniques (Irwin et al. 2003).
This research aims to explore the determinants of purchase intention and
processes of decision making about the sponsor’s products in the membership base
of a professional sport club in Australia. It reports on the results of a 21-item
instrument comprising a beliefs–attitudes–intentions hierarchy of effects framework,
distributed to the membership population of a professional Australian football club.
Literature and conceptual background
Measures of purchase behaviour focus on the direct effect of sponsorship on sales.
The difficulty, of course, lies in isolating the effect of sponsorship from other
activities within the promotion mix or from variables in the market (Miles 2001;
Miyazaki and Morgan 2001). Just as with other major announcements, new
sponsorships have been shown to have an effect on the value of a company’s share
price (Clark, Cornwell, and Pruitt 2002). Although troublesome, assessments of
purchase intention have been employed to help ascertain the impact of sponsorship
activities.
According to Pope and Voges (2000), consumers’ intention to purchase can be
derived from two predominant influences: first, a positive attitude towards the
brand; and second, brand familiarity, which is obtained from brand exposure and
prior use. In addition to these two factors, suggestive evidence points to the relevance
of team support, and sponsor integrity and fit. However, as Hoek, Gendall, and
Theed (1999) cautioned, the link between awareness and increased purchase
behaviour is tenuous, even though exposure is the key element in determining the
value of a sponsorship (Cornwell et al. 2000). Furthermore, the familiarity with a
sponsor’s brand emanating from exposure and sponsorship awareness has been
claimed to increase consumption values (Levin, Joiner, and Cameron 2001; Pope
1998).
It may be premature to conclude that brand familiarity is sufficient to stimulate
purchase behaviour. For example, the impact of perceived sponsor commitment may
also be relevant. Farrelly and Quester (2003) indicated that the sponsored sport
organization’s actions do not directly influence the sponsor’s commitment to the
relationship. They suggested that low levels of market orientation by the property
might actually encourage the sponsor toward a deeper level of commitment to
compensate. Low exposure (and perhaps consumer awareness) can stimulate a
greater sponsor commitment to the relationship. Chadwick (2002) proposed that it is
crude to conceive of sponsor commitment to pivot around the financial transaction.
He argued that it instead demands a multi-faceted view of commitment that
emphasizes a collaborative and relational perspective. Grohs, Wagner, and Vsetecka
(2004) provided evidence that sponsor-property fit, event involvement and exposure
are the key factors predicting sponsor recall. The magnitude of image transfer
depends upon sponsorship leveraging and the sponsor-property fit (Grohs, Wagner,
and Vsetecka 2004).
Results from Speed and Thompson’s (2000) data indicated that sponsor-event fit,
perceived sincerity of the sponsor, perceived ubiquity of the sponsor and attitude
388 A. Smith et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5
toward the sponsor are central in eliciting an advantageous response from the
sponsorship association. Research considering the impact of sponsor-event fit on
cognitive and affective responses has indicated that sponsors with high brand equity
are perceived as more congruent sponsors than those with low brand equity (Roy
and Cornwell 2003). Thus, well known brands have a superior opportunity for brand
building through sponsorship. In turn, sponsor-event congruence has been shown to
be associated with favourable attitudes towards the sponsor.
The nature of team support has also been established as a precursor to
consumers’ purchase intentions. Gwinner and Swanson’s (2003) data supported the
hypothesis that highly identified sport fans are more likely to exhibit sponsor
recognition, a positive attitude toward the sponsor, sponsor patronage and
satisfaction with the sponsor. These outcomes were linked to three antecedents:
prestige, fan associations and domain involvement (the personal relevance of a
particular object, situation or action). The authors defined team identification as
spectators’ perceived connectedness to a team and its performance. Therefore, it is a
specific form of organizational identification, and one that gives rise to the positive
associations that may encourage purchase intentions. Positive attitudes toward a
sponsor have further been positively associated with favourable perceptions and
intentions to purchase a sponsor’s product (Speed and Thompson 2000). Wann et al.
(2001) observed that highly identified fans evaluate in-group members higher than
out-group members. It is unclear whether this positive association extends to
sponsors (Wann and Branscombe 1993).
Identification represents the final mechanism of fan attachment (Ferrand and
Pages 1996; Jones 2000; Wiley, Shaw, and Havitz 2000), and refers to the association
between an individual’s self-concept and the sport object. Identification is achieved
when individuals are motivated toward the sport team, club or athlete for reasons of
constructing a self-concept. Self-concept motives include the desire for belonging,
group affiliation, tribal connections and vicarious achievement (Fink, Trail, and
Anderson 2002; Hughson 1999; Morris 1981; Wann 1995; Wann and Branscombe
1993). When motivated by these factors, a person’s sense of self may be associated
with the team and self-esteem may be extracted from team success; the group (tribe,
club, team) may be seen as an extension of the self. In other words, the more a fan is
motivated to construct a sense of self through the sport object, the more closely they
will become emotionally attached to it. There is, in fact, evidence suggesting that of
all the mechanisms of fan attachment, it is identification which bears the greatest
influence over whether a fan will develop a psychological or emotional connection to
the team (Fink, Trail, and Anderson 2002).
