THE DETERMINANTS OF BRAND AWARENESS WITHIN SPORTS SPONSORSHIP

Matthew R. Manning

A Thesis Submitted to the University of North Carolina Wilmington for the Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of Master in Business Administration

Cameron School of Business

University of North Carolina Wilmington

2009

Approved by

Advisory committee

_____Joaquin Aldas­Manzano______ _______Marcelo Royo­Vela_______

_________L. Vince Howe_______ Chair

Accepted By

____________________________________ Dean, Graduate School

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. v

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. vi

LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................................ 3

Advertising......................................................................................................................................... 6

Sponsorship ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Sports Sponsorship ........................................................................................................................ 11

HYPOTHESIS ..................................................................................................................................... 13

Event Related Variables................................................................................................................. 13

Hypothesis #1.............................................................................................................................. 14

Hypothesis #2.............................................................................................................................. 14

Sponsor Related Variables ............................................................................................................ 15

Hypothesis #3.............................................................................................................................. 15

Hypothesis #4.............................................................................................................................. 16

Hypothesis #5.............................................................................................................................. 16

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 18

Fieldwork ......................................................................................................................................... 18

Sample Tested ................................................................................................................................ 19

Measures ......................................................................................................................................... 20

ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................... 22

RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 25

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 30

APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................................... 34

Survey As Distributed ..................................................................................................................... 34

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I would like to acknowledge my advisor Dr. Joaquin Aldas­

Manzano for his immense help throughout the entire formulation of this thesis. Without

his tireless work and helping hand in forming this research project, this final product

would have never been possible.

A special thank you goes out to all my friends who gave encouragement and

attended the Columbus Clippers games with me. Their endless support and constant

push to keep me motivated toward the completion of this thesis was invaluable. Also to

my fellow students within the IMBA program, for their long conversations and much

needed reassurances throughout the entire length of the program. The most important

thank you goes to my family, my parents for their unwavering love and support, both

emotionally and financially, as well as my brothers’ abilities to encourage and motivate

me throughout the entire process proved to be vital through nearly every stage of this

process.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank Ohio Dominican University for their

allowance of their library and resources.

iv

ABSTRACT

The field of sports sponsorship has grown exponentially over the recent years,

however the academic research conducted within the field has been slow in reacting to

the boom. This research project is aimed toward the understanding of what impact

sports sponsorship has on the direct viewers of those sponsorships. Specifically studied

is the sponsorship created by Huntington Bank of the Columbus Clippers, a professional

baseball team.

The information for the study was compiled from surveys collected during home

games at Huntington Park in Columbus, Ohio. The research was then conducted within

the constructs of both event related variables, status of the event and personal liking of

the event, and sponsor related variables, sincerity of the sponsor, attitude of the

sponsor, and ubiquity of the sponsor, as well as the essential dependent variable of

brand awareness. The logistic regression analysis conducted showed an overall lack of

a relationship between the variables measured and the brand awareness created by the

sponsorship. While the results of the research did not show what determines the brand

awareness, it gives insights into sports sponsorships, while giving a base for future

research to be conducted within the field of work. Also, let us not forget that it’s just as

important to know what does not determine brand awareness as it is to know what

does, as companies can use this when determining future sponsorships to create.

v

LIST OF TABLES Table Page

1. Scales of Reliability .................................................................................................. 22

2. Construct Descriptive ............................................................................................... 22

3. ANOVA Results for Unaided Recall ......................................................................... 23

4. ANOVA Results for Aided Recall.............................................................................. 24

5. Logistic Regression Results for Unaided Recall....................................................... 25

6. Logistic Regression Results for Aided Recall ........................................................... 25

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1. Flow Chart of Determinants...................................................................................... 18

2. Measures of Determinants ....................................................................................... 20

INTRODUCTION

Sponsorship is a huge industry that is only increasing, becoming a vital

marketing tool utilized by many companies, ranging from SME’s to MNE’s. Industries

such as sports, music, arts, and social events are becoming increasingly popular targets

for sponsorship. The purpose of sponsoring these events can be two fold for many

companies as they associate their name with the event to create an aura of prestige

and likeness from the event, as well as creating a sense of goodwill toward the

community for helping fund the events. (Dean 2002) Sponsorships of these events in

the United States alone accounted for $24 billion in 2001, and have only increased

exponentially since then. (Walliser 2003) These events are unique opportunities to

reach hundreds or even thousands of viewers all at the same time, as well as having

the ability to create a viral marketing effect as viewers talk about their experiences while

attending the events a company sponsored.

This study focuses on sports sponsorship, more specifically the sponsorship at

professional baseball games. New baseball parks being built have already found

sponsors such as Target and Citicorp, willing to pay over $100 and $400 million dollars

respectively, for the naming rights to stadiums in Minnesota and New York. With these

huge amounts of money being invested by the corporations, it is essential to see what

determinates effect the viewers to create brand recall or brand awareness. However,

there seems to be very little research done to check what results have came from these

investments or more importantly how these results were achieved, especially within the

sports world. According to Walliser this is due to the relatively recent boom in

sponsorship that began in the 1990’s, as a total of only 80 academic papers had been

2

written prior to 1996.(2003) There is not even a universal definition as to what

sponsorship is; rather each researcher creates their own working definition to

differentiate between sponsorship and advertising.

The sheer number of fans that attend baseball games throughout the season is

in the millions, while that does not even begin to show the true number of fans that are

affected by sponsorships. Television broadcasts and radio telecasts increase the

audience size to numbers that can reach three or four times the number of people in

attendance, not to mention those consumers that are not fans but are still influenced

simply because of the association of the team with the sponsor. Baseball teams are

able to have payrolls $100 million a year due to their players and staff, and are able to

draw over 2 million customers per year to watch the games in person even in a

depressed economy. Just based on those numbers it makes sponsorships an excellent

opportunity to influence potential customers and create brand awareness and brand

favorability.

This study intends to find out if the sponsoring companies are able to increase

brand awareness from the huge amounts of money they must invest to the baseball

teams and if so, what determinates have caused the brand awareness from the viewers.

