ADVERSE SPONSORSHIP EFFECTS: OBSERVATIONS AND REMEDIES
Heribert Reisinger, Reinhard Grohs, University of Vienna
David Woisetschläger, University of Dortmund
Abstract
A key sponsorship objective is to improve consumer attitudes towards the sponsor brand.
However, sponsors simultaneously supporting rival sport teams, sponsorships of controversial
activities or groups, and negative headlines on sponsored events increasingly confuse consumers.
This study uses balance theory to predict if attitudes towards sponsors are negatively affected by
disliking of the sponsor object. Next, means of counteracting negative sponsorship effects are
investigated. An empirical study on sponsorships of two rival soccer teams confirms that fans of
a soccer team evaluate sponsors of an opposing team significantly worse compared with a neutral
control group. Sponsors can attenuate these negative attitudes by shifting the focus of the
sponsorship on aspects that are valued positively by the fans. They need to keep in mind,
however, that counterbalancing is more difficult to achieve if fans are highly involved with the
team.
Introduction
A key sponsorship objective is to improve consumer attitudes toward the sponsor brand (e.g.,
Cornwell and Maignan, 1998). It is argued that through sponsorship positive associations
attached to a sponsor object will become attached to the sponsor brand in the consumer’s memory
(Gwinner, 1997). However, joint sponsorships of rival sport teams (e.g., NTL and Carling’s
sponsorship of Celtic Glasgow and Glasgow Rangers, see Davies, Veloutsou & Costa, 2006),
sponsorships of controversial or stigmatized activities or groups (e.g., AIDS organizations, see
Ruth and Simonin, 2006), and negative headlines on sponsored events (e.g., the doping scandals
at the Tour de France 2006 and 2007) increasingly confuse consumers. Nevertheless, research
remains scarce on whether a sponsorship of a disliked or controversial activity results in a
sponsor being evaluated worse compared with no sponsorship at all. Furthermore, research to
date has not investigated how companies might counteract negative sponsorship effects.
In this study we shed light on these two issues using Heider’s (1958) balance theory. We first
demonstrate that sponsorships can exert negative effects on a sponsor’s brand attitude if the
sponsor object is disliked. Next, we examine means of attenuating negative sponsorship effects
by altering sponsorship communication.
1
Rationale and Hypotheses
Balance theory (Heider, 1958) is often used to explain attitude change caused by sponsorship
(e.g., Cornwell, Weeks, & Roy, 2005; Dean, 2002). In a sponsorship context, balance theory
considers the triadic relationship Person, Sponsor, and Sponsor Object. This relationship consists
of three simple relations formed by two elements. Clearly, S and O are linked positively through
the sponsorship. If P has a positive attitude toward O, she will also have a positive attitude
toward S (balanced relationship). If P’s attitude toward O becomes negative (e.g., because of
sponsorship of rival teams, controversial sponsorships, etc.), the relationship becomes
imbalanced. Heider’s theory assumes that P will strive to correct the imbalance. In a sponsorship
context, attitudes toward O are probably more stable than attitudes toward S. Thus, the dilemma
is resolved by changing the attitude toward S, resulting in a negative evaluation of the sponsor.
Dalakas and Levin (2005) found that, while there is a strong positive connection for NASCAR
fans between attitude toward their favourite driver and attitude toward that driver’s sponsor, the
reverse was true as well. In line with balance theory we propose hypothesis H1:
H1: Consumers who have a negative attitude toward a sponsor object will have a more negative
attitude toward a sponsor compared with consumers who are indifferent with regard to the
sponsor object.
The aim of our second study is to examine means of attenuating negative sponsorship effects.
Balance theory suggests that negative attitudes toward a sponsor S can be attenuated if the
attitude toward the sponsor object O were more positive. From above we know that, if P has a
negative attitude toward O, this will result in a negative attitude toward S. If O is linked to a liked
object X, P’s strive for consistency predicts that the attitude toward O will become less negative
(given that the attitude toward X is stable). Consequently, the attitude toward S will become less
negative, too. Persistence of an attitude over time was found to be positively associated with the
importance of the attitude (e.g., Krosnick, 1988). Hence, changing negative attitudes toward O
will be more difficult to achieve if P deeply cares about O. We propose the following hypotheses
H2 and H3:
H2: Negative sponsorship effects can be attenuated if the disliked sponsor object is associated
with another object that is positively evaluated by the consumer.
H3: The attenuation effect is moderated by involvement level, i.e., the attenuation will be
smaller for consumers highly involved in the sponsor object compared with consumers less
involved in the sponsor object.
