855365

8/10/2019 855365

1/14

Image creationmodel

145

A model of image creation andimage transfer in event

sponsorshipKevin Gwinner

School of Business, East Carol ina University, Greenvi lle,

North Carolina, USA

IntroductionDue to the proliferation of leisure events in todays society, the awareness andopportunity for corporate event sponsorship is at an all time high. Looselydefined, sponsorship can be regarded as the provision of assistance eitherfinancial or in-kind to an activity [e.g., sport, musical event, festival, fair, orwithin the broad definition of the Arts] by a commercial organization for thepurpose of achieving commercial objectives (Meenaghan, 1983, p. 9). Until thepast decade the majority of firms have viewed event sponsorship as anobligation to the community (Catherwood and Van Kirk, 1992). Sponsorshipshad been placed on a level somewhere between charitable donations and publicrelation opportunities. Furthermore, the selection of which events to sponsorwas often determined by the current pet project of the firms CEO (Meenaghan,1991). Today, although still representing a small percentage of the overallpromotional budget, the outlay of promotional dollars for sponsorship activitiesis growing rapidly (Parker, 1991; Sandler and Shani, 1989; Scott and Suchard,1992). Not only are todays sponsorships more sophisticated (i.e., more thansimply the donation of cash for event production), but most firms are expectinga reasonable return on their sponsorship dollar in the form of increased sales(Catherwood and Van Kirk, 1992).

While firms enter into sponsorship arrangements with a variety of goals,two of the most important are: to increase brand awareness; and to establish,strengthen, or change brand image (Crowley, 1991; Marshall and Cook, 1992;Meenaghan, 1991; Meerabeau et al., 1991). Recently, these goals have beentheorized to be important in the development of customer-based brand equity,

defined as the differential effect of brand knowledge on the consumers purchasedecision (Keller, 1993). In Kellers conceptualization, brand knowledge (whichdrives customer-based brand equity) is a function of both the consumersawareness of the brand and the image(s) associated with that awareness. Inparticular, the favorability, strength, and uniqueness of the brand associationsplay a critical role in determining the differential response (Keller, 1993, p.8).

Brand awareness is achieved by exposing the brand to as many potentialconsumers as possible (Aaker, 1991). Sponsorship activities present multipleopportunities for achieving awareness objectives, and much of the research to

International Marketing Review,Vol. 14 No. 3, 1997, pp. 145-158.

MCB University Press, 0265-1335

8/10/2019 855365

2/14

InternationalMarketingReview14,3

146

date in the sponsorship literature has focused on awareness issues such assponsor recall (e.g. McDaniel and Kinney, 1996). Regrettably, less attention hasbeen given to event and brand image issues. A number of questions existregarding the effect of sponsorship promotional activities on brand and eventimage. For example:

What factors contribute to an events image?

Do consumers associate an events image with sponsoring brands?

If there is an image association between event and sponsor, is there atheoretical explanation that can be used to understand this linkage?

If there is an image association between event and sponsor, what factorsmoderate (strengthen or weaken) this relationship?

How does event image influence attitude towards the brand?

Although attempts at measuring the return on the sponsorship investmenthave been made (e.g., total event attendance, exit polls, sales following theevent, and number of media mentions), an understanding of how sponsorshipworks has yet to be developed (Catherwood and Van Kirk, 1992; Javalgi et al.,1994; Meerabeauet al., 1991; Parker, 1991). The purpose of this article is topresent a model explaining the mechanisms by which brand image may beimpacted through sponsorship activities. Specifically, drawing on the theory ofmeaning transfer from the celebrity endorsement literature, a model ispresented which suggests the factors involved in creating an events image and

the subsequent transfer of that image to the sponsoring brand. Furthermore,several factors are identified that may moderate the relationship between eventimage and brand image. While the focus of this article is on the conceptualdevelopment of image transfer in sponsorship, a variety of researchpropositions are offered to guide future empirical inquiry.