However, as is discussed later in this study, there is a complete lack of academic

research conducted within the field that is only matched by the lack of agreement

amongst the few researchers that are actively studying sponsorships. This study looks

to take the definitions created by multiple scholars in the field and combine them to find

the most appropriate one for the purpose of the research being conducted, then test the

brand awareness created by the sponsorship of a professional baseball team and gain

3

insight into what effects a consumers choice of brand awareness and brand favorability

and then ultimately usage of the sponsors products.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Prior research conducted within the subject of sports sponsorship has been

somewhat limited in scope, and has not yet laid the framework for future research

either. Noting that the American Marketing Association announced its latest definition

of marketing in 2004 that states “Marketing is an organizational function and a set of

processes for creating, communicating, and delivering value to customers and for

managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its

stakeholders”, leaving it just broad enough to encompass the many different types of

marketing used in the world market today. (Gundlach, 2007) However, the lack of

certainty in the definition of each of those different specializations has led to studies that

are less than accurate and created turmoil amongst the scholars conducting the studies.

Cornwell goes so far as to criticize the research done in the field for “lacking explanatory

theoretical framework of how sponsorship works…” (1999), and thus inhibiting future

researchers from creating the consistent groundwork needed to advance the

understanding of sponsorships, while Cornwell and Maignan state that there is still

much debate over the research methodology adopted and used when studying

sponsorships (1998). These issues need to be resolved for the marketing community to

continue to grow, especially as marketing evolves from the concept of value exchanged

logic to the ever growing logic of value in use, a service dominant approach. (Vargo

and Lusch, 2004) Unfortunately, creating a definition that shows the difference between

4

advertising and sponsorship is hindered not only by a lack of academic studies done of

the topic, but also because of the similar objectives of both advertising and sponsorship,

increasing brand image and brand awareness. The major difference in the two is in the

delivery of the message, as advertising is generally more direct and easier to control,

whereas sponsorships have a nearly unlimited target audience and the ability to

overcome communication barriers presented in advertising. (Walliser 2003) The other

limitation in the field is the lack of academic studies conducted on sponsorships as a

whole and how they have evolved over the past 20 years, the specific topic of sports

sponsorship has not been approached by many researchers. A study done by Speed

and Thompson, “Determinants of Sports Sponsorship Response”, studies many of the

same determinants used in this thesis; however a major error made by Speed and

Thompson was their lack of distinguishing between what a sponsorship is compared to

advertising or other forms of marketing. (2000) In Grohs, Wagner, and Vsetecka’s

study, “Assessing the Effectiveness of Sport Sponsorships – An Empirical Examination”,

they study the effects the brand has on the effectiveness of the sponsorship, as well as

the effect of the synergy of the event with the sponsor. (2004) However, this study does

not go into much detail about the actual determinants of brand awareness created from

the sponsorship. Lee, Sandler, and Shani conducted a study of the 1992 Olympic

Games in Barcelona and the 1994 World Cup in the United States, and found that

sponsorships are much like advertising in that they must be adapted to the culture that

is viewing them to mitigate any cross­culture clashes. (1997) Also stated is the overall

lack of theory and knowledge of how consumers will respond to sponsorships, and if the

reaction will even be substantially different than it would be to advertising. (Hastings,

5

1984) Beyond these few studies, very little academic research has been published

recently on the specific topic of sports sponsorship. However, there has been an

increase in material published about the much broader topic of sponsorships in general,

as sponsorships have become much more popular and is entering a growing phase of

its life cycle.

As the academic studies of sponsorships increase in popularity, it is becoming

increasingly evident that there is a major problem within the research field. The overall

lack of a generally accepted definition of sponsorship, and more importantly how it

differentiates itself from advertising and other forms of marketing, has led to differing

opinions and results from many of the researchers. Many researchers have created a

definition that they feel best fits the study they are currently conducting, and as a result

all the findings of the study need to be taken at face value, realizing that they may not

be quite as positive, or negative, as they originally seem. Another major problem is the

personal and national opinions held against competing scholars or other nations,

leading to the inability to agree on a generally accepted definition of sponsorship.

Walliser notes that many French researchers tend to use the definition created by their

native researcher Derbaix, and Germans do similarly by using the definition of Bruhn,

while researchers in the U.S. and England have struggled through many different

combinations and variations of the definition as they see fit. (2003) Rust and Oliver

predicted fifteen years ago that “the death of advertising” was imminent based on the

growth of other marketing techniques and how narrow the definition of advertising was.

(1994) However, scholars on the opposite opinion argue that too broad of a definition

would lead to turn wars between specialists trying to claim credit for a successful

6

campaign. (Richards and Curran, 2002) As a result of this dilemma, Richards and

Curran took a panel of fourteen marketing scholars and created an anonymous group of

surveys in an attempt to find one definition of advertising that was generally accepted by

the majority of the group. (2002) However even during this anonymous situation, they

noticed a bias towards each individual’s specialization, which caused problems in

finding a broad enough definition to please each of the panel members, but yet still

specific enough to differentiate between what advertising is compared to other forms of

marketing, such as sponsorship. As such, the first step in this thesis is to differentiate

between what is advertising and what is sponsorship, and then more importantly, what

is sports sponsorship.

Advertising

Advertising is at the epicenter of many aspects of marketing, and differentiating

between advertising and the many different specializations of marketing can create an

interesting dilemma. Since many aspects of advertising can also fall into the same

scope of direct marketing, sponsorships, personal selling, promotional products, and

sales promotion, it is important to classify each specialty as specifically as possible

without pigeonholing the entire practice. (Richards and Curran, 2002) It is important to

create these classifications as marketing becomes more sophisticated and new,

innovative practices are being used. It is estimated that on a daily basis nearly 3,500

advertisements are viewed or heard by the average consumer, however as

classifications become clearer, researchers will be able to differentiate between what

forms of advertising are being viewed, and if they even are really advertising. (Godin,

1999) In order to properly conduct a study, it is necessary to define what exactly the

7

study is searching for, as Schultz states that many consumers tend to think that nearly

every form of commercial activity is advertising, not making the distinction between a

sales promotion and personal selling from advertising. (1995)

Over the years the definitions of advertising have gone from rather rudimentary,

to overly sophisticated. Daniel Starch proposed one of the simplest definitions back in

