Does Fit Matter in Event Sponsorship Linked Marketing

Does Fit Matter in Event Sponsorship. Linked Marketing? Angeline Close, University of Texas, Austin Russell Lacey, Xavier University, Cincinnati 2012 American Marketing Association Summer Educators’ Conference Consumer Behavior and Sports & Special Event Marketing SIG Session August 18, 2012

Role of Fit • Over 40, 000 sponsored events annually take place in US (IEG 2011) • Managers keenly interested in how event sponsorship strengthen their brands; event marketers depend on sponsors to raise revenues and help absorb costs • Event marketers provide value to sponsors by looking for ways to enhance fit between their hosted experience and sponsor • Does fit matter to event and sponsor?

Affect Transfer • Sponsorship may act as conduit to transfer affect associated with sponsored event to sponsor brand • Keller’s (1993) theory on brand linkages--this link influences consumers’ brand associations • Such extant associations regarding an event become linked in memory with sponsoring brand its image • Event experience transfers to sponsoring brand; for affect transfer to occur, there should be a sponsorevent-consumer fit (Close et al. 2009)

Congruity Theory • Extent to which consumers’ perceive event and sponsor having similar image, values, and logical connection (Simmons & Becker-Olsen 2006) • Helps explain attitudes when event and sponsor connect; event-sponsor congruity leads to positive attitudes toward sponsor (e. g. , Ellen et al. 2000; Rifon et al. 2004) • Congruity routinely assesses impact on sponsor, rather than simultaneously considering its respective impact on sponsored event (Coppetti et al. 2009)

Conceptual Moderating Impact of Event-Sponsor Congruity Event Entertainment H 2 Activeness in Event Domain Brand Knowledge of Sponsor Attitude toward Event Brand H 4 H 3 H 1 H 5 Commitment Sponsor’s CSR H 6 H 7 Event-Sponsor Congruity H 8 Purchase Intent

Event Entertainment • Social events are hedonic, with intangible features producing personal pleasure or enjoyment (Holbrook & Hirchman 1982) • Consumers exposed to promotional messages under favorable conditions where there is enthusiasm, excitement, and enjoyment (Nicholls et al. 1999) • Congruity between sponsor and event favorably influences attitudes toward event (Ruth & Simonin 2003) H 1: Higher congruity sponsorships intensify positive association between event entertainment and favorable attitude toward event

Activeness in Event Domain • Consumers drawn to events congruent with their lifestyles (Kahle et al. 1996) • Attendees who feel passion about domain of event are more likely to hold favorable attitudes toward event (Close et al. 2006) • Congruity influences relationship between attendee’s familiarity with event and thoughts about it (Roy & Cornwell 2004) H 2: Higher congruity sponsorships intensify positive association between activeness in event domain and attitude toward event

Attitude Toward Event • Attitudes are relatively stable internal evaluations; once attitudes toward event formed, they can have strong impact on sponsor (Dean 2002) • Consumers more likely to perceive congruity if they perceive sponsor doing what is right (Becker-Olsen & Hill 2006) • Positive sentiments about sponsorship play valuable role in strengthening sponsor’s CSR (Geue & Plewa 2010) H 3: Higher congruity sponsorships intensify positive association between attitude toward event and perceived CSR of sponsor

Sponsor’s Perceived CSR • CSR refers to firm’s activities and status relative to its societal or stakeholder obligations (Sen & Bhattacharya 2001) • Knowledgeable consumers more engaged with brand its CSR activities (Algeshheimer et al. 2005); congruity studies should relate to varying brand knowledge conditions (Sen & Bhattacharya 2001) H 4: Higher congruity sponsorships intensify positive association between brand knowledge of sponsor and perceived CSR of sponsor

Brand Knowledge • Brand knowledge in sponsorship terms relates to more abstract and intangible brand associations held in minds of consumers about sponsor (Roy & Cornwell 2003) • Consumers need brand knowledge to establish commitment to sponsor’s brands (Keller 1993) • Consumers’ familiarity with sponsor impacts what they think about sponsor’s brand when they link brand to sponsored events (Carrillat et al. 2010) H 5: Higher congruity sponsorships intensify positive association between brand knowledge and brand commitment

Brand Commitment • Brand commitment entails preference and reluctance to seek competing brands (Raju et al. 2009) • Sponsored events with a CSR benefactor strengthens brand commitment driven by favorable affective association consumers make about sponsor • Strong CSR perceptions by strengthening consumer’s emotional attachment to brand (Lichtenstein et al. 2004); consumers may transfer impressions of sponsor’s CSR efforts to commitment to sponsor’s brands H 6: Higher congruity sponsorships intensify positive association between perceived CSR of sponsor and brand commitment