A framework for the transfer of event imageModel conceptualization and overview

Brand image has been defined as perceptions about a brand as reflected by thebrand associations held in memory (Keller, 1993, p. 3). Keller suggests that thefavourability, uniqueness, and strength of the associations are critical to a brandssuccess. Brand associations are developed from a variety of sources includingproduct use, informational sources (e.g., advertising, packaging, word-of-mouth),and association with other entities. The association with other entities source isof particular relevance to sponsorship activity. Keller has suggested that when abrand becomes associated with an event, some of the associations linked with theevent (e.g., youthful, relaxing, enjoyable, disappointing, sophisticated, lite, etc.)may become linked in memory with the brand.

This transfer of associations is consistent with research in the celebrityendorsement process. Initial research regarding celebrity endorsement focusedon the credibility and attractiveness of the message source (i.e., celebrity) toexplain the persuasive nature of endorsers. That is, more credible and attractive

8/10/2019 855365

3/14

Image creationmodel

147

endorsers were viewed as more persuasive. However, McCracken (1989),pointing to conflicting research results, suggested that endorsementeffectiveness is better explained by the meanings consumers associate withthe celebrity endorser and subsequently transfer to the brand. McCraken usesthe term meaning to describe consumers overall assessments of what acelebrity represents based on characteristics such as social class, gender, age,personality, and lifestyle. Thus, individual characteristics (e.g., regal, trashy,maleness, strong, caring, sexual, irreverent, wise) are integrated to define themeaning of the celebrity. Meaning which has been accumulated through theirroles in television, movies, military, athletics, and other careers is thought toreside in celebrities (McCracken, 1989, p. 315).

According to McCracken, the meaning attributed to celebrities moves fromthe celebrity endorser to the product when the two are paired in anadvertisement. That is, meanings associated with the celebrity becomeassociated with the product in the mind of the consumer. To complete themeaning transfer process, consumers acquire the meaning in the productthrough consumption. This process is illustrated in Figure 1.

McCrackens (1989) meaning in celebrities is analogous to Kellers (1993) eventassociations. Following the convention set forward by Keller with reference tobrand image, this article uses the term event image to represent thecumulative interpretation of meanings or associations attributed to events byconsumers. A comparison can be drawn between celebrity endorsers andevents. Just as consumers associate celebrities with certain meanings, so too areevents associated with particular attributes and attitudes. It is suggested herethat these associations are derived from the events type, event characteristics,

and several individual consumer factors. This is not unlike the meaningattributed to a celebrity being formed by the various roles he or she occupies.For example, event associations attributed to the annual Chicago Blues Festival(a food and musical extravaganza drawing over 500,000 people) might includetradition, celebration and civic pride.

Extending this concept of meaning transfer from the celebrity endorserliterature, it is suggested that events act in a manner analogous to endorsers inthe transfer of image to sponsoring brands. The framework presented in Figure2 theorizes from McCrackens celebrity endorsement model to suggest that

Figure 1.Meaning movement in

the endorsementprocess

8/10/2019 855365

4/14


148

event image is formed from a number of external and internal factors. Throughsponsorship, an events image, which may be relatively distinct for differentconsumer groups, may be transferred through association to the sponsoringproduct. As indicated in the figure, several factors may moderate the strengthof this image transfer. This discussion leads to the offering of the first research

proposition:P1: Through sponsorship, an events image will become associated with the

sponsoring brands image.

Determinants of event image

An events image is represented by a particular market segments overallsubjective perceptions of the activity. The proposed framework suggests threefactors that may impact ones perception of a particular event: event type, eventcharacteristics, and individual factors.

Event t ype. In accordance with the earlier definition, event type can becategorized into at least five areas: sports related, music related, festival/fairrelated, fine arts related (e.g., ballet, art exhibit, theatre, etc.), and professionalmeeting/trade show related. The type of event impacts event image in a varietyof ways. First, it conjures up image associations in the mind of the consumer.

That is, most individuals, through past patronage or other forms of exposure(word-of-mouth, television, etc.) will develop some attitudes (i.e., positive ornegative predispositions towards an event) regarding particular events. Theseattitudes will serve to frame the image of the particular event type. Notehowever, that ones attitude towards an event is only one part of an eventsimage. Ones attitude towards an event represents a summary of experiencesresulting in some general predisposition to respond to an event in a consistently

Figure 2.A model of imagecreation and imagetransfer in eventsponsorship

8/10/2019 855365

5/14

Image creationmodel

149

favourable or unfavourable manner. Thus, event attitude is an enduringevaluation (Cohen, 1990).

