International Marketing Review

A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship

Kevin Gwinner

Article information:
To cite this document:
Kevin Gwinner, (1997),"A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship", International Marketing Review,
Vol. 14 Iss 3 pp. 145 - 158
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651339710170221
Downloaded on: 18 October 2015, At: 17:06 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 28 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 21161 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

Donald P. Roy, T. Bettina Cornwell, (2003),"Brand equitys influence on responses to event sponsorships", Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 12 Iss 6 pp. 377-393 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420310498803
Dimitra Papadimitriou, Artemisia Apostolopoulou, Theofanis Dounis, (2008),"Event sponsorship as a value
creating strategy for brands", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp. 212-222 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420810887563
Myung-Soo Lee, Dennis M. Sandler, David Shani, (1997),"Attitudinal constructs towards sponsorship: Scale
development using three global sporting events", International Marketing Review, Vol. 14 Iss 3 pp. 159-169 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651339710170230

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:478385 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

A model of image creation and

image transfer in event
sponsorship
Kevin Gwinner

Image creation
model

145

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

School of Business, East Carolina University, Greenville,

North Carolina, USA
Introduction
Due to the proliferation of leisure events in todays society, the awareness and
opportunity for corporate event sponsorship is at an all time high. Loosely
defined, sponsorship can be regarded as the provision of assistance either
financial or in-kind to an activity [e.g., sport, musical event, festival, fair, or
within the broad definition of the Arts] by a commercial organization for the
purpose of achieving commercial objectives (Meenaghan, 1983, p. 9). Until the
past decade the majority of firms have viewed event sponsorship as an
obligation to the community (Catherwood and Van Kirk, 1992). Sponsorships
had been placed on a level somewhere between charitable donations and public
relation opportunities. Furthermore, the selection of which events to sponsor
was often determined by the current pet project of the firms CEO (Meenaghan,
1991). Today, although still representing a small percentage of the overall
promotional budget, the outlay of promotional dollars for sponsorship activities
is growing rapidly (Parker, 1991; Sandler and Shani, 1989; Scott and Suchard,
1992). Not only are todays sponsorships more sophisticated (i.e., more than
simply the donation of cash for event production), but most firms are expecting
a reasonable return on their sponsorship dollar in the form of increased sales
(Catherwood and Van Kirk, 1992).
While firms enter into sponsorship arrangements with a variety of goals,
two of the most important are: to increase brand awareness; and to establish,
strengthen, or change brand image (Crowley, 1991; Marshall and Cook, 1992;
Meenaghan, 1991; Meerabeau et al., 1991). Recently, these goals have been
theorized to be important in the development of customer-based brand equity,
defined as the differential effect of brand knowledge on the consumers purchase
decision (Keller, 1993). In Kellers conceptualization, brand knowledge (which
drives customer-based brand equity) is a function of both the consumers
awareness of the brand and the image(s) associated with that awareness. In
particular, the favorability, strength, and uniqueness of the brand associations
play a critical role in determining the differential response (Keller, 1993, p.8).
Brand awareness is achieved by exposing the brand to as many potential
consumers as possible (Aaker, 1991). Sponsorship activities present multiple
opportunities for achieving awareness objectives, and much of the research to

International Marketing Review,

Vol. 14 No. 3, 1997, pp. 145-158.
MCB University Press, 0265-1335

International
Marketing
Review
14,3

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

146

date in the sponsorship literature has focused on awareness issues such as

sponsor recall (e.g. McDaniel and Kinney, 1996). Regrettably, less attention has
been given to event and brand image issues. A number of questions exist
regarding the effect of sponsorship promotional activities on brand and event
image. For example:
What factors contribute to an events image?
Do consumers associate an events image with sponsoring brands?
If there is an image association between event and sponsor, is there a
theoretical explanation that can be used to understand this linkage?
If there is an image association between event and sponsor, what factors
moderate (strengthen or weaken) this relationship?
How does event image influence attitude towards the brand?
Although attempts at measuring the return on the sponsorship investment
have been made (e.g., total event attendance, exit polls, sales following the
event, and number of media mentions), an understanding of how sponsorship
works has yet to be developed (Catherwood and Van Kirk, 1992; Javalgi et al.,
1994; Meerabeau et al., 1991; Parker, 1991). The purpose of this article is to
present a model explaining the mechanisms by which brand image may be
impacted through sponsorship activities. Specifically, drawing on the theory of
meaning transfer from the celebrity endorsement literature, a model is
presented which suggests the factors involved in creating an events image and
the subsequent transfer of that image to the sponsoring brand. Furthermore,
several factors are identified that may moderate the relationship between event
image and brand image. While the focus of this article is on the conceptual
development of image transfer in sponsorship, a variety of research
propositions are offered to guide future empirical inquiry.
A framework for the transfer of event image
Model conceptualization and overview
Brand image has been defined as perceptions about a brand as reflected by the
brand associations held in memory (Keller, 1993, p. 3). Keller suggests that the
favourability, uniqueness, and strength of the associations are critical to a brands
success. Brand associations are developed from a variety of sources including
product use, informational sources (e.g., advertising, packaging, word-of-mouth),
and association with other entities. The association with other entities source is
of particular relevance to sponsorship activity. Keller has suggested that when a
brand becomes associated with an event, some of the associations linked with the
event (e.g., youthful, relaxing, enjoyable, disappointing, sophisticated, lite, etc.)
may become linked in memory with the brand.
This transfer of associations is consistent with research in the celebrity
endorsement process. Initial research regarding celebrity endorsement focused
on the credibility and attractiveness of the message source (i.e., celebrity) to
explain the persuasive nature of endorsers. That is, more credible and attractive

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

endorsers were viewed as more persuasive. However, McCracken (1989),

pointing to conflicting research results, suggested that endorsement
effectiveness is better explained by the meanings consumers associate with
the celebrity endorser and subsequently transfer to the brand. McCraken uses
the term meaning to describe consumers overall assessments of what a
celebrity represents based on characteristics such as social class, gender, age,
personality, and lifestyle. Thus, individual characteristics (e.g., regal, trashy,
maleness, strong, caring, sexual, irreverent, wise) are integrated to define the
meaning of the celebrity. Meaning which has been accumulated through their
roles in television, movies, military, athletics, and other careers is thought to
reside in celebrities (McCracken, 1989, p. 315).
According to McCracken, the meaning attributed to celebrities moves from
the celebrity endorser to the product when the two are paired in an
advertisement. That is, meanings associated with the celebrity become
associated with the product in the mind of the consumer. To complete the
meaning transfer process, consumers acquire the meaning in the product
through consumption. This process is illustrated in Figure 1.

