Building Brands Through Event Sponsorships

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships:
Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience

DISSERTATION
der Universitt St. Gallen,
Hochschule fr Wirtschafts-,
Rechts- und Sozialwissenschaften (HSG)
zur Erlangung der Wrde
eines Doktors der Wirtschaftswissenschaften

vorgelegt von

Caspar F. Coppetti
von
Zrich und Mollis (Glarus)

Genehmigt auf Antrag der Herren

Prof. Dr. Torsten Tomczak
und
Prof. Dr. Thomas Bieger

Dissertation Nr. 2925
D-Druck Spescha Druck, St. Gallen, 2004

Die Universitt St. Gallen, Hochschule fr Wirtschafts-, Rechts- und
Sozialwissesnnschaften (HSG) gestattet hiermit die Drucklegung der vorliegenden
Dissertation, ohne damit zu den darin ausgesprochenen Anschauungen Stellung zu
nehmen.

St. Gallen, den 14. Juni 2004

Der Rektor:

Prof. Dr. Peter Gomez
To my family
Sarah, Monica, Peter, Marina
Thanks for your love.
Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience i
Acknowledgements
Writing a dissertation has been likened to climbing a mountain, running an Ironman
triathlon, or giving birth to a child. Given my research topic, I would like to use a more
salient metaphor. The human mind has the ability to compress time when looking back
to things that happened in the past. I will therefore undoubtedly remember the writing
of this thesis as an important event in my life a challenging, yet very exciting one.
Thank you for making it happen.
I am deeply grateful to my doctoral advisors Prof. Torsten Tomczak and Prof. Thomas
Bieger for accompanying me through the learning process that writing this thesis has
been for me. In retrospect, I admire Prof. Tomczaks unmatched capability to steer my
thought process in the desired direction by leisurely asking questions that not only
touch the core of the issue at hand, but cut straight through it. On a more personal note,
I very fondly remember the relaxed, espresso-fuelled mid-morning sessions in Zurich.
Prof. Thomas Bieger has supported this thesis with considerably more time and
thought than his role of co-advisor would have obliged him to. His valuable comments
at the right moment greatly helped the progress of this thesis. Thank you, also, for the
impromptu mountain run in the Alpstein.
The classroom experiment conducted for this thesis benefited heavily from the input of
Prof. Michael Tuan Pham of Columbia University, New York, who generously shared
his experience in the field of empirical research on sponsorship with me. A warm
thank you also goes to Dr. Silke Mhlmeier for her valuable methodological support in
the analysis of the data.
This thesis is concerned with some very operational and practical aspects of
sponsorship. It therefore benefited heavily from the valuable discussions with
practitioners in the field the people who not only write about sponsorship, but
actually make it happen. Some of the people who contributed to this thesis can
rightfully be considered to be leading resources on the subject. I would like to thank
Eugen Brunner, Jrg Capol, Thomas Fink, Erwin Flury, Dr. Martin Venetz, Catrin
Wetzel, and Philipp Wetzel for the very valuable and inspiring discussions we had.
I am grateful to David Allemann for a number of things that helped make this thesis
what is. First, for introducing me to the branding world altogether, second for being a
great sparring partner, always inspiring me to think deeper, and third for keeping me
on my toes all along the writing process by systematically challenging me in my job as
a brand strategist at Advico Young & Rubicam.
Two people deserve special mention as they have actually laid hand on the content of
this thesis. Pascal Baumann contributed the illustrations of the different sponsorship
scenarios used in the classroom experiment. Anyone who sees them will have no doubt
that he is an artist in his very own right. Stan Fineman was responsible for the
proofreading of the text a task that he fulfilled not only swiftly, but also with a
careful eye to the readability of this thesis.
A number of institutions (and the people who shape them) generously supported this
thesis in a variety of ways: Advico Young & Rubicam (Edgar C. Britschgi, Felix
Kndig), McKinsey & Company (Philippe Blatter, Dr. Christian Casal, and Dr.
Andreas Thut), Nestl (Sibylle Kamber and Dr. Sabine von Mannteufel), FIS Alpine
Ski World Championships St. Moritz (Gian Gilli and Jrg Capol), Leguan Productions
(Toni Krebs), Verein Street Parade (Martin Schorno), and the University of St. Gallen
(lecturers, staff, assistants, and fellow students).
A special thank you goes to my reliable friends who have helped with interviewing
spectators in St. Moritz and carrying out the classroom experiment: Andrea, Catherine,
Christoph, Daniela, Dominique, Marc, Matthias, Pascal, Rolf, Sabine, Serge, Simone,
Thomas, and Tschff.
Thank you, Sarah, for all the support and understanding you have given me over the
last months: putting up with very early morning writing fits, standing in the cold at
countless events, listening to my incomprehensible, quasi-scientific rambling, and
living among paper stacks for weeks at a time. Thank you for walking this path with
me.

14. Juni 2004, Caspar Coppetti
Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience iii
Overview of Contents
1 Introduction and Overview of Research .......................................................1
1.1 Introduction and Aim..........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Research Question ..............................................................................................................................2
1.3 Scope of Research ..............................................................................................................................3
1.4 Research Approach, Methodology and Structure of Thesis ...............................................................4
2 Literature Review............................................................................................8
2.1 Sponsorship ........................................................................................................................................8
2.2 Events and Event Sponsorship..........................................................................................................37
2.3 Brands and Brand Equity..................................................................................................................43
2.4 Perception, Learning and Moderating Factors..................................................................................47
2.5 How Does Event Sponsorship Affect Brand Equity? A Summary of Current Research...............59
3 Case Studies Freestyle.ch ...........................................................................66
3.1 Research Design and Methodology..................................................................................................66
3.2 Reason for Case Selection and Focus of Case Study........................................................................67
3.3 Freestyle.ch: Authenticity, Professionalism, Innovation ..................................................................67
3.4 Case Rivella: Experiencing the Cool Side of a Traditional Brand....................................................73
3.5 Case Chupa-Chups: Evoking Vivid Memories through Product Sampling......................................78
3.6 Results: Impact on Brand Equity......................................................................................................80
3.7 Discussion of Findings .....................................................................................................................82
3.8 Reliability and Limitations of the Research......................................................................................83
3.9 Conclusions and Next Steps .............................................................................................................84
4 Survey FIS Alpine World Ski Championships St. Moritz...........................85
4.1 Research Question and Hypotheses..................................................................................................85
4.2 Methodology and Operationalization of Variables...........................................................................89
4.3 Data Collection and Demographics ..................................................................................................92
4.4 Testing of Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................96
4.5 Regression Analysis .........................................................................................................................99
4.6 Discussion of Findings for Each Sponsor.......................................................................................100
4.7 Reliability and Limitations of the Research....................................................................................109
4.8 Conclusions and Next Steps ...........................................................................................................110
5 Designing the On-Site Brand Experience.................................................113
5.1 Overview of Design Techniques for Event Site Brand Presences ..................................................113
5.2 Congruence with Event ..................................................................................................................118
5.3 Relationship Forming .....................................................................................................................120
5.4 Audience Participation ...................................................................................................................122
5.5 Brand Display.................................................................................................................................125
5.6 Does a First-Best Sponsorship Execution Exist?............................................................................130
5.7 Cost implications ............................................................................................................................137
6 Influence of Selected Sponsorship Design Techniques on Brand Image
(Experiment)...........................................................................................................141
6.1 Research Model and Hypotheses....................................................................................................142
6.2 Research Design and Methodology................................................................................................153
6.3 Hypotheses Testing and Discussion ...............................................................................................170
6.4 Modeling the Influence of Perceived SponsorEvent Fit on Brand Image.....................................180
6.5 Limitations of the Research............................................................................................................186
6.6 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................187
7 Overall Discussion and Conclusions........................................................190
7.1 Overview and Discussion of Key Findings ....................................................................................190
7.2 Implications for Practitioners .........................................................................................................192
7.3 Future Research Directions.............................................................................................................200
References ...............................................................................................................xii
Interviews............................................................................................................xxviii
Appendices ...........................................................................................................xviii
A. Interview Guide Expert Interviews ........................................................................................................ xviii
B. Survey Instruments FIS Alpine Ski World Championships ......................................................................xix
C. Stimulus Material and Questionnaires Classroom Experiment ...............................................................xxiv
Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience v
Extensive Table of Contents
1 Introduction and Overview of Research .......................................................1
1.1 Introduction and Aim..........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Research Question ..............................................................................................................................2
1.3 Scope of Research ..............................................................................................................................3
1.4 Research Approach, Methodology and Structure of Thesis ...............................................................4
2 Literature Review............................................................................................8
2.1 Sponsorship ........................................................................................................................................8
2.1.1 History and Significance for Today.............................................................................................9
2.1.2 Review of Sponsorship Definitions...........................................................................................19
2.1.3 Advances in Sponsorship Research...........................................................................................24
2.1.4 Definition and Measurement of Sponsorship Objectives ..........................................................27
2.1.5 Measurement of Sponsorship Success.......................................................................................31
2.1.6 Sponsorship as a Means of Marketing Communication ............................................................32
2.1.7 Exploitation of Sponsorships.....................................................................................................33
2.2 Events and Event Sponsorship..........................................................................................................37
2.2.1 Events Staging of the Unusual................................................................................................37
2.2.2 Definition and Key Characteristics of Event Sponsorships.......................................................38
2.2.3 Audiences of Event Sponsorships .............................................................................................40
2.2.4 Role of the Media ......................................................................................................................42
2.3 Brands and Brand Equity..................................................................................................................43
2.3.1 What Is a Brand? .......................................................................................................................43
2.3.2 Customer-Based Brand Equity..................................................................................................45
2.4 Perception, Learning and Moderating Factors..................................................................................47
2.4.1 Perception..................................................................................................................................48
2.4.2 Cognitive Learning....................................................................................................................49
2.4.3 Schema and Congruence Theory...............................................................................................52
2.4.4 The Role of Consumer Involvement in Cognitive Learning .....................................................53
2.4.5 Mood States Influence on Encoding, Recall, and Attitude.......................................................57
2.4.6 Multi-Sensory Experiences .......................................................................................................57
2.4.7 Vivid Memories of Events: the Role of Episodic Memory .......................................................58
2.5 How Does Event Sponsorship Affect Brand Equity? A Summary of Current Research...............59
3 Case Studies Freestyle.ch ...........................................................................66
3.1 Research Design and Methodology..................................................................................................66
3.2 Reason for Case Selection and Focus of Case Study........................................................................67
3.3 Freestyle.ch: Authenticity, Professionalism, Innovation ..................................................................67
3.3.1 Facts and Figures.......................................................................................................................67
3.3.2 Sponsorship Environment at Freestyle.ch .................................................................................68
3.3.3 Sponsorship Structure................................................................................................................71
3.3.4 Sponsorship Effectiveness Tracking at Freestyle.ch .................................................................71
3.4 Rivella case: Experiencing the Cool Side of a Traditional Brand ....................................................73
3.4.2 The Rivella Brands Color Coding ..........................................................................................73
3.4.3 Rivellas Brand Equity ..............................................................................................................74
3.4.4 Brand Targets and Marketing Communication Activities .........................................................74
3.4.5 Rivellas On-Site Activities.......................................................................................................75
3.4.6 Excursion: The Case for Integrated Communication.................................................................77
3.5 Case Chupa-Chups: Evoking Vivid Memories through Product Sampling......................................78
3.5.2 Brand Equity, Brand Targets, and Marketing Activities ...........................................................78
3.5.3 Chupa-Chups On-Site Activities..............................................................................................79
3.6 Results: Impact on Brand Equity......................................................................................................80
3.6.1 Rivella .......................................................................................................................................81
3.6.2 Chupa-Chups .............................................................................................................................81
3.7 Discussion of Findings .....................................................................................................................82
3.8 Reliability and Limitations of the Research......................................................................................83
3.9 Conclusions and Next Steps .............................................................................................................84
4 Survey of FIS Alpine World Ski Championships St. Moritz.......................85
4.1 Research Question and Hypotheses..................................................................................................85
4.2 Methodology and Operationalization of Variables...........................................................................89
4.2.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................89
4.2.2 Measurements............................................................................................................................90
4.2.3 Questionnaire Design ................................................................................................................92
4.3 Data Collection and Demographics ..................................................................................................92
4.3.1 Data Collection..........................................................................................................................92
4.3.2 Demographics............................................................................................................................94
4.4 Testing of Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................96
4.5 Regression Analysis .........................................................................................................................99
4.6 Discussion of Findings for Each Sponsor.......................................................................................100
4.6.1 Audi .........................................................................................................................................100
4.6.2 Carlsberg .................................................................................................................................102
4.6.3 Milka .......................................................................................................................................104
4.6.4 Swisscom.................................................................................................................................105
4.6.5 Xbox........................................................................................................................................107
4.7 Reliability and Limitations of the Research....................................................................................109
4.8 Conclusions and Next Steps ...........................................................................................................110
5 Designing the On-Site Brand Experience.................................................113
5.1 Overview of Design Techniques for Event Site Brand Presences ..................................................113
5.1.1 Empirically Observed Techniques...........................................................................................114
5.1.2 Additional Techniques.............................................................................................................115
5.1.3 Introduction of Framework......................................................................................................116
5.2 Congruence with Event ..................................................................................................................118
5.2.1 Event Reference ......................................................................................................................118
5.2.2 Target Group Specificity .........................................................................................................119
5.3 Relationship Forming .....................................................................................................................120
5.3.1 Personal Interaction.................................................................................................................120
5.3.2 Obligation Forming .................................................................................................................122
5.4 Audience Participation ...................................................................................................................122
5.4.1 Audience Participation in Activity ..........................................................................................122
5.4.2 Product Usage..........................................................................................................................124
5.5 Brand Display.................................................................................................................................125
5.5.1 Semiotic Engineering ..............................................................................................................125
5.5.2 Integration ...............................................................................................................................126
5.5.3 Multi-Sensory Perception........................................................................................................127
5.5.4 Dramaturgy..............................................................................................................................129
5.6 Does a First-Best Sponsorship Execution Exist?............................................................................130
5.6.1 Event Site Brand Experience...................................................................................................130
5.6.2 Enhancement of Sponsor-Event Fit .........................................................................................133
5.6.3 Situational Factors...................................................................................................................134
5.6.4 Sponsorship Execution Matrix ................................................................................................136
5.7 Cost implications ............................................................................................................................137
5.7.1 Leveraging Existing Materials.................................................................................................138
5.7.2 Creativity and Focusing...........................................................................................................139
6 Influence of Selected Sponsorship Design Techniques on Brand Image
(Experiment)...........................................................................................................141
6.1 Research Model and Hypotheses....................................................................................................142
6.1.1 Conceptual Model ...................................................................................................................143
6.1.2 Development of Hypotheses....................................................................................................147
6.2 Research Design and Methodology................................................................................................153
6.2.1 Experimental Set-Up ...............................................................................................................153
6.2.2 Operationalization of Independent Variables ..........................................................................157
6.2.3 Data Collection Procedure.......................................................................................................159
Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience vii
6.2.4 Evaluation of Measurement Scales..........................................................................................162
6.3 Hypotheses Testing and Discussion ...............................................................................................170
6.3.1 Influence of Brand Experience Level on Brand Attributes, Vividness, and Attitude
as Well as on SponsorEvent Fit (H
1a
-
d
)..................................................................................171
6.3.2 Influence of Enhancing SponsorEvent Fit on Perceived SponsorEvent Fit (H
2
).................173
6.3.3 Influence of Perceived SponsorEvent Fit on Brand Attributes,
Vividness, and Attitude (H
3ac
) ................................................................................................174
6.3.4 Moderating Effects of Event Involvement and Product Involvement (H
45
) ...........................177
6.4 Modeling the Influence of Perceived SponsorEvent Fit on Brand Image.....................................180
6.4.1 Model Specification and Hypotheses ......................................................................................180
6.4.2 Hypotheses Testing and Overall Model Fit .............................................................................182
6.4.3 Discussion ...............................................................................................................................184
6.5 Limitations of the Research............................................................................................................186
6.6 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................187
7 Overall Discussion and Conclusions........................................................190
7.1 Overview and Discussion of Key Findings ....................................................................................190
7.2 Implications for Practitioners .........................................................................................................192
7.2.1 Implications for Sponsorship Managers ..................................................................................192
7.2.2 Implications for the Sponsorship Industry...............................................................................195
7.3 Future Research Directions.............................................................................................................200
References ...............................................................................................................xii
Interviews............................................................................................................xxviii
Appendices ...........................................................................................................xviii
A. Interview Guide, Expert Interviews ....................................................................................................... xviii
B. Survey Instruments FIS Alpine Ski World Championships ......................................................................xix
Questionnaire Group 1............................................................................................................................xix
Questionnaire Group 2............................................................................................................................xxi
Questionnaire Group 3 (Audi example)............................................................................................... xxiii
C. Stimulus Material and Questionnaires Classroom Experiment ...............................................................xxiv
Scenarios (Pringles example)................................................................................................................xxiv
Comparison of illustrations for different brands (scenario 2 example)...............................................xxxvi
Questionnaire Product Involvement (Potato Chips Example) ...........................................................xxxvii
Questionnaire Event Involvement.......................................................................................................xxxix
Questionnaire Event Attributes.................................................................................................................xl
Questionnaire Sponsor Evaluation (Pringles Example) ...........................................................................xli
Questionnaire Demographics.................................................................................................................xliv