While an events image will be strongly influenced by ones attitude towardsthe event, event image will also be impacted by non-evaluative perceptions of anevent that are formed through associations held in the consumers memory(Keller, 1993). In this sense, event image reflects the meaning of the event for anindividual, and can be characterized using descriptive labels that represent asummation of ones perceptions. These labels, termed image associations,would include: youthful, mature, carefree, adventurous, educational, social,traditional, exclusive, common, liberal, conservative, high class, familyoriented, children oriented, cerebral, athletic, artistic, pride, political, etc. Thus,

event image can be thought of as a collection of image associations.In addition to past experiences and other indirect exposures, it is likely that

new experiences will shape ones perception of event image. In fact, imageperceptions formed from the most recent event experiences will likely be themost influential in shaping ones overall event image perceptions (Bagozzi andWarshaw, 1990). New experiences can be divided into two types: the specificactivities engaged in or observed; and all interactions with other eventattendees/participants and event staff. It is through these two experiences thatpast event images may be changed or modified and new image associations canbe added.

The specific activities engaged in or observed may be the same for allparticipants[1] (e.g., attendees at a soccer match) or quite varied (e.g., the

individual rides and attractions selected at a local festival), depending on thetype of event. Regardless of the similarity of experiences, the essential issue isthat a given consumers specific event experiences or observations will shapetheir perceptions of event image. It is also argued here that the number and typeof other participants will have an impact on ones evaluation of the eventsimage. For example, the number of spectators may impact ones assessment ofthe success of the event. Perhaps events may be viewed as more successfulwhen they draw more attendees. In addition, the number of participants mayimpact perceptions of crowding, event availability, and wait times. Type ofparticipant represents the demographic and psychographic characteristics ofothers attending the event. The attendees at some events represent relativelyhomogeneous market segments in terms of social class, family life cycle, age,gender, political affiliation, etc. For example, spectators of professional golftournaments may be middle aged, white males, with above median incomes. Inother cases, events draw heterogeneous types of participants. Just as othercustomers can have a substantial impact on consumers perceptions of servicefirms, so too can other participants have an impact on ones event experiencesand subsequent assessment of event image (Bitner et al., 1994).

These factors, perceptions based on past experiences, event activities, andthe number and type of spectator/participant, constitute one aspect that willserve to shape consumers overall subjective perceptions of a given event. Basedon the above discussion, several research propositions are suggested:

8/10/2019 855365

6/14


150

P2a: Direct experience and/or indirect information (word-of-mouth,advertising, etc.) with an event type will influence event image.

P2b: The specific activities experienced or observed during an event willinfluence event image.

P2c: The number and type of other spectators/participants will influenceevent image.

Event character istics. Within a given event type (e.g., music concert series, tradeshow, etc.), a number of characteristics will vary from event to event. The levelof the following five event characteristics will likely influence consumersperceptions of an events overall image: event size, professional status of

participants (professional or amateur), tradition/history associated with theevent, event venue, and promotional appearance.

Event size can be considered along a number of dimensions, including lengthof event, level of media exposure (local, regional, national, international),number of performers (if applicable), and amount of physical space occupied.

The same type of event, for example electronic industry trade shows, can varyalong all of these dimensions, creating different images for the same event type.Likewise, other event characteristics such as the professional status ofperformers (professional versus amateur) or the venue in which the event isstaged (e.g., temperature, convenience, physical condition, etc.) will impact onesoverall assessment of the events image. One could theorize that, in most cases,perceptions of quality, legitimacy, and attendance desirability will be higher

with long running, large, elaborately staged events, featuring professionals inattractive and convenient venues.The perceived promotional appearance of a brands sponsorship activities may