Image creation
model

147

Figure 1.
Meaning movement in
the endorsement
process

McCrackens (1989) meaning in celebrities is analogous to Kellers (1993) event

associations. Following the convention set forward by Keller with reference to
brand image, this article uses the term event image to represent the
cumulative interpretation of meanings or associations attributed to events by
consumers. A comparison can be drawn between celebrity endorsers and
events. Just as consumers associate celebrities with certain meanings, so too are
events associated with particular attributes and attitudes. It is suggested here
that these associations are derived from the events type, event characteristics,
and several individual consumer factors. This is not unlike the meaning
attributed to a celebrity being formed by the various roles he or she occupies.
For example, event associations attributed to the annual Chicago Blues Festival
(a food and musical extravaganza drawing over 500,000 people) might include
tradition, celebration and civic pride.
Extending this concept of meaning transfer from the celebrity endorser
literature, it is suggested that events act in a manner analogous to endorsers in
the transfer of image to sponsoring brands. The framework presented in Figure
2 theorizes from McCrackens celebrity endorsement model to suggest that

International
Marketing
Review
14,3

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

148

Figure 2.
A model of image
creation and image
transfer in event
sponsorship

event image is formed from a number of external and internal factors. Through
sponsorship, an events image, which may be relatively distinct for different
consumer groups, may be transferred through association to the sponsoring
product. As indicated in the figure, several factors may moderate the strength
of this image transfer. This discussion leads to the offering of the first research
proposition:
P1: Through sponsorship, an events image will become associated with the
sponsoring brands image.
Determinants of event image
An events image is represented by a particular market segments overall
subjective perceptions of the activity. The proposed framework suggests three
factors that may impact ones perception of a particular event: event type, event
characteristics, and individual factors.
Event type. In accordance with the earlier definition, event type can be
categorized into at least five areas: sports related, music related, festival/fair
related, fine arts related (e.g., ballet, art exhibit, theatre, etc.), and professional
meeting/trade show related. The type of event impacts event image in a variety
of ways. First, it conjures up image associations in the mind of the consumer.
That is, most individuals, through past patronage or other forms of exposure
(word-of-mouth, television, etc.) will develop some attitudes (i.e., positive or
negative predispositions towards an event) regarding particular events. These
attitudes will serve to frame the image of the particular event type. Note
however, that ones attitude towards an event is only one part of an events
image. Ones attitude towards an event represents a summary of experiences
resulting in some general predisposition to respond to an event in a consistently

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

favourable or unfavourable manner. Thus, event attitude is an enduring

evaluation (Cohen, 1990).
While an events image will be strongly influenced by ones attitude towards
the event, event image will also be impacted by non-evaluative perceptions of an
event that are formed through associations held in the consumers memory
(Keller, 1993). In this sense, event image reflects the meaning of the event for an
individual, and can be characterized using descriptive labels that represent a
summation of ones perceptions. These labels, termed image associations,
would include: youthful, mature, carefree, adventurous, educational, social,
traditional, exclusive, common, liberal, conservative, high class, family
oriented, children oriented, cerebral, athletic, artistic, pride, political, etc. Thus,
event image can be thought of as a collection of image associations.
In addition to past experiences and other indirect exposures, it is likely that
new experiences will shape ones perception of event image. In fact, image
perceptions formed from the most recent event experiences will likely be the
most influential in shaping ones overall event image perceptions (Bagozzi and
Warshaw, 1990). New experiences can be divided into two types: the specific
activities engaged in or observed; and all interactions with other event
attendees/participants and event staff. It is through these two experiences that
past event images may be changed or modified and new image associations can
be added.
The specific activities engaged in or observed may be the same for all
participants[1] (e.g., attendees at a soccer match) or quite varied (e.g., the
individual rides and attractions selected at a local festival), depending on the
type of event. Regardless of the similarity of experiences, the essential issue is
that a given consumers specific event experiences or observations will shape
their perceptions of event image. It is also argued here that the number and type
of other participants will have an impact on ones evaluation of the events
image. For example, the number of spectators may impact ones assessment of
the success of the event. Perhaps events may be viewed as more successful
when they draw more attendees. In addition, the number of participants may
impact perceptions of crowding, event availability, and wait times. Type of
participant represents the demographic and psychographic characteristics of
others attending the event. The attendees at some events represent relatively
homogeneous market segments in terms of social class, family life cycle, age,
gender, political affiliation, etc. For example, spectators of professional golf
tournaments may be middle aged, white males, with above median incomes. In
other cases, events draw heterogeneous types of participants. Just as other
customers can have a substantial impact on consumers perceptions of service
firms, so too can other participants have an impact on ones event experiences
and subsequent assessment of event image (Bitner et al., 1994).
These factors, perceptions based on past experiences, event activities, and
the number and type of spectator/participant, constitute one aspect that will
serve to shape consumers overall subjective perceptions of a given event. Based
on the above discussion, several research propositions are suggested:

Image creation
model

149

International
Marketing
Review
14,3

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

150

P2a: Direct experience and/or indirect information (word-of-mouth,

advertising, etc.) with an event type will influence event image.
P2b: The specific activities experienced or observed during an event will
influence event image.
P2c: The number and type of other spectators/participants will influence
event image.
Event characteristics. Within a given event type (e.g., music concert series, trade
show, etc.), a number of characteristics will vary from event to event. The level
of the following five event characteristics will likely influence consumers
perceptions of an events overall image: event size, professional status of
participants (professional or amateur), tradition/history associated with the
event, event venue, and promotional appearance.
Event size can be considered along a number of dimensions, including length
of event, level of media exposure (local, regional, national, international),
number of performers (if applicable), and amount of physical space occupied.
The same type of event, for example electronic industry trade shows, can vary
along all of these dimensions, creating different images for the same event type.
Likewise, other event characteristics such as the professional status of
performers (professional versus amateur) or the venue in which the event is
staged (e.g., temperature, convenience, physical condition, etc.) will impact ones
overall assessment of the events image. One could theorize that, in most cases,
perceptions of quality, legitimacy, and attendance desirability will be higher
with long running, large, elaborately staged events, featuring professionals in
attractive and convenient venues.
The perceived promotional appearance of a brands sponsorship activities may
appear anywhere along a spectrum from advertiser to benefactor. A perception
towards the benefactor end of the spectrum may lead to increased feelings of
goodwill towards the brand because it is perceived as donating funds to make the
event possible (McDonald, 1991). Conversely, there may be a negative reaction to
the commercialization of events that have not been sponsored in the past. These
events may be perceived as selling out to the corporate world. This has become
especially true in the Arts, where some individuals feel that sponsorship
(corporate or governmental) of the Arts leads to censorship (Jacobson, 1993;
Wood, 1996) . However, due to increasing costs, it has become even more critical
for events to obtain outside sponsors in order to continue to exist. To take full
advantage of the goodwill aspects, the sponsoring brand may need to educate
attendees regarding the beneficial role sponsorship plays in event production.
Due to its association with the event, a sponsoring brands promotional
claims can be legitimized, which serves to increase the believability of the
promotional message (McDonald, 1991). Additionally, a sponsoring firm may be
perceived as making an event possible for the consumer (Chew, 1992;
McDonald, 1991). The perception may be especially strong for small events
which often have difficulty securing financial support. In this sense, the
consumer does not view the sponsorship as a form of promotion, but rather the

sponsoring brand is seen as providing a service to the attendee and a level of

goodwill is generated by the firm. Again, the scepticism that can be associated
with traditional advertising may be circumvented. Brands that are viewed as
benefactors will be seen in a more favourable light. The consumer may even
feel the need or desire to reciprocate by purchasing the brand. Following from
the above discussion, the following research propositions are suggested:
P3a: Event size will influence event image.
P3b: Professional status of participants will influence event image.
P3c: Tradition/history associated with the event will influence event image.
P3d: Event venue will influence event image.

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

P3e: Promotional appearance will influence event image.

