1
Sport sponsorship effects on spectators’ consideration sets: impact with and without
brand-event link recognition
Jean-Luc HERRMANN, Paul Verlaine University Metz / CEREFIGE Research Center
Björn WALLISER*, University of Nancy / CEREFIGE Research Center
Mathieu KACHA, Paul Verlaine University Metz / CEREFIGE Research Center
*Contact address:
Björn Walliser
University of Nancy, IAE
13 rue Maréchal Ney
F-54000 Nancy
Phone : +33 3 54 50 35 66
bjorn.walliser@univ-nancy2.fr
2
Sport sponsorship effects on spectators’ consideration sets: impact with and without
brand-event link recognition
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
Sponsorship effectiveness’ evaluation relies heavily and mainly on recall and recognition tests
(Cornwell, Weeks, and Roy 2005; Walliser, 2003). The legitimacy of these tests lies in the
assumption that brand-event recognition is a necessary condition for sponsorship success
(Sandler and Shani 1989). Such an assumption can however be challenged on at least two
points. First, sponsorship messages can be considered peripheral elements (Ydewalle and
Tasmin 1993) for the spectator and may not be retrievable during a direct memory search
(Shapiro, MacInnis, and Heckler 1997). Second, recall and recognition tests focus more on the
control of the brand-event association, than on the perception of the sponsor brand per se
(Holden and Vanhuele 1999).
Authors investigating incidental exposure effects in marketing (Acar 2007; Holden and
Vanhuele 1999; Janiszewski 1988) postulate that the effect of exposure without memory of
the exposure itself operates through familiarity or perceptual fluency. Among the effects that
appear to be mediated by perceptual fluency or familiarity, the mere exposure effect indicates
that repeated exposure to a stimulus increases stimulus’ likability even in the absence of
stimulus’ recognition (Zajonc 1968). Fang, Singh, and Ahluwalia (2007) consider affect as a
key process underlying the mere exposure effect and deduct a strengthening of these effects
under resource-constrained decision-making situations characterizing many marketplace
environments. It is thus expected that spectator exposure to a sponsor brand during an event
increases the likelihood of the brand to be included in the spectator’s stimulus-based
consideration set, even if the spectator does not recognize the brand as sponsor (H1).
Stipulating a non-conscious sponsor effect does not exclude the existence of a conscious
sponsorship effect which may become manifest in the spectator’s ability to recognize the
sponsor brand. Most major concepts and mechanisms identified in the literature to explain
sponsorship effects (Cornwell et al., 2005) – such as for example perceived congruency and
its articulation to “create fit” (Becker-Olsen and Simmons 2002), Heider’s balance theory
(1958), meaning transfer (McCracken 1989), social identification (Gwinners and Swanson
2003), and attribution theory (Dean 2002; Rifon, Choi, and Trimble 2004) - rely on the
consciousness of the brand-event link. Even if sponsorship is characterized by numerous
incidental exposure occasions, there are moments when the spectator is less absorbed by the
“primary task”. An arrival on site before the (sport) action starts as well as interruptions at
halftime are examples of occasions favouring the consciousness and a semantic processing of
the brand-event link. It is thus expected that spectator exposure to a sponsor brand during an
event increases the likelihood of the brand to be included in the spectator’s stimulus-based
consideration set, through the recognition of the brand as sponsor (H2).
Data collection took place over four days of a one-week international tennis tournament.
Face-to-face interviews were conducted before the spectators entered the stadium (control
group) as well as inside the arena after spectators had assisted to one or several matches
(experimental group). No significant differences between both groups are observed.
In order to determine the stimulus-based consideration set, respondents were given a list of 16
brand/company names within the target product category, including the sponsor name
(Shapiro et al. 1997), and were asked which of these brands/companies they would consider
for personal use or recommend to a friend. Subsequently, sponsor recognition was tested on a
list of 16 brands including four “dummy” brands.
3
Following a series of successive (logistic) regressions analyses recommended to test for the
existence of mediating effects (Baron and Kenny 1986), a significant positive effect of
exposure (Expo) on the target brand’s likelihood (Cset) to be included in the consideration set
(p = .02, odds ratio Exp(β) = 3.6), as well as on the presumed mediator process (p = .002) are
observed. Exposure simultaneously multiplies the likelihood of the target brand to be included
in the stimulus-based consideration set by a factor close to 3.5 and the chances to recognize
the sponsor brand by a factor greater than five.