List of Figures
Figure 1: Structure of this dissertation. ....................................................................................................................7
Figure 2: Worldwide sponsorship rights expenditure 1987-2005E. Source: SRI 2001..........................................14
Figure 3: Sponsorship markets and growth rates by region 1998-2000. Source: SRI 2001...................................15
Figure 4: Breakdown of sponsorship rights expenditure (percent) by sector. Source: SRI 2001...........................16
Figure 5: Forces behind sponsorship growth. Source: own illustration, partly based on Meenaghan 1983...........17
Figure 6: Overview and critical review of sponsorship definitions........................................................................22
Figure 7: Corporate objectives in sponsorship. Source: IEG/Performance-Research 2001; 2002.........................31
Figure 8: Dimensions of sponsorship exploitation. ................................................................................................34
Figure 9: Classification of event audiences (sponsorship target groups). ..............................................................41
Figure 10: Customer-based brand equity. Source: adapted after Aaker 1991 and Keller 1993. ............................46
Figure 11: A model of consumer information processing. Source: based on Greenwald and Leavitt 1984 ..........51
Figure 12: Persuasion routes of factual and emotional messages with low-involvement consumers.
Source: Kroeber-Riel and Weinberg 1999, p. 596 ff. ..............................................................................56
Figure 13: Persuasion routes of factual and emotional messages with high-involvement consumers.
Source: Kroeber-Riel/Weinberg 1999, p. 596 ff. .....................................................................................56
Figure 14: Selected factors influencing audience-based brand equity. ..................................................................60
Figure 15: Characteristics of Freestyle.ch as a sponsorship platform. ...................................................................69
Figure 16: Sponsorship structure at Freestyle.ch. Source: Interview with Erwin Flury (2002). ............................71
Figure 17: Measurements of audience-based brand equity at Freestyle.ch. ...........................................................72
Figure 18: Facts and figures on Rivellas on-site booth. Source: Interview with Catrin Wetzel (2002)................76
Figure 19: Rivella's integration of advertising and event-site sponsorship. Source: Rivella .................................78
Figure 20: Basic input-output model for on-site brand experience. Source: based on Kotler and
Bliemel 2001, p. 324.............................................................................................................................87
Figure 21: Overview of the research design deployed at FIS Alpine World Ski Championships
St. Moritz 2003. ....................................................................................................................................89
Figure 22: Sponsors on site-activities at FIS Alpine World Ski Championships St. Moritz 2003........................90
Figure 23: Demographic profiles of audience group 3 (direct contact) for individual sponsors. ...........................95
Figure 24: Audis brand scores among different spectator groups.......................................................................101
Figure 25: Carlsbergs brand scores among different spectator groups. ..............................................................102
Figure 26: Milkas brand scores among different spectator groups. ....................................................................105
Figure 27: Swisscoms brand scores among different spectator groups...............................................................107
Figure 28: Xboxs brand scores among different spectator groups. .....................................................................108
Figure 29: Framework for event site execution....................................................................................................117
Figure 30: Determinants of brand experience. .....................................................................................................131
Figure 31: The on-site brand experience pyramid................................................................................................132
Figure 32: Matrix combining brand experience and enhancement of fit..............................................................137
Figure 33: Conceptual model of relationships between sponsorship execution techniques and selected
elements of brand image. ....................................................................................................................143
Figure 34: Scenarios for the independent variables. ............................................................................................158
Figure 35: Running-order of classroom experiment. ...........................................................................................160
Figure 36: Proposed causal model of how sponsorevent fit influences image transfer......................................182
Figure 37: Revised model with observed relationships among product and event involvement,
sponsorevent fit, and selected elements of brand image. ..................................................................183
Figure 38: Overview of the main findings of this dissertation. ............................................................................192
Figure 39: Sponsorship planning and execution process. ....................................................................................197

List of Tables
Table 1: Streams of sponsorship research and main contributing authors. Source: based on Cornwell and
Maignan 1998. .........................................................................................................................................25
Table 2: Time series of audience-based brand equity of selected sponsors. Source: Venetz 1999; 2000; 2001;
2002 .........................................................................................................................................................81
Table 3: Demographics of audience groups. ..........................................................................................................94
Table 4: Frequency of brand use among audience group 3. ...................................................................................95
Table 5: Awareness levels of sponsor brands among different spectator groups. ..................................................96
Table 6: Scores on image dimensions of sponsor brands among different spectator groups. ................................97
Table 7: ANOVA table for individual sponsors.....................................................................................................98
Table 8: Standard deviations of individual groups.................................................................................................99
Table 9: Regression analysis of potential predictors for unaided sponsorship awareness. ..................................100
Table 10: Potential factors influencing the impact of event site sponsorship execution. .....................................112
Table 11: Empirically observed techniques for the design of event site brand presences....................................115
Table 12: Brand strength of selected snacks/sweets brand in percent relative to the strongest brand in
Switzerland. Source: AY&R 2003.........................................................................................................156
Table 13: Clusters with brand/scenario combinations..........................................................................................159
Table 14: Sample sizes for each brand scenario combination..............................................................................161
Table 15: Demographics of participants in classroom experiment. .....................................................................161
Table 16: Evaluation of study measures: stages and criteria deployed. ...............................................................162
Table 17: Summary of measurement instruments. ...............................................................................................163
Table 18: Evaluation of product involvement scale. ............................................................................................164
Table 19: Evaluation of event involvement scale. ...............................................................................................165
Table 20: Evaluation of brand attitude scale. .......................................................................................................165
Table 21: Evaluation of brand vividness scale. ....................................................................................................166
Table 22: Attribute scores for Street Parade. .......................................................................................................167
Table 23: Table of variance for event attributes...................................................................................................168
Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience ix
Table 24: Rotated component matrix for event attributes. ...................................................................................168
Table 25: Assessment and scores of event attributes retained for Street Parade. .................................................169
Table 26: Evaluation of SponsorEvent Fit scale. ...............................................................................................170
Table 27: Summary of research hypotheses.........................................................................................................171
Table 28: Mean scores for brand image and sponsorevent fit depending on the level of brand experience. .....171
Table 29: ANOVA table for constructs depending on the level of brand experience. .........................................172
Table 30: Mean scores for sponsorevent fit depending on the factor enhancement of sponsor event fit. ..........173
Table 31: ANOVA-table for sponsorevent fit depending on the factor enhancement of sponsorevent fit.......174
Table 32: Mean scores and t-tests for brand image depending on sponsorevent fit. ..........................................175
Table 33: Correlations between perceived sponsorevent fit and elements of brand image. ...............................176
Table 34: Mean involvement scores for product categories and Street Parade. ...................................................177
Table 35: ANCOVA results of product involvement for sponsorship execution and sponsor-event fit. .............178
Table 36: ANCOVA results of event involvement for sponsorship execution and brand vividness....................178
Table 37: ANCOVA results of product involvement for sponsorship execution and brand image. ....................179
Table 38: Comparison of models with regard to goodness-of-fit statistics. .........................................................183
Table 39: Results of hypotheses testing (standardized regression weights and p-levels).....................................184
Abbreviations

AGFI adjusted goodness of fit index
ANCOVA analysis of covariance
ANOVA analysis of variance
CAGR compound annual growth rate
CAGR E estimated compound annual growth rate
cf. confer; compare
CRM cause-related marketing
e.g. exempli gratui, for example
etc. et cetera; and so forth
f. following page
ff. following pages
FIFA International Football Association
GFI goodness of fit index
i.e. id est; it is
IOC International Olympic Committee
p. page
pp. pages
POS point of sale
RMR root mean square residual
ROI return on investment
UCI Union Cycliste Internationale; International Cycling Association

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience 1

1 Introduction and Overview of Research
1.1 Introduction and Aim
In a fiercely competitive world strong brands have become a major source of
competitive advantage. Brands help companies to differentiate themselves from
competitors, to justify a price premium, and to fend off potential market entrants.
Consequently, companies with strong brands consistently earn significantly higher
returns on investments than their industry counterparts. A recent study using the PIMS
database shows that brand leaders in a specific category have an average of 3050
percent higher ROIs than the number two brands (Morgan 1999, p. 11).
To strengthen their brands, companies today spend significant amounts on marketing.
In some markets, such as consumer goods, marketing spend amounts to some 40
percent of turnover (e.g., Red Bull: 35 percent; Economist 2002). While the lions
share of this amount flows into distribution and traditional above-the-line
advertising (i.e., electronic and print mass-media advertising, billboards), companies
increasingly deploy alternative channels to communicate to their customers and to
build and shape their brands. Most companies today use direct marketing (often in
combination with CRM), and interactive media such as the Internet. Among these non-
traditional channels, sponsorship has emerged as a very popular alternative. Global
expenditure on sponsorship rights has increased by an average of 12.4 percent per year
over the last decade, reaching USD 26 billion in 2001 (SRI 2001). Germany, Europes
largest market, accounted for DM 4 billion (USD 2.4 billion) in 1998 (Thomas 1999,
p. 10).
Paradoxically, while sponsorship engagements are among companies most publicly
visible and discussed marketing communications activities, little research has so far
been conducted on the subject from a branding perspective (cf. Cornwell and Maignan
1998). Also, while most marketing departments today are proud of their brand
strategies and their professional standards and best practice procedures, sponsorship is
often performed more as an art than as a science or worse, is determined by the
personal preferences of the CEO.
Even though many sponsorship engagements these days show a good fit with
companies brand strategies, it appears that sponsors have difficulty fully capturing the
Introduction and Overview of Research 2
potential value of their engagements. Creating brand equity through sponsorship
requires two integrated and sequential steps. The first is the easy one: getting access to
sponsorship rights. The second is where many companies fail: leveraging their
sponsorship engagement through creative and consistent implementation both directly
(e.g., at the site of an event) and indirectly, through other communication channels.
This thesis discusses how targeted on-site implementation of event sponsorships can
positively influence audience-based brand equity the return on the sponsorship
investment.
1.2 Research Question
This research was inspired by several experiences the author had at sponsored sports
events, both as a visitor and as a member of a number of organizing committees. Why
was it that some sponsors seemed to have an omni-presence in visitors minds, while
others were hardly remembered? And, more strikingly, why are smaller sponsors often
better recalled than the main sponsors? If it is not the amount of money paid for an
events sponsorship rights and thus the amount of signage at the event site that
determines the presence of a sponsor within visitors minds then, what is it?
A small number of publications have proposed partial explanations of what makes
sponsorship work, such as perceived brand-event fit, duration of event attendance, or
the level of event involvement of spectators. Strikingly, these assumed factors of
sponsorship success are to a large degree outside the direct sphere of influence of
sponsors (as they are mostly dependent on the attitudes and behavior of the event
audience). In other words, the main body of the existing literature implicitly
suggests that sponsors can do little to influence the success of their sponsorships.
If this suggested lack of control were true, sponsorship would hardly be suitable as an
effective brand-building instrument. Further, the majority of research on sponsorship
deals with sponsorship strategy (i.e., which properties to sponsor). This contrasts
sharply with sponsorship practice, where considerable resources are allocated to
sponsorship execution (i.e., getting the most out of existing sponsorship engagements).
Apparently, there is a major knowledge gap as to whether and how the execution of
sponsorships increases the return on investment in sponsorship rights.