Purchase Intent • In addition to brand commitment, companies sponsor events to increase consumers’ willingness to buy the sponsor’s products; CSR initiatives create context for purchase decisions (Pirsch et al. 2007) • Perceived congruity influences whether consumers reward sponsor for its community activities; higher fit between entities contribute to higher purchase intent (Roth & Romeo 2000) H 7: Higher congruity sponsorships intensify positive association between perceptions of CSR and purchase intent H 8: Higher congruity sponsorships intensify positive association between brand commitment and purchase intent

Field Study Research Context • Context to examine: fit, CSR, consumer attitudes and purchase intent • Event: fifth annual Tour de Georgia (TDG) • Presenting sponsor: AT&T • Beneficiary: GA Cancer Coalition • As one of the premier cycling races in North America, drew an estimated 515, 000 spectators • Generated $27. 6 million in direct economic impact to the State of Georgia • AT&T received branding at all venues during race week, pre-event promotions, TDG website, and leader jersey

Field Study Method & Sample • Intercept survey conducted by field-research team; surveys were distributed throughout all 12 TDG host venues (n=1, 615) • 44% are 20 -39 years old, 59% male • 53% reported annual household incomes exceeding $60, 000; 27% > $100, 000 • 41% traveled from another state or country to attend TDG

Measurement & Scale Items All constructs used 5 -point Likert-type scales, anchored by 1=strongly disagree/ 5=strongly agree: • Modified 5 -item scale tapping Event-Sponsor Congruity from Speed & Thompson (2000) • Adapted Lichtenstein et al. ’s (2004) 5 -item scale to measure CSR perceptions • Lumpkin & Darden (1989) provided 3 measures of Activeness in Event Domain • Chandon et al. (2000) developed separate 3 -item scales to measure Event Entertainment and Attitude toward the Event • Adapted Bloch et al. ’s (1989) 3 -item scale to measure Brand Knowledge • Yoo et al. (2000) provided 3 -item scale to measure Brand Commitment • Adapted Baker & Churchill (1977) 4 -item scale to measure Purchase Intent

Structural Model Results Estimate t-value Event Entertainment Attitude toward Event . 89 42. 11 Activeness in Event Domain Attitude toward Event . 10 6. 33 Attitude toward Event Sponsor’s CSR . 25 12. 41 Brand Knowledge Sponsor’s CSR . 66 27. 65 Brand Knowledge Brand Commitment . 49 17. 63 Sponsor’s CSR Brand Commitment . 41 14. 72 Sponsor’s CSR Purchase Intent . 28 14. 58 Brand Commitment to Sponsor Purchase Intent . 72 33. 43 Structural model results: NFI=. 99; NNFI=. 99, CFI=. 99; IFI=. 99, RMSEA=. 071; and SRMR=. 035

Multi-group Results Chi-square Difference Results Among Fit Categories High Fit vs. Med Fit vs. High Fit vs. Med Fit Low Fit H 1: Event Entertainment Attitude toward Event 2. 65 0. 09 1. 04 H 2: Activeness in Event Domain Attitude toward Event 0. 33 0. 01 0. 07 H 3: Attitude toward Event Sponsor’s CSR 0. 11 1. 59 2. 00 H 4: Brand Knowledge Sponsor’s CSR 0. 35 10. 87** 16. 85** H 5: Brand Knowledge Brand Commitment 19. 21** 0. 90 31. 38** H 6: Sponsor’s CSR Brand Commitment 18. 15* 3. 20 29. 07** H 7: Sponsor’s CSR Purchase Intent 17. 49** 0. 01 9. 64* H 8: Brand Commitment to Sponsor Purchase Intent 30. 04** 0. 37 16. 31** High Fit mean=4. 81, n=649; Med Fit mean=3. 51, n=613; Low Fit mean=1. 78, n=353 1 degree of freedom comparison *p<. 01; **p<. 001

Discussion • Real-world evidence that event-sponsor fit promotes positive marketing outcomes to sponsor • Model illustrates how CSR serves as mediator for transcending favorable attitudes towards event to enhancing attitudes and preferences for sponsor • We uncovered asymmetrical impact of fit on sponsor and event – Results show congruity plays role in consumers’ perceptions of sponsor brand purchase intentions – Fit did not influence consumers’ evaluation of event