The presumed mediating variable Reco (recognition) is found to have a significant influence
(p < .001, odds ratio Exp(β) = 6.4) on the variable Cset when controlling for the influence of
exposure. Thus, the target brand’s recognition appears to mediate the influence of exposure on
the target brand’s likelihood to be included in the stimulus-based consideration set, supporting
H2. Concerning the partial vs. complete mediation test, a significant positive effect (p = .032
one tailed) of brand exposure on the likelihood of the sponsor brand to be included in the
consideration set is observed if the sponsor brand is not recognized. Compared to the control
group, the likelihood for the sponsor brand to be part of the consideration set under conditions
of exposure without recognition is multiplied by a factor greater than four, supporting H1.
A dual route of sponsorship impact seems to exist. Sponsorship increases the chances of a
brand to be part of the stimulus-based consideration set of spectators, both for persons
conscious and unconscious about the brand-event link. Since most previous studies on
sponsorship effectiveness concentrated on conscious effects only, sponsorship impact may
have been underestimated in the past. In advertising, improved perceptual fluidity of brands as
a consequence of increased (unconscious) exposure is found to positively influence stimulusbased brand choice (Lee 2002). If the same was true for sponsorship, sponsors whose
products or services are typically chosen based on cues available in the physical purchase
environment (Reilly and Parkinson 1985) would greatly benefit from their sponsorship
investment. Furthermore, the results of this study call for a change of sponsorship
measurement approaches. If conscious and unconscious sponsorship effects occur
simultaneously, both have to be taken into account.
REFERENCES
Acar, Adam (2007), “Testing the effects of incidental advertising exposure in online gaming
environments,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8 (1), 1-36.
Baron, R. M. and D.A. Kenny (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-82.
Becker-Olsen, Karen and Carolyn J. Simmons (2002), “When Do Social Sponsorships
Enhance or Dilute Equity? Fit, Message Source, and the Persistence of effects,” Advances in
Consumer Research, 29, 287-289.
4
Bornstein, R.F. and P.R. D’Agostino (1992), “Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure
effect”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 545-552.
________ (1994), “The Attribution and Discounting of Perceptual Fluency: Preliminary Tests
of a Perceptual Fluency/Attributional Model of the Mere Exposure Effect,” Social Cognition,
12 (2), 103-128.
Cornwell, Bettina T. (2008), “State of the art and science in sponsorship-linked marketing”,
Journal of Advertising, 37 (3), 41-55.
Cornwell, Bettina T., Clinton S. Weeks, and Donald P. Roy (2005), “Sponsorship-linked
marketing: opening the black box,” Journal of Advertising, 34 (2), 21-42.
Dean, Dwane Hal (2002), “Associating the Corporation with a Charitable Event Though
Sponsorship: Measuring the Effects on Corporate Community Relations,” Journal of
Advertising, 31 (4), 77-87.
Fang, Xiang, Surendra Singh, and Rohini Ahluwalia (2007), “An examination of different
Explanations for the mere exposure effect,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 97-103.
Greenwald, A.G. and C. Leavitt (1984), “Audience Involvement in Advertising: four Levels,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (1), 581-593.
Gwinner, Kevin and John Eaton (1999), “Building Brand Image Through Event Sponsorship:
The Role of Image Transfer,” Journal of Advertising, 28 (4), 47-57.
Gwinners, Kevin and Scott R. Swanson (2003), “A Model of Fan Identification: Antecedents
and Sponsorship Outcomes,” Journal of Services Marketing, 17 (3), 275-294.
Hannah, D. B. and B. Sternthal (1984), “Detecting and Explaining the Sleeper Effect,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 632-642.
Hawkins, S. and S.J. Hoch (1992), “Low-Involvement learning: Memory without evaluation,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 212-225.
Heider, Fritz (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, New York: John Wiley.
5
Holden, Stephen J.S. and Marc Vanhuele (1999), “Know the Name, Forget the Exposure:
Brand Familiarity versus Memory of Exposure Context,” Psychology & Marketing, 16 (6),
479-496.