This leads to the research question:
Q: At sponsored events, how can a sponsor influence the build-up of audience-based
brand equity through on-site sponsorship implementation?
Lutz (1991), the former editor of the Journal of Consumer Research, called for more
research on substantive consumer behavior issues that are important to someone other
than the researchers themselves. Event organizers increasingly invite sponsors to help
them shape and enrich visitors event experience. Sponsors, therefore, need a frame of
reference for how to best deploy this design freedom. As the many interviews
conducted in preparation for this piece of research have shown, the question of how to
best implement their sponsorships at the site of the event is of immense importance to
marketers. A thorough review of the existing literature indicated that no published
scientific empirical or theoretical work was available to answer this question. Closing
this knowledge gap may, therefore, be deemed useful to both researchers and
practitioners (cf. Vradarajan 1996, p. 1-2).
1.3 Scope of Research
This thesis focuses on selected aspects of sponsorship. First, the subject is approached
from a branding perspective. Sponsors may also have other goals for their sponsorship,
such as entertaining guests or portraying themselves as good corporate citizens. In
essence, however, sponsorship activities are a form of marketing communication
(e.g., Meenaghan 1983; Drees 1989) and as such will affect the publics perception of
the sponsors brand.
Second, this thesis concentrates on event sponsorship. While, as will be shown in this
thesis, the success of event sponsorships depends to a significant extent on the direct
contact between the sponsor and the audience, different factors may be more
important for other forms of sponsorships (e.g., the sponsorship of a cause, or
broadcast sponsorship).
Third, the research is restricted to the event site audience of a sponsored event. This
means that branding effects on a larger audience that may participate in an event via
mass media are not considered. Existing research mostly ignores the on-site audience
and focuses solely on the TV audiences. However, on-site audiences can be quite
substantial in size (e.g., 5 million at the Deutschland Tour of Cycling, 600,000 at the
US Tennis Open), and many small and medium-sized events are not televised.
1.4 Research Approach, Methodology and Structure of Thesis
Research approach
Due to the absence of any research on this specific aspect of sponsorship, the present
work is, to a large extent, an explorative dissertation. Imagine an explorer landing on
an unknown island. The explorer would typically collect and describe the things he
sees on the island, such as plants or animals (collecting and describing empirical data).
The explorer may also draw a map of the uncharted territory he has discovered (i.e.,
structuring the data in a useful way). This will allow the next person coming to that
island to more easily find his or her way around. Up to this point, the work of the
explorer is mainly descriptive, answering the question What? However, a curious
mind is seldom satisfied with knowing the What, but aims to investigate why
things are the way they are. Thus, the researcher seeks causal relationships between
the empirical phenomena observed (cf. Yin 1994).
During the course of writing the present work, the author has, at times, felt like this
explorer. The main difference is that the island he walked around (i.e., event
sponsorship) is not unknown. In fact it is heavily populated, but no researcher so far
has bothered to systematically draw a map of it or attempted to explain why things are
the way they are. This, therefore, leads to the approach of this dissertation: exploring a
new field of research, structuring it in a meaningful way with a view to determine
causal relationships.
The research question as stated above comprises three distinct sub-questions:
1. What techniques can sponsors deploy to design their event-site presence?
2. What is the influence of these techniques on the build-up of audience-based brand
equity?
a) Is there a causal relationship at all?
b) How much can brand equity be influenced by the event-site execution of a
sponsorship?
3. How do the individual techniques influence the build up of audience-based brand
equity?

Methodologies
Considering the three-step research approach of exploring, structuring and determining
causal relationships, as well as the three research questions, a mix of research
methodologies is indicated to allow choosing the best-fitting methodology for each
research step.
Answers to question 1, which asks, What techniques exist to influence audience-
based brand equity? were found mainly through the use of two case studies at a
popular Swiss youth sports event.
Research question 2a (Is there a causal relationship at all?) was approached using a
mix of quantitative and qualitative methods. Mainly, it consisted of a quasi-experiment
in the field (Stier 1999, p. 244) which was administered by means of a survey among
different audience groups at the FIS Alpine World Championships 2003. Additional
qualitative data was collected by means of interviews and systematic observation. The
qualitative data was deployed to aid in the interpretation of the survey results.
Answers to the question of how brand equity is influenced by the on-site execution of
a sponsorship (question 3) were first developed on a theoretical basis. The key
concepts were then empirically tested, yielding also (partial) answers to the question of
how large the effects on brand equity are (question 2b). The testing of causal
relationships between selected on-site execution design techniques and brand equity
required a high degree of control and therefore called for a classic experiment (e.g.,
Yin 1994, p. 6; Stier 1999, p. 219). In the last phase of this dissertation a classroom
experiment was therefore conducted with a sufficiently large sample of bachelor
students of the University of St. Gallen.
The research to date on other aspects of sponsorship has produced a host of
methodological insights which facilitated the study design of the present work. The
main academic debate circles around the question whether surveys or experiments are
the best means for researching cause relationship effects. Surveys have the advantage
that they assess real-life situations. Skewed results in favor of the researchers
hypotheses due to a biased study design can be largely ruled out. On the other hand,
Pham (1991) rejects survey methods entirely due to their inability to discern the
confounding effects of advertising and other promotional effects. Bennet (1999) and
others argue, however, that advertising effects can be reasonably controlled. This
holds, especially, for surveys which are only concerned with short-term effects. This
dissertation attempts to cope with these conflicting views through a research approach
which explores the research question through both survey and experimental
approaches.
This dissertation consists of three largely independent empirical studies, with regard to
the research objects (i.e., the events and sponsors concerned) and the methodologies
deployed. It applies source and methodology triangulations (Locke 2001). One main
benefit of this approach is that it leads to increased reliability of the findings (Stake
1995).
Structure of Dissertation
This dissertation was outlined and written as a series of scientific papers in the sense
that the individual chapters could be read and fully understood on their own (cross-
references between chapters were added to help interested readers find additional
information on a topic and to generally ease navigation through this thesis). At the
same time, the individual parts build on each other, steadily developing the
understanding of the core constructs and mechanisms. The structure of the present
work follows the thread of the three research questions (see Figure 1).
After a thorough review of the existing literature on the main constructs of
sponsorship, events, brand equity and cognitive learning (chapter 2), two empirical
sections discuss how event-site sponsorships can be executed (chapter 3) and whether
exposure to sponsors event-site activities have an impact audience-based brand equity
at all (chapter 4).
Chapter 5 combines the findings of the two empirical sections and research on event
marketing with the theoretical background of cognitive theory as discussed in the
literature review. A framework is presented which allows discussion of individual
techniques used to design event-site sponsorship executions.
The influence of two selected key design techniques on the perception of sponsoring
brands is analyzed in a classroom experiment (chapter 6). The experiment also allows
development of a model of how these techniques of on-site sponsorship execution
influence some key precursor variables and how these causal relationships are affected
by moderating variables.

Chapter 7, the concluding chapter, presents an overview of the key findings of this
dissertation and discusses their implications for practitioners.
Review of literature
Chapter 2
Event-site sponsorship execution
at Freestyle.ch
empirical (qualitative)
Chapter 3
Brand equity at the World Ski
Championships St. Moritz
empirical (quantitative & qualitative)
Chapter 4
Discussion of design techniques determining
the event-site brand experience
conceptual
Chapter 5
Brand equity impact of
selected instruments (experiment)
empirical (quantitative)
Chapter 6
Conclusion
Chapter 7)
Introduction and overview
of research
Chapter 1

Figure 1: Structure of this dissertation.

2 Literature Review
Worldwide sponsorship expenditure grew from USD 2 billion in 1986 to 26 billion in
2001. Since its early days, sponsorship has evolved from surreptitious advertising to
a major element of the marketing communication mix, with the main goal of
building brand equity. Sponsorship of events, defined as unique and artificially
created happenings, may target several audiences, mainly on-site and mediated
audiences such as TV viewers. Key factors influencing the success of event
sponsorships are the perceived sponsorevent fit and the event-site execution of the
sponsorship. The creation of brand equity through ievent sponsorship can be
explained by cognitive learning theory.
Before the principal research question can be addressed, its main elements,
sponsorship, events, and brand-equity must be introduced and clearly defined. This
chapter summarizes the main advances reported in previous research on these topics
culled from an extensive literature review.
Because an in-depth understanding of the characteristics of event sponsorship is the
main aim of this thesis, the subject (in general and event-specific) will be looked at
from various angles, ranging from an extensive review of definitions to an anecdotal
history of sponsorship. The heavily researched topic brand equity will be discussed
at a level appropriate to the needs of this study. The same is true for the construct
event, which will be looked at from a sociological perspective. As a basis for the
empirical and conceptual work in chapters 11 a number of key psychological
constructs are introduced which help explaining how consumers learn about brands at
sponsored events. At the end of this chapter the elements will be combined in a
framework which summarizes the current view of the research community on how and
why event sponsorship affects brand equity.
2.1 Sponsorship
Sponsorship is a relatively new medium in the communications mix of companies.
This section provides a comprehensive overview of the topic. Starting with the
exploration of sponsorships roots in ancient Rome, a review of historical and current
definitions is provided. Later, the wide range of sponsorship goals is discussed, with a
focus on the role of sponsorship as a marketing communications instrument. This
Literature Review 9

section is concluded with an overview of the advances in and different areas of
sponsorship research over the last two decades.
2.1.1 History and Significance for Today
History
This section presents a brief overview of the history of sponsorship. Given the research
purpose of this thesis, it appears useful to put an emphasis on why and how
sponsorship developed, rather than on the exact determination of when. An anecdotal
approach to the history was therefore chosen, looking at a few selected milestones in-
depth, rather than approaching the task strictly chronologically.
The Roots of Sponsorship
Many authors credit the origin of sponsorship to Gaius Clinius Maecenas (e.g., Bruhn
1986; Drees 1989; Dischinger 1992), who around 70 BC lived in Rome as a friend and
advisor to Cesar Augustus. His enormous fortune allowed him to invite some of the
most renowned poets of the time, among them Horacius and Virgil, to his estates and
to pay for their living expenses. The term maecenas is today used synonymously with
patronage, and stands for the selfless, purely altruistic support of causes such as the
arts, research or community matters (for a distinction between sponsorship and
patronage, see also section 2.1.2). While Maecenas was hardly the first to engage in
such an activity, his case is well documented (e.g., Realencyclopdie 1991) and
therefore a welcome object of analysis. If we consider Samuel Johnsons dictum that,
to act from pure benevolence is not possible for finite beings. Human benevolence is
mingled with vanity, interest or some other motive (quoted after Meenaghan 1983, p.
17), it can be argued that Maecenas support was a de facto sponsorship of the arts.
After all: Maecenas support was well received by the poets, who in return thankfully
included Cesar Augustus and himself in their oeuvres. As a result, both August and
Maecenas (the sponsors) as well as the poets (the sponsees) were able to extend their
recognition, fame and esteem among the people of the Roman Empire. Put in todays
marketing lingo, they were all able to increase their brand equity.
Olympic Sponsorship
To study the evolution of modern day (event) sponsorship, it may be revealing to
review the history of the worlds single, most-coveted sponsorship property: the
Olympic Games (based on IOC 2002). Commercial association of companies with the
Olympic Movement started at the very first games, which were held in Athens in 1898.
While a private benefactor, George Averoff, financed the major expense of
refurbishing the Olympic stadium, companies provided revenues by advertising in the
souvenir program (one of the first advertisers, Kodak, is a current member of the
Olympic Partner Program (TOP)). In 1924 (Paris), venue advertising signage was
introduced for the first and last time in Olympic history. Today, a fair share of the
commercial value of the marketing rights of the Olympics may be attributed to their
clean commercial-free look. In 1952 (Helsinki), the first sponsorship rights contracts
were issued. Subsequently, the number of sponsorships associated with the Olympics
exploded, peaking at 396 sponsors and official licensees in 1980 (Lake Placid). That
year, the IOC adopted a less is more policy and started the already-mentioned TOP
program, which bundles the exclusive worldwide marketing rights to both Winter and
Summer Games, and limits the marketing activities of the local organizing
committees. While the number of local sponsors and licensees (122 at the last Winter
Games in Salt Lake City 2002) has since dropped by two thirds, the total funds
provided by them have increased nearly 30-fold, from USD 32 million in 1980 to USD
865 million in 2002 after accounting for inflation
1
, todays average local Olympic
sponsor contributes roughly 40 times more than two decades ago.
Endorsement and the Fight for Clean Athletes
The Olympics were also the stage for the first widely noticed sponsorship of an athlete
(endorsement, see section 2.1.2). When Jesse Owens, a track and field athlete from the
United States, won four Gold Medals at the 1936 Olympic Summer Games in Munich,
he was wearing shoes manufactured by a German cobbler by the name of Adi Dassler.
Adi Dassler had realized early on that not only were top athletes reliable and insightful
testers of his footwear, but that they also had a powerful impact on shoe sales.
However, for a long time he believed in word-of-mouth promotion rather than in
endorsement advertising. This self-imposed restriction may well have contributed to
Adidas defeat in the fight against marketing powerhouse Nike.
While sponsors and athletes grew more expansive in the number and form of
sponsorship deals they entered, not everybody involved tolerated the increasing
commercialism. One particularly resistant party was the International Olympic
Committee, whose statues excluded professional (i.e., paid) athletes from competing in