Group identification is a pivotal mediator of social perception (Wann and Grieve
2005). Fans with greater identification are more likely to attend games, purchase
merchandise, spend more on tickets and products, and remain loyal (Fink, Trail, and
Anderson 2002; Madrigal 1995; Murrell and Dietz 1992; Wann and Branscombe
1993). In other words, the outcome of a strong psychological connection to a team is
loyalty, where support, including consumption behaviours, may continue regardless
of circumstances (James, Kolbe, and Trail 2002). Sponsors may have reason to
assume that they will be perceived as an ally of the high identification fan (Hoek,
Gendall, and Sanders 1993). They may even attempt to amplify the level of
identification through celebrity endorsement. A company may further choose to go
beyond celebrity endorsement and engage representative industry associations and
Journal of Marketing Communications 389
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5
groups on their behalf as an approach to influencing consumer purchase intentions
(Daneshvary and Schwer 2000).
Lafferty and Goldsmith (1999) determined that while purchase intentions do
indeed grow with corporate credibility, the growth is not significantly related to
endorser credibility. Earlier research by Ohanian (1991) concerning the relationship
of attractiveness, trustworthiness, and expertise to intention to purchase showed that
only the perceived expertise of the celebrity endorser was significant in predicting
purchase intentions. Indeed, Tripp, Jensen, and Carlson (1994) demonstrated in their
experimental study that as the number of celebrity advertisement exposures
increased, there was a corresponding deterioration in consumer intention to
purchase. Silvera and Austad (2004) determined that product attitudes could be
predicted by inferences about the endorser’s liking for the product and by attitudes
toward the endorser. This relationship implies that a progression from beliefs to
attitudes is important, as crudely predicted by hierarchy of effects models.
Hierarchy of effects models describe the assumption that consumers progress
through escalating mental stages when they make buying decisions, and when they
respond to marketing or other communications about a product. One of the earliest
versions of the model is attributed to Strong (1925) in the form of awareness–
interest–desire–action (AIDA). Ambler (1998) claimed that there is consensus that
decision-making structures include cognitive, affective and behavioural components,
but that there is scant evidence delineating the sequence and timing of the steps. This
cautious undertone was highlighted by Barry and Howard (1990) as well as
Vakratsan and Ambler (1999).
One of the central challenges to hierarchy of effects models revolves around the
impact of involvement, particularly as a mediating variable. Meenaghan’s (2001)
framework concerning the effects of commercial sponsorship on consumers revolves
around the key variables of goodwill, image, involvement and consumer response.
His model’s fundamental premise is that the consumer’s degree of involvement with,
and knowledge about, the sponsored activity along with the associated goodwill
directed to the sponsor, drive consumer response to sponsorship.
Madrigal (2001) employed a beliefs–attitude–intentions hierarchy to investigate
consumers’ connections to sport teams and their corporate sponsors. The emotional
connection of consumers was interpreted through a social identity theory lens where
a consumer’s self-concept is derived from membership to a group. His study reported
on the influence of consumers’ beliefs about sponsorship, the perceived importance
of those beliefs, identification with the sponsored sport team and consumer’s
purchase intention attitudes. Madrigal counselled that consumer passion for the
sport team is the pivotal variable. In addition, he concluded that favourable beliefs
about the benefits provided to the sport property from the sponsor are positively
related to attitudes toward buying products from that sponsor. Fan identification
with the sport property and the opportunity for sponsors to influence consumers’
beliefs about the benefits of association, are the key lessons.
From a theoretical standpoint, Madrigal’s research was pivotal in shedding light
on the manner in which the belief–attitudes–intentions hierarchy unfolds in
association with a sport sponsorship. He concluded that the role of inter-attitudinal
relationships was central to the formation of social identity with the sport team; a
process preceding attitudinal development. Thus, the most important aspect of the
hierarchy related to the tendency of consumers to hold favourable attitudes towards
390 A. Smith et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5
those factors reflective of their own identities. Consumers, therefore, will forge
positive associations with sponsors that support the sport properties that exemplify
and house these identities, culminating in bolstered purchase intentions.
The aim of the research reported here is to identify the key linkages between
sport fans, team support and sponsorship, together with the processes that influence
members’ purchase intentions toward the chief sponsor’s products. This research
embraces Madrigal’s (2001) belief–attitudes–intentions hierarchy. However, the
specific objective remains to ascertain the manner in which team support and
perceptions of sponsor integrity affect fan receptiveness to sponsorship and
ultimately their intention to purchase sponsors’ products.
Data and method
The data for this analysis are taken from a survey of the membership base of a
professional Australian Football League club. The club is not-for-profit and consists
of members who elect a board of governance. A mail-out questionnaire was sent to
the population of club members. In total 1703 responses were received, of which
1647 were usable, representing a response rate of 8.5 % (N519,295). This low
response rate represents a limitation of this study as it presents the possibility of a
bias due to the self-selection of respondents.
The instrument developed for this research was informed by previous studies of
similar issues and populations (for example, Tapp 2004; Speed and Thompson 2000;
Richardson and O’Dwyer 2003) as well as the more general approaches of Lee,
Sandler, and Shani (1997), Daneshvary and Schwer (2000) and Madrigal (2001).
Items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging between strong
agreement and strong disagreement. Some 15 of these 21 items are used in the
analyses reported below; six items that did not contribute to the measurement of
coherent constructs were discarded. Items relating to socio-demographic attributes
and club membership were also included in the questionnaire.
Respondent attributes are summarized in Table 1. Two out of three respondents
were male and most had post-secondary education (technical college or university).