1923, when he wrote in his textbook that advertising is simply “selling in print”. (1923) It

is anticipated that he was referring to the coined definition from John E. Kennedy that

advertising was nothing more than “salesmanship in print”. (Gunther 1960) Other

definitions used by varying scholars include Marshall McLuhan’s “the cave art of the

twentieth century” (Fitzhenry, 1993), U.S. President Calvin Coolidge defined it as “the

life of trade” (Bradley, Daniels, and Jones, 1960), professor Hayakawa termed it as “a

symbol­manipulating occupation” (Hayakawa, 1964), and possibly the simplest to

understand came from Leo Burnett, who defined advertising as “selling corn flakes to

people who are eating Cheerios” (Bendinger, 1993). While all of these definitions touch

on the principles of what advertising is, none of them are sufficient to differentiate and

fully explain advertising against the other forms of marketing employed throughout the

world today. The American Heritage Dictionary defines advertising as “the activity of

attracting public attention to a product or business, as by paid announcements in the

print, broadcast, or electronic media”. The only problem with that definition is the aspect

that an advertisement must be paid, as things such as word of mouth advertising and

product placement in movies are often not paid for, and therefore would be hard to

measure as advertising under that definition. However, if the aspect of being “paid” for

an advertisement does not specifically mean that the company is the one paying, but

8

rather other channel members also are included in the scope, then it becomes a much

more accepted definition. Of the general panel previously referenced that Richards and

Curran conducted, five main elements become consistent throughout, 1) paid, 2)

nonpersonal, 3) identified company, 4) mass media, and 5) persuasion or influence.

(2002) Using these consistent elements, and allowing that any channel member can be

the one “paying” for the advertisement, the basic definition of advertising should be “a

paid, non­personal communication from an identified company, using a mass media

scale to create influence or persuade their audience”. This definition holds true to the

general definitions of several different scholars, while being specific enough to eliminate

other aspects of marketing such as sponsorships and direct marketing.

Sponsorship

Sponsorship is a term that is loosely understood by scholars doing research on

the subject, and as such is open to interpretation. This leads to the problem of an

evolving definition that not only changes based on the individual researcher, but also on

what study they are currently undertaking. Unfortunately as a result of the inability of the

top scholars in the specialization to agree on a basic definition, it has left the framework

of sponsorship wide open for other less educated scholars to formulate their own

working definitions. This has hindered the development and understanding of

sponsorships, as the research conducted is often inconsistent and is full of loopholes

that need to be solved. As further research is being conducted however, some scholars

believe that sponsorship has the potential to become the “marketing communications

tool of the 21 st century”. (Tripodi, 2001) Meenaghan predicts a similar future for

sponsorships based on the versatility it possesses to perform many different functions

9

of the marketing communications mix. (1991) Currie believes that sponsorships are

more dynamic than many of the traditional elements of the promotional mix (2000),

which gives sponsorship an advantage over many other emerging forms of marketing

which are pigeonholed by their lack of diversity. Sponsorships also have the distinct

ability to have two main objectives, one on the corporate level, enhancing the corporate

image, and the other on the marketing level, increasing brand awareness. (Shanklin and

Kuzma, 1992) However, one of the major drawbacks of sponsorships lies within

“ambushers”, where a company associates themselves with an event or activity without

ever paying a sponsorship fee. (Walliser, 2003)

One of the first working definitions of sponsorship was created by Meenaghan,

stating it as “a provision of assistance either financial or in kind to an activity by a

commercial organization for the purpose of achieving commercial objectives”. (1983)

Two of the main ideas that need to be in any working definition of sponsorship is the

involvement of a seconds party, or the party being sponsored, and the commercial

motivation of the sponsorship, which distinguishes a sponsorship from both advertising

and corporate goodwill. (Speed and Thompson, 2000) Gardner and Shuman go on to

define sponsorship as “investments in causes or events to support corporate objectives,

such as an enhancement of corporate image or an increase in brand awareness”, but

have left out the aspect of the necessary second party in their study. (1988) Amis, Slack

and Berrett simplified sponsorship down to a strategic activity undertaken with the intent

of achieving certain organizational activities (1995), but this definition leaves it

extremely broad and does not single in on the specialization of what sponsorship really

is while still differentiating it from advertising. On the corporate level IEG define

10

sponsorship as “a cash and/or in­kind fee paid to a property (typically a sports,

entertainment, non­profit event, or organization) in return for access to the exploitable

commercial potential associated with that property”. (2000) The combination of several

of these definitions is needed to find what fits the purpose of this study. As such, this

study will define sponsorship as; a fee paid, often in the form of cash, to an outside

entity, namely an event, activity, or person, to create an association for the purpose of

achieving corporate objectives.

Sponsorships have become a marketing tool that must be recognized by

companies looking to create brand identity and ultimately brand awareness. The scope

of sponsorships is almost never ending, as companies are routinely finding new

concepts and ideas to reach new highs within their marketing concepts. It is clearly

evident that not all companies have the same motivations for creating a sponsorship.

While the many traditional sponsors wish to enhance their corporate image and

increase brand awareness, there are sponsors with other motives as well. Social and

environmental sponsors generally seek to promote social responsibility (Walliser, 2003),

art sponsors seek to create emotions for hospitality (Drees, 1991), manufacturers

search for media coverage and increased publicity, while service sponsors use the tool

to help increase employee moral (Quester and Rungie, 1998), and small businesses

aim to create the perception of giving back to the community (Mack, 1999). During a

study on the sponsorships of the Special Olympics, Dean noted that sponsors had a

perceived altruistic intention by the respondents that were tested, giving the sponsors

not only an increase in brand awareness from an international event, but also an

increase in corporate goodwill. (2002) Dean also states that among the many non­

11

economic objectives of sponsorships is the creation of goodwill within the community,

improvement of the corporate image, boosting employee morale, recruiting new

employees, as well as purely altruistic goals. (2002) An alternative motive for several

sponsors resides in the current ban on any advertising relating to alcohol or tobacco.

(Meenaghan, 1998) Cornwell argues that sponsorships simply offer a loophole for the

tobacco and alcohol companies to find other forms of advertising that are not as strictly

regulated, and thus defeat the purpose of the ban entirely. (1997) However, by

associating itself with the event, the sponsor shares in the image of the event, much the

same way a celebrity spokesperson does with the products they endorse. (Javalgi,

Traylor, Gross, and Lampman, 1994) As a result, the effects of the sponsorship must be

considered by both the sponsor and sponsored, as attitudes toward controversial

brands or events will have an inverse influence on the other. (Ruth and Simonin, 2003)

In an empirical study conducted by Grohs, Wagner, and Vsetecka they find that there is

a relationship between the event­sponsor fit, event involvement, and exposure on

sponsor recall, however they state there is no relationship between brand prominence

and sponsor awareness. (2004)

Sports Sponsorship

Sports sponsorship can be a form of communication, altering and enhancing a

company’s culture at different levels on the organization, both internal and external.