1
118% according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (UDL 2003)
Literature Review 11

its quadrennial Olympic Games. The IOCs fight against commercialism first climaxed
in 1972, when it banned dominant Austrian downhill ski racer Karl Schranz from
competing in the Winter Olympics in Sapporo. While many athletes were rumored to
have accepted money from sponsors, the famous ski racer had done so most openly
(the IOC based its decision on a picture which showed Schranz playing soccer sporting
the logo of a coffee brand on his jersey). The fans reacted with indifference if not
support vis--vis sponsorship. More than 100,000 supporters welcomed Schranz on his
return to Vienna, and infuriated fans set afire the apartment of the president of
Austrias National Olympic Committee. 16 years later, the IOC officially reinstated
Schranz in a small ceremony, giving him a symbolic medal as a participant in the 1972
Winter Games in Sapporo (based on Suttner 1998, p. 30, Clarey 2001, p. 7).
Sponsorship and the Arts
Examples of cultural sponsorship can be found as far back as the 1950s. Rowohlt, the
German publisher, allowed sponsors to place advertisements in its popular RoRoRo
paperback book series. In their advertisements, sponsors pointed out how, thanks to
their support, the books were available to more people at lower cost (Dischinger 1992,
p. 90). While corporate giving (as either patronage or sponsorship) has a long tradition
in the Anglo-Saxon world, cultural sponsorship only became a mainstream
phenomenon throughout Europe in the early 1980s. The need for cultural institutions
to look for funding sources beyond the state coincided with the demand of companies
to advertise to target groups which were elusive or hard to reach through their
traditional advertising and sponsorship activities. Sponsorship of the popular arts,
especially music, is now a common practice and widely accepted among the target
groups. The intrusive character of commercial sponsorship is more critically regarded
in the more sophisticated and elitist arts. (cf. Hofmann 2002).
Sponsors Get Creative
A large share of the brand-building value of sponsorships lies in the mental link which
consumer make between the sponsor and the sponsored entity (to be discussed in detail
in section 2.5). It was only a matter of time until companies that were not sponsors
would start to associate themselves with events sponsored by other companies often
their fiercest competitors. This practice, called ambush or parasitic marketing, made
its first appearance on a large scale at the 1984 Olympics, when among others film
manufacturer Kodak tried to ambush Fujis sponsorship of the Summer Games. While
Fuji was a worldwide sponsor of the Olympics, its competitor, Kodak, became
sponsor of ABC televisions broadcasts of the games and the official film supplier
to the U.S. track team at a much lower cost. Through these activities, Kodak was
widely perceived as a sponsor of the Olympics in the key United States market
(Meenaghan 1996). Ambush marketing has become a major threat to the investments
of corporate sponsors. As a consequence, organizations such as the International
Olympic Committee IOC and FIFA (the World football governing body) have
declared ambush marketing their enemy number one (IOC 2002, p. 7.2).
Along with the growth of sponsorship came a new phenomenon. Sponsors were no
longer satisfied with putting up billboards and paying the bills of the events that they
sponsored. Instead of standing at the sidelines, they wanted to be center-stage. So, they
started their own, sponsor-owned events. The Adidas Streetball Challenge is one of
many examples of large sponsors shaping events to fully match their communication
needs. In 1992, Adidas tested what it calls an urban culture program, a series of
basketball competitions played in public squares in the centers of large cities, first
across Europe, and later across the World. In 1997, half a million players participated
in the various events of the Adidas Streetball Challenge. The World finals in Milan
attracted teams from 30 countries. Adidas event series was so successful that it
attracted other sponsors, including Sony, Sprite and MTV, and was covered by
mainstream TV and other media. (based on N.N. 1994, p. 43; Aaker and
Joachimsthaler 2000, p. 190 ff.)
TV program sponsorship, in use since the very beginning of TV in the United States
and introduced in European markets after legislative changes in the 80s and 90s
(Meenaghan 1998), can be regarded as a form of advertising rather than
straightforward sponsorship, because in most cases there is no deeper associative link
between the sponsor and the program. However, in 1998 a new form of program
sponsorship emerged with the launch of the American teen TV drama Dawsons
Creek which collaborated closely with J. Crew, the clothing company. It was the first
big-ticket TV show which combined sponsorship, product placement, and
endorsement in a large-scale and orchestrated manner. The power of this new, fully
integrated sponsorship execution was aptly described by one of brandings most
eloquent critics, Anne Klein (2000, p. 42):

Not only did the characters of Dawsons Creek all wear J. Crew
clothes, not only did the windswept, nautical set make them look as if
they had stepped off the pages of a J. Crew catalog, and not only did the
characters spout dialog like he looks like he stepped out of a J. Crew
catalog, but the cast was also featured on the cover of the J. Crew
catalog () looking as if they had just stepped off the set of a
Dawsons Creek episode.
It may be disputed whether business corporations have a venerable history of corporate
giving. Recently however, they have increasingly sought an outright commercial
return for monies previously donated through charity and philanthropy. The resulting
practice is called cause-related marketing and refers to situations where companies
derive benefits, either in sales or image terms, from their involvement with a particular
social or charitable cause (Meenaghan 1998, p. 10, based on Varadarajan and Menon
1988). American Express involvement with the restoration of New Yorks Statue of
Liberty provides an insightful example of how cause-related marketing works. The
sponsorship was designed as follows: Amex promised to donate one cent for each US-
based transaction and one dollar for each new card issued during the last quarter of the
year. Amex had three objectives for its involvement in the project: motivating Amex
card-holders to increase card usage, encouraging merchants to accept the card,
increasing its profile and deriving image benefit. During the period of the sponsorship,
card usage increased 2.8 percent, and greater acceptance by merchants was also
reported. Amex was, furthermore, perceived as a responsible, public-spirited and
patriotic company (Meenaghan 1998).
The Future
What is next? Current developments show that sponsorship is hardly slowing down.
Indeed, the proliferation of sponsorship has reached a stage of acceleration never seen
before. Today, anything and anybody is sponsored: from buildings to lifestyles from
causes to research (cf. Klein 2000). It appears that for many events commercial
sponsorship has become something like a quality label: if a happening does not receive
the support of sponsors, something must be wrong with it. Hoek (1999) argues that
because sponsorships ability to reach consumers at leisure is unchallenged, that
feature alone will lead to further strong growth in sponsorship expenditure. In line with
this view, one of the main growth areas has been the sponsorship of sports venues.
Companies such as FedEx, Philips, and American Airlines have all acquired long-term
naming rights for prime sports venues. The list is headed by energy provider Reliant.
The company paid USD 300 million for a 32-year NFL stadium sponsorship in Texas
(Bonham-Group 2003).
Sponsorship Growth in Figures
The global spread and development of sponsorship is reflected in double-digit annual
growth rates over the last decades. Why has this growth occurred? In the following
sections, an attempt is made to explain the phenomenon.
Worldwide Sponsorship Expenditure
Worldwide sponsorship expenditure has grown dramatically over the last 20 years and
in 2001 tipped the scale at USD 26 billion investment in sponsorship rights (SRI
2001). Since 1984, sponsorship rights expenditure has grown at the rate of 16 percent,
equaling roughly five times the growth of the worlds economies (Figure 2).
2
4.1
4.5
5.2
8.3
9.4
10.8
18.1
20.3
23.2
24.8
35
13.0
16.6
26.0
USD billion
1991 1993 1994 1996 1999 2001 2005E 1984 1989
16%
CAGR
19842001
CAGR E
20012005
1987 1990 1992 1995 1997 1998 2000
13%
15.1

Figure 2: Worldwide sponsorship rights expenditure 1987-2005E. Source: SRI 2001
It is important to note that these figures represent only the investments in
sponsorship rights, and do not include further expenditures which companies
undertake in connection with the exploitation of these rights (cf. Cornwell and
Maignan 1998, p. 1). It is widely estimated that, on average, companies spend an
additional amount of roughly 1.5 to 2 times their initial investment on the execution of

the sponsorship and on integrating it with their other communication activities such as
advertising and promotions (cf. Bruhn 1997, p. 49). This leads to a cautious estimate
of a total amount of nearly USD 40 billion of expenditure associated with sponsorship
in 2001.
The lions share of world sponsorship expenditure originates in the Americas with 43
percent of the total, followed by Europe with 31 percent (corresponding to the year
2000). A closer look at the development of these relative shares shows that the
Americas have only recently surpassed Europe. During the new economy boom,
Americas spending grew at a much faster rate than that of recession-plagued Europe
(Figure 3). With the further development of emerging markets, mainly in Asia, future
sponsorship expenditure growth is likely to come from those areas, while growth rates
in the Americas and Europe will depend on to the economic recovery in these regions
(Meenaghan 1998, p. 4 f.).
7,697
9,100
10,540
8,310
7,778
4,245
4,660
5,397
955
7,413
1,075
1,090
1998 1999 2000
USD million
Americas
Europe
Asia
ROW
CAGR
19982000
6.1%
12.8%
2.4%
17.0%

Figure 3: Sponsorship markets and growth rates by region 1998-2000. Source: SRI 2001
The vast majority of sponsorship investment (69 percent) goes to sports, reflecting
both the popularity of the sector as a leisure activity and the fans uncritical embracing
of commercial activities (see Figure 4). Of the 15 percent which goes to the arts, the
lions share is absorbed by sponsorships of popular music. While sponsorships of the
high arts (defined as, e.g., classical music, opera, theater, dance, literature and art
exhibitions) may provide access to carefully defined groups of people at the upper end
of the social classes, and corporate decision makers in particular, only popular music is
able to generate mass audiences similar to those of sports. Meenaghan (1998, p. 9)
notes that popular music, with its broad appeal to youth markets, its excitement and
imagery, is a mass-marketers dream. At 12 percent, broadcast or program
sponsorship is almost as popular as sponsorship of the arts. Sponsorship of other
proprieties, such as causes or NGOs, account for the remaining 4 percent.
69
15
12
4
Others
Broadcast
Arts
Sports

Figure 4: Breakdown of sponsorship rights expenditure (percent) by sector. Source: SRI 2001

Reasons for Sponsorship Growth
The powerful and continuing growth in sponsorship rights expenditure can be
attributed to a number of factors, both on the demand (sponsor) and supply (sponsee)
sides (Figure 5).

Demand Side
Sponsors
Reasons for
Sponsorship
Growth
Escalating cost of
advertising space
Increased competition
Fragmentation of
consumer target groups
Simultaneous decrease in
advertising efficiency
Advertising clutter
Consumer saturation
Advertising bans for certain
industries, e.g.,
Alcohol
Tobacco
Need of companies for
closer interaction with
(potential) customers
Supply Side
Sponsees
Government policy on
subsidies
Withdrawal of the public
sector from cultural and
sports activities
Increased need for funds
due to higher standards,
e.g.,
Higher safety
requirements
Professionalism en lieu of
volunteer work
Co-marketing opportunities
Wider reach (publicity)
Strengthening of sponsee
brand through co-branding

Figure 5: Forces behind sponsorship growth. Source: own illustration, partly based on Meenaghan 1983
Demand side factors
The main contributing factors on the sponsors side are the escalating cost of
advertising space along with a simultaneous decrease in advertising efficiency,
advertising bans for certain industries and the companies wish to interact more
directly with their customers.
Advertising costs have sky-rocketed over the last decades, mainly due to the larger
number of advertisers and increasingly fragmented media usage of target groups
(Levermann 1998, p. 18). At the same time, advertising efficiency has decreased.
This means that not only is it harder to reach (i.e., provide a brand stimulus to)
potential consumers, but that consumers do not respond to the advertisements as they
used to, as they are showing signs of numbness. The average consumer in Germany,
for instance, is estimated to be exposed to between 200 and 2,000 commercial
messages (depending on the source) a number that has literally exploded over the
last decades (Ernd 1993, p. 139; Meyer-Hentschel 1996, p. 12; Nickel 1997, p. 59).
Furthermore, media consumption has dramatically changed (Erber 2000, p. 51 f.).
Take the case of television. Morgan (1999, p. 14 f.) argues that, increasingly, the
medium is used not as a source of information, but merely as a relaxing device.
Advertisers, he argues are no longer in the communication business, they are in ()
the nuisance business (cf. Ernd 1993, p. 19). A regularly conducted survey by the
British Newspaper Advertising Bureau shows that adult evening TV viewers able to
correctly name a brand or product advertised in the show that they just watched
decreased from 34 percent in 1965 to 8 percent in 1990 (quoted after Morgan 1999, p.
17). It is therefore no surprise that marketers look for new ways of communicating to
their consumers, preferably in an environment in which they would react positively to
their messages, i.e., perceive, understand, elaborate, and remember them (Tomczak, et
al. 1995, p. 12).
Meenaghan (1983, p. 13) links the first phase of major sponsorship growth in the UK
to the banning of cigarette advertising in 1965 (and later alcoholic beverages).
Sponsorship was not only one of the few available mass communication channels for
manufacturers of self-destructive products (harmful or fatal to health) to link
themselves with socially desirable activities but it also improved the publics
perception of their corporate brands.
As the number of brands competing for attention in the market place has exploded in
the last two decades, marketers have realized that providing extensive information,
especially using media advertising, cannot duplicate the impact of customers personal
experience with a brand. A number of powerful brands, among them Swatch, Hugo
Boss, and The Body Shop, have succeeded in building a very loyal customer base
largely through the use of non-traditional media (Joachimsthaler and Aaker 1997, p.
14). Event sponsorships provide a fruitful base on which to build a branding
platform in which consumers can actively participate.
Supply side factors
In the hay days of the Thatcher administration, Meenaghan (1983, p. 13) noted that
in a climate of increased economic austerity government financial cutbacks in
marginal areas have created a vacuum which many larger companies have been
willing to fill. A slow but steady withdrawal of the public sector from cultural and
from sports activities has since been observed in other countries, too. This has not
only resulted in the need for events and cultural institutions to look to the private
sector for funding, but has also helped the proliferation of a pecunia non olet view of
the public in embracing many previously commercial-free areas by sponsors.
Not only do public sources of funds run dry, there is also increased demand for
additional funds. In todays heavily regulated and in some countries litigious

environment, the staging of an event is getting considerably more expensive. At the
same time, events have expanded the services they offer to participants and spectators.
At the Olympics, for instance, all athletes receive not only free accommodation and
food but also free air travel from their home countries to the event (IOC 2002). A
further cost driver can be identified in the crowding-out of volunteers by professionals
in many sport organizations such as governing bodies (e.g., FIFA, IOC, UCI) and
clubs.
Lately, the question of co-branding has started to occupy event organizers minds.
Partnering with strong sponsors enables events to significantly raise their profiles and
may help acquire additional sponsors (Interview with Erwin Flury, 2003). Also, in
many cases, sponsorships provide sponsees with access to sponsors communication
channels and customer bases, thereby multiplying their publicity reach.
2.1.2 Review of Sponsorship Definitions
As mentioned in the previous section, sponsorship has steadily developed over the past
decades and adopted various forms along the way. Consequently, historical definitions
of sponsorship (an overview of which is presented in Figure 6) must be seen as an
attempt by practitioners and researchers to adequately describe an empirical
phenomenon they were witnessing. As was just implied, it must be noted that it were
in fact practitioners who supplied not only the earliest, but also very adroit and useful
definitions. This may be a consequence of the fact that the sponsors and sponsees felt a
need to codify their activities, as they quickly pushed deeper and deeper into territory
which, up to then, was widely regarded as off-limits for commercial activities.
Year Author Definition Critical assessment
1971 UK Sports
Council
A gift or payment in return for some facility or
privilege which aims to provide publicity for
the donor. (quoted according to Meenaghan
1983, p. 8)
Too narrow
Gift is an inappropriate
term in combination with in
return
Publicity is not only aim
1972 Acumen
Marketing
Group
The provision of financial or material support
for some independent activity which is not
intrinsic to the furtherance of commercial
aims, but from which the supporting company
might reasonably expect to gain commercial
benefit. (quoted according to Meenaghan
1983, p. 8)
First time commercial
benefit was recognized as
general sponsorship aim
Independent activity and
not intrinsic are too limiting
1974 Royal
Philharmonic
Orchestra
Sponsorship is the donation or loan of
resources (people, money, materials, etc.)
by private individuals or organizations to
other individuals or organizations engaged
in the provision of those public goods and
services designed to improve the quality of
life. (quoted according to Meenaghan 1983,
p. 9)
Motives for sponsorship not
specified
Definition of donor and
recipient organizations too
narrow
1977 Waite (1) A commercial organization (sponsor)
provides resources for the benefit of a leisure
activity (sponsored).
(2) The sponsor does so with the expectation
of gaining some commercially valuable
benefit.
(3) The sponsored activity consents to the
sponsor company using a facility it has to
offer in exchange for the resources it
accordingly receives. (Waite 1979)
Leisure activity does not
account for other sponsees,
e.g., environmental causes
Sponsorship does not
always consist of a facility
to be used
1977 Simkins (1) A sponsor makes a contribution in cash
or in kind () to an activity which is in some
measure a leisure pursuit, either sport or
within the broad definition of the Arts.
(2) The sponsored activity does not form a
part of the main commercial function of the
sponsoring body ()
(3) The sponsor expects a return in terms of
publicity. (quoted according to Meenaghan
1983, p. 9)
Leisure pursuit excludes
other common forms of
sponsorship (see above)
Sponsorship may very well
form a part of the
commercial function
Publicity may not be the
only aim of sponsorship

