A reason for sponsoring events is to garner positive image transference from the event to
the sponsor (Gwinner and Eaton 1999; Speed and Thomson 2000). This suggests that
perceived fit between the event (sponsee) and the sponsor is important. But fit in sports
sponsorship contexts involves more than just that between the sponsee and the sponsor.
What also needs to be taken into consideration is the fit between other stakeholders: cosponsors
and consumers. This exploratory research seeks to understand the dimensions
encompassing fit (or relatedness: see Johar and Pham, 1999) in the sponsorship
marketplace.
Using semi-structured interviews with sponsorship managers, findings suggest there are
six dimensions of fit within sports sponsorship: target market, product endorser image,
geography, typicality, complementarity, and clash. Whilst most have received attention
by marketing scholars, others, including interactions, have yet to be addressed. Each of
these dimensions is identified; conclusions and implications follow.Griffith Business School, Department of MarketingFull Tex

Pentecost, Robin

Spence, Mark T.

English

Spence, Mark

Griffith Research Online

Exploring the Dimensions of Fit within Sports Sponsorship

A reason for sponsoring events is to garner positive image transference from the event to the sponsor (Gwinner and Eaton 1999; Speed and Thomson 2000). This suggests that perceived fit between the event (sponsee) and the sponsor is important. But fit in sports sponsorship contexts involves more than just that between the sponsee and the sponsor. What also needs to be taken into consideration is the fit between other stakeholders: cosponsors and consumers. This exploratory research seeks to understand the dimensions encompassing fit (or relatedness: see Johar and Pham, 1999) in the sponsorship marketplace.Using semi-structured interviews with sponsorship managers, findings suggest there are six dimensions of fit within sports sponsorship: target market, product endorser image, geography, typicality, complementarity, and clash. Whilst most have received attention by marketing scholars, others, including interactions, have yet to be addressed. Each of these dimensions is identified; conclusions and implications follow