They represent a range of income levels, with one in eight respondents earning less
than $AUS25,000 ($US21,000; J15,000) per annum, two in five earning between
$AUS50,000 ($US42,000; J30,000) and $AUS100,000 ($US84,000; J60,000) per
annum, and one in eight earning incomes in excess of $AUS100,000 ($US84,000;
J60,000) per annum. Respondents are also well distributed by age, with 14% aged
less than 30 years, 46% aged 30–49 years, 36% aged 50–64 years and 4% aged 65 and
over. Respondents had been members for an average of 13.6 years and attended up
to 30 football matches per year, with the average being nine matches. These
distributions, together with the large number of responses received, suggest that
responses are broadly representative of the club’s membership. However, although
the respondents were demographically typical, their sponsorship attitudes may not
have been because of their willingness to participate in the survey where others did
not.
A series of exploratory factor analyses was applied to the set of items relating to
team support, sponsorship and purchase intentions to identify optimal combinations
of variables for measurement purposes. Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) was used in
this analysis. The exploratory factor analysis revealed a number of key dimensions
Journal of Marketing Communications 391
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5
relevant to this analysis. These were team support (passionate, positive), sponsor
integrity, sponsor receptiveness and purchase intentions. The items comprising
each dimension, the exact question wording, and the factor loadings and
reliabilities obtained are presented in Table 2. As there are causal inter-
relationships amongst latent factors, a single pooled analysis is not appropriate.
Hence, separate factor analyses were conducted as shown by the numbering of items
in Table 2.
Measurement
The questionnaire included several items about strength of team support.
Exploratory factor analysis revealed two separate dimensions – passionate (three
items) and positive (two items). The use of oblique rotation to simplify factors is
justified in this analysis in view of the strong inter-factor correlation (r50.59)
(Tabachnick and Fidell 2001). Factor loadings exceed 0.64 and the reliability of both
measures is very high. Off-factor loadings (not shown in Table 2) are negligible, the
highest being 0.18.
Sponsor receptiveness is a summated index, which captures three separate
aspects of receptiveness to the sponsor’s products and services: openness to further
information, interest in learning more about the sponsor and knowledge of the
sponsor’s business. A high score indicates that respondents are open to learning and
becoming more knowledgeable about the sponsor’s products and services.
Table 1. Socio-demographic and membership profile of respondents.
N Percent
Gender
Male 1078 67
Female 520 33
Age
Less than 30 years 227 14
30–49 years 752 46
50–64 years 592 36
65 years and older 73 4
Education
Secondary 634 39
Tertiary 386 24
University 602 37
Income
Less than AUS$25k (US$21k; J15k) 189 12
AUS$25–50k (US$21–42k; J15–30k) 518 34
AUS$50–100k (US$42–84k; J30–60k) 639 41
More than AUS$100k (US$84k; J60k) 200 13
Mean
Years of membership 13.62
Matches attended per season 9.07
392 A. Smith et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5
Sponsor integrity is a composite measure of respondents’ views about the
relationship between the sponsor and the sponsored sporting team. It encompasses
genuineness, (sponsors show a genuine interest in the club and its supporters), fit (the
sponsors and the team fit well together), virtue (it is good to see a big company
sponsoring local football) and affection (I like sponsors because they support the
team financially).
Finally, the dependent variable, purchase intentions, comprises three itemsreflecting respondents’ willingness to support their team’s sponsor by using and
purchasing products or services. The items comprising this measure are willingness
to use the products or services of sponsors, willingness to buy products from an
organization that sponsors the team, and willingness to consider the products or
services of sponsors before considering the products or services of non-sponsors. The
items are positively correlated, have loadings in excess of 0.67 and strong reliability
(a50.80). Regression factor scores have again been used to obtain an optimal
Table 2. Fans, sponsorship and purchase intentions: item wording and rotated factor
loadings.
Item wording Loadinga
Passionate supporter (Cronbach a50.80)
1. I passionately support the club 0.780
2. I love the club 0.728
3. I passionately follow another team in the AFL 20.641
Positive supporter (Cronbach a50.73)
4. Win or lose, I always support my team in a positive manner 0.815
5. I always talk positively about the club 0.672
Sponsor receptiveness (Cronbach a5not applicable)
1. I am interested in learning more about the sponsors of the club
2. I would welcome receiving information about the products and services of
sponsors Summated index
3. I know more about the business of the sponsors since they started
sponsoring the club
Sponsor integrity (Cronbach a50.68)
1. The existing sponsors and the club fit well together 0.693
2. I automatically like all sponsors of the club because they support my team
financially
0.580
3. I feel that sponsors of the club show a genuine interest in the club and its
supporters
0.569
It is good to see a big company sponsoring a local football team 0.504
Purchase intention (Cronbach a50.80)
1. I am more likely to buy products from an organization that sponsors the
club
0.819
2. I will always consider buying the products and services of the club sponsors
before considering the products and services of non-sponsors
0.772
3. I would consider using the products or services of sponsors 0.673
aFactor loadings obtained using Principal Axis Factoring and Direct Oblimin rotation.
Journal of Marketing Communications 393
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5
summary of responses. The scale of measurement for the five composite variables
has been adjusted so that all scores fall within a range of 0–10 points.