appear anywhere along a spectrum from advertiser to benefactor. A perceptiontowards the benefactor end of the spectrum may lead to increased feelings ofgoodwill towards the brand because it is perceived as donating funds to make theevent possible (McDonald, 1991). Conversely, there may be a negative reaction tothe commercialization of events that have not been sponsored in the past. Theseevents may be perceived as selling out to the corporate world. This has becomeespecially true in the Arts, where some individuals feel that sponsorship(corporate or governmental) of the Arts leads to censorship (Jacobson, 1993;Wood, 1996) . However, due to increasing costs, it has become even more criticalfor events to obtain outside sponsors in order to continue to exist. To take fulladvantage of the goodwill aspects, the sponsoring brand may need to educateattendees regarding the beneficial role sponsorship plays in event production.

Due to its association with the event, a sponsoring brands promotionalclaims can be legitimized, which serves to increase the believability of thepromotional message (McDonald, 1991). Additionally, a sponsoring firm may beperceived as making an event possible for the consumer (Chew, 1992;McDonald, 1991). The perception may be especially strong for small eventswhich often have difficulty securing financial support. In this sense, theconsumer does not view the sponsorship as a form of promotion, but rather the

8/10/2019 855365

7/14

Image creationmodel

151

sponsoring brand is seen as providing a service to the attendee and a level ofgoodwill is generated by the firm. Again, the scepticism that can be associatedwith traditional advertising may be circumvented. Brands that are viewed asbenefactors will be seen in a more favourable light. The consumer may evenfeel the need or desire to reciprocate by purchasing the brand. Following fromthe above discussion, the following research propositions are suggested:

P3a: Event size will influence event image.

P3b: Professional status of participants will influence event image.

P3c: Tradition/history associated with the event will influence event image.

P3d: Event venue will influence event image.P3e: Promotional appearance will influence event image.

Individual factors. Because of the large number of factors influencing eventimage and the unique manner in which participants may interpret those factors,an event may have different images for different individuals. Qualitativeresearch has revealed each sport to have its own individual image, andsponsors will tend to benefit from image transfer accordingly (Parker, 1991, p.26). Three individual factors are suggested here that may impact event image:the number of images an individual associates with an event; the strength of theparticular image; and the past history one has with a specific event. This lastfactor differs from the past experience factor discussed under event type. Past

history refers to the unique experiences associated with a specific event,whereas past experiences refers to encounters with a general event type.Events that consumers perceive as having multiple images will be more

difficult to associate with a single identity. This will be compounded when themeanings are of a conflicting nature. Thus, an individual with many eventassociations may have a shifting image of the event, depending on whichassociation is currently most salient. Related to this is that images can be verystrong or relatively weak. It is likely that a single strong image will dominateover several weaker ones. This will cause an event image to be consistent overtime, but limits the richness that multiple image associations would confer.Finally, an individuals personal history with a particular event may have animpact on ones perception of an events image. A long history will typically

lead to a more ingrained and consistent image. An individual that has attendedor has been associated with an event for a substantial time period may alsohave nostalgic feelings that become associated with the events image. Eventsthat have multiple or vague images pose problems for a firms sponsorshipselection decision because it becomes more difficult to predict the image thatmay become associated with the event, and ultimately transferred to theproduct. The above discussion leads to the following research propositions:

P4a: Individuals associating an event with a large number of images willhave difficulty identifying a consistent event image.

8/10/2019 855365

8/14


152

P4b: Individuals with a single, strong image association will haveconsistent event images over time.

P4c: Individuals with a single, strong image association will have less richevent images.

P4d: Individuals with long-term participation in an event will hold aconsistent event image for that event.

This section has identified three broad areas (event type, event characteristics,and individual factors) that influence the creation of an events image, althoughthere may be some event image determinants not explicitly discussed in theprevious section. It is likely that any unrepresented factors could be

accommodated within the proposed areas. The next section discusses constructsthat may moderate the relationship between event image and brand image.

Moderating variables in the modelPotential moderating variables presented in the model are discussed in twosections. In the first section variables potentially impacting the strength of theimage transfer from event to brand are discussed. As such, variables pertainingto the formation of strong memory associations (degree of similarity) andexposure to the sponsors message (level of sponsorship and event frequency)are discussed. The second section on moderating variables examines how onesinvolvement with a product may moderate the impact of the events image onbrand attitude. Attitude towards the event and attitude towards the brand are

conceptualized and discussed as being components of event image and brandimage, respectively. Although not illustrated in Figure 2, these attitudecomponents should be considered as a part of each of the respective imageboxes in the figure.