Bond University Research Portal

Bond UniversityResearch RepositoryExploring the Dimensions of Fit within Sports SponsorshipPentecost, Robin; Spence, Mark T.Published in:ANZMAC 2004 : Marketing accountabilities and responsibilities, conference proceedingsPublished: 01/01/2004Document Version:Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordLink to publication in Bond University research repository.Recommended citation(APA):Pentecost, R., & Spence, M. T. (2004). Exploring the Dimensions of Fit within Sports Sponsorship. In J. Wiley, &P. Thirkell (Eds.), ANZMAC 2004 : Marketing accountabilities and responsibilities, conference proceedingsGeneral rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.For more information, or if you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact the Bond University research repositorycoordinator.Download date: 09 Oct 2020Exploring the Dimensions of Fit Within Sports SponsorshipR. PentecostGriffith UniversityMark SpenceBond UniversityAbstractA reason for sponsoring events is to garner positive image transference from the event tothe sponsor (Gwinner and Eaton 1999; Speed and Thomson 2000).  This suggests thatperceived fit between the event (sponsee) and the sponsor is important.  But fit in sportssponsorship contexts involves more than just that between the sponsee and the sponsor.What also needs to be taken into consideration is the fit between other stakeholders: co-sponsors and consumers. This exploratory research seeks to understand the dimensionsencompassing fit (or relatedness: see Johar and Pham, 1999) in the sponsorshipmarketplace.Using semi-structured interviews with sponsorship managers, findings suggest there aresix dimensions of fit within sports sponsorship: target market, product endorser image,geography, typicality, complementarity, and clash.  Whilst most have received attentionby marketing scholars, others, including interactions, have yet to be addressed.  Each ofthese dimensions is identified; conclusions and implications follow.Keywords:  fit, sponsorship, image transferenceIntroductionConsistent with findings in the brand extension literature, a good fit between sponsorsand sponsee’s allows better transference of attitudes (Aaker and Keller, 1990; Park,Milberg, and Lawson, 1991; Crimmins and Horn, 1996; D’Astous, and Bitz, 1995).  Butsponsorship lacks a clear understanding of multiple stakeholders and their relationships.For instance, drawing from research in congruency theory (Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levyand Tybout, 1989), Jagre, Watson and Watson (2001) distinguish between tworelationships: sponsor-sponsee fit, and sponsor-sponsor fit. Thus, indicating first-ordereffects, that is, the effect sponsoring an event has on the sponsoring firm(s), as well assecond-order effects (e.g. the fit between co-sponsors).  These second-order effects havereceived little attention by marketing scholars (Ruth and Simonin, 2003).  Importantly,what defines fit may vary whether one is talking about fit with the sponsee or with fellowco-sponsors or with consumers.  Having multiple relationships posits the question; “Arethere different dimensions underlying the concept of fit in sponsorship?”Ambiguity concerning fit clearly exists.  A review of 14 articles covering the years 1983– 2003 (refer table 1) revealed a variety of terms used to define fit, including:compatibility, synergy, symbiosis, congruency, and complementarity.  Gaining insightsinto what precisely these terms mean would have clear practical import.  The purpose ofthis research is therefore to improve our understanding of what constitutes fit within asports sponsorship context.  Given the ambiguity, we undertook exploratory research.Using semi-structured interviews with sponsorship managers a case is made for sixdimensions of fit amongst 3 sponsorship stakeholders: the sponsee, the sponsors, and theconsumer.Table 1: Expressions Describing Fit in the Sponsorship Literature.Author(s) DefinitionMeenaghan, J. (1983). Compatibility between the event and the sponsor.Parker, K. (1991). Synergy between the brand and the event.D’Astous, A., and Bitz, P. (1995). Symbiosis between the sponsor and the event.Stipp, H., and Schiavone, N.(1996).Link between the event and the sponsor.Crimmins, J., and Horn, M.(1996).A perceptive link between the event and the sponsor.Cornwell, B., and Maignan, I.(1998).Congruence between the consumer and thesponsorship activity.Gwinner, K. P., and Eaton, J.(1999).Congruence between the event and the sponsor.Dean, D. H. (1999). Linking the company to the event.Johar, G. V., and Pham, M. T.(1999).Semantic overlap between the event and the sponsor.Ferrand, A., and Pages, M. (1999) Compatibility between the company and thesponsored event.Erickson, G. S., and Kushner, R.J. (1999).Value of core competences offered between partieswithin the sponsorship network.Speed, R., and Thompson, P.(2000).Congruence between the event and the sponsor.Jagre, E., Watson, J. J., andWatson, J. G. (2001).Congruency between the sponsor and the event.Ruth, J. A., and Simonin, B. L.(2003).Complementarity and controversy between thesponsor and the event.MethodologyThe objective of this research was to gain an insight into how businesses view themarketplace as opposed to how the consumers do. Interviews were held with fivemarketing managers involved in sponsorships.  To provide various perspectives, threetypes of organisations participated in the research: sponsoring organisations (twointerviews), event organisations (two interviews), and a marketing consultant (who hasworked for both sponsors and sponsee’s).Potential participants were contacted, informed of the objectives of the research andasked to take part in the study.  A letter of introduction was given to all participantspreceding the interview and informed consent was obtained immediately prior to theinterviews.  Anonymity was assured.Interviews were conducted using an interview guide to ensure consistency of issuescovered.  Generic questions were developed to ask all parties involved in sponsorship.Questions asked included: “How do you decide upon which events / firms to sponsor?”;“Do you take into account the fit between the company and the event?” “If yes, what doyou define as fit? If no, why not?”; and “Do you take into account who else is sponsoringthe event? Why or why not?”Each interview lasted between 40 and 50 minutes, was tape-recorded and subsequentlytranscribed verbatim.  