Individual factors. Because of the large number of factors influencing event
image and the unique manner in which participants may interpret those factors,
an event may have different images for different individuals. Qualitative
research has revealed each sport to have its own individual image, and
sponsors will tend to benefit from image transfer accordingly (Parker, 1991, p.
26). Three individual factors are suggested here that may impact event image:
the number of images an individual associates with an event; the strength of the
particular image; and the past history one has with a specific event. This last
factor differs from the past experience factor discussed under event type. Past
history refers to the unique experiences associated with a specific event,
whereas past experiences refers to encounters with a general event type.
Events that consumers perceive as having multiple images will be more
difficult to associate with a single identity. This will be compounded when the
meanings are of a conflicting nature. Thus, an individual with many event
associations may have a shifting image of the event, depending on which
association is currently most salient. Related to this is that images can be very
strong or relatively weak. It is likely that a single strong image will dominate
over several weaker ones. This will cause an event image to be consistent over
time, but limits the richness that multiple image associations would confer.
Finally, an individuals personal history with a particular event may have an
impact on ones perception of an events image. A long history will typically
lead to a more ingrained and consistent image. An individual that has attended
or has been associated with an event for a substantial time period may also
have nostalgic feelings that become associated with the events image. Events
that have multiple or vague images pose problems for a firms sponsorship
selection decision because it becomes more difficult to predict the image that
may become associated with the event, and ultimately transferred to the
product. The above discussion leads to the following research propositions:
P4a: Individuals associating an event with a large number of images will
have difficulty identifying a consistent event image.

Image creation
model

151

International
Marketing
Review
14,3

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

152

P4b: Individuals with a single, strong image association will have

consistent event images over time.
P4c: Individuals with a single, strong image association will have less rich
event images.
P4d: Individuals with long-term participation in an event will hold a
consistent event image for that event.
This section has identified three broad areas (event type, event characteristics,
and individual factors) that influence the creation of an events image, although
there may be some event image determinants not explicitly discussed in the
previous section. It is likely that any unrepresented factors could be
accommodated within the proposed areas. The next section discusses constructs
that may moderate the relationship between event image and brand image.
Moderating variables in the model
Potential moderating variables presented in the model are discussed in two
sections. In the first section variables potentially impacting the strength of the
image transfer from event to brand are discussed. As such, variables pertaining
to the formation of strong memory associations (degree of similarity) and
exposure to the sponsors message (level of sponsorship and event frequency)
are discussed. The second section on moderating variables examines how ones
involvement with a product may moderate the impact of the events image on
brand attitude. Attitude towards the event and attitude towards the brand are
conceptualized and discussed as being components of event image and brand
image, respectively. Although not illustrated in Figure 2, these attitude
components should be considered as a part of each of the respective image
boxes in the figure.
Moderators between event image and brand image
This section will discuss three moderating variables impacting the strength of
the transfer between an events image and the image of a sponsoring brand.
As indicated above, the basis of the relationship is the meaning transfer
between these constructs and it is this process that the moderating variables are
proposed to influence.
The first moderating factor to be discussed in the image transfer process is
the degree of similarity between the event and the sponsor. A product can have
either functional or image related similarity with an event. Functional similarity
occurs when a sponsoring product is actually used by participants during the
event. An example of this type of similarity is Valvolines sponsorship of
automobile racing. The link is established because, apart from being a sponsor,
Valvolines motor oil products are actually used by many of the participants
during the event. The second type of similarity is termed image related, and
occurs when the image of the event is related to the image of the brand. An
example of this type of linkage is Pepsis sponsorship of the 1993 Michael
Jackson World Concert Tour. Here the similarity comes from the youth and

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

excitement orientation of both the music and the product. Interestingly, some
sponsors do not appear to be linked to the events they sponsor. For example, the
USF&G Sugar Bowl combined a large insurance firm with a collegiate football
game. It is suggested here that either functional or image based similarities
forge stronger ties and help the consumer to link the event image with the
brand. Thus, sponsor-event similarity (functional or image based) will enhance
image transfer by more firmly anchoring the relationship in the consumers
mind. This assertion is consistent with some celebrity endorsement literature
which suggests that mis-matches between endorser and brand decrease the
effectiveness of the endorsement (Kaikati, 1987).
A second factor that may moderate the image transfer from event to
sponsoring brand is the level of sponsorship. Sponsorship arrangements can
run the gamut from a single sponsor to hundreds of sponsors at many different
levels. Multiple sponsors for a given event lessens the probability that a
particular brand will be associated with the event, due to the additional stimuli
each consumer must attend to and recall (Hutchinson and Alba, 1991). Often,
events allowing multiple sponsors will offer different levels of sponsorship.
By contributing different dollar amounts to the event, the sponsor can buy
enhanced packages. These enhancements include better sign/banner location,
more frequent media mentions, and premium ticket and hospitality packages.
Exclusive sponsorship, or at least a dominant position, will increase the
likelihood of meaning transfer from the event to the sponsoring brand by more
firmly establishing the link between event and brand.
The frequency of the event will also have an impact on the image transfer
process. Events may be on either a one-time or recurring basis. Although a onetime event does not allow recurring event-sponsor associations to be developed
over time, some events may be of such a unique nature that they attract a great
deal of media attention (e.g., Hands-Across-America). However, an ongoing
event (annual, semi-annual, monthly, etc.) should have the benefit of more firmly
establishing a link between the event and the brand due to repeated exposures
(MacInnis et al., 1991). The above discussion leads to the following research
propositions:
P5a: The higher the degree of similarity (image or functional based)
between event and sponsoring brand, the more effective the image
transfer between event and brand.
P5b: The more exclusive the level of sponsorship, the more effective the
image transfer between event and brand.
P5c: The more frequent the event, the more effective the image transfer
between event and brand.
Moderators between event image and attitude towards the brand
As discussed previously, ones attitude towards the event will help to shape
ones image of the event. Thus, event attitude is a component of event image.
Likewise, attitude towards the brand is considered under this framework as a