1983 Meenaghan The provision of assistance either financial
or in kind to an activity by a commercial
organization for the purpose of achieving
commercial objectives.(Meenaghan 1983, p.
9)
Not only commercial
organizations can be
sponsors, e.g., non-profit
organizations, individuals
1985 Von Specht (1) The provision of money or in kind
assistance by a company (). The sponsee
is a person, group of persons or institutions
within the areas of sports or culture.
(2) The sponsor () receives previously
defined services in return. These services
() contribute directly or indirectly to the
marketing objectives of the company. The
support of the sponsee can only be regarded
as a by-product of the engagement.
(3) Sponsorship is a distinct marketing
instrument ()
2
(v.Specht 1984, p. 4)
Definition excludes other
common forms of
sponsorship (see above)
First author to define
sponsorship as a distinct
marketing instrument
1986 Bruhn Planning, organization, execution and
controlling of all activities which relate to the
provision of means by companies for persons
and institutions from the areas of sports,
culture and the social sector to attain
entrepreneurial marketing and
communication goals.
3
(Bruhn 1986, p. 3)
Process view not helpful
No specification of means
Sponsors and sponsees too
narrowly defined (see
above)
Fittingly defines goals as
serving marketing and
communication purposes
1987 Gardner/
Shuman
Investments in causes or events to support
corporate objectives (e.g., enhance company
image) or marketing objectives (e.g., increase
brand awareness), and are usually not made
through traditional media-buying channels.
(Gardner and Shuman 1987, p. 11)
Sponsor not and sponsee
too narrowly defined
Acknowledges that
sponsorship objectives may
be outside the marketing
realm

2
Translated from original German version by the author.
3
Dito.
1989 Drees The provision of money, in-kind or services
by the sponsor to a selected sponsee with
the aim of utilizing this engagement with its
defined counter-services by the sponsee for
defined, mostly communicative goals.
4

(Drees 1989, p. 16)
Broad definition makes it
suitable for any form of
sponsorship
Does not provide definitions
of the sponsor and sponsee
1991 Meenaghan Sponsorship is an investment, in cash or
kind, in an activity, in return for access to the
exploitable commercial potential associated
with that activity (Meenaghan 1991a, p. 36)
First modern-day definition
Broad definition makes it
suitable for many forms of
sponsorship
Stresses commercial
exploitation
1999 International
Events
Group (IEG)
A cash and/or in-kind fee paid to a property
(typically a sports, entertainment, non-profit
event or organization) in return for access to
the exploitable commercial potential
associated with that property. (quoted
according to Roy 2000, p. 19)
Most widely used definition
by practitioners
Draws heavily on
Meenaghans definition
Figure 6: Overview and critical review of sponsorship definitions.
Among the early definitions, Meenaghans (1983, p. 9) is cited most often:
sponsorship is the provision of assistance either financial or in-kind to an activity by a
commercial organization for the purpose of achieving commercial objectives.
Meenaghan, while not the first to point out the commercial aims of sponsorship,
formally introduced the term commercial sponsorship in an attempt to clearly
distinguish his definition from the term patronage. In 1991, he supplied a more
generalized version of this definition which leaves the nature of the sponsor open. This
view has found its way into most contemporary definitions of sponsorship. Given the
fast pace in marketing practice and research, the longevity of Meenaghans early
definition is remarkable.
The authors reviewed in Figure 6 have been influential in developing one of todays
most widely used definitions of sponsorship: The relationship between a sponsor and
a property, in which the sponsor pays a cash or in-kind fee in return for access to the
exploitable commercial potential associated with the property. It is provided by the

4
Dito.

International Events Group (IEG, 2003), one of the leading (and few) sources of
information for the sponsorship industry (cf. Roy 2000, p. 19).
A key factor in defining sponsorship seems to be neglected in all of these definitions:
sponsor and sponsee enter a contractual relationship (e.g., Drees 1989, p. 93 f.;
Bruhn and Mehlinger 1999). The legal aspect is highly important in the context of the
event site exploitation of sponsorships. As sponsors become more active in shaping the
events that they sponsor, the more carefully the relationship must be governed. For the
remainder of this thesis, the following broad definition of commercial sponsorship will
be adopted. It consists of four distinguishing elements:
(1) A contractual relationship
(2) Between two (or more) parties (sponsor and sponsee; both may be individuals or
organizations)
(3) Based on an exchange of goods (mostly money, in-kind contributions or services)
against
the right of association with the sponsee
(4) To attain specific commercial goals (e.g., marketing communication, improving
customer
relationships)
After reviewing what sponsorship is, it also important to point out what it is not. It is
especially important not to confuse sponsorship with other traditional corporate or
private activities such as patronage or philanthropy, both of which are based on
charitable, altruistic activities with no strings attached, because there is no exchange
of rights (Javalgi, et al. 1994). Meenagahan (1983, p. 11) identifies two factors that
distinguish sponsorship from various forms of corporate giving: the type of recipient
activity and the motives for involvement. The later appears to provide the most rigid
distinction. The acid test is to see whether the donor is prepared to give support
anonymously. The distinction between sponsorship and patronage is often not made by
corporations (which in some cases summarize both under corporate affairs) and in
public discussions (cf. Hofmann 2002, p. 99).
A term closely related to sponsorship is endorsement. Endorsement specifies the
situation where an individual performer, club or organization is paid a fee to use
specified products (Meenaghan 1983, p. 10). Endorsements are normally undertaken in
conjunction with sponsorships. In fact, they are so closely related that, for example,
the German terminology and literature does not even make a distinction between the
two.
2.1.3 Advances in Sponsorship Research
When reviewing the advances in sponsorship research, it is useful to keep in mind the
relatively newness of the discipline. Sponsorship practice has evolved and changed so
many times since its early days that researchers have struggled to keep up with its
developments (Meenaghan 1998).
In an extensive and almost comprehensive review of more than 80 articles from the
English, German, and French-speaking research communities, Cornwell and Maignan
(1998) identified five main research streams, which are summarized in Table 1. Minor
additions were made to this excellent basis where deemed necessary. One the one
hand, this included adding authors in order to fill the gap between 1996 (the year up to
which the review is current) and today. On the other hand, one particularly substantial
piece of research by Anne and Chron (1991) appears to have been overlooked by the
authors.
Research topics Main contributors
(in chronological order)
Nature of sponsorship Definitions of sponsorship,
identification of characteristics,
development of sponsorship in
specific country or area
Meenaghan 1983
5

Hastings 1984
Gross, et al. 1987
Meenaghan 1991b
Managerial aspects of
sponsorship
Corporate motivations and
objectives with respect to
sponsorship, description of target
audiences and media objectives
Mihalik 1984
Abratt, et al. 1987
Gardner and Shuman 1987
Armstrong 1988
Crowley 1991
Measurement of sponsorship
effects
Examination of communication
effectiveness and sponsorship
effects, determination of causal
relationships between
sponsorship stimuli and
Otker and Hayes 1987
Ryssel and Stamminger
1988
Anne and Chron 1991
Pham 1991 and 1992
Gwinner 1994

5
Confusingly, Tony Meenaghan published his ground-breaking paper in 1983 under his full name John Anthony
Meenaghan,. His later and current work appears under the name Tony Meenaghan.

consumer perception Rajaretnam 1994
D'Astous and Bitz 1995
Hansen and Scotwin 1995
Bennet 1999
Gwinner and Eaton 1999
Pham and Johar 2001
Strategic use of sponsorship Predominantly analysis of
ambush marketing practices
Sandler and Shani 1989
Meenaghan 1994
Legal and ethical considerations
in sponsorship
Legal constraints and tax
implications of sponsorships, use
of sponsorships to promote
products detrimental to health
(tobacco, alcohol)
Ledwith 1984
Aitken, et al. 1986
Townley 1993
Wise and Miles 1997
Bruhn and Mehlinger 1999
Table 1: Streams of sponsorship research and main contributing authors. Source: based on Cornwell and Maignan 1998.
The historical development of the research streams can be readily derived from this
overview. As with any new research topic, authors in the early days (i.e., 1980-1988)
were primarily concerned with descriptive research into the nature and managerial
aspects of sponsorship, trying to get to grips with the subject. A key question for these
researchers was why sponsorship should be chosen over other forms of marketing
communication, especially advertising. At the time many authors could not
satisfactorily answer the question, but rightfully pointed out the (ab-) use of
sponsorship to fulfill prestige goals of top management. From todays perspective
three main characteristics of sponsorship vs. advertising which are supported by the
contemporary literature are worth mentioning: Most importantly, sponsorship is able
to cut through media clutter to get the attention of the consumer and the consumer
receives the commercial message in a positive mood state (e.g., Gardner 1985; Pham
1992). Second, with sponsorship the message and the medium are closely linked (e.g.,
Meenaghan 1996). Third, sponsorships can target multiple audiences at the same time
(e.g., Crowley 1991; Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000). However, there is still no clear
and decision-oriented framework for choosing between advertising and sponsorship.
This descriptive phase lasted until the early nineties, when researchers turned their
interest to ambush marketing. The legal and qualitative aspects of this practice were a
prime object of research following the games in Los Angeles, Seoul and Calgary,
where parasitic advertising first appeared on a broad scale.
Discussion about sponsorship ethics needs to be seen in the light of legislative efforts
to ban sponsorships which promote products such as (mainly) tobacco and to some
extent also alcohol. As discussed earlier, the ban on advertising these products is often
credited with contributing heavily to the proliferation of sponsorship as a means of
marketing communication.
Since the early and mid-nineties however, researchers are mainly concerned with the
measurement of sponsorship effects. Two aspects are of special interest:
measurement of sponsorship efficiency and identification of the causal effects of
sponsorship on sponsors brands the area to which this thesis also hopes to make a
contribution.
Measurement of sponsorship efficiency
Many authors underline the need for companies to install proper controlling
instruments. Firms are criticized for often operating with exposure-based
measurements such as media reach while neglecting more precise tracking
measurements, which measure changes in brand equity induced by the sponsorship.
Measurements generally proposed for the latter are awareness of the sponsorship
engagement, general awareness of the brand, and image dimensions of the brand; these
items are to be evaluated on a regular basis (e.g., Quester and Farrelly 1998). Otker
and Hayes (1987) were the first to present the findings of a broad sponsorship
efficiency study, which focused on tracking measurements. It found that Philips (the
Dutch home electronics manufacturer) sponsorship of the Football World Cup 1986
had a positive impact on the association between Philips and football in general, but
did not have a significant effect on the awareness or the image of the Philips brand.
Effects of Sponsorships on Brand Equity
The argument about how to best measure sponsorship was followed by a quest to
determine the nature of sponsorship effects and the factors which might influence
them. The key constructs in this area of research are image transfer, consumer
involvement and fit between sponsor and event. In this section only a brief
introduction is given, as the topics will be discussed in greater detail at the end of this
chapter.
Researchers of image transfer look at how an association is forged between the
sponsored entity and the sponsor in the mind of the consumer, which leads to a transfer

of image attributes between the two. Gwinner (1997) presents a conceptual model of
the transfer of event image to brand image. It is based on the idea that consumers
attach meaning to the sponsorship stimulus (i.e., the event) and then transfer meaning
to the brand. This relationship is believed to work analogously to the relationship
between a celebrity endorser and the endorsed brand (McCracken 1989).
In an experiment consisting of the presentation of a soccer game embedded with
sponsors billboards, Pham (1991; 1992) explored the effects of involvement, arousal
and pleasure in the recognition of sponsorship stimuli. Involvement was shown to
have a curvilinear effect (in the shape of an inverted U) on recognition, whereas
arousal had a negative effect and pleasure had no effect.
Fit between sponsor and event is another mainstay of current beliefs on sponsorship
effects. A number of authors have shown that a good perceived fit between the images
of the sponsor brand and the event facilitates the image transfer between the two (Roy
2000; Gwinner and Eaton 1999; Speed and Thompson 2000). Congruence theory
supports the theoretical foundation of this empirically observed effect.
2.1.4 Definition and Measurement of Sponsorship Objectives
The reasons for undertaking sponsorships have been widely discussed in the literature
and validated through empirical research (see below). There are seven main and
distinct objectives of sponsorships (Meenaghan 1983; Bruhn 1986; Drees 1989;
Crowley 1991):
(1) Increasing awareness/recognition
Increasing awareness of a particular corporate or product brand within the general
public or a specific audience is one of the two most common sponsorship objectives.
Sponsors who mainly pursue the goal of increasing awareness should note a potential
pitfall: Because little information about the underlying product or service can be
transmitted when a particular sponsorship consists of pure signage or placing of the
logo on players jerseys, sponsors may end up with an empty brand, i.e., consumers
may have a high recognition of the sponsors logo, but no idea what it stands for (e.g.,
Bruhn 1986; Drees 1989). This is often the case with sponsorships of globally
broadcasted events (e.g., the FIFA World Cup), where a sponsor brand may not be
available in the home markets of certain viewers. Sponsorships which consists mainly
of signage should, therefore, only be undertaken by companies with established brands
(cf. Bruhn 1986, p. 87).
(2) Changing or enhancing the brand image
Improving or consolidating the brand image is another main objective of sponsorships.
Sponsorship has long been credited with being a prime instrument for image
enhancement (e.g., Gardner and Shuman 1987; Otker and Hayes 1987; McCracken
1989; Gwinner 1997; Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000). It is widely accepted that the
sponsors brand is subject to an image transfer from the sponsored entity to the
sponsor (and vice-versa). Sponsored properties may have very strong associations with
certain specific attributes (e.g., the Olympics with being global, Wimbledon with
being elitist). When a sponsor becomes linked with such a property, it tends to
strengthen the perception inside consumers minds that the brand also has these specific
attributes (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000, p. 214). McDonald (1991), however, points
out that images do not move easily (p. 34). He concludes that sponsors need to make
an extra effort to ensure that visitors perceive them as being relevant to the event in
order to benefit from the desired image transfer.
Among others, Bruhn (1986, p. 86) points out that in the case of sponsorships, the
real environment (compared to advertising), such as the atmosphere in a stadium or
the performance of an athlete, can be transferred to the sponsor. The effect of touch,
sound, smell, and taste on the event-site brand experience and the shaping of the
brand image will be later discussed in great detail.
(3) Guest hospitality
Sponsorships are often used as an attractive setting for entertaining key target groups
of the sponsor company (named by 75 percent in a survey of Irish companies
conducted by Quinn in 1982
6
). Guest hospitality works at three main levels. First, it
enables the sponsor to provide its guests with a unique event and brand experience,
which will contribute to the individuals brand equity. For instance, during the FIS
Alpine World Ski Championships 2003, guests of Carlsberg, the beer sponsor, were
treated to a full-blown skiing holiday, complete with equipment testing and skiing with
former World Cup stars. Second, it may enable a companys sales force to deepen its
relationships with existing and potential customers, and possibly lead to the