Analysis
The core of the analysis reported below focuses on the relationship between
supporters (fans), sponsor integrity, brand receptiveness and purchase intentions.
These relationships are examined using both bivariate Pearson correlations and
multivariate statistical techniques. Multiple regression is used to estimate the causal
model presented in Figure 1. In this model, purchase intention is dependent on team
support, sponsor integrity and sponsor receptiveness which themselves are causally
inter-related as shown by arrows in Figure 1. Team support is represented by three
variables: passionate fans, positive fans and match attendance. Sponsorship is
represented by two variables: sponsor receptiveness and sponsor integrity.
A path analysis approach with incremental regressions and reduced-form
equations is used to estimate total as well as direct causal effects (Kline 1998). Direct
effects represent the unique effect that each variable has on purchase intentions,
controlling for all exogenous and endogenous variables in the model. Total causal
effects are the sum of direct effects and indirect effects mediated through intervening
variables and are estimated here using equations that omit intervening variables, in
the manner of Alwin and Hauser (1975). As shown in Figure 1, team support and
sponsor integrity will have indirect effects on purchase intention, whereas sponsor
receptiveness has only a direct effect, so its total and direct effects will be equivalent.
Results
The distribution of scores on the five composite variables in this analysis is
summarized in Table 3. Respondents are found to be strongly passionate supporters
of their team with a mean score of nine on the 10-point scale. Not all members are
passionate supporters, however, but the distribution is none the less strongly
negatively skewed and peaked at high scores, indicated by the high positive value for
Figure 1. Explanatory model: team support, sponsorship and purchase intention.
394 A. Smith et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5
kurtosis. Respondents are also strongly positive in their support for their team,
although the mean score is one point lower than for passionate support. There is also
more diversity of views expressed on this measure, reflected by the considerably
lower values for skewness and kurtosis. The strongly passionate and mostly positive
support expressed for the team is consistent with expectations for respondents who
are all club members.
Table 3 also shows there is a moderate degree of receptiveness amongst fans to
the commercial appeal of the team’s major sponsor. Scores are close to normally
distributed, with a mean score near to the mid-point of the scale and values for
skewness and kurtosis close to zero. The perceived level of integrity of the sponsor is
somewhat higher, with a mean score in excess of seven points. Although most fans
have a highly favourable view about the sponsor’s integrity, there is some variation
around this, including a small proportion of respondents who do not rate the
sponsor’s integrity highly at all. Finally, respondents express strong purchase
intentions in relation to the sponsor’s services. The mean score is eight points and
most responses fall within the upper half of the scale, with the modal response being
an unequivocal intention to consider the sponsor’s services. Again, however, a small
proportion of respondents are not willing to consider using or buying the sponsor’s
services.
Table 3. Fans, sponsorship and purchase intentions: univariate statistics.
Composite measure Range Mean Std dev Skewness Kurtosis
Fans
Passionate fans 0–10 9.02 1.67 22.93 10.38
Positive fans 0–10 8.03 1.79 21.48 2.75
Sponsorship
Sponsor receptiveness 0–10 5.76 2.20 20.30 20.27
Sponsor integrity 0–10 7.29 1.60 20.68 1.32
Purchase intention 0–10 8.31 1.35 20.81 0.85
Table 4. Fans, sponsorship and purchase intention: correlations with socio-demographic and
membership attributes.a
Composite variables Gender Age Education Income Years of
membership
Match
attendance
Fans
Passionate fan 20.08* 20.06 20.09* 20.11* 0.08* 0.21*
Positive fan 20.12* 0.01 20.06 20.10* 0.03 0.17*
Sponsorship
Sponsor receptiveness 0.07* 20.14* 20.03 0 0.04 0.11*
Sponsor integrity 20.01 0.02 20.11* 20.08* 0.04 0.12*
Purchase intention 0.02 0.01 20.03 0 0.05 0.07*
*Statistical significance at P,0.01.aPearson correlations.
Journal of Marketing Communications 395
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5
Table 4 presents correlations between the socio-demographic attributes of
respondents and fans, sponsorship and purchase intention. These correlations
reveal only minor variations in responses. Passionate supporters are marginally more
likely to be female, have marginally lower education and income, have been club
members for marginally longer and attend more matches during the year. Supporters
who always remain positive about their team are also more likely to be female, with
lower income and attend more matches. Males, younger respondents and those
attending more matches are marginally more receptive to the sponsor’s products and
services. Sponsor integrity is weakly correlated with education, income (both
negative) and match attendance. Purchase intention is related only to match
attendance and then only very weakly. Overall, variations in team support, sponsor
impact and purchase intention are related weakly to respondent attributes. The
strongest correlations are between passionate and positive fans and match
attendance, measures that are used collectively as indicators of team support in
the explanatory models that follow.
Table 5 presents the results of the regression analysis estimating parameters for the
explanatory model for purchase intentions depicted in Figure 1. The table presents both
direct effects (depicted by the arrows in Figure 1) and total causal effects (the sum of
direct and indirect effects, estimated here using reduced-form equations). The results
shown in Table 5 indicate that socio-demographic variables have little impact on
purchase intentions. Age is the only significant effect (older people have marginally
stronger purchase intentions) but this direct effect is offset by an indirect effect in the
opposite direction, with older people less receptive to further information from the
sponsor. As a result, age has no significant effect overall on purchase intentions.