Image creation
model

153

International
Marketing
Review
14,3

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

154

component of brand image. Indeed, recent conceptualizations of brand image

include an attitude component (Keller, 1993). As such, the model presented in
Figure 2 suggests that event image will have an impact on attitude towards the
brand. However, might there be situations in which this relationship is
moderated by another factor?
Advertising research with endorsers has demonstrated that product
involvement level (defined as the level of personal relevance a product has to a
consumer, resulting from the perceived level of risk associated with the products
consumption or non-consumption) can impact the attitude formation process
(Petty et al., 1983). Specifically, we have shown that when an advertisement
concerned a product of low involvement, the celebrity status of the product
endorsers was a very potent determinant of attitudes about the product. When
the advertisement concerned a product of high involvement, however, the
celebrity status of the product endorsers had no effect on attitudes, but the
cogency of the information about the product contained in the ad was a powerful
determinant of product evaluations (Petty et al., 1983, p. 143). Following from
this research, level of product involvement should moderate the relationship
between event image and attitude towards the brand, such that event image will
have a larger impact on brand attitude for a low involvement product.
The influence of event image on brand attitude can be understood further by
considering the type of persuasion process likely to occur. Petty and Cacioppos
(1986) elaboration likelihood model (ELM) suggests that persuasion can occur
along two routes. The central route to persuasion occurs when an individual
bases product evaluation on diligent consideration of information that a
person feels is central to the true merits of an issue or product (Petty et al.,
1983, p. 144). The second route to attitude change, peripheral, suggests that
change may also occur through the association of the object with positive or
negative cues (e.g., expert source, pleasant surroundings, forceful presentation,
etc.). This conceptualization of the peripheral persuasion route is consistent
with Kellers (1993) position of links in memory being established between an
event and the sponsor.
One characteristic of sponsorship that distinguishes it from some other
promotional methods is its indirect nature (McDonald, 1991). That is, the
sponsorship is, at best, a secondary concern (behind the actual event) for the
participant. Furthermore, other than the brands name and/or logo, seldom is
any type of commercial message associated with the firms products. Thus,
sponsorship would appear to operate along Petty and Cacioppos peripheral
persuasion route due to this indirect nature, and lack of available cognizant
information. Empirical tests of the ELM model suggest that the central route to
persuasion is more effective for high involvement goods, while the peripheral
route has a higher impact on low involvement goods (Petty et al., 1983).
Theorizing from the ELM, one could conclude that when the sponsoring
brand is a low involvement product, event image will be a potent force in
determining brand attitude. Conversely, the promotional benefit, in terms of
attitude change, for high involvement products appears to be small. Product

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

involvement is only likely to be applicable when the sponsorship is focused at

the brand level, as opposed to the sponsorship focus being at the firm level. The
discussion in this section gives rise to the following research propositions:
P6a: Brand attitudes of low involvement goods will be strongly influenced
by event image.
P6b: Brand attitudes of high involvement goods will be weakly influenced
by event image.
P6c: Persuasion processes from event sponsorship take place on the
peripheral route.
Implications for practice and research
Implications for practice
Several implications for marketing practice can be drawn from the proposed
model. First, firms should consider more than simply the number of potential
customers their sponsorship signage and other identifiers will reach. It is
important to consider the image of the event, as this image may become
associated with the brand. An events image can be assessed through a variety
of methods. However, given its potentially ambiguous and transitory nature,
qualitative methods in the form of depth interviews, focus groups, and
projective techniques, are likely to provide the best view of how consumers
perceive a given event. Event organizers might take it on themselves to conduct
such studies and use the results to recruit potential sponsors. In the course of
such research, event organizers may find that the image of their event is not
what they thought. Furthermore, it would be wise for event image studies to
take place on a regular basis to assess changes in event image over time. This
would allow event organizers to take corrective action in a timely manner. The
proposed model suggests a variety of event image determinants that could be
manipulated to position a given event in a different light.
In terms of the sponsoring brand, the model suggests several aspects of
sponsorship that should be considered when deciding on potential event
affiliations. One aspect that should be considered, in light of image transfer
benefits, is the degree of similarity between the event and the brand. Brand
awareness benefits are likely to accrue regardless of similarity levels, but it has
been argued here that image associations will be more likely when some link
exists, either image or functional, in the consumers mind. Firms looking to add
sponsorship activities to their promotional mix should also consider the level of
sponsorship and frequency of the event. Although most firms will look at these
aspects with an eye towards the total dollar commitment, it may also be wise to
consider the meaning transfer implications. As discussed previously, exclusive
sponsorships in events occurring on a frequent basis will likely maximize the
image transfer potential of the sponsorship purchase.
Finally, firms should consider whether image transfer benefits will actually
have any influence on consumers attitudes towards their brand and ultimately
their purchase intention. The model suggests that, in terms of impacting a

Image creation
model

155

International
Marketing
Review
14,3

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

156

consumers attitude towards a brand, low involvement products will be more

effective in sponsorship promotions due to the peripheral nature of persuasion
taking place. However, brand attitude represents only one part of brand image.
Other image associations are likely to occur, regardless of product involvement
level. As such, firms of high involvement products should carefully consider
their promotional goals to determine if event sponsorship is the best use of their
promotional budget.
Implications for research
This article has set forward a number of research propositions that are
suggested by the proposed model. Although the propositions are in need of
empirical validation, in terms of research priorities, those dealing with image
transfer (P1) and product involvement (P6a-P6c) stand out as needing the most
immediate attention due to their potential importance to marketing managers.
The biggest challenge in the empirical testing of these propositions will likely
be in the measurement development of the event image construct and the
assessment of image transfer. Event image measures might be developed that
consist of a series of semantic differentials (e.g., young-old, exclusive-common,
adult oriented-family oriented, etc.). An event typology might then be
constructed using cluster analysis techniques to identify common image
groups. Such a typology would have significant implications for sponsorship
selection activities.
Another fruitful area of future empirical research might focus on the event
image determinants identified in the model. No predications were made with
regard to the relative strength of these image determinants. However, it is likely
that some determinants (e.g., event size) will have a stronger impact on the
formation of an events image. These determinants should be assessed to see
which explain the most variance in event image and to identify possible
interactions existing between the determinants.
Of course, research attempting to validate the image transfer process and the
presence or absence of moderating effects would represent a substantial
contribution to the sponsorship literature. Here researchers might consider the
use of experimental designs. Following such a research programme,
investigators could vary levels of similarity (both functional and image),
sponsorship level and frequency, and product involvement. Pre- and postmeasures of brand image could be compared in relationship to each of the
treatment level combinations (cf. McDaniel, 1997).
Another interesting area for further study would be to expand the event
image transfer model by examining the influence of sponsorship on brand image
creation as compared to other more traditional promotional activities (e.g.,
television and magazine advertising, packaging, etc.). Furthermore, it would be
useful to examine the effect on brand image when the brand sponsors multiple
events. Will some events have a larger impact on brand image than others? If so,
can specific event determinants be identified for driving this differential effect?

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

In addition, how do consumers sort out the meaning transfer from event to
brand, when brands sponsor multiple event with conflicting images?
Event image transfer is perhaps an even more critical issue in the ever
growing global community. Sponsors of events with international television
audiences, such as the Olympic Games, may need to consider the image of the
global event in relationship to the image goals of local markets. Cultural and
social norms may vary across national boundaries, such that a given events
image would not be appropriate for all consumer groups. It may also be possible
that culture will moderate the image transfer process. Perhaps in cultures where
an individuals self-concept is more closely tied to consumption activities (e.g.,
the type of clothing worn, the model of car driven), the transfer of image from
event to brand may proceed more effectively. In such cultures consumers are
more active in looking for meaning in products that can be used to change or
reinforce their concept of self.
As a result of its growing importance and lack of attention, more research in
the area of event marketing, and specifically the image transfer process is
needed. This article has put forward several theoretical arguments to explain
the mechanisms by which brand image may be influenced through various
sponsorship activities. Past research in the area of event marketing has tended
to focus on brand awareness issues and has been mostly descriptive in nature.
If this field of inquiry is to progress, we must have theoretical explanations from
which to build. This article represents a first step in the discussion of how
sponsorship actually works.
Note
1. Individuals consuming an event can be referred to using a variety of terms depending on
the specific event type. These labels include participant, attendee, spectator and observer.
All of these terms are used in this article to reflect the varied nature of event types, but
these terms should be regarded as synonyms.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw P.R. (1990), Trying to consume, Journal of Consumer Behavior,
Vol. 17, September, pp. 127-40.
Bitner, M., Booms, B.H. and Mohr, L.A. (1994), Critical service encounters: the employees
viewpoint, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, October, pp. 95-106.
Catherwood, D.W. and Van Kirk, R.L. (1992), The Complete Guide to Special Event Management,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Chew, F. (1992), The advertising value of making possible a public television program, Journal
of Advertising Research, November-December, pp. 47-52.
Cohen, J.B. (1990), Attitude, affect, and consumer behavior, in Moore, B.S. and Isen, A.M. (Eds),
Affect and Social Behavior, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 152-206.
Crowley, M.G. (1991), Prioritizing the sponsorship audience, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 25 No.11, pp. 11-21.
Hutchinson, J.W. and Alba, J.A. (1991), Ignoring irrelevant information: situational determinants
of consumer learning, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, December, pp. 325-45.

