Advertisement

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 490–510 | Cite as

Corporate sponsorship as an image platform: understanding the roles of relationship fit and sponsor–sponsee similarity

  • Ravi PappuEmail author
  • T. Bettina Cornwell
Original Empirical Research

Abstract

Studies have shown that the fit between a sponsoring brand and the sport, art, or charity sponsored influences outcomes such as brand awareness and image. This research adds the role of sponsor–sponsee similarity to the discussion of fit. The authors argue that similarity interacts with fit when conditions evoke suspicion or disrupt typical inferences regarding sponsorship relationships. Interaction is particularly important when the sponsor seeks to develop its image by association with a cause, and is also of consequence for the cause in terms of its branding. Three studies test sponsorship effects with respect to blood donation and cancer prevention organizations. Results support the predicted moderated mediation model, showing that similarity between a corporate sponsor and a sponsored cause can interact with fit, influencing sponsorship evaluations directly and shaping attitudes and behavioral intentions toward constituents indirectly. This work reveals a counterintuitive effect of similarity for some sponsorship relationships.

Keywords

Sponsorship fit Similarity Positioning Image 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge grant funding from the Australian Research Council (LP0882549) and funding support from the Australian Red Cross Blood Service as industry partner. The authors thank Ann Wallin for research assistance, Tom Magor, Teegan Green and Daniela Bruce for assistance with the data collection and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

References

  1. Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Becker-Olsen, K. L., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of sponsor fit on brand equity: the case of nonprofit service providers. Journal of Service Research, 9(1), 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, C. M., Kim, H., & Loken, B. (2013). Corporate sponsorships may hurt nonprofits: understanding their effects on charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(3), 288–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bijmolt, T. H. A., Wedel, M., Pieters, R. G. M., & DeSarbo, W. S. (1998). Judgments of brand similarity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15(2), 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boush, D. M., & Loken, B. (1991). A process-tracing study of brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(1), 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breast Cancer Action (2013). Think Before You Pink Retrieved on November 30, 2013, from http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6098/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2758
  8. Broniarczyk, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (1994). The importance of the brand in brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 214–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: the effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chien, P. M., Cornwell, T. B., & Pappu, R. (2011). Sponsorship portfolio as a brand-image creation strategy. Journal of Business Research, 64(2), 142–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cornwell, T. B., Weeks, C. S., & Roy, D. P. (2005). Sponsorship-linked marketing: opening the black box. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cornwell, T. B., Humphreys, M., Maguire, A., Weeks, C., & Tellegen, C. (2006). Sponsorship-linked marketing: the role of articulation in memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(3), 312–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Creusen, M. E., & Schoormans, J. P. (1997). The nature of differences between similarity and preference judgements: a replication with extension. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14(1), 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dhar, R., & Glazer, R. (1996). Similarity in context: cognitive representation and violation of preference and perceptual invariance in consumer choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 280–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellen, P. S., Web, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: consumer attributions for corporate social responsibility programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 131–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fein, S., & Hilton, J. L. (1994). Judging others in the shadow of suspicion. Motivation and Emotion, 18(2), 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fein, S., Hilton, J. L., & Miller, D. T. (1990). Suspicion of ulterior motivation and the correspondent bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 753–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. E. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 32–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gierl, H., & Huettl, V. (2011). A closer look at similarity: the effects of perceived similarity and conjunctive cues on brand extension evaluation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(2), 120–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship: the role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haley, E. (1996). Exploring the construct of organization as source: consumers’ understandings of organizational sponsorship of advocacy advertising. Journal of Advertising, 25(2), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamlin, R. P., & Wilson, T. (2004). The impact of cause branding on consumer reactions to products: does product/cause ‘fit’ really matter? Journal of Marketing Management, 20(7/8), 663–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, & D. Sorbom (Eds.), Structural equations modeling: Present and future - a festschrift in honor of Karl Joreskog (pp. 195–216). Lincolnwood: Sawtooth Software International.Google Scholar
  29. Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL: Essentials and advances. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hilton, J., Fein, S., & Miller, D. (1993). Suspicion and dispositional inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(19), 501–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson, M. D. (1986). Consumer similarity judgments: a test of the contrast model. Psychology & Marketing, 3(1), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Joiner, C., & Loken, B. (1998). The inclusion effect and category-based induction: theory and application to brand categories. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 101–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A. (1992). The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lankoski, L. (2007). Corporate responsibility activities and economic performance: a theory of why and how they are connected. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(8), 536–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lefkoff-Hagius, R., & Mason, C. H. (1993). Characteristic, beneficial, and image attributes in consumer judgments of similarity and preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loken, B., Ross, I., & Hinkle, R. L. (1986). Consumer “confusion” of origin and brand similarity perceptions. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 5, 195–211.Google Scholar
  37. Madill, J., & O’Reilly, N. (2010). Investigating social marketing sponsorships: terminology, stakeholders, and objectives. Journal of Business Research, 63(2), 133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory and Cognition, 24(2), 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review., 100(2), 254–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (2003). Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: why do they impact perception of sponsor brand? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 316–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852–863.Google Scholar
  42. Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92(3), 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus statistical analysis with latent variables user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  44. Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Olson, E. L., & Thjømøe, H. M. (2011). Explaining and articulating the fit construct. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: the role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(2), 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate behavioral research, 42(1), 185–227.Google Scholar
  50. Prendergast, G. P., Poon, D., & West, D. C. (2010). Match game: linking sponsorship congruence with communication outcomes. Journal of Advertising Research, 50(2), 214–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., & Li, H. (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship: the mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ruth, J. A., & Simonin, B. L. (2003). “Brought to you by Brand A and Brand B” Investigating multiple sponsors’ influence on consumers’ attitudes toward sponsored events. Journal of Advertising, 32(3), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Samu, S., & Wymer, W. (2009). The effect of fit and dominance in cause marketing communications. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 432–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shine, B. C., Park, J., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (2007). Brand synergy effects in multiple brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 663–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 154–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sloman, S. A., & Rips, L. J. (1998). Similarity as an explanatory construct. Cognition, 65(2–3), 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith, D. C., & Andrews, J. (1995). Rethinking the effect of perceived fit on customers’ evaluations of new products. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(1), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 226–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Spiggle, S., Nguyen, H. T., & Caravella, M. (2012). More than fit: brand extension authenticity. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(6), 967–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Szykman, L. R., Bloom, P. N., & Blazing, J. (2004). Does corporate sponsorship of a socially-oriented message make a difference? An investigation of the effect of sponsorship identity on responses to an anti-drinking and driving message. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Taylor, V. A., & Bearden, W. O. (2002). The effects of price on brand extension evaluations: the moderating role of extension similarity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(2), 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. The Lancet (2012). Chariot of fries. July 21, (380), 188.Google Scholar
  65. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A., & Avramidis, P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: attributions, loyalty and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause related marketing: from skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17(2), 226–238.Google Scholar
  68. White, K., & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-benefit versus other-benefit marketing appeals: their effectiveness in generating charitable support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yeo, J., & Park, J. (2006). Effects of parent-extension similarity and self regulatory focus on evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(3), 272–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zdravkovic, S., Magnusson, P., & Stanley, S. M. (2010). Dimensions of fit between a brand and a social cause and their influence on attitudes. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(2), 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UQ Business School, Faculty of Business, Economics and LawUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Edwin E. & June Woldt Cone Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing, Lundquist College of BusinessUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations