Dual effects of sport sponsorship on implicit brand memory:



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

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.

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 stimulus-based 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.

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.

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, 183-198.

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.

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.

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.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download