Image creation
model

157

International
Marketing
Review
14,3

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

158

Jacobson, M. (1993), Museums that put corporations on display, Business and Society Review,
Vol. 86, Summer, pp. 24-7.
Javalgi, R.G., Traylor, M.B., Gross, A.C. and Lampman, E. (1994), Awareness of sponsorship and
corporate image: an empirical investigation, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23, December,
pp. 47-58.
Kaikati, J.G. (1987), Celebrity advertising: a review and synthesis, International Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 93-105.
Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.
Levin, G. (1993), Sponsors put pressure on for accountability, Advertising Age, 21 June,
pp. S1-S4.
MacInnis, D.J., Mooreman, C. and Jaworski, B.J. (1991), Enhancing and measuring consumers
motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 55, October, pp. 32-53.
Marshall, D.W. and Cook, G. (1992), The corporate (sports) sponsor, International Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 11, pp. 307-24.
McCracken, G. (1989), Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement
process, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 December, pp. 310-21.
McDaniel, S.R. (1997), An investigation of match-up effects in event sponsorship advertising: the
implications of consumer advertising schemas, Paper presented at the American Marketing
Association Winter Educators Meeting, St Petersburg, FL.
McDaniel, S.R. and Kinney, L. (1996), Ambush marketing revisited: an experimental study of
perceived sponsorship effects on brand awareness, attitude toward the brand and purchase
intention, Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 3, pp. 141-67.
McDonald, C. (1991), Sponsorship and the image of the sponsor, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 31-8.
Meenaghan, J.A. (1983), Commercial sponsorship, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 7,
pp. 5-73.
Meenaghan, J.A. (1991), Sponsorship legitimizing the medium, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 5-10.
Meerabeau, E., Gillett, R., Kennedy, M., Adeoba, J., Byass, M. and Tabi, K. (1991), Sponsorship
and the drinks industry in the 1990s, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 3956.
Parker, K. (1991), Sponsorship: the research contribution, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 22-30.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral
Routes to Attitude Change, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Schumann, D. (1983), Central and peripheral routes to advertising
effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10,
September, pp. 135-46.
Sandler, D.M. and Shani, D. (1989), Olympic sponsorship vs. ambush marketing: who gets the
gold, Journal of Advertising Research, August-September, pp. 9-14.
Scott, D.R. and Suchard, H.T. (1992), Motivations for Australian expenditure on sponsorship an
analysis, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 11, pp. 325-32.
Wood, J. (1996), Sold out, The New Republic, Vol. 215 No. 2, p. 9.

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Reinhard Grohs, Heribert Reisinger, David M. Woisetschlger. 2015. Attenuation of negative sponsorship effects in the
context of rival sports teams fans. European Journal of Marketing 49:11/12. . [Abstract] [PDF]
2. Philip Gross, Klaus-Peter Wiedmann. 2015. The Vigor of a Disregarded Ally in Sponsorship: Brand Image Transfer Effects
Arising from a Cosponsor. Psychology & Marketing 32:10.1002/mar.2015.32.issue-11, 1079-1097. [CrossRef]
3. Angeline Close Scheinbaum, Russell Lacey. 2015. Event social responsibility: A note to improve outcomes for sponsors and
events. Journal of Business Research 68, 1982-1986. [CrossRef]
4. Shih-Tung Shu, Brian King, Ching-Hung Chang. 2015. Tourist Perceptions of EventSponsor Brand Fit and Sponsor Brand
Attitude. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 32, 761-777. [CrossRef]
5. David Shani. 2015. Sport marketing and non profit marketing - perfect together. International Review on Public and Nonprofit
Marketing 12, 93-95. [CrossRef]
6. Nigel L. Williams, Alessandro Inversini, Dimitrios Buhalis, Nicole Ferdinand. 2015. Community crosstalk: an exploratory
analysis of destination and festival eWOM on Twitter. Journal of Marketing Management 31, 1113-1140. [CrossRef]
7. Daniela Andreini, Diego Rinallo, Giuseppe Pedeliento, Mara Bergamaschi. 2015. Brands and Religion in the Secularized
Marketplace and Workplace: Insights from the Case of an Italian Hospital Renamed After a Roman Catholic Pope. Journal
of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
8. Dan Petrovici, Yujian Shan, Matthew Gorton, John Ford. 2015. Patriot games? Determinants of responses to Chinese and
foreign sponsors of the Beijing Olympics. Journal of Business Research 68, 1324-1331. [CrossRef]
9. Jean-Luc Herrmann, Mathieu Kacha, Christian Derbaix. 2015. I support your team, support me in turn!. Journal of Business
Research . [CrossRef]
10. Robert Demir, Sten Sderman. 2015. Strategic sponsoring in professional sport: a review and conceptualization. European
Sport Management Quarterly 15, 271-300. [CrossRef]
11. Sonia Ferrari, Chito Guala. 2015. Mega-events and their legacy: Image and tourism in Genoa, Turin and Milan. Leisure
Studies 1-19. [CrossRef]
12. Jens Blumrodt, Philip J. Kitchen. 2015. The Tour de France: corporate sponsorships and doping accusations. Journal of
Business Strategy 36:2, 41-48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. John Nadeau, Norman O'Reilly, Louise A. Heslop. 2015. Cityscape promotions and the use of place images at the Olympic
Games. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33:2, 147-163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Yen-Ju Wang, Li-Ren Yang. 2015. Business Social Responsibility to Improve New Product Development. Journal of Economics,
Business and Management 3, 510-513. [CrossRef]
15. Kijpokin Kasemsap 171. [CrossRef]
16. Ye Wang. 2015. Affective and cognitive influence of control of navigation on cause sponsorship and non-profit organizations.
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing n/a. [CrossRef]
17. Kun Lai. 2014. Destination Images Penetrated by Mega-events: A Behaviorist Study of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 1-21. [CrossRef]
18. Michael Schade, Rico Piehler, Christoph Burmann. 2014. Sport club brand personality scale (SCBPS): A new brand
personality scale for sport clubs. Journal of Brand Management 21, 650-663. [CrossRef]
19. Gordon Liu, Wai Wai Ko. 2014. An integrated model of cause-related marketing strategy development. AMS Review .
[CrossRef]
20. Sujin Yang, Sejin Ha. 2014. Brand knowledge transfer via sponsorship in the financial services industry. Journal of Services
Marketing 28:6, 452-459. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Daniela Andreini, Giuseppe Pedeliento. 2014. The multichannel effects of sponsorship: an empirical analysis. MERCATI
E COMPETITIVIT 65-83. [CrossRef]
22. Robert James Thomas. 2014. An evaluation of the effectiveness of rugby event sponsorship: a study of Dove Men+Care and
the Welsh Rugby Union. Journal of Product & Brand Management 23:4/5, 304-321. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Angeline G. Close, Russell Lacey. 2014. How the Anticipation Can Be as Great as the Experience: Explaining Event
Sponsorship Exhibit Outcomes Via Affective Forecasting. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 35, 209-224.
[CrossRef]
24. Erol Duran, Bahattin Hamarat. 2014. Festival attendees motivations: the case of International Troia Festival. International
Journal of Event and Festival Management 5:2, 146-163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Erol Duran, Bahattin Hamarat, Emrah zkul. 2014. A sustainable festival management model: the case of International
Troia festival. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 8:2, 173-193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