6
Quoted according to Meenaghan (1983, p. 24)

negotiation or even closing of contracts (Drees 1989). Last, but not least, it is an
attractive and cost-effective way of rewarding customers or employees (Meenaghan
1983, Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000).
(4) Demonstrating product features/innovations
Few companies deploy sponsorships primarily to demonstrate product features and/or
innovations. These goals are mainly pursued by brands which are closely linked to the
sponsored event, e.g., sports or music equipment manufacturers or suppliers to events.
This kind of sponsorship is often used to launch new products. New models of
executive cars may be deployed for limousine pick-up services during events such as
the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos. Among sports
equipment manufacturers, it is standard practice to supply their athletes with next
seasons gear up to 9 months before these products become available to the general
public. This long pre-run is used to create a pull-effect among consumers, but also to
produce footage for promotional material such as catalogues and videos. For instance,
the medalists at the FIS Alpine World Ski Championships in St. Moritz racing for the
Rossignol brand were handed a pair of skis boosting next years design as soon as they
had crossed the finish line.
(5) Sales promotion
Direct sales promotion through sponsorship is most common for sports equipment
manufacturers and brands very closely linked to the sponsored entity. In the marketing
of sports equipment, sponsorship may have a substantial influence on sales. Two early
examples of this can be found in the literature. When bicycle manufacturer TI Raleigh
decided to enter the French market, it did not want to rely on advertising. Instead, it
sponsored a racing team, which eventually won the Tour de France. Subsequently,
sales of Raleigh bicycles rose by 30 percent (Cornelius 1979, p. 17) It is reported that
sales of Puma brand tennis rackets increased significantly after its endorser, Boris
Becker, won his first Wimbledon tournament (Drees 1989, p. 112). A more recent
example is a Ski manufacturer. Rossignol drastically increased its sponsorship/racing
budget to push up sales volumes (Geisser 2003). Often, sponsors are allowed to sell
their merchandise on the site of the event they sponsor, in which case a direct causal
effect on sales can be observed. The same is true for official merchandize.
In some cases, sponsorships are also leveraged for sales promotions through other
channels. Swiss soft drink manufacturer Rivella, for instance, structured its brand
advertising and sales promotions around the sponsorship of an extreme sports event
(see Rivella case study in the next chapter). Sponsored athletes (endorsers) are also
deployed for sales promotions (e.g., Gatorade bottles featuring basketball star Michael
Jordan, Ovomaltine packaging spotting pictures of Ueli Kestenholz, a popular Swiss
snowboarder).
(6) Raising staff morale
In large corporations, internal communication can be as important as external
communication. Sponsorships are an effective means to motivate staff and to establish
a common ground between different staff levels (Meenaghan 1983, p. 21; Grimes and
Meenaghan 1998). Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000, p. 204) point out a specific topic
under this heading: mobilizing the organization for brand building. Employees and
other brand partners can receive emotional benefits that result from pride in being
associated with the sponsorships, as well as the link between the sponsorship and their
own lifestyle and values. Raising staff morale is mostly a welcome by-product, but
rarely one of the main objectives of corporate sponsorship activities.
(7) Personal objectives
For many years, companies engaged in sponsorship activities because of the personal
interest of their top management (e.g., Kuzma, et al. 1993; Roy 2000). The hobby
motive may be a stronger motivational factor than is conceded. Quinn (1982), for
instance, found that in no less than a third of the cases observed, the sponsorship
decision maker had a strong personal interest or participated in the event sponsored
(quoted in Meenaghan 1983, p. 25).
This rigid classification of sponsorship objectives could disguise the fact that these
goals not only frequently overlap, but that sponsorships may achieve multiple
objectives at any one time. Bruhn (1986, p. 85 ff.) suggests a classification of
sponsorship objectives into two groups: psycho-graphic and economic objectives.
From the discussed sponsorship goals, only number 5 would fall in the second
category. Bruhn points out that in the medium to long term, psycho-graphic objectives
must have an economic impact to justify the sponsorship expense.

The relative importance of sponsorship objectives has been widely researched in the
last two decades, proving to be relatively stable over time. One of the earliest studies
was conducted by Quinn in 1982 in the context of an unpublished MBS thesis (quoted
in Meenaghan 1983, p. 25) and was followed by, among others, Abratt, et al. (1987),
Drees (1989, focusing on the German market), and Crowley (1991). With the
emergence of specialized sponsorship market research firms such as the International
Event Group, Sponsorship Research International or UFA, the sponsors objectives
have been subject to regular and standardized evaluation. The results of the two latest
available studies (IEG/Performance-Research 2001; 2002) are shown in Figure 7:
62
60
56
43
41
37
32
22
65
59
45
35
35
43
31
68
Increase Brand Loyalty
Create Awareness/Visibility
Change/Reinforce Image
Drive Retail/Dealer Traffic
Percent
Stimulate Sales/Trial Usages
Showcase community/Social
Responsibility
Sample/Display/Showcase
Products/Services
Entertain Clients/Prospects
2002
2001

Figure 7: Corporate objectives in sponsorship. Source: IEG/Performance-Research 2001; 2002
2.1.5 Measurement of Sponsorship Success
Sponsorship success may be defined as the degree to which a sponsorship reaches its
objectives with its given resources. The previous discussion has shown that sponsors
objectives are mostly concerned with creating and changing their brand equity among
people exposed to their sponsorship activities. Sponsorship success, therefore,
materializes in the form of audience-based brand equity. Surprisingly, this rationale is
rarely applied by sponsors when judging their sponsorship success. Instead of
measuring changes in brand equity (e.g., brand awareness, image transfer between
event and brand, brand loyalty; to be discussed below), many sponsors use primarily
quantitative measures of exposure such as the sizes of on-site and TV audiences or
the amount of newspaper coverage to determine the success of their sponsorship
(Bruhn 1998; Meenaghan 1998). It is argued here that such an approach only measures
the channel characteristics but not the sponsorship success itself (cf. Speed and
Thompson 2000). Such an approach could be likened to a marketer who judges the
success of his advertisements by the number of readers that are exposed to his print
ads.
A partial explanation to why sponsors only infrequently deploy brand-equity
measurements is that they are more difficult and expensive to conduct. It is argued
here, however, that market research represents a small cost compared to the large sums
expended on sponsorship rights and the exploitation thereof.
2.1.6 Sponsorship as a Means of Marketing Communication
Sponsorship was early-on classified as being primarily a component of the marketing
communications mix (e.g., Cornelius 1979; Meenaghan 1983; Bruhn 1986; Drees
1989; Hermanns 1989). Meenaghan (1991a, p. 39) states that commercial
sponsorship fits quite naturally alongside advertising, public relations, personal selling
and sales promotion in that its basic function lies in achieving marketing
communications objectives.
Scientists, as well as practitioners, have attempted to define the specific characteristics
of sponsorship as a marketing communication tool. It is generally agreed that the main
influence of sponsorship lies in forming and changing attitudes towards brands, but
that it does not actually sell any products (Meenaghan 1983, p. 23). Using the AIDA
advertising impact model, it can be concluded that sponsorship mainly affects
attention, interest, and desire, but rarely leads to a concrete buying decision (action)
(cf. Kroeber-Riel and Esch 2000, p. 156).
Even more than advertising, sponsorship mainly works in the medium to long term.
In his longitudinal study of an Indian tire manufacturer, Rajaretnam (1994, p. 153)
observed that the main effect on brand preference appeared in the second year of the
sponsorship. In the fast-moving world of communication, this clearly requires a
strategic approach to sponsorship, which many companies still lack (Farrelly, et al.
1997, p. 178).
Sponsorship is probably the one means of marketing communication over which
managers have the least direct control. Given that sponsorship works primarily

through association with an independent property (e.g., event, cause, person), the
performance or conduct of that property is decisive for the success of the sponsorship.
However, sponsors have little influence on, say, the likelihood that a particular sports
team will win the national title or that an art exhibition will draw huge crowds.
Bruhn (1998, p. 53) points out that sponsorships create content which can be used in
other communication channels such as advertising or sales promotion. One main
implication of this is an accentuated need for further exploitation of sponsorships by
integrating them with the other elements of the marketing communications mix.
2.1.7 Exploitation of Sponsorships
Exploitation: the key to sponsorship success was the title of one of the early journal
articles on sponsorship (Otker 1988). It spelled out what brand managers (and
researchers) have been slow to acknowledge: When the ink under a sponsorship
contract has dried, that is when the real work starts. In a somewhat exaggerated
analogy, the acquisition of sponsorship rights can be likened to buying advertising
space. It is unthinkable that brand managers would be content with booking prime-
time slots on TV and then come up with a poor advertising spot at the very last minute
to fill the slot. Yet, that is exactly what has happened in the sponsorship industry for
many years and in some cases continues to happen even today.
Modern-day sponsorship exploitation is multi-facetted. Sponsorship selection and logo
placement on jerseys or perimeter billboards are the first steps in sponsorship
execution, while a large share of the value creation comes from accompanying
measures such as advertising, promotions or co-branding activities (e.g., Otker 1988;
Meenaghan 1998; Quester and Thompson 2001). The different dimensions of
sponsorship exploitation are depicted in Figure 8:
Dimensions
of sponsorship
exploitation
Audiences
Event visitors (full of partial)
TV watchers
Wider public that did not watch
the event
Message
Integrated with theme of other
means of brand communication
Event-specific, focusing on
reinforcing link between
sponsor and event
Timing
Before the event to prepare
audience
During the staging/broadcast of
the event
After the event to support
memorization of brand-event link
Medium
Advertising
Promotion/packaging
PR
Direct marketing
Merchandising
Event-site brand experience

Figure 8: Dimensions of sponsorship exploitation.
Audiences
Event sponsorships primarily target three distinct audience groups: on-site spectators,
TV audiences and, to a lesser extent, the wider public. These different audiences will
be discussed below in greater detail.
Exploitation of an event sponsorship geared to the TV audience typically consists of
commercials during the broadcast of the event, of program sponsorship of these
broadcasts, and of product placement in the respective commentary studio settings. To
a wider public, event sponsorships are usually exploited using advertising or
promotions, but a whole range of other media can be utilized. This thesis is concerned
with the exploitation of sponsorships vis--vis the on-site audience, which mainly
consists of providing a brand experience, hospitality (for, e.g., customers and
employees) and commercial activities (such as merchandizing). Chapters 11 will
discuss extensively how sponsors can increase the return on their sponsorship
expenditure by providing a well-designed brand experience to the on-site audience.
Choice of Medium
A range of media can be used to reinforce the link between the event and the sponsors
brand, the most important ones being packaging, PR, promotion, advertising, direct
marketing, and merchandising (Crimmins and Horn 1996). As discussed above, the

choice of media depends on the target audience and the communication goals. A full-
blown initiative could consist of marketing specially designed products (e.g., a
Champions League edition mobile phone) using direct mailings to event visitors
whose addresses have been collected at an event site promotion. These efforts could be
reinforced through advertising and PR campaigns.
Message
The message of the sponsorship, or the accompanying communication activities, can
comprise event-specific information or leverage the theme(s) of the other brand
communication modalities. Great benefits appear to be derived from approaches which
attempt to marry the two message types, achieving maximum integration across all
brand communication.
Fords involvement with the UEFA Champions League is an example of the first
approach. In its brand advertising, Ford uses the claim Technologie, die bewegt.
(Technology that moves you). Its Champions League sponsorship theme, on the other
hand, is Destination Football. This kind of exploitation focuses on the enhancement
of the link between the brand and the event, and may result in a better perceived fit
between the sponsor and the brand. Previous research has shown that perceived fit is
one of the key determining factors for the creation of brand equity through
sponsorships (discussed in more detail in chapters 1 and 6).
Audi, on the other hand, deploys the leveraging approach in its sponsorships. Its
sponsorship of the FIS Alpine World Ski Championships built on the Quattro
campaign (four-wheel drive) deployed in classic advertising. Audi did not try to
reinforce its link with skiing (it probably did not have to: after all, four-wheel drive is
a very relevant product feature for skiers). The deployment of an existing brand theme
has the advantage that the sponsorship message can be more easily connected to the
already established set of information about the specific brand in the consumers
memory (e.g., Walliser 1997, p. 26; Foxall and Goldsmith 1998, p. 71 f.; Esch 2001a,
p. 609 f.).
Because both ways of structuring the sponsorship message have their advantages, a
small number of innovative marketers have sought to combine the two approaches,
resulting in completely integrated campaigns with a strong enhancement of the
sponsor-sponsee link. UBS and Carlsberg provide two insightful examples of this
practice.
UBS, one of the worlds major banks, used its sponsorship of the Americas Cup-
winning Yacht Alinghi as its key visual and connecting theme for all of its global
corporate brand advertising. Images of the yacht and variations on the building an
international team theme were deployed not only in above-the-line advertising, but
also on their website, in brochures and for internal employee motivation purposes.
Carlsberg, a brewery active world-wide, took a different approach. Instead of making
its sponsorship engagement with alpine skiing (both in the World Cup and the World
Championships) the main theme for all of its brand advertising, it found a creative way
of fitting its brand advertising theme with the sponsorship. Probably the best beer in
the world, the claim of Carlsbergs long-running campaign, was adapted to Probably
the best after-ski in the World. This adaptation was supported by an advertising
campaign, a dedicated website, and in-store promotions.
Timing and Frequency
Sponsorship-related marketing messages can be deployed before, during and after the
sponsored event occurs. Deployment before the event serves mainly two purposes:
creation of publicity for the event and pre-exposure of the audiences to the
sponsorship message. During the event, exploitation reinforces the sponsorship
message and may generate direct revenues through activities such as merchandising.
Sponsorship-related activities after the event support long-time memorization of the
event-brand linkage and help bridge the time span to the next sponsorship engagement.
The frequency of the exploitation message (whether aimed at strengthening the
sponsors brand or directly increasing sales of sponsorship-related products) is,
therefore, an important determinant of how well consumers will remember the
message. Cognitive learning theory suggests that consumers will memorize
commercial messages when they are frequently exposed to information such as brand
names, slogans, jingles and claims (Foxall and Goldsmith 1998). This memorization
through repetition represents a form of low-involvement learning (Krugman 1965;
Kroeber-Riel and Esch 2000). In other words, the more often a sponsorship-related
message is repeated (up to an unknown point of saturation), the better it will be
remembered.