All interviews were conducted in person by the lead author.ResultsAs, as result of the interviews, six dimensions of fit were identified which we havelabelled: targeting, image, geography, typicality, complementarity, and clash.  These inturn have been grouped into one of three foci that reflect to whom the comment wasdirected: consumer, sponsee or sponsor.  Each of these dimensions will be discussed.Consumer FocusedTwo dimensions of fit applicable to, or perceived by, consumers were identified:targeting and image.  Targeting looks at segmentation factors for defining consumer fit,whilst image relates to sponsor-endorser perceptions.  As per all foci, selected quotesfrom the interviews illustrate the dimensions.Targeting.Sponsorship based upon targeting has becoming increasingly important (“we do have ourtarget markets”; “that’s why it becomes very important to pick your particular market”).Though many schemes may be used for market segmentation, demographic fit waspredominant (“where you can specifically target your product to your key demographicwho are likely purchasers of your product), and were also felt to contain thepsychographics of the consumer (“chances are the activity that is going on also fits withmy product, because of the psychographics of the consumers that are there”).Demographics had the added benefit of providing a better-tailored marketing effort.  Thiscannot be overstated as participants make use of consumer demographic information (“soyou are able to get very specific, right down to a street or a suburb rather than a massmessage that you hope hits where you want it to hit”).Image.Image pertains to how consumers perceive product endorsers.  It was felt that productendorsers needed to have a good community image (“because of how they [the productendorsers] were perceived in the community”; “its got to be someone with broadcommunity appeal, someone who’s not controversial, someone who’s good at what theydo and someone who has a clean image and reputation in the marketplace”).Sponsee FocusedSponsee focused fit centred upon two dimensions: geography and typicality.Where geography looks at the physical location of the sponsee, typicality looks at theperceived relationship between the sponsee and the sponsor where the sponsor representsan instance of event category membership (Farquhar and Herr, 1993).Geography.Localising sponsorship may increase the success of the campaign (“the more you canlocalise any of your campaigns the more chance you have of success”), especially whereyour clientele is defined by your business structure (“sponsorship for us has to begeographical as we are a franchise in a territorial area”).Focusing on geography also provides more effective use of finances (“corporationsspending high volumes of their market budgets in areas where the populations don’tjustify it”) as geographic area can help guide sponsorship expenditure (“it doesn’t makesense spending more money on sponsorship with nothing that guides you to yourgeographical area”).Geography fit also requires matching the campaign to a geographic area (“whatworks in Sydney doesn’t necessarily work in Brisbane [and] certainly doesn’t work inMelbourne”).  Local community events were more likely to receive minor sponsorshipand may be the first consideration for this form of sponsorship (“if we look at minorsponsorships, we first look at [what] we prefer -- we like local community”).Typicality.Referring to the fit between the sponsor and the sponsee, typicality consisted ofeither image or attributes matching (“we look at things that we believe fit with our brandand fit with our image” “it would be logical to go with [name of brand] purely because ofthe attribute linkage between them”).  An obvious mismatch is a point of concern forsponsors (“I didn’t want to get involved in any way, shape or form with an activity suchas that”).  These quotes are consistent with brand extension literature, that form and/orimage fit improve the chance of success (Bridges, Keller and Sood, 2000; Broniarczykand Alba, 1994). Image fit in sponsorship has received considerable research over the lastdecade (refer: Pham, 1991; McDonald, 1991; Javalgi, et. al, 1994; Gwinner, 1997; Ruthand Simonin, 2003)Sponsor FocusedTwo dimensions were found in sponsor-focused fit: complementarity and clash.Sponsors believe it important enough for the sponsee to bear the responsibility for thesedimensions (“I think it is the responsibility of the event coordinator to make sure that inthe interest of all their sponsors, that all sponsors are complementary”).Complementarity.Whereas typicality dealt with the perceived fit between the sponsor and thesponsee, complementarity looks at the fit between sponsors.  Complementarity betweensponsors may be both image and functional.  Whilst complementarity of image wasrecognised as having implications on reputations (“they have to be complementary to thepositioning of your industry”; “it is as much your reputation and respect on the line bylinking with them”), functional complementarity provided a means for further promotions(“there is an opportunity and [we are] happy for you to piggy back and promote yournew product”). This dimension of fit has received limited research in sponsorship (for anexception to this refer Ruth and Simonin, 2003).Clash.Product category exclusivity within sponsorship was favoured.  Both sponsors (“I don’tthink we would go and sponsor something if there was another major [name of productcategory] in it”; “I would never sponsor anything where there is another sponsor fromthe same industry”) and sponsee’s (“in any one sponsorship stable there can be only oneof a product category”) recognise the importance of this dimension.  Clash, therefore, isa boundary condition: once a sponsor is identified no other sponsors within that productcategory are entertained, an insight that has not – to our knowledge – been acknowledgedwithin the sponsorship literature.Discussion.Research into fit within sponsorship is incomplete.  Building on the strategic use ofsponsorship as a communication strategy (Cornwell and Maignon, 1998), six dimensionsof fit were identified from five interviews.  