26. Margaret A. Johnston, Neil Paulsen. 2014. Rules of engagement: A discrete choice analysis of sponsorship decision making.
Journal of Marketing Management 30, 634-663. [CrossRef]
27. Tsedendorj Enkhchimeg, Gwi-Gon Kim, Ji-Won Oh. 2014. The Effect of Sponsorship Articulation and Moderating Effect
of Articulation Type & Thinking Style. Journal of Digital Convergence 12, 149-157. [CrossRef]
28. Reinhard Grohs, Heribert Reisinger. 2014. Sponsorship effects on brand image: The role of exposure and activity involvement.
Journal of Business Research 67, 1018-1025. [CrossRef]
29. Leah Donlan. 2014. An empirical assessment of factors affecting the brand-building effectiveness of sponsorship. Sport,
Business and Management: An International Journal 4:1, 6-25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Ellen L. Bloxsome, Mark R. Brown, Nigel K. Ll. Pope, Kevin E. VogesInternational Sponsorship Research 529-553.
[CrossRef]
31. Norm OReilly, Denyse Lafrance Horning. 2013. Leveraging sponsorship: The activation ratio. Sport Management Review
16, 424-437. [CrossRef]
32. Pascale Quester, Carolin Plewa, Karen Palmer, Marc Mazodier. 2013. Determinants of Community-Based Sponsorship Impact
on Self-Congruity. Psychology & Marketing 30:10.1002/mar.2013.30.issue-11, 996-1007. [CrossRef]
33. Marc Mazodier, Amir Rezaee. 2013. Are sponsorship announcements good news for the shareholders? Evidence from
international stock exchanges. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 41, 586-600. [CrossRef]
34. , . 2013. The Impact of Sports Event Participants Gender, Age, and Involvement on Preference toward Sponsorship
Brand. Journal of Public Relations 17, 340-378. [CrossRef]
35. Walter Wymer, Katie McDonald, Wendy Scaife. 2013. Effects of Corporate Support of a Charity on Public Perceptions of
the Charity. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations . [CrossRef]
36. Susan Ferrier, Kathryn Waite, Tina Harrison. 2013. Sports sponsorship perceptions: An exploration. Journal of Financial
Services Marketing 18, 78-90. [CrossRef]
37. Jeonghee Na, Junghyun Kim. 2013. Does Articulation matter in sponsorship? The type of articulation and the degree of
congruence as determinants of corporate sponsorship effects. Asian Journal of Communication 23, 268-283. [CrossRef]
38. Natalia VilaLpez, MaCarmen RodrguezMolina. 2013. Eventbrand transfer in an entertainment service: experiential
marketing. Industrial Management & Data Systems 113:5, 712-731. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Beth Myers, Wi-Suk Kwon. 2013. A model of antecedents of consumers' post brand attitude upon exposure to a cause-brand
alliance. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 18, 73-89. [CrossRef]
40. Tony Meenaghan, Damien McLoughlin, Alan McCormack. 2013. New Challenges in Sponsorship Evaluation Actors, New
Media, and the Context of Praxis. Psychology & Marketing 30:10.1002/mar.2013.30.issue-5, 444-460. [CrossRef]
41. Margarida Abreu Novais, Charles Arcodia. 2013. Measuring the Effects of Event Sponsorship: Theoretical Frameworks and
Image Transfer Models. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 30, 308-334. [CrossRef]
42. John Nadeau, Norm O'Reilly, Louise A. Heslop. 2013. Linking place, megaevent and sponsorship evaluations. Journal of
Product & Brand Management 22:2, 129-141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Leah Kathleen Donlan. 2013. The Role of Brand Knowledge in Determining Sponsorship Effectiveness. Journal of Promotion
Management 19, 241-264. [CrossRef]
44. Shintaro Okazaki, Charles R. Taylor. 2013. Social media and international advertising: theoretical challenges and future
directions. International Marketing Review 30:1, 56-71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
45. Matthew Walker, Kiki Kaplanidou, Heather Gibson, Brijesh Thapa, Sue Geldenhuys, Willie Coetzee. 2013. Win in Africa,
With Africa: Social responsibility, event image, and destination benefits. The case of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South
Africa. Tourism Management 34, 80-90. [CrossRef]
46. Eunha Chun, Jane Ko, Jieun Lee, Eunju Ko. 2013. The effect of sports event tourism on event attitude and the brand equity
of sportswear sponsors. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 23, 72-91. [CrossRef]
47. David M. Woisetschlger, Jan Dreisbach, Marc Schnring, Christof Backhaus. 2013. Einstellungstransfer durch Sponsoring:
Welche Stellhebel zum Erfolg fhren. Marketing Review St. Gallen 30, 46-57. [CrossRef]
48. Stefan Hattula, Jrg Richter, Torsten Bornemann, Hans H. Bauer. 2013. Sportlicher Erfolg Treiber fr Aktienrenditen
von Sponsoren. Marketing Review St. Gallen 30, 12-21. [CrossRef]
49. Christoph Burmann, Michael Schade, Christopher Kanitz. 2013. Augen auf bei der Sponsorenwahl. Marketing Review St.
Gallen 30, 36-45. [CrossRef]
50. Ni Chen. 2012. Branding national images: The 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics, 2010 Shanghai World Expo, and 2010
Guangzhou Asian Games. Public Relations Review 38, 731-745. [CrossRef]
51. Reinhard Grohs, Udo Wagner, Regina Steiner. 2012. An Investigation of Children's Ability to Identify Sponsors and
Understand Sponsorship Intentions. Psychology & Marketing 29:10.1002/mar.2012.29.issue-11, 907-917. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