Table 5. Direct and total causal effects for purchase intentions.a
Independent variables Direct effects Total effects
b b b b
Control variables
Gender 0.012 0 0.079 0.03
Age 0.046 0.09* 0.007 0.01
Education 0.063 0.05 0.004 0
Income 0.054 0.04 0.007 0
Years of membership 0.001 0 0.005 0.04
Team support
Match attendance 20.010 20.04 0 0
Passionate fan 0.094 0.12* 0.210 0.26*
Positive fan 0.020 0.03 0.123 0.16*
Sponsor integrity 0.325 0.39* 0.439 0.52*
Sponsor receptiveness 0.184 0.30* 0.184 0.30*
R squared 0.436
Standard error of the estimate 0.9976
F, significance 96.50, P,0.001
*Statistical significance at P,0.001.aUnstandardized (b) and standardized (b) regression coefficients.
396 A. Smith et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5
Team support represents a more important set of explanatory variables. Passionate
supporters have significantly higher purchase intentions, both directly and in total. The
indirect effect arises primarily because passionate supporters have significantly higher
regard for sponsor integrity. Positive supporters are also more likely to use and
purchase the sponsor’s products, although only the total effect is statistically
significant. In this case, the indirect effect arises both because of a positive link with
sponsor integrity and through increased receptiveness to the sponsor’s product. In
contrast, frequent match attendance has no significant impact on purchase intentions.
In comparison with team support, sponsor integrity is an even more important
determinant of purchase intentions and the single most important effect overall. Its
direct effect is more than three times larger than the effect of passionate support and
its total effect is twice as large. The indirect effect arises from a substantial link
between sponsor integrity and sponsor receptiveness. Fans who believe the sponsor
has integrity are more receptive to information provided by the sponsor and are
more likely to use their products. Moreover, each point of sponsor integrity (as
measured on the 0–10 scale) enhances purchase intentions directly by one-third of a
point and by close to half a point in total. This means that a two-point upward shift
in sponsor integrity increases purchase intentions by almost 9% on average, and a
three-point upward shift by 13% on average.
Sponsor receptiveness also has a substantial impact on purchase intentions. The
impact is less than that of sponsor integrity but it remains the second most important
explanatory variable in the model. Collectively, the explanatory variables in the
model account for 44% of the variance in purchase intentions, with very little of this
explained variance attributable to socio-demographic attributes, membership
duration or match attendance.
Finally, Table 6 shows standardized and unstandardized regression coefficients
and goodness of fit statistics for the endogenous variables in the model, including
components of indirect effect referred to above. The results show that younger
people, members of longer duration, positive fans and, most importantly by far,
sponsor integrity all have statistically significant effects on sponsor receptiveness.
Perceptions of sponsor integrity, however, are not influenced by socio-demographic
attributes, membership duration or match attendance, but passionate and positive
team support both have significant effects.
In summary, socio-demographic variables, duration of club membership and
match attendance all have negligible impacts on purchase intentions. Instead, the key
determinants of purchase intention are sponsor integrity, sponsor receptiveness and
team support. The critical pathways to purchase intention amongst members of this
Australian football club are summarized in Figure 2. The key steps in the purchase
intention chain involve fans who are passionate and positive supporters of their
team. These fans rate sponsor integrity much more highly, and this in turn enhances
receptiveness to the sponsor’s message and purchase intention itself. These steps
provide clear evidence of ways in which sporting clubs and sport sponsorship can
work together for mutual benefit.
Discussion
The exploratory factor analysis applied here delivered a number of dimensions that
appear consistent with hierarchy of effects models. For example, five dimensions
Journal of Marketing Communications 397
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5
Table 6. Explanatory models for endogenous variables: sponsor receptiveness, sponsor integrity and team support.a
Team support
Dependent
variables
Sponsor receptiveness Sponsor integrity Match attendance Passionate fan Positive fan
Independent
variables
b b b b b b b b b b
Control variables
Gender 0.339 0.07 0.092 0.03 21.68 20.15* 20.234 20.06 20.391 20.10*
Age 20.140 20.16* 20.011 20.02 20.097 20.05 20.090 20.13* 20.021 20.03
Education 20.097 20.05 20.111 20.08 20.308 20.07 20.128 20.08 20.084 20.05
Income 20.028 20.01 20.130 20.07 20.385 20.07 20.111 20.06 20.100 20.05
Years of
membership
0.019 0.11* 0 0 0.118 0.29* 0.014 0.11* 0.002 0.02
Team support
Match attendance 0.031 0.07 0.013 0.04
Passionate fan 0.123 0.09 .285 0.30*
Positive fan 0.247 0.20* 0.178 0.20*
Sponsor integrity 0.620 0.45*
R squared 0.278 0.232 0.125 0.037 0.020
Standard error of
the estimate
1.835 1.388 4.717 1.670 1.788
F, significance 53.68, P,0.001 47.85, P,0.001 38.04, P,0.001 10.93, P,0.001 5.85, P,0.001
*Statistical significance at P,0.001.aUnstandardized (b) and standardized (b) regression coefficients.