Moderators between event image and brand image

This section will discuss three moderating variables impacting the strength ofthe transfer between an events image and the image of a sponsoring brand.As indicated above, the basis of the relationship is the meaning transferbetween these constructs and it is this process that the moderating variables areproposed to influence.

The first moderating factor to be discussed in the image transfer process isthe degree of similarity between the event and the sponsor. A product can haveeither functional or image related similarity with an event. Functional similarityoccurs when a sponsoring product is actually used by participants during theevent. An example of this type of similarity is Valvolines sponsorship ofautomobile racing. The link is established because, apart from being a sponsor,Valvolines motor oil products are actually used by many of the participantsduring the event. The second type of similarity is termed image related, andoccurs when the image of the event is related to the image of the brand. Anexample of this type of linkage is Pepsis sponsorship of the 1993 Michael

Jackson World Concert Tour. Here the similarity comes from the youth and

8/10/2019 855365

9/14

Image creationmodel

153

excitement orientation of both the music and the product. Interestingly, somesponsors do not appear to be linked to the events they sponsor. For example, theUSF&G Sugar Bowl combined a large insurance firm with a collegiate footballgame. It is suggested here that either functional or image based similaritiesforge stronger ties and help the consumer to link the event image with thebrand. Thus, sponsor-event similarity (functional or image based) will enhanceimage transfer by more firmly anchoring the relationship in the consumersmind. This assertion is consistent with some celebrity endorsement literaturewhich suggests that mis-matches between endorser and brand decrease theeffectiveness of the endorsement (Kaikati, 1987).

A second factor that may moderate the image transfer from event to

sponsoring brand is the level of sponsorship. Sponsorship arrangements canrun the gamut from a single sponsor to hundreds of sponsors at many differentlevels. Multiple sponsors for a given event lessens the probability that aparticular brand will be associated with the event, due to the additional stimulieach consumer must attend to and recall (Hutchinson and Alba, 1991). Often,events allowing multiple sponsors will offer different levels of sponsorship.By contributing different dollar amounts to the event, the sponsor can buyenhanced packages. These enhancements include better sign/banner location,more frequent media mentions, and premium ticket and hospitality packages.Exclusive sponsorship, or at least a dominant position, will increase thelikelihood of meaning transfer from the event to the sponsoring brand by morefirmly establishing the link between event and brand.

The frequency of the event will also have an impact on the image transferprocess. Events may be on either a one-time or recurring basis. Although a one-time event does not allow recurring event-sponsor associations to be developedover time, some events may be of such a unique nature that they attract a greatdeal of media attention (e.g., Hands-Across-America). However, an ongoingevent (annual, semi-annual, monthly, etc.) should have the benefit of more firmlyestablishing a link between the event and the brand due to repeated exposures(MacInnis et al., 1991). The above discussion leads to the following researchpropositions:

P5a: The higher the degree of similarity (image or functional based)between event and sponsoring brand, the more effective the imagetransfer between event and brand.

P5b:The more exclusive the level of sponsorship, the more effective theimage transfer between event and brand.

P5c: The more frequent the event, the more effective the image transferbetween event and brand.

Moderator s between event image and atti tude towards the brand

As discussed previously, ones attitude towards the event will help to shapeones image of the event. Thus, event attitude is a component of event image.Likewise, attitude towards the brand is considered under this framework as a

8/10/2019 855365

10/14


154

component of brand image. Indeed, recent conceptualizations of brand imageinclude an attitude component (Keller, 1993). As such, the model presented inFigure 2 suggests that event image will have an impact on attitude towards thebrand. However, might there be situations in which this relationship ismoderated by another factor?