2.2 Events and Event Sponsorship
2.2.1 Events Staging of the Unusual
Most of the research into marketing in general, and sponsorship in particular, can be
attributed to the field of Psychology (Foxall and Goldsmith 1998, p. 24), which studies
the mind and behavior of individuals. This thesis also draws heavily on psychological
concepts such as e.g., learning, attitude forming, and involvement of individual
consumers. To discuss the characteristics of events, however, it is necessary to look at
the behavior of consumers in groups. This is the domain of Sociology. This section
will therefore provide a short tour dhorizon of which perspectives sociologists take
when investigating events.
In everyday language, an event connotes anything that takes place, especially
something important (HarperCollins 1994, p. 387). In this sense, popular language
does not distinguish between incidental and prearranged events. However, only the
latter are suitable for sponsorships. Gebhardt (2000, p. 18 ) defines events as
organized uniqueness. Events in this sense no matter whether they are about
sports, music, religion or anything else comprise a number of specific characteristics
(Simeons 1998, p. 31; Gebhardt 2000, p. 19 f.):
1. They are planned and artificially created happenings, which are usually
organized by some sort of organization (e.g., a company, association, club, church).
They usually have a script according to which they are supposed to run. Incidental
developments are mostly unintended.
2. Events are intended as unique experiences. They derive their uniqueness through
their disparity with regard to time (they do not happen every day) and through their
special content, such as performances broadcast (e.g., a famous artist) or through
special locations (e.g., a product presentation on top of a mountain).
3. Events typically combine a number of aesthetic disciplines such as music,
performing arts, lighting, sports, etc. to an ensemble.
4. Events convey the feeling of togetherness (belonging to a group) and of
exclusivity. The joint event experience brings the event audience together as one
big family and differentiates it from those who were not present (Diekhof 2002, p.
120). Events can therefore be regarded as important building blocks for ones
identity (cf. Castells 1997, p. 6). Willems (2000, p. 55) points out that events
provide a stage on which individuals are able to display personal qualities that are
neglected or even undesired in everyday life. No wonder that, in the context of an
accelerated individualization and secularization of the (Western) societies, events
have become the gathering places of the post-industrial society (Diekhof 2002, p.
120).
5. Most events are of monothematic character. They usually address one singular
need of a more or less clearly specified target group. Examples of this focus may be
found in sports events, and concerts, but also in events of certain sub-cultural
groups, such as 14 to 20 year old urban youth, which consist of freestyle sports
(skateboarding, break-dance), concerts (punk rock or hip hop) and the consumption
of soft drugs (cf. Schmidt, et al. 2000) all elements constituting their lifestyle (for
American farmers these elements might be tractor-pulling, wet-T-shirt contests,
country music and beer).
6. Last, but not least, interactivity is a key feature of events. Interaction may, for
instance, occur between the main attraction of the event (e.g., an artist) and the
audience, between event visitors, and of course also between event sponsors and
visitors.
These combined characteristics of events make them a very attractive environment for
marketers to interact with their target groups. Zanger and Sistenich (1996, p. 235) note
that an event provides companies with an environment in which the potential
customer is exposed to emotional and physiological stimuli, which lead to a strong
activation process.
Essentially, marketers have two options for deploying events for their marketing
purposes. They can either create their own events or associate themselves with an
existing event through sponsorship (it must be noted that for many modern events the
distinction between the two has become something like the chicken-and-egg-problem).
2.2.2 Definition and Key Characteristics of Event Sponsorships
The characteristics of sponsorship and events in general have been discussed. How can
the main topic of this thesis, event sponsorship, be defined? Sandler and Shani (1989,
p. 9) offer a useful definition: The provision of resources (e.g., money, people,
equipment) by an organization directly to an event [...] in exchange for a direct
association to the event [...]. This definition also serves the purpose of distinguishing

event sponsorship from advertising in its context (e.g., buying advertising time during
the TV transmission of the event), and from ambush marketing (which associates a
brand with an event to which it does not provide any resources).
Another term which needs to be distinguished from event sponsorship is event
marketing. While event sponsorship and event marketing are closely related (e.g.,
Hermanns 1997, p. 220; Nickel 1998b; Erber 2000, p. 18), the following distinctions
can be made (based on Nickel 1998a, p. 8):
1. Sponsored events would still take place in a similar form without the involvement of
the respective sponsor, while specific marketing events are tied to one (or several)
brand(s) which is (are) also the organizer(s).
2. At sponsored events, an activity such as sports, arts, or science is at the center of
attention, not the brand or product as with marketing events.
3. Audiences of sponsored events are mostly highly involved with the activity that the
event is about, and less involved with the sponsors, while marketing events attract
consumers which are highly involved with the respective brand or product.
As sponsorship progresses, the boundaries between event sponsorship and event
marketing become more and more blurred (cf. Cotting 2000, p. 40). It is not
uncommon that sponsored events are created in close cooperation between an event
organizer and a sponsor, and that the sponsor takes on some organizational duties. In
some cases, activities provided by sponsors are an integral part of the event
experience.
It must be noted that the on-site implementation of event sponsorships mostly deploys
techniques borrowed from the event marketing discipline. In fact, when sponsors
decide to provide event visitors with an on-site brand experience, they engage in event
marketing at a sponsored event. How event marketing techniques may be deployed
at event sponsorships and which critical differences need to be accounted for is
discussed in Chapter 1.
As noted earlier, sponsorship is one of many means of marketing communications
deployed to build brands. Vis--vis other brand-building instruments, however, event
sponsorship has some unique characteristics (cf. Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000, p.
203):
Providing a brand experience
Demonstrating new products/technologies
Allowing the brand to become part of an event or other (significant) aspect of
customers lives.
The unique advantage of sponsorship vis--vis advertising is that it enables a
corporation to communicate with its target audience in a more subtle, almost
befriending way (for a discussion of the challenging environment advertising has to
function in, cf. Morgan 1999).
2.2.3 Audiences of Event Sponsorships
Events have a number of very different audiences. This fact seems to have been
neglected in most of the research on the subject so far, which either does not specify
which audiences it talks about or focuses entirely on TV audiences. Audiences can be
primarily categorized along the dimensions synchronism (live vs. recorded), physical
presence (on-site vs. off-site), and event involvement. The different audience groups
may be reached through specific elements of the marketing communications mix (see
Figure 9).
Synchronism (Live vs. Recorded)
There are several reasons why it may matter to sponsors whether an event is watched
at the moment at which it happens or at a later point in time. The first is the level of
arousal that a live event brings with it compared to watching a recording of it. This
becomes evident when considering the following example: watching the 100-meter
sprint finals of the Olympic Games live is more exciting than seeing it on the news
when the name of the winner is already known. Pham (1992) has shown that the level
of arousal influences the perception of sponsorship stimuli.
The second reason is related to the first one: viewing time for live events may be
assumed to be longer than for recorded events because what will happen is unknown.
In fact, the thrill of watching many (mainly sports) events is exactly the anticipation
that something will happen (e.g., goals in football, home runs in baseball, accidents in
car racing). From a sponsors perspective, longer viewing time equals more exposure
to their commercial message, which in turn influences memorization of the message
(Anne and Chron 1991).

Third, recorded events are in most cases edited by the mass media that broadcast or
print them. It is likely that the passages most valuable to sponsors (i.e., a clear view of
their billboards) will be eliminated in the editing process.
L
i
v
e
R
e
c
o
r
d
e
d
Event
M
a
s
s

m
e
d
i
a
O
n
-
s
i
t
e
Highly involved
Little involved
Not involved
Involvement with event
Participant
E
d
i
t
o
r
i
a
l

c
o
n
t
e
n
t

i
n

m
a
s
s

m
e
d
i
a
P
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
l

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
S
i
g
n
a
g
e

a
n
d

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
s
S
i
g
n
a
g
e

a
n
d

c
o
m
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
s
On-site brand
experience
Commercials,
PR, promotions

Figure 9: Classification of event audiences (sponsorship target groups).
Physical Presence
For the purpose of this thesis, it is useful to distinguish between TV and on-site
audiences. Chapters 3 to 6 deal exclusively with the question of how sponsorship
affects brand-equity among on-site spectators.
On-site spectators may be assumed to primarily have a deeper, more multi-facetted
and longer-lasting event experience than TV audiences. The event experience is also
likely to last longer, as it typically includes travel to and from the event site, meals,
waiting in line, etc.
On-site audiences can be large and in some cases exceed those of the live TV
broadcast. The annual Tour de Suisse: (a ten-day cycling event), for instance, draws
more than half a million spectators who watch the race along the road or at the finish
line. The tour sponsors cater to this fact by deploying a large number of promotional
vehicles that drive along the race course and distribute product samples and give-
aways. Another example is the US Open tennis tournament, which draws more than
600,000 fans making it the largest annual US sporting event (WPP 2002).
In Switzerland, many popular but not mainstream events (e.g., in the youth segment)
regularly draw large on-site audiences that exceed those of many televised events.
However, at top sports events, such as the Olympics or football matches in the major
leagues, TV audience by far outnumber the on-site spectators (Bruhn 1998, p. 112).
On-site audiences are often considerably younger than TV audiences. This can be
attributed to the higher mobility of young people and to the demographical profile of
TV viewers (at least in developed countries). Increasingly, TV is becoming a medium
for the older population, while the commercially attractive younger target groups
engage in other pastimes. This point can be illustrated with the example of the FIS
Alpine World Ski Championships 2003 in St. Moritz. While the on-site audience was,
on average, 40 years old (own survey), the average age of the TV audience was older
than 60 (Interview with Philipp Wetzel).
Involvement
As mentioned several times throughout this dissertation, event involvement, how
important and relevant an event is to a particular individual, has a key influence on the
build-up of brand equity through sponsorship. On-site audiences may be assumed to be
highly involved with the event, as in many cases they made a substantial effort (time
and money) to get to the event site (Eilander and Koenders 1995, p. 76).
Exceptionally high involvement can also help explain why the actual participants are
an increasingly sought-after sponsorship audience. Sports events such as the New
York City Marathon draw more than 30,000 participants, who often travel
accompanied by friends and family.
2.2.4 Role of the Media
Media coverage of large-scale events such as the Olympic Games, the FIFA World
Cup, or the NFL Super Bowl today is unprecedented and continues to climb as people
in developing countries acquire access to television and the Internet. For instance, the
matches of the 2002 FIFA World Cup in Korea and Japan were broadcasted to 213
countries and included a total of 41,100 hours of programming a 38 percent increase
compared to the 1998 World Cup in France (FIFA 2003). Live broadcasts of important
sporting events appear to be among the only TV programming that succeeds in
capturing a large share of the total population in any given country. The England vs.
Brazil quarter-final of the 2002 FIFA World Cup was followed by 46 million viewers

in Brazil alone an impressive figure for a broadcast that took place at 3.30 am local
time (FIFA 2003).
Interestingly, broadcasts are no longer watched in the solitude of ones home, but
increasingly on big-screens in public locations together with other fans (FIFA 2003)
thus creating an event atmosphere far away from the actual site of the broadcasted
event. In Korea, some 4.2 million fans took to the streets to watch their national teams
victory over Italy during the 2002 FIFA World Cup (FIFA 2003).
TV remains the key medium for live coverage of sporting events for two main reasons:
convenience and broadcasting rights. Despite the rapid spread of broadband
technology in large parts of the world, watching a full broadcast of a sporting event in
decent quality over the Internet is still very cumbersome. Furthermore, the live
broadcasting rights of the worlds main sports events remain, for now, with the TV
stations. The Internet, however is widely used as an information-seeking medium: the
site of the 2002 FIFA World Cup registered more than 100 million page views on
some days, and the official pages of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games were viewed a
total of 350 million times (FIFA 2002). The much older medium, radio, is likely to
keep losing ground to TV and the Internet, as its transmissions lack the appeal of the
visual sensations that the latter two provide.
From a historical point of view, todays love affair between TV and sponsored sports
events comes as a surprise. In the 1970s and early 80s, when commercial sponsorship
first emerged on a large scale, the then exclusively publicly-owned television stations
in many cases refused to broadcast sponsored events on the grounds that they
represented surreptitious advertising (Drees 1989, p. 70 f.; Hermanns 1989). Only with
the advent of privately-owned TV stations, which were less critical vis--vis
commercial content, did the public stations review their sponsorship policy (Bruhn
1998, p. 31).
2.3 Brands and Brand Equity
2.3.1 What Is a Brand?
The last decade of the 20th century can rightfully be called the age of the brand with
hindsight, that is. After all, at the beginning of the decade, it did not look that way. On
Friday, April 2, 1993, known as Marlboro Friday a considerable part of the
professional world believed that branded products were headed for oblivion, giving
way to cheap, no-name commodity products competing on price. Earlier that day,
Philip Morris had announced that it would slash the price of Marlboro cigarettes by 20
percent in an attempt to compete with bargain brands that were eating into its market.
Wall Street conceded that if the powerful Marlboro man had lost the battle against
discount products, then no other branded consumer goods could withstand the pressure
from their cheaper private label competition. Within hours, the stock prices of all
major consumer good manufacturers took a nose-dive (based on Klein 2000, p. 12 f.).
Declared dead one minute, the brands were back the next stronger than ever. In
2000, the three most valuable brands (Coca Cola, Microsoft and IBM) were worth a
combined 200 billion US dollars (Interbrand 2001).
Despite the recent hype, branding is an old topic with roots reaching as far back as
ancient Egypt, where brick makers placed symbols on their bricks for identification
purposes. Additional evidence of branding can be found in medieval Europe, where
members of trade guilds placed trademarks on their products as a sign of quality for
the consumer and legal protection of exclusive production rights for a market (Roy
2000, p. 62; Esch and Langner 2001, p. 439). Modern-era branding can be traced back
to consumer goods marketers in the late 19th century in an effort to gain control of
product sales from retailers (Aaker 1991, p. 1; Biel 1993, p. 69). Branding has since
proliferated to almost all corners of the commercial world, most notably also to the
services and industrial goods sectors. Recently, the branding debate involved topics
such as corporate branding, brand extensions, as well as destination and country
branding (cf. Esch and Wicke 2001, p. 8 f.; Bieger 2002, p. 187 f.).
The number of definitions used for the term brand is large. There are two main views
of brands, one focusing on its technicalities from the owners point of view, and one
on its effects in consumers minds (Esch and Wicke 2001, p. 10 f.). As an example
for the first, Aaker (1991, p. 7) states that a brand is a distinguishing name and/or
symbol (such as logo, trademark, package design) intended to identify the goods or
services of either one seller or a group of sellers, and to differentiate these goods or
services from those of competitors. Looking at the reasons why manufacturers engage
in branding rather than on how they do it, Walter Landor came up with the following
dictum: Simply put, a brand is a promise. By identifying and authenticating a product
or service it delivers a pledge of satisfaction and quality. (N.N. 2003).