(Hickman, Lawrence, and Ward, 2005) Farrelly, Quester, and Burton define sports

sponsorship as an “investment in cash or in kind in a sport related activity, person, or

event in return for exploitable commercial potential association with the sport”. (1997)

However, the level of risk is increased if a person rather than an event or activity is

12

sponsored. (Piquet, 1998) As sport sponsorship is evolving and further research is

being conducted, the definition has also evolved and simplified to “the acquisition of

rights to affiliate or directly associate with a product or event for the purpose of deriving

benefits related to that affiliation or association”. (Mullin, Hard, and Sutton, 2000) The

vast majority of corporations that pursue sports sponsorships are looking to create

increased brand awareness, sales opportunities, and client relations in an environment

where there is a decreasing corporate trust in traditional advertising methods.

(Papadimitriou, Apostolopoulou, and Dounis, 2008) The use of sport sponsorship has

positive effects on customer behavior, including recall of the sponsorship (Slattery and

Pitts, 2002) and an increased positive attitude toward the sponsor as well as usage of

the sponsor’s products. (Bennett, Henson, and Zhang, 2002; Westerbeek and Smith,

2002) The use of sport sponsorships in conjunction with other elements of the

marketing mix has shown to have a dramatic increase in the sponsor’s brand

awareness and corporate image when properly combined. (Abratt, Clayton, and Pitt,

1987) It is also recognized by scholars that sport sponsorships are an effective

communications tool to be used to enhance a company’s image and reputation. (Shaw

and Amis, 2001)

Sports sponsorship as a whole is an exploding aspect of marketing that has yet

to be fully tapped. With mega events such as the Olympics being staged every two

years, it creates a worldwide event that sponsors have the opportunity to exploit. Stipp

and Schiavone studied these events and noted the ability of the sponsors to reach not

only viewers who are sports fans, but also the general population within the many

countries receiving broadcasts of the event. (1996) Another mega event that reaches

13

international viewers is the NFL’s Super Bowl, which records record high prices for both

its sponsorships and advertisements shown during the game.

HYPOTHESIS

I have chosen to evaluate the determinates of brand awareness that is created

during professional baseball games in the United States. In doing so I would be able to

measure the awareness through dependent variables such as favorability and

awareness of the brands. I will also have to create several independent variables

relating to both the sponsor and event being sponsored in order to truly find the

relationship between the viewer and the brand awareness of the sponsor. For the

purposes of this study brand awareness will be defined as “brand recall and recognition

performance by potential consumers”. (Keller, 1993)

Event Related Variables

The event that is being sponsored is of vital importance to the sponsor, and the

personal liking of the event by the viewers can be instrumental in creating brand

awareness and brand favorability. Respondents who perceived the event to be

attractive and interesting believed it would have a stronger impact on the sponsor’s

image. (D’Astous and Bitz, 1995) This implies that a baseball game that is of higher

importance, such as a playoff game or a game against a bitter rival will be more

beneficial for a company to sponsor than a simple regular season game. Crimmins and

Horn write that a sponsor can benefit from “gratitude” among the viewers, especially

those with a strong likeness to the event being sponsored. (1996)

14

Hypothesis #1

As the status of an event increases for the home city, the brand

awareness of the sponsors increases.

If a fans hometown team is playing against a rival, the fan is more likely to realize

the sponsors of the game. Therefore the sponsors are able to create higher brand

awareness levels among fans who attend important games. (D’Astous and Bitz, 1995)

The variables status of the game and personal liking of the game measure what the

respondents personal feelings are toward the game as well as their perception of the

importance of the game. The research included both the importance of the game to the

team as well as to the community, thus it differentiates between a playoff game for the

team and a game during a special occasion, such as Independence Day or a tribute to a

person of importance. This will show if brand awareness increases during games of

higher importance, possibly due to an increased awareness of the surroundings, or if it

decreases due to paying increased attention to the game itself or to the distractions of

the tribute.

Hypothesis #2

As the fans attitude toward the event, (i.e. being a diehard fan), increases,

as does the brand awareness created by the sponsor.

When a sponsor is supporting a local team, the fan becomes more aware of the

sponsor, especially when there is a strong liking for the local team being sponsored.

Therefore, a sponsor will create higher brand awareness among local fans attending

home events. (Crimmins and Horn, 1996) The determinants researched measure if the

respondent is a fan of the team, or even a fan of the sport. This is due to the possibility

15

of a fan not realizing all of the surroundings during the game, which would decrease the

opportunity of the fan to notice the sponsorship. However, if the sponsor has a major

sponsorship of the event, then it is possible to create brand awareness due to other

outside influences such as press releases and media advertisements.

Sponsor Related Variables

A sponsor can have just as big an impact on the response of the viewers as the

event itself. The exposure of a brand, both through sponsorship and advertising, affects

the response from the viewers. When a brand has high exposure, it suggests that the

organization has multiple, and possibly competing, commitments. (Speed and

Thompson, 2000) With that, a sponsor appears to be more sincere and caring when

they select their sponsorships carefully and limit themselves to events that will draw

their target market.

Hypothesis #3

As the perceived sincerity of the sponsor is increased, (i.e. benefiting the

team or sport as much as the company), so does brand awareness.

When a company has the appearance of being sincere with their sponsorship,

caring for not only their own interests, but also those of the team or sport, they are able

to achieve more brand awareness among viewers. (Armstrong, 1987) Thus a company

needs to at least make the perception of caring about the local team or the sport of

baseball as a whole in order to maximize potential brand awareness among the fans.

To test the sincerity of the sponsor, or the perceived interest the company has in

creating this sponsorship, respondents are asked if they believe the company has the

16

best interest of the sport in mind, or if they simply created the sponsorship for company

gains. Also asked is if the respondents believe the company would still sponsor the

event if it were of a lower profile, rather than a professional baseball game, which shows

if the respondents believe the company is looking out for the best interest of the sport or

team, or rather just to reach a large audience.

Hypothesis #4

The previous attitude of the fan toward the sponsor makes it more difficult

to create brand awareness.

