Timing of Sponsorship AnnouncementsA Test of Temporal Distance and Construal Level Effects

Tobias Schaefers, EBS Business School, Germany

Joe Cobbs, Northern Kentucky University, USA

Mark D. Groza, Northern Illinois University, USA

42nd AMS Annual ConferenceMonterey, CA, USAMay 15-18, 2013

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Timing of Sponsorship Announcements | AMS Annual Conference, Monterey, CA | May 15-18, 20132

Sponsorship-Linked Marketing Sponsorship = marketing communication instrument (Cornwell and Maignan 1998)

Communication through sponsorship & communication about a sponsorship(Cornwell 1995)

Announcing the initiation of a sponsorship Communicate advance details about a sponsorship relationship

Asics has agreed a three-year deal to become the

new title sponsor of the Los Angeles Marathon.

Under the agreement, the sports apparel and

footwear firm will replace fellow Japanese

company Honda as the lead sponsor of

the event through 2015. […](SportsBusiness.com)

Asics assumes LA Marathon

sponsorhsip[…] The exclusive rights deal, worth $559m over seven years from the 2014-15 season,

sets a new record for a football club sponsorship contract. […]

(Financial Times)

GM in record Man Utd sponsorship deal

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Timing of Sponsorship Announcements | AMS Annual Conference, Monterey, CA | May 15-18, 20133

Sponsorship Announcements - Research Research on sponsorship announcements has mixed results:

Announcements of a sponsorship enhance stock prices of sponsoring firms (Cornwell et al. 2005)

High-dollar, international sponsorships can depress firm value (Cobbs et al. 2012)

Differing results among sports and deviations between new and renewed sponsorship announcements (Clark et al. 2009)

Research restrictions: Only considered at a generic level, ignoring how a sponsorship is announced Emphasis on investors‘ reactions to announcements, overlooking consumers Variety of theoretical perspectives (e.g., mere exposure, balance theory, articulation

theory) on sponsorships and consumers, but neglecting temporal effects

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Timing of Sponsorship Announcements | AMS Annual Conference, Monterey, CA | May 15-18, 20134

Construal Level Theory (CLT) Consumers judge information with different levels of abstraction

(Kim and John 2008; Trope and Liberman 2010)

High-level construals (abstract, simple, essential features)

Low-level construals (concrete, contextualized, unique features)

Generally concrete interpretation of events close in time, socially, or geographically Abstract default interpretation of distant events

CLT offers a theoretical framework for interpreting psychological reactions to different forms of sponsorship announcements

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Timing of Sponsorship Announcements | AMS Annual Conference, Monterey, CA | May 15-18, 20135

HypothesesH1: Concrete (vs. abstract) sponsorship announcements…

(a) more positive attitude toward sponsoring brand, (b) higher trust in the sponsoring brand, (c) higher willingness to recommend sponsoring brand, (d) higher purchase intention for the sponsoring brand.

More information about the sponsorship relationship results in improved sponsorship memory and evaluation (Coppetti et al. 2009; Cornwell et al. 2006)

H2: For temporally distant events, concrete (vs. abstract) sponsorship announcements… (a) more positive attitude toward sponsoring brand, (b) higher trust in sponsoring brand, (c) higher willingness to recommend (d) higher purchase intention

• Thinking about distant events higher-level (abstract) construals

• Concrete information about a distant event more information processing (i.e., central route) to resolve disparity

H3: For temporally near events, construal level will have no effect on consumers’ evaluation of the sponsoring brand.

• Abstract information about a near event predisposition to a concrete mindset; communication unlikely to draw consumers away from central route

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Timing of Sponsorship Announcements | AMS Annual Conference, Monterey, CA | May 15-18, 20136

Empirical StudiesStudy 1 Between-subjects experimental design IV: construal level of the sponsorship

announcement (abstract/concrete) DVs:

Attitude toward the sponsoring brand (α=.974) (Putrevu and Lord 1994)

Trust in the sponsoring brand (α=.885) (Erdem and Swait 2004)

Willingness to recommend (α=.943)(Maxham and Netemeyer 2003)

Purchase intent (α=.944)(Putrevu and Lord 1994)

Pretesting for stimuli development Sample of 78 business school students

(Mage=24.9 yrs, SD 7.79; 50% female) Successful manipulation

Study 2 2 x 2 between-subjects exp. design IVs:

Construal level of the sponsorship announcement (abstract/concrete)

Temporal distance to the sponsored event (near/far)

DVs: Attitude toward the sponsoring brand

(α=.955) Trust in the sponsoring brand (α=.916) Willingness to recommend (α=.952) Purchase intent (α=.935)

Sample of 225 different business school students (Mage=22.2 yrs, SD 4.05; 48.9% female)

Successful manipulations

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Timing of Sponsorship Announcements | AMS Annual Conference, Monterey, CA | May 15-18, 20137