39
8A
.S
mith
eta
l.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5
were highlighted that align broadly with Madrigal’s (2001) belief–attitudes–
intentions hierarchy. The presence of passionate and positive fans reflects a
constituting and central element of their identities (passionate) as well as their self-
concept (positive). Given that respondents can be described as ‘strongly passionate’
or ‘strongly positive’, it might be assumed that the respondents are strongly
identified and involved. This is further corroborated by results in Table 4; passionate
and positive supporters are more likely to attend more matches, which in turn leads
to higher levels of merchandise purchases, higher spending on tickets and products,
and higher levels of team loyalty (Fink, Trail, and Anderson 2002; Madrigal 1995;
Murrell and Dietz 1992; Wann and Branscombe 1993). A strong psychological
connection to a team leads to loyalty, and loyalty is often expressed in support
regardless of circumstances (James, Kolbe, and Trail 2002). It is clear from the
results that the underpinning passionate beliefs held by members about their club,
and their attitudes to sponsors, have an influence of the formation of purchase
intentions.
A third dimension identified as sponsor integrity expresses the views respondents
hold about the sponsor. Much like the first two dimensions, sponsor integrity is
reflective of the attitudes respondents have, in this case, about what it takes to be a
‘good’ sponsor. A high level of perceived sponsor integrity is reported in this study.
The attitude towards sponsors is expressed in sponsor receptiveness and respondents
report a moderate openness towards receiving information about sponsors, and feel
that there is a reasonable fit between the sponsors and the team. As Speed and
Thompson (2000) argue, the level to which sponsor and the sponsored entity fit
together, the degree of perceived sponsor sincerity, and hence the level of positive
attitude toward the sponsor, are critical in delivering positive consumer responses to
the sponsorship association. In turn, team support impacts upon sponsor
receptiveness and directly on purchase intentions.
Figure 2. Key pathways to purchase intention (standardized regression coefficients, omitting
minor effects).
Note: *indicates statistical significance at P,.001.
Journal of Marketing Communications 399
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5
Socio-demographic variables have little effect on purchase intentions. This
finding provides support for shifting the attention from socio-demographically
targeted marketing strategies to strategies that take a more holistic view of the
sponsorship arrangement. In line with Pope and Voges (2000), respondents’
intention to purchase was shown in this research to be influenced by a positive
attitude towards the brand, or more specifically, by a positive view in regard to the
integrity of the sponsor. This finding further undermines the popular assumption
that exposure is the uppermost determinant of sponsorship success, and therefore a
sound platform for its impact measurement. Rather, there is insufficient evidence to
conclude that building brand familiarity is enough to stimulate intention to purchase
perceptions. The issue of perceived sponsor commitment may be more important
than has previously been highlighted. This research provides some evidence that the
level of perceived commitment of the sponsor to the team positively impacts the
intention to purchase the sponsor’s products. The constituting items of sponsor
integrity support Chadwick’s (2002) contention that sponsor commitment revolves
around a multi-faceted view of commitment emphasizing a collaborative and
relational perspective. That the perceived ‘fit’ between sponsor and sponsored entity
is important, as evidenced by results from Speed and Thompson (2000) and Grohs,
Wagner, and Vsetecka (2004), is further supported by the outcomes of this study.
This research provides strong support for the proposition that team support and
consumers’ purchase intentions are intertwined (Gwinner and Swanson 2003).
Moreover, it supports the contention that the need for affiliation positively affects
team identification (Donavan, Carlson, and Zimmerman 2005). If team identifica-
tion is defined as spectators’ perceived connectedness to a team (passionate
supporter) and its performance (positive support), in line with Gwinner and
Swanson (2003), then our results indicate that the level of team identification directly
and indirectly (through sponsor receptiveness and sponsor integrity) affects the
intention to purchase a sponsor’s products. This might prove an important
implication for point of sale marketing in sport clubs when considered in light of
Kwon and Armstrong’s (2002) study, which revealed that team identification was the
only significant predictor of impulse merchandise purchasing.
The indirect effects are supported by data from Wann et al. (2001) who observed
that highly identified fans evaluate in-group members higher than out-group
members. Although it remains unclear if sponsors are counted towards the
membership of the in-group, this research has provided some suggestive evidence
that this may be a reasonable hypothesis. To be considered as part of the in-group is
also likely to be positively influenced by the duration of the sponsorship association;
the longer a sponsor supports the sponsored entity, the more likely it is that the
sponsor is considered to be part of the team.
Finally, sponsor integrity and sponsor receptiveness both play a substantial role in
promoting purchase intentions. As identified by Fink, Trail, and Anderson (2002),
Madrigal (2001), Murrell and Dietz (1992) and Wann and Brandscombe (1993), an
outcome of a strong psychological connection to a team is loyalty, and this
unconditional support is often expressed in consumption of team or club-related
products or services, continuing in both the good and bad times (James, Kolbe, and
Trail 2002). Receptiveness is about ‘being listened to’ and if this is a well-communicated
and packaged sales message, then to listening to another ‘loyal supporter’ of the team –
its sincere sponsor – is merely an expression of loyalty.
400 A. Smith et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5
Conclusion
This research has examined key processes in the sponsorship relationship that influence
members’ purchase intentions toward the major sponsor’s products. Although a large
sample was employed, this study was limited by a low response rate, which suggests the
potential of a self-selection bias in regard to sponsorship opinions and attitudes. The
results also constitute a single case in a professional sporting league comprising 15 other
teams in one country. Therefore, it is reasonable to be cautious about projecting the
findings beyond the context of Australian professional football. Nevertheless, the
strength of the results is suggestive of some salient practical implications.