When a viewer already has previous knowledge of the sponsoring brand, it

makes it tougher to create an increased brand awareness of the sponsor. (Stuart,

Shrimp, and Engle, 1987) This means that a fan that has a pre­existing opinion of a

sponsoring brand will not have an increase in brand awareness nearly as easily as a fan

who has never heard of the sponsoring brand before the game. However, when a fan

already has a positive image of the sponsor, they end up with a far more positive result

than those who has a pre­existing negative image of the sponsor. (Javalgi, Traylor,

Gross, and Lampman, 1994)

Hypothesis #5

A higher perceived ubiquity of a sponsor leads to lower brand awareness

among fans.

While this determinate has not been researched as extensively as the other

determinates, study groups have indicated that response from viewers would not be as

strong toward a sponsor that appears to be sponsoring a large number of events at the

17

same time. (Speed and Thompson, 2000) When fans expect to see certain sponsors at

the game, they have a much lower response to that sponsor, as it is not anything unique

to the fan. When dealing with the ubiquity of the sponsor the respondents were tested

on what the effects of the company’s other sponsorships have on their brand

awareness. The survey questioned if the company only sponsors major events,

sporting events, baseball games, or if they sponsor many different events. If a

respondent felt that a company sponsors many major events, then it may affect their

brand awareness as the sponsor risks saturating the market with sponsorships and

advertising. This would cause the respondent to not recognize the sponsor, or realize

that they even saw the sponsor’s name, since they have become so accustomed to

seeing the name previously.

After testing each of these hypotheses I was able to determine what exactly

caused the brand awareness, or lack of brand awareness, created by the sponsor. This

is important material for the sponsor, as it can have ramifications on the amount the

company is willing to spend to sponsor such events. If the sponsor comes to the

conclusion that the previous attitude of the company has the largest effect on the brand

awareness, they may not be willing to spend as much money for the sponsorship rights.

However, if the event is creating higher brand awareness, then a sponsoring company

can justify the amount spent each year.

18

Figure 1; Flow Chart of Determinants

METHODOLOGY

Fieldwork

The fieldwork was conducted at Huntington Park in Columbus, Ohio. Surveys

were created and passed out to patrons who attended the games on the dates of July

9 th , July 17 th , August 6 th , and August 13 th of 2009. The surveys were passed out in

person immediately following the game, where I administered them in a place where no

sponsors’ names were visible. Surveys were given exclusively to patrons in box seats

and sitting in bleachers, as no patrons seated in the luxury suites or in special group

seating were available to receive the survey.

19

Sample Tested

There were 51 surveys administered in total, with 27 being given to males and 24

to females. The ages of the respondents ranged from 17 to 60, with an average age of

31.66 years old, with one respondent abstaining from listing their age. When split into

four groups to breakdown the age brackets, there were 16 from 17 – 22 years old, 14

that were 23 – 33 years old, 8 that were 34 – 46 years old, and 12 that were 47 – 60

years old. Also, 43 of the respondents stated they were rooting for the hometown

Columbus Clippers, 5 said they were rooting for the visitors, while 3 stated they had no

preference on which team won. When asked if they knew the local brands of

Columbus, Ohio, 45 answered that they knew the local brands, while 6 said they did not

know the local brands of Columbus.

20

Measures Figure 2; Measures of Determinants (Speed and Thompson, 2000)

The dependent measurement that is essential for the research to be of any

meaningful insight is the brand awareness of the sponsor. The hope of the sponsor is

to create unaided brand recall, however, if a minimum of aided brand recall is achieved,

then the research is valid. While it is not necessarily vital for large sponsors to create

brand awareness simply from the sponsorship, this is a critical measurement for smaller

corporations in order to recoup any money invested into the sponsorship. The

independent measurements have shown what has created the brand awareness of the

sponsor, analyzed as the status of the event, the attitude toward the event, the sincerity

•Unaided sponsor brand recall •Aided sponsor brand recall Brand Awareness

•This is a significant game to the team. •The game is important to where I live. Status of Event

•I am a strong supporter of this game. •I enjoy following the coverage of this game. •This game is important to me.

Attitude Toward Event

•The sponsor likely has the best interest of the sport at heart. •The sponsor would still support the game even if it was of a lower profile. •The sponsor is inolved with this game because they feel the game has earned the support.

Sincerity of Sponsor

•Attitude toward sponsor; [Good ‐ Bad] •Attitude toward sponsor; [Favorable ‐ Unfavorable]

Attitude Toward Sponsor

•The company sponsors many events. •The company sponsors many major events. •The company only sponsors sporting events. •The company only sponsors baseball games.

Ubiquity of Sponsor

21

of the sponsor, the attitude toward the sponsor, and the ubiquity of the sponsor. As

each of the independent determinants were analyzed, they were compared in return to

the brand awareness created and ultimately to the usage created by the sponsorship.

The two event related variables, status of the event and attitude toward the

event, deal solely with the event the corporation chooses to sponsor. In the case of the

research I have conducted, the baseball games were a major event in the Columbus,

with attendance of over 10,000 patrons per game, however not reaching the mega

event status of other events, such as music concerts or sporting events involving Ohio

State University teams. The three sponsor related variables, sincerity of the sponsor,

ubiquity of the sponsor, and the attitude toward the sponsor, measure how the

respondents felt about the sponsoring corporation. Huntington Bank is a well known

bank in not only Columbus, but throughout the Midwestern states of the United States.

The company is headquartered in Columbus however, and has a major sponsoring

presence throughout the city.

Before calculating the synthetic measure of the independent variables (status,

attitude towards the event, sincerity of the sponsor, attitude towards the sponsor and

ubiquity of sponsor), we performed a reliability analysis of the items of each construct

using Cronbach’s alpha. Results, as can be seen in table 1, showed a reasonable

reliability for constructs attitude to the event (alpha=0.716), attitude to the sponsor

(0.697) and sincerity (0.785). However, reliability for status of the event was poor

(0.258) what leaded us to remove the first item. That is the reason why no alpha is

provided in table 1, as this calculation makes no sense when only one item is present.

22

The same situation occurred with ubiquity (alpha=0.324) however, after removing the

first item, the rest of the variables provided an alpha of 0.674.

Table 1; Scales of Reliability

Construct Cronbach’s alpha

Status of the event ­­

Attitude to the event 0.716

Attitude to the sponsor 0.697

Sincerity of the sponsor 0.785

Ubiquity of the sponsor 0.674

After checking reliability, five synthetic indicators of the constructs were built as

the mean of the items that formed them. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of

these constructs that will be our independent variables in the results section.