Advertising research with endorsers has demonstrated that productinvolvement level (defined as the level of personal relevance a product has to aconsumer, resulting from the perceived level of risk associated with the productsconsumption or non-consumption) can impact the attitude formation process(Petty et al., 1983). Specifically, we have shown that when an advertisementconcerned a product of low involvement, the celebrity status of the product

endorsers was a very potent determinant of attitudes about the product. Whenthe advertisement concerned a product of high involvement, however, thecelebrity status of the product endorsers had no effect on attitudes, but thecogency of the information about the product contained in the ad was a powerfuldeterminant of product evaluations (Petty et al., 1983, p. 143). Following fromthis research, level of product involvement should moderate the relationshipbetween event image and attitude towards the brand, such that event image willhave a larger impact on brand attitude for a low involvement product.

The influence of event image on brand attitude can be understood further byconsidering the type of persuasion process likely to occur. Petty and Cacioppos(1986) elaboration likelihood model (ELM) suggests that persuasion can occuralong two routes. The central route to persuasion occurs when an individual

bases product evaluation on diligent consideration of information that aperson feels is central to the true merits of an issue or product (Petty et al.,1983, p. 144). The second route to attitude change, peripheral, suggests thatchange may also occur through the association of the object with positive ornegative cues (e.g., expert source, pleasant surroundings, forceful presentation,etc.). This conceptualization of the peripheral persuasion route is consistentwith Kellers (1993) position of links in memory being established between anevent and the sponsor.

One characteristic of sponsorship that distinguishes it from some otherpromotional methods is its indirect nature (McDonald, 1991). That is, thesponsorship is, at best, a secondary concern (behind the actual event) for theparticipant. Furthermore, other than the brands name and/or logo, seldom isany type of commercial message associated with the firms products. Thus,sponsorship would appear to operate along Petty and Cacioppos peripheralpersuasion route due to this indirect nature, and lack of available cognizantinformation. Empirical tests of the ELM model suggest that the central route topersuasion is more effective for high involvement goods, while the peripheralroute has a higher impact on low involvement goods (Petty et al., 1983).

Theorizing from the ELM, one could conclude that when the sponsoringbrand is a low involvement product, event image will be a potent force indetermining brand attitude. Conversely, the promotional benefit, in terms ofattitude change, for high involvement products appears to be small. Product

8/10/2019 855365

11/14

Image creationmodel

155

involvement is only likely to be applicable when the sponsorship is focused atthe brand level, as opposed to the sponsorship focus being at the firm level. Thediscussion in this section gives rise to the following research propositions:

P6a: Brand attitudes of low involvement goods will be strongly influencedby event image.

P6b: Brand attitudes of high involvement goods will be weakly influencedby event image.

P6c: Persuasion processes from event sponsorship take place on theperipheral route.

Implications for practice and researchImplications for practice

Several implications for marketing practice can be drawn from the proposedmodel. First, firms should consider more than simply the number of potentialcustomers their sponsorship signage and other identifiers will reach. It isimportant to consider the image of the event, as this image may becomeassociated with the brand. An events image can be assessed through a varietyof methods. However, given its potentially ambiguous and transitory nature,qualitative methods in the form of depth interviews, focus groups, andprojective techniques, are likely to provide the best view of how consumersperceive a given event. Event organizers might take it on themselves to conductsuch studies and use the results to recruit potential sponsors. In the course of

such research, event organizers may find that the image of their event is notwhat they thought. Furthermore, it would be wise for event image studies totake place on a regular basis to assess changes in event image over time. Thiswould allow event organizers to take corrective action in a timely manner. Theproposed model suggests a variety of event image determinants that could bemanipulated to position a given event in a different light.

In terms of the sponsoring brand, the model suggests several aspects ofsponsorship that should be considered when deciding on potential eventaffiliations. One aspect that should be considered, in light of image transferbenefits, is the degree of similarity between the event and the brand. Brandawareness benefits are likely to accrue regardless of similarity levels, but it hasbeen argued here that image associations will be more likely when some linkexists, either image or functional, in the consumers mind. Firms looking to addsponsorship activities to their promotional mix should also consider the level ofsponsorship and frequency of the event. Although most firms will look at theseaspects with an eye towards the total dollar commitment, it may also be wise toconsider the meaning transfer implications. As discussed previously, exclusivesponsorships in events occurring on a frequent basis will likely maximize theimage transfer potential of the sponsorship purchase.