Whilst most dimensions have already beenaddressed in the sponsorship literature (e.g. product endorser [Dean, 1999], targeting[Hunt, Bristol, and Bashaw, 1999; Mahony, Madrigal and Howard, 2000], image [Popeand Voges, 1999; Stipp and Schiavone, 1996]), the fit between sponsors was identified asmeriting further attention from market researchers.Because sponsorships comprise multiple sponsors, fit between sponsors is likely toinfluence consumers’ perceptions (Ruth and Simonin, 2003).  Sponsor identificationinvolves a substantial degree of constructionism. Johar and Pham (1999) show consumersuse the heuristics of relatedness and prominence as factors in sponsor-sponseeinteractions.  However, this exploratory research suggests that there are second-ordereffects (e.g. the sponsor-sponsor relationship) to be considered in addition to first-ordereffects.  For instance, organisations perceptually related to each other (e.g. GeneralMotors and Michelin) are likely to be evaluated differently from companies that do nothave an obvious relationship (e.g. General Motors and Revlon).  Similarly, the sponsee tobe sponsored (Auto Racing versus Beauty Pageant) would likely affect perceptions of thesponsoring firms.  Thus, fit not only applies between the sponsee and the sponsor, butalso between all stakeholders.  For, instance, sponsors may or may not be typical (orprominent) with respect to a sponsee, and may or may not be perceived as complementsto each other. Further research on the dimensions identified can help to understand theinteraction between such first-order and second-order effects.ReferencesAaker, D. A., and Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions.Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), 27-41.Bridges, S., Keller, K. L., and Sood, S. (2000). Communication Strategies for BrandExtensions: Enhancing Perceived Fit by Establishing Explanatory Links. Journal ofAdvertising, 4 (Winter), 1-11.Broniarczyk, S. M., and Alba, J. W. (1994). The Importance of Brand in BrandExtensions. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXI, 214-228.Cornwell, T. B., and Maignan, I. (1998). An International Review of SponsorshipResearch. Journal of Advertising, XXVII (1), 1-21.Crimmins, J., and Horn, M. (1996). Sponsorship: From Management Ego to MarketingSuccess. Journal of Advertising Research, July-August, 11-21.D’Astous, A., and Bitz, P. (1995). Consumer Evaluations of Sponsorship Programmes.European Journal of Marketing, 29 (12), 6-22.Dean, D. H. (1999). Brand Endorsement, Popularity, and Event Sponsorship asAdvertising Cues Affecting Consumer Pre-Purchase Attitudes. Journal of Advertising,XXVIII (3), 1-12.Erickson, G. S., and Kushner, R. G. (1999). Public Event Networks: An Application ofMarketing Theory to Sporting Events. European Journal of Marketing, 33 (3/4), 348-367.Farquhar, P. H., and Herr, P. M. (1993). The Dual Structure of Brand Associations. InAaker, D., and Alexander, B. (Eds.) Brand Equity and Advertising. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, 263-277.Ferrand, A., and Pages, M. (1999). Image Management in Sport Organisations: TheCreation of Value. European Journal of Marketing, 33 (3/4), 387-401.Gwinner, K. P. (1997). A Model of Image Creation and Image Transfer in EventSponsorship. International Marketing Review, 14 (3), 145-154.Gwinner, K. P., and Eaton, J. (1999). Building Brand Image through Event Sponsorship:The Role of Image Transfer. Journal of Advertising, XXVIII (4), 47-57.Hunt, K., Bristol, T., and Bashaw, R. E. (1999). A Conceptual Approach to ClassifyingSports Fans. Journal of Services Marketing, 13, 349-452.Jagre, E., Watson, J. J., and Watson, J. G. (2001). Sponsorship and Congruency Theory:A Theoretical Framework for Explaining Consumer Attitude and Recall of EventSponsorship. Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 439-445.Javalgi, R. G., Traylor, M. B., Gross, A. C., and Lampman, E. (1994). Awareness ofSponsorship and Corporate Image: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Advertising,XXIII (4), 47-58.Johar, G. V., and Pham, M. T. (1999). Relatedness, Prominence, and ConstructiveSponsor Identification. Journal of Marketing Research, XXXVI (August), 299-312.McDonald, C. (1991). Sponsorship and the Image of the Sponsor. European Journal ofMarketing, 25 (11), 31-38.Mahoney, D. F., Madrigal, R., and Howard, D. (2000). Using the PsychologicalCommitment to Team (PCT) Scale to Segment Sports Consumers Based on Loyalty.Sports Marketing Quarterly, 9 (1), pp 15-25.Mandler, G. (1982). The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste. In Affect andCognition: the 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium, eds. Margaret Clark and Susan T.Fiske, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3-36.Meenaghan, J. A. (1983). Commercial Sponsorship. European Journal of Marketing, 17(7), 5-73.Meyers-Levy, J., and Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema Congruity as a Basis for ProductEvaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (June), 39-54.Park, C. W., Milberg, S., and Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluations of Brand Extension: TheRole of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 18, 185-193.Parker, K. (1991). Sponsorship: The Research Contribution. European Journal ofMarketing, 25 (11), 22-30.Pham, M. T. (1991). The Evaluation of Sponsorship Effectiveness: A Model and SomeMethodological Considerations. Gestion 2000, 4, 47-65.Pope, N., and Voges, K. (1999). Sponsorship and Image: A Replication and Extension.Journal of Marketing Communication, 5, 17-28.Ruth, J. A., and Simonin, B. L. (2003). Brought to You by Brand A and Brand B:Investigating Multiple Sponsors’ Influence in Consumers Attitudes Towards SponsoredEvents. Journal of Advertising, 32 (3), 19-30.Speed, R., and Thompson, P. (2000). "Determinants of Sports Sponsorship Response."Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 226-238.Stipp, H., and Schiavone, N. P. (1996). Modelling the Impact of Sponsorship onCorporate Image. Journal of Advertising, July/August, 22-27.

https://pure.bond.edu.au/ws/files/46220460/Exploring_the_Dimensions_of_Fit_within_Sports_Sponsorship.pdf

Exploring the Dimensions of Fit within Sports Sponsorship

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Griffith Research Online

Bond University Research Portal