Table 2; Construct Descriptive

Construct Mean Std. Deviation

Status of the event 2.86 1.05

Attitude to the event 3.01 0.91

Attitude to the sponsor 3.64 0.66

Sincerity of the sponsor 2.97 0.82

Ubiquity of the sponsor 2.19 0.66

ANALYSIS The final analysis of the hypotheses has been conducted under the above

stated definitions of sponsorship and brand awareness, chosen after an extensive

23

search through previous research conducted within the field. To begin testing our

hypothesis we began with two separate steps. First, we attempted to evaluate if the

respondents who had an unaided brand recall of Huntington Bank as a sponsor showed

any significant levels within the perceived statues of the events, attitude of the event,

attitude towards the events, attitude towards the sponsor, perceived sincerity of the

sponsor, and perceived ubiquity of the sponsor. In order to achieve this measurement

we performed five individual one way analyses of the variance, using unaided brand

recall as the independent variable (factor) and the five aforementioned variables as the

dependent variables.

The results shown in Table 3 illustrate the lack of significant differences between

the respondents with unaided brand recall when compared to those with aided recall of

Huntington Bank in respect to the five measurements previously stated.

Table 3; ANOVA Results for Unaided Recall

Construct

Means

F Sig Recalled

(75%)

Didn’t Recall

(25%)

Status of the event 2.92 2.69 0.447 0.507

Attitude to the event 3.02 3.00 0.003 0.953

Attitude to the sponsor 3.65 3.62 0.029 0.865

Sincerity of the sponsor 2.92 3.10 0.467 0.498

Ubiquity of the sponsor 2.20 2.18 0.007 0.935

24

When the means of both the unaided and aided recall are compared, a nearly

identical result is shown. The results indicate that the brand recall, or lack or recall, was

not influenced by any of the five factors. The results of the aided brand recall of

Huntington Bank, shown in Table 4, are similar throughout to those results of the

unaided recall of the sponsor, which have previously been shown in Table 3.

Table 4; ANOVA Results for Aided Recall

Construct

Means

F Sig Recalled

(94%)

Didn’t Recall

(6%)

Status of the event 2.83 3.33 0.625 0.433

Attitude to the event 3.01 3.00 0.001 0.980

Attitude to the sponsor 3.61 4.17 1.998 0.164

Sincerity of the sponsor 2.93 3.56 1.651 0.205

Ubiquity of the sponsor 2.18 2.33 0.139 0.711

To confirm the results, we performed two binary logistic regressions tests using

unaided brand recall and aided brand recall (1 = yes, 2 = no) as the dependent

variables, while the five constructs (status of the event, attitude toward the event,

sincerity of the sponsor, attitude towards the sponsor, and ubiquity of the sponsor) were

used for the independent variables. These tests were used to evaluate if, and to what

degree, these three variables contributed to brand recall, both unaided and aided, or

not.

25

The results of the logistic regression tests can be found in Table 5 for unaided

brand recall, and Table 6 for aided brand recall. As expected, and in line with the

previous ANOVA test results, none of the five independent variables show any signs of

explaining the determinants of unaided brand recall.

Table 5; Logistic Regression Results for Unaided Recall

Independent variable Beta Odd ratio Wald Sig

Status of the event 0.356 1.428 0.748 0.387

Attitude to the event (0.087) 0.917 0.049 0.825

Attitude to the sponsor 0.135 1.144 0.051 0.821

Sincerity of the sponsor (0.608) 0.545 1.438 0.230

Ubiquity of the sponsor 0.059 1.061 0.012 0.913

Cox & Snell R2 = 0.04; Nagelkerke R2=0.05;

Table 6; Logistic Regression Results for Aided Recall

Independent variable Beta Odd ratio Wald Sig

Status of the event (0.047) 0.954 0.002 0.961

Attitude to the event 0.126 1.134 0.021 0.885

Attitude to the sponsor (0.900) 0.406 0.562 0.453

Sincerity of the sponsor (0.855) 0.425 0.761 0.383

Ubiquity of the sponsor (0.745) 0.475 0.737 0.391

Cox & Snell R2 = 0.021; Nagelkerke R2=0.044; Correct classification 90%

RECOMMENDATIONS

In response to the research conducted, in which none of the five hypotheses

were proven, it seems that another outside influence is creating the brand awareness

26

for Huntington Bank. A possible cause of the brand awareness is the large influence

Huntington Bank has throughout Columbus, Ohio, as it has its corporate headquarters

in the city. Brand awareness has been created by Huntington Bank, as the brand

received an aided recall mark of 94% among the respondents, which is an amazingly

high percentage for a sponsor. Due to the lack of a conclusive determinant of this

brand awareness, it must be determined if this brand awareness was created or

increased by the sponsorship, or if the same results could have been achieved through

a simple, and often cheaper, form of advertisement, or if there is no additional action

required by Huntington Bank at all to increase the company’s brand awareness.

As none of the sponsor related determinants, the attitude toward the sponsor, the

sincerity of the sponsor, and the ubiquity of the sponsor, were a determining factor in

the brand awareness, it begs the question of how Huntington Bank is able to create

brand awareness. The simple fact that Huntington Bank is a major contributor to the

local economy of Columbus, Ohio as one of the major banks used in the city, and thus

creating brand awareness simply from the presence of the company throughout the

entire city and the surrounding suburbs. Since the ubiquity of the sponsor was not

proven as a determinant of the brand awareness, Huntington Bank was not able to

create their high brand awareness through any sponsorship or even perceived

sponsorships of other events throughout the city and state. It bears mentioning that a

smaller, less well known company may receive entirely different scores if it would be

able to create brand awareness through sponsorships. The possibility of respondents

having no prior knowledge of the brand could potentially lead to a clear determinant of

27

the brand awareness, as all brand awareness would have to have been created simply

via the sponsorship.

With the event related variables also having a negligible effect on the brand

awareness created by Huntington Bank, it seems that, at least in regard to professional

baseball, the event has little effect on the brand awareness created. Since the

professional baseball team in Columbus, the Columbus Clippers, do not have nearly as

large of a following, or the emotional attachment, as the primary sports team in

Columbus, The Ohio State University football team, there was not the same emotional

attachment to either the team or the event being sponsored. However, if Huntington

Bank had been able to sponsor an event that included The Ohio State University

football team, then the emotional attachment of the fan base may have had a more

positive reaction.