Finally, firms should consider whether image transfer benefits will actuallyhave any influence on consumers attitudes towards their brand and ultimatelytheir purchase intention. The model suggests that, in terms of impacting a

8/10/2019 855365

12/14


156

consumers attitude towards a brand, low involvement products will be moreeffective in sponsorship promotions due to the peripheral nature of persuasiontaking place. However, brand attitude represents only one part of brand image.Other image associations are likely to occur, regardless of product involvementlevel. As such, firms of high involvement products should carefully considertheir promotional goals to determine if event sponsorship is the best use of theirpromotional budget.

Implications for research

This article has set forward a number of research propositions that aresuggested by the proposed model. Although the propositions are in need ofempirical validation, in terms of research priorities, those dealing with imagetransfer (P1) and product involvement (P6a-P6c) stand out as needing the mostimmediate attention due to their potential importance to marketing managers.

The biggest challenge in the empirical testing of these propositions will likelybe in the measurement development of the event image construct and theassessment of image transfer. Event image measures might be developed thatconsist of a series of semantic differentials (e.g., young-old, exclusive-common,adult oriented-family oriented, etc.). An event typology might then beconstructed using cluster analysis techniques to identify common imagegroups. Such a typology would have significant implications for sponsorshipselection activities.

Another fruitful area of future empirical research might focus on the event

image determinants identified in the model. No predications were made withregard to the relative strength of these image determinants. However, it is likelythat some determinants (e.g., event size) will have a stronger impact on theformation of an events image. These determinants should be assessed to seewhich explain the most variance in event image and to identify possibleinteractions existing between the determinants.

Of course, research attempting to validate the image transfer process and thepresence or absence of moderating effects would represent a substantialcontribution to the sponsorship literature. Here researchers might consider theuse of experimental designs. Following such a research programme,investigators could vary levels of similarity (both functional and image),sponsorship level and frequency, and product involvement. Pre- and post-

measures of brand image could be compared in relationship to each of thetreatment level combinations (cf. McDaniel, 1997).

Another interesting area for further study would be to expand the eventimage transfer model by examining the influence of sponsorship on brand imagecreation as compared to other more traditional promotional activities (e.g.,television and magazine advertising, packaging, etc.). Furthermore, it would beuseful to examine the effect on brand image when the brand sponsors multipleevents. Will some events have a larger impact on brand image than others? If so,can specific event determinants be identified for driving this differential effect?

8/10/2019 855365

13/14

Image creationmodel

157

In addition, how do consumers sort out the meaning transfer from event tobrand, when brands sponsor multiple event with conflicting images?

Event image transfer is perhaps an even more critical issue in the evergrowing global community. Sponsors of events with international televisionaudiences, such as the Olympic Games, may need to consider the image of theglobal event in relationship to the image goals of local markets. Cultural andsocial norms may vary across national boundaries, such that a given eventsimage would not be appropriate for all consumer groups. It may also be possiblethat culture will moderate the image transfer process. Perhaps in cultures wherean individuals self-concept is more closely tied to consumption activities (e.g.,the type of clothing worn, the model of car driven), the transfer of image fromevent to brand may proceed more effectively. In such cultures consumers aremore active in looking for meaning in products that can be used to change orreinforce their concept of self.

As a result of its growing importance and lack of attention, more research inthe area of event marketing, and specifically the image transfer process isneeded. This article has put forward several theoretical arguments to explainthe mechanisms by which brand image may be influenced through varioussponsorship activities. Past research in the area of event marketing has tendedto focus on brand awareness issues and has been mostly descriptive in nature.If this field of inquiry is to progress, we must have theoretical explanations fromwhich to build. This article represents a first step in the discussion of howsponsorship actually works.

Note

1. Individuals consuming an event can be referred to using a variety of terms depending onthe specific event type. These labels include participant, attendee, spectator and observer.All of these terms are used in this article to reflect the varied nature of event types, butthese terms should be regarded as synonyms.