Results Study 1

Attitude Trust Willingness to recommend

Intention to purchase

p < .001 p = .028 p = .001 p = .003

4.60

5.00

5.40

5.80

6.20

CLAabstract

CLAconcrete

4.40

4.80

5.20

5.60

6.00

CLAabstract

CLAconcrete

4.00

4.40

4.80

5.20

5.60

CLAabstract

CLAconcrete

3.20

3.60

4.00

4.40

4.80

CLAabstract

CLAconcrete

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Timing of Sponsorship Announcements | AMS Annual Conference, Monterey, CA | May 15-18, 20138

Results Study 2

4.60

5.00

5.40

5.80

CLAabstract

CLAconcrete

4.40

4.80

5.20

5.60

CLAabstract

CLAconcrete

3.60

4.00

4.40

4.80

CLAabstract

CLAconcrete

3.40

3.80

4.20

4.60

CLAabstract

CLAconcrete

4,40

4,60

4,80

5,00

5,20

5,40

5,60

Abstractannouncement

concreteannouncement

Temporally distant Temporally near

Attitude Trust Willingness to recommend

Intention to purchase

p = .035 p = .061 p = .016 p = .192

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Timing of Sponsorship Announcements | AMS Annual Conference, Monterey, CA | May 15-18, 20139

DiscussionH1: Concrete (vs. abstract) sponsorship announcements will lead to

(a) more positive attitude, (b) higher trust, (c) higher willingness to recommend, and (d) higher purchase intention…for the sponsoring brand.

H2: For temporally distant events, concrete (vs. abstract) sponsorship announcements will lead to (a) a more positive attitude, (b) a higher trust, (c) a higher willingness to recommend, and (d) a higher purchase intentionfor the sponsoring brand.

H3: For temporally near events, the construal level of the sponsorship announcement will not affect consumers’ evaluation of the sponsoring brand.

willingness to recommend ( )

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Timing of Sponsorship Announcements | AMS Annual Conference, Monterey, CA | May 15-18, 201310

Discussion

3.40

3.80

4.20

4.60

CLAabstract

CLAconcrete

Intention to purchase

No significant increase for concrete announcement about a temporally distant event (p = .343)

However, similar pattern lends mild support to H2d

3.60

4.00

4.40

4.80

CLAabstract

CLAconcrete

Willingness to recommend

Significant decrease for concrete announcement about a temporally near event (p = .093)

Similar pattern for purchase intent intriguing

Too much concrete information interferes with subjects‘ concrete construals?

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Timing of Sponsorship Announcements | AMS Annual Conference, Monterey, CA | May 15-18, 201311

Implications CLT explains aspects of consumers‘ reactions to sponsorship

announcements

Relevance of CLT in sponsorship-linked communication

Presentation of content at low construal level preferable to abstract

Temporal distance to event important consideration: Concrete information even about temporally distant events

When concrete information is not feasible to privide publicly low temporal distance

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Timing of Sponsorship Announcements | AMS Annual Conference, Monterey, CA | May 15-18, 201312

Limitations & Outlook Limitations:

Student samples

Self-report scales for DVs

Outlook: Additional dimensions of CLT (social & geographical distance)

Evaluation of sponsored event

Individual difference variables (e.g., temporal orientation)

Timing of Sponsorship AnnouncementsA Test of Temporal Distance and Construal Level Effects

Tobias Schaefers, EBS Business School, Germany

Joe Cobbs, Northern Kentucky University, USA

Mark D. Groza, Northern Illinois University, USA

42nd AMS Annual ConferenceMonterey, CA, USAMay 15-18, 2013

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Timing of Sponsorship Announcements | AMS Annual Conference, Monterey, CA | May 15-18, 201314

Backup

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Timing of Sponsorship Announcements | AMS Annual Conference, Monterey, CA | May 15-18, 201315

Backup

Table 1. Univariate between-subjects effects on sponsoring brand F p Partial ²

Construal level of announcement (CLA)

Attitude toward… 3.478 .064 .015 Trust in… .988 .321 .004 Willingness to recommend .009 .927 .000 Purchase intention .005 .941 .000

Temporal distance to the event

Attitude toward… .235 .629 .001 Trust in… .988 .321 .004 Willingness to recommend 2.619 .107 .012 Purchase intention .079 .779 .000

CLA Temporal distance

Attitude toward… 4.514 .035 .020 Trust in… 3.545 .061 .016 Willingness to recommend 5.877 .016 .026 Purchase intention 1.715 .192 .008

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Timing of Sponsorship Announcements | AMS Annual Conference, Monterey, CA | May 15-18, 201316

Backup

To ensure the manipulation of abstract/concrete sponsorship announcements worked as intended, a semantic differential scale asking respondents to assess the newspaper article based on four word pairs (e.g., “abstract/concrete”) was employed ( = .873/.803). In both studies, results indicated that respondents in the abstract conditions perceived the announcement to be significantly less concrete than respondents in the concrete conditions (Study 1: Mabstract = 4.43; Mconcrete = 5.12; T = ‑2.254, p = .027; Study 2: Mabstract = 3.95; Mconcrete = 4.95; T = ‑6.575, p < .001). A similar semantic differential scale was used in the second study to ensure the manipulation of temporal distance for the sponsored event (e.g., “about future events/about current events”;  = .840). Results also indicated proper manipulation (Mnear = 5.05; Mfar = 3.76; T = ‑7.596, p < .001).