Humphreys, Michael S., T. Bettina Cornwell, Clinton S. Weeks, and Anna R. McAlister
(2007), “An Examination of Recall Measures of Sponsorship Awareness,” Advances in
Consumer Research, 34, 383.
Irwin, J.R. and G.H. McClelland (2001), “Misleading heuristics and moderated multiple
regressions models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (1), 100-109.
Jacoby, L.L., C. Kelley, J. Brown, and J. Jasenchko (1989), “Becoming famous overnight:
Limits on the Ability to Avoid Unconscious Influences of the Past,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 56 (3), 326-338.
Janiszewski, Chris (1988), “Preconscious processing effects: the independence of attitude
formation and conscious thought,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 199-209.
________ (1993), “Preattentive Mere Exposure Effect,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20,
376-392.
Johar, Gita V. and Michel T. Pham (1999), “Relatedness, prominence, and constructive
sponsor identification,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (3), 299-312.
Johar, Gita V., Michel T. Pham, and Kirk L. Wakefield (2006), “How Event Sponsors Are
Really Identified: A (Baseball) Field Analysis,” Journal of Advertising Research, June, 183198.
Lee, A.Y. (2002), “Effect of implicit memory on memory based versus stimulus-based brand
choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (4), 440-454.
McCracken, Grant (1989), “Who Is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the
Endorsement Process,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (3), 310-321.
6
MacInnis, Deborah J. and Bernard J. Jaworski (1989), “Information processing from
Advertisements: toward an Integrative Framework,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (4), 1-23.
Mandler, George (1980), “Recognizing : The judgment of previous occurrence,”
Psychological Review, 87 (3), 257-271.
Mandler, George, Yoshio Nakamura, and Billie J. Van Zandt (1987), “Nonspecific Effects of
Exposure on Stimuli that cannot be Recognized,” Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13 (4), 646-648.
Pham, Michel T. and Gita V. Johar (1997), “Contingent Processes of Source Identification,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (3), 249-265.
Pham, Michel T. and Marc Vanhuele (1997), “Analyzing the Memory Impact of Advertising
Fragments,” Marketing Letters, 8 (4), 407-417.
Reilly, Michael and Thomas Parkinson (1985), “Individual and Product Correlates of Evoked
Set Size for Consumer Package Goods,” Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 492-497.
Rifon, Nora J., Sejung Marina Choi, Carrie S. Trimble (2004), “Congruence Effects in
Sponsorship: The Mediating Role of Sponsor Credibility and Consumer Attribution of
Sponsor Motive,” Journal of Advertising, 33 (1), 29-42.
Sandler, Dennis M. and David Shani (1989), “Olympic Sponsorship vs. ‘Ambush’ Marketing:
Who Gets The Gold?”, Journal of Advertising Research, 29 (4), 9-14.
Shapiro, Stewart (1999), “When an ad’s influence is beyond our conscious control: perceptual
and conceptual fluency effects caused by incidental ad exposure,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 26 (1), 16-36.
Shapiro, Stewart, Deborah J. MacInnis, and Susan E. Heckler (1997), “The effects of
incidental ad exposure on the formation of consideration sets,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 24 (1), 94-104.
7
Trendel, Olivier and Luk Warlop (2007), “Positive Implicit Memory Effects For Event
Incongruent Sponsorship,” Advances in Consumer Research, 34, 102-103.
Walliser, Björn (2003), “An international review of sponsorship research: extension and
update,” International Journal of Advertising, 22 (1), 5-40.
Winkielman, Piotr and John T. Cacioppo (2001), “Mind at Ease Puts a Smile on the Face:
Psychophysiological Evidence That Processing Facilitation Increases Positive Affect,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (6), 989-1000.
Winkielman, Piotr, Norbert Schwartz, Tedra A. Fazendeiro, and Rolf Reber (2003), “The
Hedonic Marking of Processing Fluency: Implications for Evaluative Judgment,” in The
Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion, ed. Jochen Musch
and Karl C. Klauer, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 189-217.
Ydewalle, G. and F. Tamsin (1993). On the visual processing and memory of incidental
information: advertising panel in soccer games. Visual Search, 2, 401-408.
Zajonc, Robert B. (1968), “Attitudinal effects of mere exposure,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Monograph Supplement, 9 (2), 1-27.