References

Aaker, D.A. (1991),Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw P.R. (1990), Trying to consume, Journal of Consumer Behavior,Vol. 17, September, pp. 127-40.

Bitner, M., Booms, B.H. and Mohr, L.A. (1994), Critical service encounters: the employeesviewpoint, Journal of M arketing, Vol. 58, October, pp. 95-106.

Catherwood, D.W. and Van Kirk, R.L. (1992),The Complete Guide to Special Event M anagement,John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Chew, F. (1992), The advertising value of making possible a public television program,Journalof Advertising Research, November-December, pp. 47-52.

Cohen, J.B. (1990), Attitude, affect, and consumer behavior, in Moore, B.S. and Isen, A.M. (Eds),Affect and Social Behavior, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 152-206.

Crowley, M.G. (1991), Prioritizing the sponsorship audience,European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 25 No.11, pp. 11-21.

Hutchinson, J.W. and Alba, J.A. (1991), Ignoring irrelevant information: situational determinantsof consumer learning, Jour nal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, December, pp. 325-45.

8/10/2019 855365

14/14


158

Jacobson, M. (1993), Museums that put corporations on display,Business and Society Review,Vol. 86, Summer, pp. 24-7.

Javalgi, R.G., Traylor, M.B., Gross, A.C. and Lampman, E. (1994), Awareness of sponsorship andcorporate image: an empirical investigation, Journal of Advert ising, Vol. 23, December,pp. 47-58.

Kaikati, J.G. (1987), Celebrity advertising: a review and synthesis, Int ernati onal Journal ofAdvertising, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 93-105.

Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity,Journal of M arketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.

Levin, G. (1993), Sponsors put pressure on for accountability, Advert ising Age, 21 June,pp. S1-S4.

MacInnis, D.J., Mooreman, C. and Jaworski, B.J. (1991), Enhancing and measuring consumers

motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads, Jour nal ofMarketing, Vol. 55, October, pp. 32-53.

Marshall, D.W. and Cook, G. (1992), The corporate (sports) sponsor, In ternat ional Journal ofAdvertising, Vol. 11, pp. 307-24.

McCracken, G. (1989), Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsementprocess,Jour nal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 December, pp. 310-21.

McDaniel, S.R. (1997), An investigation of match-up effects in event sponsorship advertising: theimplications of consumer advertising schemas, Paper presented at the American MarketingAssociation Winter Educators Meeting, St Petersburg, FL.

McDaniel, S.R. and Kinney, L. (1996), Ambush marketing revisited: an experimental study ofperceived sponsorship effects on brand awareness, attitude toward the brand and purchaseintention, Journal of Promoti on Management, Vol. 3, pp. 141-67.

McDonald, C. (1991), Sponsorship and the image of the sponsor, Eur opean Jour nal ofMarketing, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 31-8.

Meenaghan, J.A. (1983), Commercial sponsorship,European Journal of M arketing, Vol. 7 No. 7,pp. 5-73.

Meenaghan, J.A. (1991), Sponsorship legitimizing the medium, Eur opean Jour nal ofMarketing, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 5-10.

Meerabeau, E., Gillett, R., Kennedy, M., Adeoba, J., Byass, M. and Tabi, K. (1991), Sponsorshipand the drinks industry in the 1990s,European Journal of M arketing, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 39-56.

Parker, K. (1991), Sponsorship: the research contribution,European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 22-30.

Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986),Communication and Persuasion: Central and Per ipheralRoutes to At ti tude Change, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Schumann, D. (1983), Central and peripheral routes to advertisingeffectiveness: the moderating role of involvement, Jour nal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10,September, pp. 135-46.

Sandler, D.M. and Shani, D. (1989), Olympic sponsorship vs. ambush marketing: who gets thegold,Journal of Advertising Research, August-September, pp. 9-14.

Scott, D.R. and Suchard, H.T. (1992), Motivations for Australian expenditure on sponsorship ananalysis, International Journal of Advert ising, Vol. 11, pp. 325-32.

Wood, J. (1996), Sold out,The New Republic, Vol. 215 No. 2, p. 9.

855365

Documents

Transcript of 855365