52. Guillaume Bodet, Marie-Franoise Lacassagne. 2012. International place branding through sporting events: a British
perspective of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. European Sport Management Quarterly 12, 357-374. [CrossRef]
53. Namin Kim, Youri Sung, Moonkyu Lee. 2012. Consumer Evaluations of Social Alliances: The Effects of Perceived Fit
Between Companies and Non-Profit Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 109, 163-174. [CrossRef]
54. Annmarie Ryan, John Fahy. 2012. Evolving priorities in sponsorship: From media management to network management.
Journal of Marketing Management 28, 1132-1158. [CrossRef]
55. Emmanuel Chron, Florian Kohlbacher, Kaoru Kusuma. 2012. The effects of brandcause fit and campaign duration on
consumer perception of causerelated marketing in Japan. Journal of Consumer Marketing 29:5, 357-368. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
56. Matthias Messner, Marc-Andr Reinhard. 2012. Effects of Strategic Exiting from Sponsorship after Negative Event Publicity.
Psychology and Marketing 29:10.1002/mar.2012.29.issue-4, 240-256. [CrossRef]
57. Yung-Lan Wang, Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng. 2012. Brand marketing for creating brand value based on a MCDM model combining
DEMATEL with ANP and VIKOR methods. Expert Systems with Applications 39, 5600-5615. [CrossRef]
58. Miguel Moital, Julie Whitfield, Caroline Jackson, Arjun Bahl. 2012. Event sponsorship by alcoholic and nonalcoholic drinks
businesses in India. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 24:2, 289-311. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
59. Ins Kster Boluda, Vicente Castillo Lozoya. 2012. EFECTOS DE LOS VIDEOJUEGOS EN LAS MARCAS
EMPLAZADAS: LA TRANSMISIN DE EMOCIONES. Revista Espaola de Investigacin en Marketing ESIC 16, 29-58.
[CrossRef]
60. Kirstin Hallmann. 2012. Women's 2011 Football World Cup: The impact of perceived images of women's soccer and the
World Cup 2011 on interest in attending matches. Sport Management Review 15, 33-42. [CrossRef]
61. George N. Filis, George S. Spais. 2012. The Effect of Sport Sponsorship Programs of Various Sport Events on Stock Price
Behavior During a Sport Event. Journal of Promotion Management 18, 3-41. [CrossRef]
62. Jung-Im Lee, Su-Yun Shin. 2011. The Influences of Consumer Behavior according to their Perceived Suitability toward the
Type of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities. Journal of the Korean Society for Clothing Industry 13, 888-899. [CrossRef]
63. Carmen Lopez, Manto Gotsi, Constantine Andriopoulos. 2011. Conceptualising the influence of corporate image on country
image. European Journal of Marketing 45:11/12, 1601-1641. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. David Nickell, T. Bettina Cornwell, Wesley J. Johnston. 2011. Sponsorshiplinked marketing: a set of research propositions.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 26:8, 577-589. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Yu Kyoum Kim, Yong Jae Ko, Jeffery James. 2011. The impact of relationship quality on attitude toward a sponsor. Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing 26:8, 566-576. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
66. Alexander Leischnig, Marko Schwertfeger, Anja Geigenmueller. 2011. Do shopping events promote retail brands?.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 39:8, 619-634. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. Manto Gotsi, Carmen Lopez, Constantine Andriopoulos. 2011. Building country image through corporate image: exploring
the factors that influence the image transfer. Journal of Strategic Marketing 19, 255-272. [CrossRef]
68. Kenneth K. Chen, James J. Zhang. 2011. Examining consumer attributes associated with collegiate athletic facility naming
rights sponsorship: Development of a theoretical framework. Sport Management Review 14, 103-116. [CrossRef]
69. Alexander Leischnig, Marko Schwertfeger, Anja Geigenmller. 2011. Shopping events, shopping enjoyment, and consumers
attitudes toward retail brandsAn empirical examination. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18, 218-223. [CrossRef]
70. Heidi M.K. Ngan, Gerard P. Prendergast, Alex S.L. Tsang. 2011. Linking sports sponsorship with purchase intentions.
European Journal of Marketing 45:4, 551-566. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
71. Lewis Hershey, John Branch. 2011. Lexicon Rhetoricae: the narrative theory of Kenneth Burke and its application to
marketing. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 14:2, 174-187. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
72. Erik L. Olson, Hans Mathias Thjme. 2011. Explaining and Articulating the Fit Construct in Sponsorship. Journal of
Advertising 40, 57-70. [CrossRef]
73. Frances Woodside, Jane Summers. 2011. Sponsorship leveraged packaging: An exploratory study in FMCG. Journal of
Marketing Communications 17, 87-105. [CrossRef]
74. Eun Mi Lee, Seong-Yeon Park, Jae H. Pae. 2011. The Effect of the Perceived Corporate Fit on Loyalty: The Mediating
Roles of the Corporate Social Responsibility Perception. Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science 21, 32-44. [CrossRef]
75. P. Monica Chien, T. Bettina Cornwell, Ravi Pappu. 2011. Sponsorship portfolio as a brand-image creation strategy. Journal
of Business Research 64, 142-149. [CrossRef]
76. Yosuke Tsuji. 2011. Overview of Sport Sponsorship Research. Japanese Journal of Sport Management 3, 23-34. [CrossRef]
77. Rala Kawas, Gerard P. Prendergast, Alex S.L. Tsang. 2011. Linking sports sponsorship with purchase intentions. European
Journal of Marketing 45:4, 551. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

78. Seong-Yeon Park, Young Yang. 2010. The Effect of Celebrity Conformity on the Purchase Intention of Celebrity Sponsorship
Brand: The Moderating Effects of Symbolic Consumption and Face-Saving. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 1, 215-229.
[CrossRef]
79. Enrique Bign Alcaiz, Ruben Chumpitaz Cceres, Rafael Currs Prez. 2010. Alliances Between Brands and Social Causes:
The Influence of Company Credibility on Social Responsibility Image. Journal of Business Ethics 96, 169-186. [CrossRef]

