No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Although most events are sponsored by more than one firm, the impact of roster size, or number of sponsors, on sponsorship effectiveness has received scant research attention. Two studies investigate the hypothesized moderating effect of roster size on consumer evaluations of events. Study 1 shows that compared with one-sponsor conditions, an increased number of sponsors dilutes the benefits obtained from consumers inferring a goodwill sponsorship motive and enhances attitudes under sales motives conditions. Study 2 shows that compared with one-sponsor conditions, an additional sponsor reduces the negative effect of being associated with event beneficiaries. The results have implications for sponsorship theory, as well as practical implications for event promoters and the firms they seek to attract as sponsors. Marketers have long acknowledged potential benefits of sym biotic marketing, which involves two or more firms working together for mutual benefit (Adler 1966). This phenomenon has recently attracted renewed research attention, with top ics ranging from context effects elicited by retailers' brand assortments (Buchanan, Simmons, and Bickart 1999) to an tecedents and consequences of brand alliances (Simonin and Ruth 1998). Despite interest in multibrand phenomena in these and other areas of marketing such as sales promotions (Varadarajan 1986), only a few studies investigate any aspect of the multibrand phenomenon in sponsorship, defined as an exchange where an event charges a fee or receives donated product so that firms can participate in the event and promote their association with it (Cornwell and Maignan 1998). Johar and Pham (1999) incorporate multiple sponsors in their study of sponsor identification accuracy, finding that relatedness between sponsors' product categories and the event bolsters identification accuracy. In a two-sponsor setting, Ruth and Simonin (2003) find that attitudes toward an event are less favorable when one partner is a controversial or stigmatized brand (e.g., tobacco). Despite growing academic interest in sponsorship as re flected by the integrative review by Cornwell, Weeks, and Roy (2005), the relative lack of academic attention on the topic of multiple sponsors stands in sharp contrast to prac tice, where many, if not most, events are sponsored by more than one firm. For example, marketing collateral materials (e.g., ads, Web sites, registration cards) for the Philadelphia AIDS Walk feature the logos of sponsors including NBC, U.S. Airways, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Hank's Beverage, and Blockbuster Video. Marketing materials for the Top Hat Classic Event of Northern California benefiting the Multiple Sclerosis Society show that sponsors include Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Alhambra water, Mission tortilla chips, and the Tri-Valley Herald newspaper. We seek to address a gap in academic research on sponsor ship by examining the relationship of roster size, or number of event sponsors, to sponsorship effectiveness. The topic of roster size is important for several reasons. First, Meenaghan (2001) recently noted that our understanding of sponsorship is inadequate and, by comparison, stands in sharp contrast to our understanding of how advertising influences consumers. To address this shortcoming, Meenaghan called for research focusing on characteristics that may distinguish sponsorship and advertising. Since most advertising promotes one brand or one firm, investigating multiple sponsors, and roster size in particular, may be a mechanism for uncovering unique op portunities and challenges presented by sponsorship. Second, just as a second brand may serve as a signal in an alliance relationship (Rao, Qu, and Ruekert 1999), it is possible that a list of sponsors may act as a signal about an event and its quality, both for consumers and firms considering the event sponsorship opportunity. Third, the size of the sponsorship roster may be particularly important for new events that are unfamiliar in the market, which present uncertainty for con sumers and firms considering participation (Ukman 2004). Although many events are well known (e.g., the Olympics), new events are always being introduced into local and broader markets. For example, the event we now know as the X Games Julie A. Ruth (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is an associate profes sor of marketing, School of Business-Camden, Rutgers University. Bernard L. Simonin (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is an associate professor of marketing and international business, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. This research was supported by a grant from the American Academy of Advertising (AAA). The authors appreciate the AAA's funding support, the research assistance provided by Virginia Abrahamsson and Hiral Udawat, and the comments and suggestions offered by Maureen Morrin, Cele Otnes, the reviewers, and the Editor. Journal of Advertising, vol. 35, no. 4 (Winter 2006), pp. 7-20. ? 2006 American Academy of Advertising. All rights reserved. ISSN 0091-3367 / 2006 $9.50 + 0.00. DOI 10.2753/JOA0091-3367350401 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.71 on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 04:42:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 8 The Journal of Advertising was new and unfamiliar to prospective participants when it was introduced as the Extreme Games in 1995. It is not yet known whether or how roster size information-presented numerically or in a list of names or logos-affects consumer evaluations, particularly in new event contexts. To address the role of roster size, we use attribution theory to gain understanding of the effects of two key event charac teristics: sponsor motives and event beneficiaries. Because of the lack of studies involving multiple sponsors or investigat ing roster size in particular, we draw on extant sponsorship research incorporating one named sponsor and then develop hypotheses to account for one-sponsor and larger roster size sponsorship contexts. These hypotheses center on how roster size may act as a signal or heuristic that moderates the influence of sponsor motives and stigma that may be associated with an event beneficiary (e.g., AIDS [acquired immunodeficiency syndrome] organizations) on consumer-focused sponsorship outcomes. Using new event contexts, two experiments are presented that examine the effects of sponsor motives, stigma of the event beneficiary, and roster size on affective and be havioral indicators identified by Cornwell, Weeks, and Roy (2005), including attitudes toward the event, likelihood of attending the event, and attitudes toward the sponsor. We also examine effects on ad credibility, since roster size information is delivered via advertising and may contain information regard ing believability. The results have implications for theories of sponsorship, cause-related marketing, and advertising, as well as practical implications for event promoters and the firms they seek to attract.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 63 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.