Study 1 – Adverse Sponsorship Effects
To test H1 we assess attitudes of soccer fans toward their own team’s sponsors vs. sponsors of a
rival team and compare the results with neutral spectators’ attitudes. Following from balance
theory, we expect that fans of Team A (B) have a more positive attitude toward sponsors of team
A (B) than neutral spectators. Similarly, fans of Team A (B) are expected to have a more negative
attitude toward sponsors of team B (A) than neutral spectators (c.f. H1).
2
For each team, we select two sponsors; one sports goods brand (Sponsor A Sport, Sponsor B
Sport) and one beer brand (Sponsor A Beer, Sponsor B Beer). Three groups of respondents are
interviewed: fans of team A, fans of team B, and neutral spectators. Respondents are first asked
to declare themselves as fans of team A, team B, or as no fan of either of these teams. Next,
respondents state whether they are familiar with the sponsor brands. Then, they indicate their
sponsor awareness; i.e., they indicate for each of the four sponsors, whether the brand is a
sponsor of team A or team B, or none of the two. Attitudes toward each sponsor are assessed with
Stayman and Batra’s (1991) Hedonic Attitudes toward the Product scale: good-bad, favourableunfavourable, agreeable-disagreeable, pleasant-unpleasant, positive-negative, and like-dislike.
Items are measured on a seven-point rating scale with higher numbers representing better
attitudes.
Data was collected close to the stadiums during the hour before a match of each team started, and
for the neutral group additionally in other environments (e.g., at home or in shopping streets). A
standardized questionnaire was administered personally by trained interviewers. Fans are
excluded from the analysis if they a) were not familiar with the sponsor brand, or b) could not
correctly identify the sponsor. This procedure results in between 50 and 112 responses for each
sponsor and fan group. Respondents in the control group are excluded if they did not know the
sponsor, resulting in a sample of 60 to 74 respondents for each sponsor.
To compare the attitudes between different respondent groups, a single index is calculated for
each sponsor by averaging the item scores on the Hedonic Attitudes toward the Product scale
(α > 0.84 for all sponsors). Table 1 illustrates the attitudes of the three respondent groups toward
sponsors of team A and team B. In all four cases the mean for the control group lies in between
the means of the fans of both teams. Independent samples t-tests show that for every sponsor the
differences between the control group and the fan groups are significant in both directions
(p < 0.01, one-tailed). Hence, the effects proposed by balance theory are empirically found. Fans
of team A (B) evaluate sponsors of team A (B) significantly better than the control group. In line
with H1 fans of team A (B) evaluate sponsors of team B (A) significantly worse than the control
group.
Table 1: Attitudes toward Sponsors
Sponsor A Sport
Sponsor A Beer
Sponsor B Sport
Sponsor B Beer
a, b, c
Attitudes toward Sponsors
Fans Team A
Control Group
Fans Team B
6.18a
5.41b
4.70c
a
b
6.26
4.39
2.63c
3.87a
5.14b
5.97c
a
b
3.44
4.51
5.23c
Different alphabetical superscripts indicate significant differences between means in
each row (p < 0.01, one-tailed)
3
Study 2 – Counteracting Adverse Sponsorship Effects
In the soccer context, H2 proposes that fans of team B have a less negative attitude toward
sponsors of team A if this sponsorship is associated with an activity that team B fans like. H3
argues that changing attitudes toward rival teams and their sponsors is particularly difficult if fans
are highly involved with their teams or strongly opposed to rival teams (see also the literature on
fan identification, e.g., Wann and Branscombe, 1993). Hence, the effect postulated by H2 will be
moderated by fan identification in that attenuating negative sponsorship effects will work better
for the average fan compared with die-hard fans.
To test H2 and H3 we develop a 2 X 2 factorial design manipulating the content and the
communicator of sponsorship information. The factor content has the levels team A and soccer.
The factor communicator has the levels team A and sponsor brand. In line with H2 we expect
that evaluations of the rival team’s sponsor will be better if the sponsor brand (instead of team A)
announces a sponsorship related to soccer (compared with team A). Press releases are developed
for each of the four experimental conditions in which either team A or the sponsor brand
(communicator) announces the renewal of an existing sponsorship in order to support either team
A or soccer in general (content).
We use team A from study 1 and select three sponsors; Sponsor A Sport, Sponsor A Beer, and
Sponsor A Insurance. Fans of team B are asked to fill out the questionnaire. Respondents are
randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions with one of the three sponsors.
Respondents are first asked to correctly identify for the brand in the press release whether the
brand is a sponsor of team A. Next, they read the press release and assess attitudes toward the
company with Stayman and Batra’s (1991) Hedonic Attitudes toward the Product scale. Finally,
respondents answer items with regard to soccer involvement and fan identification and indicate
whether they belong to a fan club of team B.