It seems that Huntington Bank either needs to take the motto of “Swing for the

fences” with their sponsorships in order to increase their brand awareness within the

determinants we measured. The company may have invested unnecessary money into

the sponsorship of professional baseball within the city, as it appears that little brand

awareness was actually created specifically from this sponsorship. As a result, if

Huntington Bank wants to increase their brand awareness levels through sponsorships,

the company may want to look into investing a larger amount of money and creating a

sponsorship of college football games in association with The Ohio State University

football team. However, a large company looking to increase brand awareness in a

new market could achieve a much higher increase in brand awareness from the

sponsorship of an event that is well known, but does not have a high emotional

28

attachment to the patrons. In that event, there will once again be a much lesser amount

of brand awareness previously created by the brand within the city and simply having

the brand viewed by that many people would have a dramatic increase in the brand

awareness, which ultimately could prove one of the determinants of this study to be

proven true.

Several factors that went unmeasured throughout the course of the research

conducted include the number of games that each respondent attended and where they

sat during the games. Since the brand awareness, and ultimately the determinants of

the brand awareness, should ultimately increase as the respondent attends more

games, it could become a determinant simply from seeing the brand name more often.

Also, depending on where the respondent sat during the game could also influence their

brand awareness, as certain companies only sponsor certain levels of the stadium, and

companies specifically sponsor the family and group sections as well as the luxury

suites of the stadium.

The goal the company sets for the sponsorship is also important when ultimately

determining if the sponsorship was successful. If the sponsoring company does set a

goal of increasing brand awareness, then their actions could ultimately reflect this

decision. A company may chose to attempt to increase the brand image within the city

and create corporate goodwill, or even simply an association with a particular sport,

team, or event. If either of those are the case, then there will be an entire different set

of measurables that would be of value to the sponsoring company. Companies

attempting to create a sporty image could use a sponsorship of a sports team to change

the general public perception of the brand or product, or the sponsor could attempt to

29

appear more culture savvy by sponsoring art events or other culture events happening

in the city.

REFERENCES

Abratt, R, Clayton, B.C., Pitt, L.F. (1987) “Corporate Objectives in Sports Sponsorship” International Journal of Advertising, 6, 299­311.

Amis, J., Slack, T., Berrett, T. (1995) “The Structural Antecedents of Conflict in Voluntary Sport Organizations” Leisure Studies, 14(1), 1­16.

Armstrong, C. (1987) “Sports Sponsorship; A Case­Study Approach to Measuring Its Effectiveness”, European Research, 16(2), 97­103.

Bendinger, B. (1993) “Copy Work Shop Work Book”, Chicago, IL. The Copy Workshop.

Bennett, G., Henson, R., Zhang, J. (2002) “Action Sport Sponsorship Recognition” Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11(3), 174­185.

Bradley, J.P., Daniels, L.F., Jones, T.C. (1960) “The International Dictionary of Thoughts:, Chicago, IL, J.G. Ferguson Publishing Co.

Cornwell, T.B. (1999) “Recent Developments in International Sponsorship Research”, Sponsorship Business Review, 2 (December), 36­42.

Cornwell, T.B. (1997) “Worldwide Circumvention of Advertising Restrictions in the Tobacco Industry; The Sponsorship Loophole” Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Mackling, M.C., ed., Cincinnati, OH, American Academy of Advertising, 256­257.

Cornwell, T.B., Maignan, I. (1998) “An International Review of Sponsorship Research”, Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 1­22.

Cornwell, T.B., Weeks, C.S. Roy, D.P. (2005) “Sponsorship –Linked Marketing; Opening the black box”, Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 21­42.

Crimmins, J., Horn, M. (1996) “Sponsorship: From Managerial Ego Trip to Marketing Success”, Journal of Advertising Research, 36(4), 11­21.

Currie, N. (2000) “Maximizing Sport Sponsorship Investments; A Perspective on New and Existing Opportunities” International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 2(2), 159­168.

D’Astous, A., Bitz, P. (1995) “Consumer Evaluations of Sponsorship Programs”, European Journal of Marketing, 29(12), 6­22.

Dean, D.H. (2002) “Associating the Corporation with a Charitable Event through Sponsorship; Measuring the effects on corporate community relations”, Journal of Advertising 31(4), 77­87.

31

Drees, N. (1991) “Das Sponsoring­Barometer; Ergebnisse einer Unternehmensbefragung”, Werbeforschung & Praxis, 36(1), 9­12.

Farrelly, F.J., Quester, P.G., Burton, R. (1997) “Integrating Sports Sponsorship into the Corporate Marketing Function; An International Comparative Study”, International Marketing Review 14(3), 170­182.

Fitzhenry, R.I. (1993) “The Fitzhenry and Whiteside Book of Quotations”, Fitzhenry and Whiteside Limited, Canada.

Gardner, M. P., Shuman, P. (1988) “Sponsorship and Small Business”, Journal of Small Business Management, 26(4), 47­58.

Godin, S. (1999) “Permission Marketing Turning Strangers into Friends and Friends into Customers, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.

Grohs, R., Wagner, U., Vsetecka, S. (2004) “Assessing the Effectiveness of Sport Sponsorships – An empirical explanation”, Schmalenbach Business Review, 56, 119­ 138.

Gundlack, G.T. (2007) “The American Marketing Association’s 2004 Definition of Marketing; Perspectives on Its Implications for Scholarship and the Role and Responsibility of Marketing in Society”, American Marketing Association, 26(2), 243­ 250.

Gunther, J. (1960) “Taken at the Flood; The Story of John D. Lasker”, Harper and Brothers, New York, NY.

Hastings, G.B. (1984) “Sponsorship Works Differently from Advertising” International Journal of Advertising, 3, 171­176.

Hayakawa, S.I. (1964) “Language in Thought and Action”, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, NY.

Hickman, T.M., Lawrence, K.E., Ward, J.C. (2005) “A Social Identities Perspective on the Effects of Corporate Sport Sponsorship on Employees’”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14(3), 148­157.

IEG (2000) “Year One of IRL Title Builds Traffic, Awareness for Northern Light”, IEG Sponsorship Report, 19(23), 1­3.

Javalgi, R.G., Traylor, M.B., Gross, A.C., Lampman, E. (1994) “Awareness of Sponsorship and Corporate Image: An Empirical Investigation”, Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 47­58.

Keller, K.L. (1993) “Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer­Based Brand Equity”, Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1­22.

Lee, M.S., Sandler, D.M., Shani, D. (1997) “Attitudinal constructs towards sponsorship”, International Marketing Review, 14 (3), 159­169.

32

Mack, R.W. (1999) “Event Sponsorship; an Exploratory Study of Small Business Objectives, Practices, and Perceptions”, Journal of Small Business Management, 37(3), 25­30.

Meenaghan, T. (2001) “Understanding Sponsorship Effects”, Psychology & Marketing, 18 (2), 95­122.

Meenaghan, T. (1998) “Current Developments and Future Directions for Sponsorships”, International Journal of Advertising, 17, 3­28.

Meenaghan, T. (1991) “Sponsorship; Legitimizing the Medium” European Journal of Marketing, 25(11), 5­10.

Meenaghan, T. (1983) “Commercial Sponsorship”, European Journal of Marketing, 17(7), 5­73.

Mullin, B., Hardy, S., Sutton, W. (2000) “Sport Marketing”, Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics.

Papadimitriou, D., Apostolopoulou, A., Dounis, T. (2008) “Event Sponsorship as a Value Creating Strategy for Brands”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 17(4), 212­ 222.

Piquet, S. (1998) “Sponsoring Sportif et Communication Sociale”, Revue Francaise de Gestion, 84, 66­74.

Quester, P.G., Rungie, C. (1998) “Hierarchical Log Linear Analysis; An Application to Sponsorship”, Journal of Sport Marketing, 2(3).

Richards, J.I., Curran, C.M. (2002) “Oracles on Advertising; Searching for a Definition” Journal of Advertising, 31(2), 63­77.

Rust, R.T., Oliver, R.W. (1994) “The Death of Advertising”, Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 71.

Ruth, J.A., Simonin, B.L. (2003) “Brought To You by Brand A and Brand B”, Journal of Advertising, 32 (3), 19­29.

Sandler, D.M., Shani, D. (1998) “Olympic Sponsorship vs. Ambush Marketing; Who Get the Gold” Journal of Advertising Research, 29, 9­14.

Schultz, D.E. (1995) “What is Direct Marketing” Journal of Direct Marketing, 9(2), 5­9.

Shanklin, W.L., Kuzma, J.R. (1992) “Buying that Sporting Image”, Marketing Management, Spring, 59­65.

Shaw, S., Amis, J. (2001) “Image and Investment, Sponsorships and Women’s Sport” Journal of Sport Management, 15(3), 219­246.

Slattery, J., Pitts, B.G. (2002) “Corporate Sponsorship and Season Ticket Holder Attendances; An Evaluation of Changes in Recall Over Course of One American

33

Collegiate Football Season” International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 4(2), 151­174.

Speed, R., Thompson, R., (2000) “Determinants of Sports Sponsorship Response”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 226­238.

Starch, D. (1923) “Principles of Advertising” A.W., Chicago, IL.

Stipp, H., Schiavone, N.P. (1996) “Modeling the Impact of Olympic Sponsorship on Corporate Image”, Journal of Advertising Research, 36(4), 22­28.

Stuart, E.W., Shimp, T.A., Engle, R.W. (1987) “Classical Conditioning of Consumer Attitudes: Four Experiments in an Advertising Context”, Journal of Consumer Research, 14(December), 334­349.

Tripodi, J.A. (2001) “Sponsorship; A Confirmed Weapon in the Promotional Armory”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 3(1), 95­117.

Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F. (2004) “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, 68(January), 1­17.

Walliser, B. (2003) “An international Review of Sponsorship Research; Extension and Update”, International Journal of Advertising, 22 (1).

Westerbeek, H., Smith, A. (2002) “Location Dependency and Sport Sponsorship; A Factor Analytic Study”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11(3), 140­150.

APPENDIX

Survey As Distributed This survey has been created to evaluate the determinants of brand awareness

within sports sponsorship. Measured determinants will be status of the event, attitude toward the event, the sincerity of the sponsor, the ubiquity of the sponsor, and the attitude toward the sponsor. The results will be used as primary research for Matthew Manning’s master thesis for the Universitat de Valencia and the University of North Carolina Wilmington. All participants’ identities will be kept confidential and unrecorded. Your participation and honesty in answering the following questions is greatly appreciated.

Age:

Sex: Male Female

Team You Supported:

Columbus Visitor Neither

Are you familiar with local brands of Columbus, OH?

Yes No

List all the sponsors from the game that you remember.

­

­

­

­

­

35

Indicate which of the following were sponsors of the game.

1. Progressive Insurance

2. Budweiser

3. Huntington Bank

4. McDonalds

5. Ford

6. Coca Cola

7. Columbus Dispatch

Please answer the following questions with the following scale;

1 – very unlikely 2 – unlikely 3 – indifferent 4 – likely 5 – very likely

Status of Event

This game is important to where I live.

1 2 3 4 5

This is a significant game for the team.

1 2 3 4 5

Attitude Toward Event

I am a strong supporter of this sport.

1 2 3 4 5

I enjoy following the coverage of this sport.

1 2 3 4 5

This game is important to me.

1 2 3 4 5

36

Sincerity of Sponsor

Huntington Bank has the best interest of the sport at heart.

1 2 3 4 5

Huntington Bank would still support the game even if it was of a lower profile.

1 2 3 4 5

Huntington Bank is involved with this game because they feel the game has earned the right to be supported.

1 2 3 4 5

Ubiquity of Sponsor

Huntington Bank sponsors many different events.

1 2 3 4 5

Huntington Bank only sponsors major events.

1 2 3 4 5

Huntington Bank only sponsors sporting events.

1 2 3 4 5

Huntington Bank only sponsors baseball games.

1 2 3 4 5

Attitude Toward Sponsor

Dislike – Like

1 2 3 4 5

Unfavorable – Favorable

1 2 3 4 5

Favorability

This sponsorship makes me feel more favorable toward Huntington Bank.

1 2 3 4 5

37

This sponsorship improves my perception of Huntington Bank.

1 2 3 4 5

Interest

This sponsorship makes it more likely I will notice Huntington Bank’s name on future occasions.

1 2 3 4 5

This sponsorship makes it more likely that I will remember Huntington Bank’s promotions.

1 2 3 4 5

Use

I currently use Huntington Bank’s products.

1 2 3 4 5

This sponsorship makes it more likely that I will use Huntington Bank’s products.

1 2 3 4 5

Thank you for taking the time to fill out the survey.

Sincerely,

Matthew Manning