80. Kirk L. Wakefield, Gregg Bennett. 2010. Affective Intensity and Sponsor Identification. Journal of Advertising 39, 99-111.
[CrossRef]
81. Abel Tasiyana Kahuni, Jennifer Rowley, Arnaz Binsardi. 2010. Guilty by Association: Image Spill-over in Corporate Cobranding. Corporate Reputation Review 12, 52-63. [CrossRef]
82. . 2010. The Influence of Sport Involvement and Relevance between Sponsor and Event on the Effect of Sponsorship
Mediating Role of Belief about Sponsorship and Perception of Sponsoring Motive. Journal of Public Relations 14, 5-43.
[CrossRef]
83. Srdan Zdravkovic, Peter Magnusson, Sarah M. Stanley. 2010. Dimensions of fit between a brand and a social cause and their
influence on attitudes. International Journal of Research in Marketing 27, 151-160. [CrossRef]
84. Kirstin Hallmann, Christoph Breuer. 2010. The impact of image congruence between sport event and destination on
behavioural intentions. Tourism Review 65:1, 66-74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
85. Nicolas Chanavat, Guillaume Martinent, Alain Ferrand. 2010. Brand Images Causal Relationships in a Multiple Sport Event
Sponsorship Context: Developing Brand Value through Association with Sponsees. European Sport Management Quarterly
10, 49-74. [CrossRef]
86. Roberta Comunian. 2009. Toward a New Conceptual Framework for Business Investments in the Arts: Some Examples from
Italy. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 39, 200-220. [CrossRef]
87. Frank E. Dardis. 2009. Attenuating the Negative Effects of Perceived Incongruence in Sponsorship: How Message Repetition
Can Enhance Evaluations of an Incongruent Sponsor. Journal of Promotion Management 15, 36-56. [CrossRef]
88. George D. Deitz, Susan Wesson Myers, Melissa Markley. 2009. A Resource-Matching Based View of Sponsorship Information
Processing. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 31, 75-87. [CrossRef]
89. Lalla Ilhame Sabbane, Franois Bellavance, Jean-Charles Chebat. 2009. Recency Versus Repetition Priming Effects of Cigarette
Warnings on Nonsmoking Teenagers: The Moderating Effects of Cigarette-Brand Familiarity. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 39:10.1111/jasp.2009.39.issue-3, 656-682. [CrossRef]
90. Erik J. Hunter, J. Henri Burgers, Per DavidssonCelebrity capital as a strategic asset: Implications for new venture strategies
137-160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
91. David N. BibbyBrand image, equity, and sports sponsorship 21-99. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
92. Andrew SmithUsing Major Events to Promote Peripheral Urban Areas 3-19. [CrossRef]
93. Jennifer Rowley, Catrin Williams. 2008. The impact of brand sponsorship of music festivals. Marketing Intelligence & Planning
26:7, 781-792. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
94. M. Joseph Sirgy, Dong-Jin Lee, J.S. Johar, John Tidwell. 2008. Effect of self-congruity with sponsorship on brand loyalty.
Journal of Business Research 61, 1091-1097. [CrossRef]
95. Torsten Tomczak, Silke Mhlmeier, Tim Oliver Brexendorf, Wolfgang Jenewein. 2008. Relevanz von Sponsoring wann
sich das Engagement wirklich lohnt. Marketing Review St. Gallen 25, 46-51. [CrossRef]
96. Carl M. Sylvestre, Luiz Moutinho. 2007. Leveraging Associations: The Promotion of Cultural Sponsorships. Journal of
Promotion Management 13, 281-303. [CrossRef]
97. Nathalie D. Fleck, Pascale Quester. 2007. Birds of a feather flock togetherdefinition, role and measure of congruence: An
application to sponsorship. Psychology and Marketing 24:10.1002/mar.v24:11, 975-1000. [CrossRef]
98. Lena Mossberg, Donald Getz. 2006. Stakeholder Influences on the Ownership and Management of Festival Brands.
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 6, 308-326. [CrossRef]
99. Henrik Uggla. 2006. The corporate brand association base. European Journal of Marketing 40:7/8, 785-802. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
100. Xiaoyan Xing, Laurence Chalip. 2006. Effects of Hosting a Sport Event on Destination Brand: A Test of Co-branding and
Match-up Models. Sport Management Review 9, 49-78. [CrossRef]
101. Fiona Davies, Cleopatra Veloutsou, Andrew Costa. 2006. Investigating the Influence of a Joint Sponsorship of Rival Teams
on Supporter Attitudes and Brand Preferences. Journal of Marketing Communications 12, 31-48. [CrossRef]
102. Carrie S. Trimble, Nora J. Rifon. 2006. Consumer perceptions of compatibility in cause-related marketing messages.
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 11:10.1002/nvsm.v11:1, 29-47. [CrossRef]
103. JULIE Z. SNEATH, R. ZACHARY FINNEY, ANGELINE GRACE CLOSE. 2005. An IMC Approach to Event Marketing:
The Effects of Sponsorship and Experience on Customer Attitudes. Journal of Advertising Research 45, 373. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by UFRJ At 17:06 18 October 2015 (PT)

104. Gareth Smith. 2005. Politically Significant Events and Their Effect on the Image of Political Parties. Journal of Political
Marketing 4, 91-114. [CrossRef]
105. Simon J. Cliffe, Judy Motion. 2005. Building contemporary brands: a sponsorship-based strategy. Journal of Business Research
58, 1068-1077. [CrossRef]
106. Jong Ho Lee, Moon Tae Kim, Jung Won Ock. 2005. , . Journal of Global Academy
of Marketing Science 15, 99-122. [CrossRef]
107. T.Bettina Cornwell, Leonard V. Coote. 2005. Corporate sponsorship of a cause: the role of identification in purchase intent.
Journal of Business Research 58, 268-276. [CrossRef]
108. Adamantios Diamantopoulos, Gareth Smith, Ian Grime. 2005. The impact of brand extensions on brand personality:
experimental evidence. European Journal of Marketing 39:1/2, 129-149. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
109. Stephen M. McKelvey. 2004. The Growth in Marketing Alliances between US Professional Sport and Legalised Gambling
Entities: Are We Putting Sport Consumers at Risk?. Sport Management Review 7, 193-210. [CrossRef]
110. Donald P. Roy, T. Bettina Cornwell. 2004. The effects of consumer knowledge on responses to event sponsorships. Psychology
and Marketing 21:10.1002/mar.v21:3, 185-207. [CrossRef]
111. Donald P. Roy, T. Bettina Cornwell. 2003. Brand equitys influence on responses to event sponsorships. Journal of Product
& Brand Management 12:6, 377-393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
112. Richard R. Dolphin. 2003. Sponsorship: perspectives on its strategic role. Corporate Communications: An International Journal
8:3, 173-186. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
113. Ruth Herman. 2003. An Exercise in Early Modern Branding. Journal of Marketing Management 19, 709-727. [CrossRef]
114. Robert Madrigal. 2001. Social identity effects in a belief-attitude-intentions hierarchy: Implications for corporate sponsorship.
Psychology and Marketing 18:10.1002/1520-6793(200102)18:2<>1.0.CO;2-6, 145-165. [CrossRef]
115. Tony Meenaghan. 2001. Sponsorship and advertising: A comparison of consumer perceptions. Psychology and Marketing
18:10.1002/1520-6793(200102)18:2<>1.0.CO;2-6, 191-215. [CrossRef]
116. Tony
Meenaghan.
2001.
Understanding
sponsorship
effects.
Psychology
and
Marketing
18:10.1002/1520-6793(200102)18:2<>1.0.CO;2-6, 95-122. [CrossRef]
117. Robert Madrigal. 2000. The Influence of Social Alliances with Sports Teams on Intentions to Purchase Corporate Sponsors'
Products. Journal of Advertising 29, 13-24. [CrossRef]
118. Stephen R. McDaniel, Gary R. Heald. 2000. Young Consumers Responses to Event Sponsorship Advertisements of Unhealthy
Products: Implications of Schema-triggered Affect Theory. Sport Management Review 3, 163-184. [CrossRef]
119. Kevin P. Gwinner, John Eaton. 1999. Building Brand Image Through Event Sponsorship: The Role of Image Transfer.
Journal of Advertising 28, 47-57. [CrossRef]
120. Stephen R. McDaniel. 1999. An investigation of match-up effects in sport sponsorship advertising: The implications of
consumer advertising schemas. Psychology and Marketing 16:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199903)16:2<>1.0.CO;2-K,
163-184. [CrossRef]
121. Pascale Quester, Francis Farrelly. 1998. Brand association and memory decay effects of sponsorship:. Journal of Product &
Brand Management 7:6, 539-556. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
122. Fabio SeverinoCultural Sponsorship and Entrepreneurial Mistrust 113-125. [CrossRef]
123. John A. FortunatoDigital Media and Sports Advertising 491-506. [CrossRef]
124. Cristina Aragons-JericThe Transfer from a Major Sport Event to a Sponsoring Brand: 960-982. [CrossRef]
125. Luke Lunhua Mao, James ZhangBranding through Sponsorship-Linked Marketing: 44-65. [CrossRef]
126. Ins Kster, Natalia Vila, Asuncin Hernndez, Pedro Canales, Vicente CastilloProduct Placement in Video Games: 127-148.
[CrossRef]