Respondents who could not correctly identify the sponsors of team A are excluded from the
analysis. The remaining sample consists of 196 respondents. We pool the data across the three
sponsors to increase cell size resulting in a cell size of between 44 and 56 fans. A single index is
calculated for the attitude scale for each sponsor (α > 0.9 for all sponsors). Finally, respondents
are split into two groups according to their level of fan involvement, i.e., average fans (n = 104)
and die-hard fans (those who are members of a fan club of team B; n = 92).
Analysis of variance is used to test the effects of fan identification, press release content and
communicator on attitudes toward the sponsor. Results for significant effects are presented in
Table 2. Fan identification exerts a significant main effect (F = 25.20, p < 0.01, one-tailed) on
attitudes toward the sponsors, with less favourable attitudes for fans with high fan identification
compared with fans with low fan identification. This finding lends additional support to H1. As
postulated in H2, content is significant (F = 3.44, p < 0.05, one-tailed). Respondents who read the
soccer content press release have better attitudes than respondents who received the team A
content press release. H2 is not supported for the factor communicator because a main effect of
communicator is not observed (F = 0.05, p = 0.82). It appears that, while the soccer content elicits
positive evaluations for team B fans, the use of a company as communicator is not viewed
sufficiently positive to attenuate the negative sponsorship effect. Consistent with H3, a two-way
interaction of fan identification and press release content is observed approaching significance
4
(F = 1.89, p = 0.09, one-tailed). For highly involved fans, soccer content is less successful in
shifting respondent attitudes toward the sponsors compared with fans with lower fan
identification. No other interaction is significant.
Table 2: Attitudes toward Sponsors: Significant ANOVA Results
Main Effects
Sponsor Attitude
(Fans Team B)
Interaction
Sponsor Attitude
(Fans Team B)
Sponsor Attitude
(Fans Team B)
a, b
Fan Identification
Average Fans Die-hard Fans
3.66a
2.64b
Press Release Content
Soccer
Team A
a
3.32
3.04b
Average Fans
Soccer
Team A
4.04a
3.36b
Die-hard Fans
Soccer
Team A
2.69a
2.58a
Different alphabetical superscripts indicate significant differences between means for factors fan
identification and press release content, as well as for the interaction fan identification X press release
content (p < 0.05, one-tailed)
Conclusion
The results contribute to our understanding of sponsorship effectiveness. It is shown that
sponsorships can negatively affect brand attitudes if a brand is associated through sponsorship
with a disliked sponsor object. However, counterbalancing these negative attitudes is an option
for the sponsor by focusing on aspects of the sponsorship that are valued positively by the
consumer. One needs to keep in mind that counterbalancing is more difficult to achieve if
consumers are highly involved with the disliked sponsor object.
5
References
Cornwell, T. Bettina and Isabelle Maignan (1998), "An International Review of Sponsorship
Research," Journal of Advertising, 27 (1), 1-21.
Cornwell, T. Bettina, Clinton S. Weeks, and Donald P. Roy (2005), "Sponsorship-Linked
Marketing: Opening the Black Box," Journal of Advertising, 34 (2), 21-42.
Dalakas, Vassilis and Aron M. Levin (2005), "The Balance Theory Domino: How Spopnsorships
May Elicit Negative Consumer Attitudes," Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 91-97.
Davies, Fiona, Cleopatra Veloutsou, and Andrew Costa (2006), "Investigating the Influence of a
Joint Sponsorship of Rival Teams on Supporter Attitudes and Brand Preferences," Journal of
Marketing Communications, 12 (1), 31-48.
Dean, Dwane Hal (2002), "Associating the Corporation with a Charitable Event through
Sponsorship: Measuring the Effects on Corporate Community Relations," Journal of Advertising,
31 (4), 77-87.
Gwinner, Kevin P. (1997), "A Model of Image Creation and Image Transfer in Event
Sponsorship," International Marketing Review, 14 (3), 145-58.
Heider, Fritz (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley.
Krosnick, Jon A. (1988), "Attitude Importance and Attitude Change," Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 24 (3), 240-55.
Ruth, Julie A. and Bernard L. Simonin (2006), "The Power of Numbers: Investigating the Impact
of Event Roster Size in Consumer Response to Sponsorship," Journal of Advertising, 35 (4), 720.
Stayman, Douglas M. and Rajeev Batra (1991), "Encoding and Retrieval of Ad Affect in
Memory," Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (May), 232-39.
Wann, Daniel L. and Nyla R. Branscombe (1993), "Sports Fans: Measuring Degree of
Identification with Their Team," International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1-17.
6