The argument made by Lachowetz et al. (2002) that sponsors should change their
focus from raw volume of exposure to image matching or fit has been strongly
supported by the outcomes of this research. Team support, sponsor receptiveness
and sponsor integrity are key components of the relationship that sponsors may
build with the members of the sponsored organization. All three variables contribute
significantly to higher purchase intentions.
The results reported here suggest that sponsor success can be amplified by
enhancing enthusiasm for the team. This has a positive impact on perceived integrity
and receptiveness, which are the primary factors influencing purchase intention. In
other words, in sport sponsorship it may be better for the sponsor to engage with the
club and its members, and encourage members to participate actively in club
activities. Generating passion and enthusiasm for the team may do more for
purchase intentions than targeting market segments in isolation from the broader
context of the club and its members.
Sponsors can also bolster the purchase intentions of club members by focusing on
strategies to strengthen perceived sponsor integrity. Compatibility with the sponsored
team, showing a genuine interest in the club and its supporters, supporting local
communities, and financial support for the team all contribute towards enhancing
sponsor integrity. Teams that already enjoy high levels of member support are more
likely to boast a customer base that is willing to consider sales offers from sponsors. The
level of sponsor integrity is therefore another criterion that can actively be manipulated
and managed by the sponsor. Future research might expand the approach presented
here by taking into account the level of exposure the sponsor receives and its associated
impact on purchase intentions. In addition, the introduction of behavioural measures
would be advantageous in explicating the connection between purchase intentions and
the actual consumption of sponsor’s products.
Notes on contributors
Aaron Smith and Hans Westerbeek are Professors in Sport Management at La Trobe
University in Melbourne, Australia.
Brian Graetz is a Professor in the School of Business at La Trobe University in Melbourne,
Australia.
References
Alwin, D., and R. Hauser. 1975. The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American
Sociological Review 40 (February): 37–47.
Journal of Marketing Communications 401
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5
Ambler, T. 1998. Myths about the mind: Time to end some popular beliefs about how
advertising works. International Journal of Advertising 17, no. 4: 501–9.
Ashill, N., J. Davies, and A. Joe. 2000. Consumer attitudes towards sponsorship: A study of a
national sports event in New Zealand. International Journal of Sports Marketing and
Sponsorship 2, no. 4: 291–313.
Barry, T., and D. Howard. 1990. A review and critique of the hierarchy of effects in
advertising. International Journal of Advertising 9, no. 2: 121–35.
Chadwick, S. 2002. The nature of commitment in sport sponsorship relations. International
Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 4, no. 3: 257–74.
Clark, J., T. Cornwell, and S.W. Pruitt. 2002. Corporate stadium sponsorships, signaling
theory, agency conflicts and shareholder wealth. Journal of Advertising Research 42,
no. 6: 16–32.
Cornwell, T., G. Relyea, R. Irwin, and I. Maignan. 2000. Understanding long-term effects of
sports sponsorship: Role of experience, involvement, enthusiasm and clutter.
International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 2, no. 2: 127–43.
Daneshvary, R., and R. Schwer. 2000. The association endorsement and consumers’ intention
to purchase. Journal of Consumer Marketing 17, no. 3: 203–13.
Donavan, D., B. Carlson, and M. Zimmerman. 2005. The influence of personality traits on
sports fan identification. Sport Marketing Quarterly 15, no. 1: 31–42.
Farrelly, F., and P. Quester. 2003. The effects of market orientation on trust and commitment:
The case of the sponsorship business-to-business relationship. European Journal of
Marketing 37, nos. 3–4: 530–53.
Ferrand, A., and M. Pages. 1996. Football supporter involvement: Explaining football match
loyalty. European Journal for Sport Management 3, no. 1: 7–20.
Fink, J., G. Trail, and D. Anderson. 2002. An examination of team identification: Which
motives are most salient to its existence? International Sports Journal 6, no. 2: 195–207.
Grohs, R., U. Wagner, and S. Vsetecka. 2004. Assessing the effectiveness of sport
sponsorships: An empirical examination. Schmalenbach Business Review 56, no. 2:
119–38.
Gwinner, K., and S. Swanson. 2003. A model of fan identification: Antecedents and
sponsorship outcomes. Journal of Services Marketing 17, no. 3: 275–94.
Hoek, J., P. Gendall, and K. Theed. 1999. Sport sponsorship evaluation: A behavioural
analysis. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 1, no. 4: 328–44.
———, and J. Sanders. 1993. Sponsorship management and evaluation: Are managers’
assumptions justified? Journal of Promotion Management 1, no. 4: 53–66.
Hughson, J. 1999. A tale of two tribes: Expressive fandom in Australia’s A-league. Culture,
Sport, Society 2, no. 3: 11–30.
Irwin, R., T. Lachowetz, T. Cornwell, and J. Clark. 2003. Cause-related sport sponsorship: An
assessment of spectator beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Sport Marketing
Quarterly 12, no. 3: 131–9.
Jackson, S., R. Batty, and J. Scherer. 2001. Transnational sport marketing at the global/local
nexus: The adidasification of the New Zealand All Blacks. International Journal of
Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 3, no. 2: 185–201.
James, J., R. Kolbe, and G. Trail. 2002. Psychological connection to a new sport team:
Building or maintaining the consumer base. Sport Marketing Quarterly 11, no. 4:
215–25.
Jones, I. 2000. A model of serious leisure identification: The case of football fandom. Leisure
Studies 19: 283–98.
Kline, R. 1998. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Kwon, H., and K. Armstrong. 2002. Factors influencing impulse buying of sport team licensed
merchandise. Sport Marketing Quarterly 11, no. 3: 151–64.
402 A. Smith et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5
Lachowetz, T., M. McDonald, W. Sutton, and D. Hedrick. 2002. Corporate sales activities
and the retention of sponsors in the National Basketball Association (NBA). Sport
Marketing Quarterly 12, no. 1: 18–26.
Lafferty, B., and R. Goldsmith. 1999. Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’ attitudes and
purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad.
Journal of Business Research 44, no. 2: 109–16.
Lee, M., D. Sandler, and D. Shani. 1997. Attitudinal constructs towards sponsorship: Scale
development using three global sporting events. International Marketing Review 14, no. 3:
159–69.
Levin, A., C. Joiner, and G. Cameron. 2001. The impact of sports sponsorship on consumers’
brand attitudes and recall: The case of NASCAR fans. Journal of Current Issues and
Research in Advertising 23, no. 2: 23–31.
Madrigal, R. 1995. Cognitive and affective determinants of fan satisfaction with sporting
event attendance. Journal of Leisure Research 27, no. 3: 205–27.
———. 2001. Social identity effects in a belief-attitude-intentions hierarchy: Implications for
corporate sponsorship. Psychology and Marketing 18, no. 2: 145–65.
Meenaghan, T. 1991. Sponsorship – legitimising the medium. European Journal of Marketing
25, no. 11: 5–10.
———. 2001. Understanding sponsorship effects. Psychology and Marketing 18, no. 2:
95–122.
———, and P. O’Sullivan. 2001. The passionate embrace-consumer response to sponsorship.
Editorial. Psychology and Marketing 18, no. 2: 87–94.
Miles, L. 2001. Successful sport sponsorship: Lessons from Association Football – the role of
research. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 2, no. 4: 357–69.
Miyazaki, A., and A. Morgan. 2001. Assessing market value of event sponsoring: Corporate
Olympic sponsorships. Journal of Advertising Research 41, no. 1: 9–15.
Morris, D. 1981. The soccer tribe. London: Jonathan Cape.
Murrell, A., and B. Dietz. 1992. Fan support of sports teams: The effect of a common group
identity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 14, no. 1: 28–39.
Ohanian, R. 1991. The impact of celebrity spokespersons’ perceived image on consumers’
intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research 3, no. 1: 46–54.
Pope, N. 1998. Consumption values, sponsorship awareness, brand and product use. Journal
of Product and Brand Management 7, no. 2: 124–36.
———, and K. Voges. 2000. The impact of sport sponsorship activities, corporate image, and
prior use on consumer purchase intention. Sport Marketing Quarterly 9, no. 2: 96–102.
Richardson, B., and E. O’Dwyer. 2003. Football supporters and football team brands: A
study in consumer brand loyalty. Irish Marketing Review 16, no. 1: 43–53.
Roy, D., and T. Cornwell. 2003. Brand equity’s influence on responses to event sponsorships.
Journal of Product and Brand Management 12, no. 6: 377–93.
———, and T. Graeff. 2003. Influences on consumer responses to winter Olympics
sponsorship. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 4, no. 4: 355–75.
Silvera, D., and B. Austad. 2004. Factors predicting the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement
advertisements. European Journal of Marketing 38, nos. 11–12: 1509–26.
Speed, R., and P. Thompson. 2000. Determinants of sports sponsorship response. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 28, no. 2: 226–38.
Strong, E.K. 1925. The psychology of selling. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tabachnick, B., and L. Fidell. 2001. Using multivariate statistics. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tapp, A. 2004. The loyalty of football fans – we’ll support you evermore? Journal of Database
Marketing and Customer Strategy Management 11, no. 3: 203–15.
Tripp, C., T. Jensen, and L. Carlson. 1994. The effects of multiple product endorsements by
celebrities on consumers’ attitudes and intentions. Journal of Consumer Research 20,
no. 4: 535–47.
Journal of Marketing Communications 403
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5
Vakratsas, D., and T. Ambler. 1999. How advertising works: What do we really know?
Journal of Marketing 63, no. 1: 26–43.
Verity, J. 2002. Maximising the marketing potential of sponsorship for global brands.
European Business Journal 4, no. 4: 161–73.
Wann, D. 1995. Preliminary validation of the sport fan motivation scale. Journal of Sport and
Social Issues 19, no. 4: 377–96.
———, and F. Grieve. 2005. Biased evaluations of ingroup and outgroup spectator behavior
at sporting events: The importance of team identification and threats to social identity.
Journal of Social Psychology 145, no. 5: 531–45.
———, M. Melnick, G. Russell, and D. Pease. 2001. Sport fans: The psychology and social
impact of spectators. New York: Routledge.
———, and N. Branscombe. 1993. Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with their
team. International Journal of Sports Psychology 24, no. 1: 1–17.
Wiley, C., S. Shaw, and M. Havitz. 2000. Men’s and women’s involvement in sports: An
examination of the gendered aspects of leisure involvement. Leisure Sciences 22, no. 1:
19–31.
404 A. Smith et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
ucha
rest
] a
t 11:
24 0
8 M
arch
201
5