The effect-based view looks at what brands provoke in consumers minds, and how
brands affect their behavior. From this perspective, brands can be described as a
collection of perceptions in the mind of the consumer (Feldwick 1996). The elegance
of this definition, which is widely agreed on (e.g., Meffert and Burmann 1996; Esch
2001b), lies in its fit with a wide range of situations (e.g., manufacturers as well as
service providers brands, personality brands, virtual brands), while it captures at the
same time the very essence of the construct: brands are intangible and exist in the
mind of the consumers. To distinguish the technical view (i.e., logos, package
design) from the effect-based view (i.e., perceptions in consumers minds), some
authors (most notably Aaker 1991; Keller 1993) prefer using the term customer-based
brand equity for the later. This terminology is also adopted for this thesis, as many
practitioners still think of their brands primarily in terms of trademarks.
2.3.2 Customer-Based Brand Equity
Brand equity was one of the hottest marketing topics of the last decade. Keller (1993,
p. 8) defines customer-based brand equity as the differential effect of brand
knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand. Another commonly
used, more elaborated definition is: Brand equity is a set of brand assets and liabilities
linked to the brand, its name and symbol, that add to or subtract from the value
provided by a product or service to a firm and/or to that firms customers (Aaker
1991, p. 15). Two main characteristics of these definitions are to be further discussed.
As already apparent from the term customer-based the first key characteristic of the
concept is the acknowledgement of the fact that brand equity only exist in peoples
minds. A decision, for instance, by a brand manager to give his brand a more modern
meaning does not change the brand only a large-scale advertising campaign might.
Because brand equity is a construct within peoples minds, it can only be changed over
time. The other main trait of the concept is that it treats brands as a sort of capital,
which if properly managed may yield a return on the brand investments (for a
discussion of how to best incorporate information about brand equity investments in a
companys investor reporting, see Tomczak and Coppetti 2004). Aaker (1991) stresses
the point that brand equity provides value to both the holder of the brands rights (e.g.,
its manufacturer) and to the brands customers.
Brand equity as described by Aaker and Keller consists of the four main elements,
brand awareness, brand image, brand loyalty and brand quality. The later can also be
regarded as a part of brand image. For this thesis, a merged version of Kellers and
Aakers concepts is used (Figure 10).
Brand
Equity
Perceived
Quality
Brand
Awareness
Measures
Aided
Unaided
Top-of-mind
Brand
Image
Associations, e.g.,
Image attributes
Links to people, (sponsored)
events
Individual history with brand
Brand
Loyalty
Esteem
Propensity to buy
Loyalty

Figure 10: Customer-based brand equity. Source: adapted after Aaker 1991 and Keller 1993.
There are two basic approaches to measuring customer-based brand equity (Keller
1993): an indirect and a direct one. The indirect approach attempts to assess potential
sources of brand equity by measuring brand knowledge (the elements awareness and
image). The direct approach assesses the impact of brand knowledge on consumer
responses to different elements of the firms marketing program; a procedure often
deployed is to compare consumer responses to, for instance, branded and non-branded
promotional material. In the context of sponsorship, the indirect approach to
measuring brand equity is more useful, as a consumers knowledge of a companys
sponsorship engagement becomes part of his or her brand equity.
In order to measure brand equity, the constructs awareness, image and loyalty must be
operationalized. Three main measurements are used for awareness:
Top-of-mind awareness represents the first brand that comes to mind when
asked (first brand recalled). A standard question might be: Can you name a
soft drink brand? Typically, awareness levels are stated as the percentage of
respondents who name a specific brand (in this case, most likely Coca Cola).

Unaided awareness measures all brands within a certain category which a
respondent is able to recall from memory when cued.
Aided awareness, also called recognition, is the ability to correctly discriminate
a brand as having been previously seen or heard about.
Several different measurement techniques are deployed to measure image. Kellers
(1993) original concept uses:
Type: free association tasks, projective techniques, depth interviews.
Favorability: ratings of evaluations of associations.
Knowledge about a sponsorship engagement for a specific brand represents a brand
association. However, it would be measured via a similar question that is used for
awareness, e.g., Can you name a beer brand which sponsors the UEFA Champions
League? The strength of the association is typically expressed at an aggregate level
as the percentage of respondents who correctly answered Amstel (therefore the
name sponsorship awareness). However, certain authors have also measured the
strength of the brand association at an individual level, using the degree of certainty
with which respondents associated brands with respective events (Johar and Pham
1999).
Last, but not least, brand loyalty may be measured using:
Strength: ratings of beliefs or association.
Propensity to buy: ratings of intended purchase
Loyalty: strength of loyalty using, e.g., conjoint analysis.
This thesis deals with the effects that event sponsorships have on the brand equity of
the on-site audience. To underline this point and in order not to have to call it
customer-based brand equity of the audience the term audience-based brand equity
is introduced.
2.4 Perception, Learning and Moderating Factors
To fully understand how brand building through event sponsorship works, a closer
look at the psychological processes within the audience members minds is necessary.
From a psychological perspective, a sponsored event represents a potential learning
environment for consumers. Consumers are exposed to a number of brand stimuli as
provided by the sponsors through their on-site design of the sponsorship. These stimuli
may (or may not) be perceived by event visitors. Depending on a number of factors,
such as involvement and relevance, these perceptions may be associated with existing
information about the brand and event and stored in their long-term memory. Here the
information awaits retrieval at some future point in time. In relation to already existing
information, attitudes about the brand may be formed, reinforced or changed. The
combined information (knowledge) of and attitudes towards the sponsor finally make
up customer-based brand equity.
This section contains a brief introduction to the most important psychological
constructs related to how consumers learn about brands.
2.4.1 Perception
Perception describes the process of recognizing, selecting, organizing, and
interpreting stimuli in order to make sense of the world around us (Harrell 1986, p.
66). Perception of brands depends in part on 1) the stimuli to which consumers are
exposed and in part on 2) the way these stimuli are given meaning by consumers. In
the context of event sponsorship, these two aspects are important in discussing how
sponsors can attract event visitors attention and how to communicate some key
information about the brand to them.
Brand stimuli can be perceived through the five senses: seeing, hearing, touching,
tasting, smelling, and sensing internally (see discussion of multi-sensory stimuli
below). But sensations are not the end of the perception story. Equally important is the
process of interpretation which depends on the socio-psychological meanings the
individual attaches to the stimulus. For a clearer distinction, this later process is called
perceptual encoding (Foxall and Goldsmith 1998, p. 50). Different perceptions of
brand stimuli can therefore account for different attitudes and behaviors towards
brands.
The Role of Relevance for Perception
Given the abundance of stimuli that individuals are exposed to, the perceptual process
is designed to only pay attention to stimuli which are deemed relevant to ones existing
needs, wants, beliefs and attitudes. All other sensory information is screened out. To

some extent people sense (e.g., see and hear) only what they choose to sense. This
process is called selective perception (Foxall and Goldsmith 1998, p. 51)
From a sponsorship perspective, it is therefore important that brand stimuli provided at
an event are made relevant to the audience.
2.4.2 Cognitive Learning
Learning may be defined as changes that take place within the content or organization
of long-term memory (Foxall and Goldsmith 1998
7
). Learning theory is divided into
two basic schools of thought. Cognitive learning theory views learning as chiefly a
conscious mental activity, whilst behavioral approaches describe learning as largely
unconscious changes in behavior (e.g., Kuss and Tomczak 2000, p. 35). Although both
approaches are important to marketers, cognitive learning is clearly more useful in
attempting to describe the processes operating within visitors minds when exposed to
sponsors on-site activities beyond perimeter signage.
Cognitive learning may take one or more forms: rote learning, vicarious learning,
and information processing. Rote learning occurs when consumers are repeatedly
exposed to information such as brand names, slogans, jingles and claims, which they
simply memorize without paying much attention. Rote learning is memorization
through repetition.
Vicarious learning describes learning that takes place through modeling and imitation
of the behavior of others, such as parents, teachers, and friends.
Information processing takes two forms: formal learning and reasoning. Formal
learning refers to the instruction of the learner by other people. Formal learning
takes place frequently within the family setting and forms part of the process of
socialization by which children are exposed to and given the skills, knowledge, beliefs
and preferences of their social environments. Formal learning typically also takes
place between consumers and salespersons. The second form of information
processing consists of conscious or unconscious reasoning. This is the case when
consumers take information they have about a brand and deduce their own conclusions
regarding, e.g., the brands suitability for purchase. This may involve integration of
new information with existing knowledge in memory. Often, brands are evaluated
against individual standards of the consumer.

7
Unless otherwise mentioned, the following sections are based on their work.
Information processing requires a significant investment on the part of the consumer as
to time and cognitive effort, while rote learning mechanisms happen on the surface of
awareness and require little effort by the consumer.
How Humans Process Information
In general, information processing is a generic term used to describe the series of
stages by which information is encountered, attended to , interpreted, understood, and
stored in memory for future use, e.g., to make informed buying decisions. Greenwald
and Leavitt (1984) presented a framework which allows discussion of what happens at
the individual level of information processing (Figure 11).
Exposure may be defined as physical contact with some stimulus containing
information (Foxall and Goldsmith 1998, p. 74). As discussed in the section on
perception, consumers are exposed to a large number of sensory stimuli such as
images and sounds, only a small portion of which they actually perceive. From a
marketing perspective, understanding how consumers expose themselves to
information is critical. Consumers may expose themselves to information voluntarily,
for instance when they actively search for information. Most of the time, however,
they are exposed to information involuntarily through their environment (Foxall and
Goldsmith 1998). From the perspective of event site sponsorship execution,
understanding the behavioral patterns of the audience (e.g., how people move about at
an event site) is important.

Exposure Preattention
Focal
Attention
Comprehension Elaboration
Memory Containing
Beliefs
Feelings
Associations
Scripts
Peripheral
Route
Central
Route

Figure 11: A model of consumer information processing. Source: based on Greenwald and Leavitt 1984
The lowest level of information processing is pre-attention, which is the shallowest
level of attention (e.g., when driving to work and looking at houses along the street).
Pre-attention uses very little cognitive capacity (Greenwald and Leavitt 1984, p. 584).
Some authors, in particular Zajonc (1968), have shown that not only are stimuli
remembered at this low attention level when people are exposed to them frequently,
but that mere frequent exposure may actually lead to heightened recognition of or
positive feelings towards the stimulus.
Focal attention may be defined as the minds ability to process information, to
decipher messages and transmit at least part of the information contained therein to
memory (Foxall and Goldsmith 1998, p. 76). Focal attention may be voluntary or
induced. In a marketing context, voluntary focal attention may occur when consumers
seek out product-related information or actively pay attention to advertising. This is
usually the case when people show high situational or enduring involvement with a
certain product category or brand (see next section). In addition, attention can be
evoked by environmental stimuli. This involuntary attention is important to marketers
because, if they are successful in attracting attention to their messages, the information
contained in them is more likely to enter memory (compared to mere exposure or pre-
attention). Techniques used to attract focal attention in marketing communication
(including sponsorship) are, e.g., the use of humor, fear, visual imagery, sex, or
unusual stimuli (Kroeber-Riel and Esch 2000, p. 161 ff.).
The next hurdle, after attention, that messages need to pass on their way to memory is
comprehension (Greenwald and Leavitt 1984). Comprehension is the process, in
which the mind retrieves information from memory and uses it to assign meaning to
the elements of message content (Foxall and Goldsmith 1998, p. 77). Comprehension
determines whether the consumer understands the message (as intended). The process
of comprehension is accompanied by a number of cognitive responses, such as support
arguments (when the consumer accepts the message), counter arguments (when he
rejects it), source bolstering (i.e., heightened view of message context), and source
derogation (negative view). The last two responses may be important for
understanding sponsorship, which essentially relies on a link of association from the
brand to the event. This association may render the message context more acceptable.
The last stage of information processing is elaboration, in which complex networks of
ideas and feelings are constructed about, e.g., brands or products in the consumers
long-term memory. People store information in memory in the form of associations. In
a marketing example, a brand name may be linked with a variety of other constructs
such as the attributes of the brand (look, size, image) as well as how the consumer
feels about it (how it compares to other brands, the emotions it evokes; Greenwald and
Leavitt 1984; Foxall and Goldsmith 1998).
2.4.3 Schema and Congruence Theory
Schema theory is based on the idea that humans use categories to organize and
structure information contained in memory. A schema is an abstract or generic
knowledge structure, stored in memory, that specifies the defining features and
relevant attributes of some stimulus domain, and the interrelations among these
attributes (Crocker 1984, p. 472). Schemas develop through exposure to or
experience of a stimulus domain (e.g., a situation, person, or object) and are believed
to guide perception, thought and action of consumers in subsequent instances (Speck,
et al. 1988; McDaniel 1999). Schemas are a means of processing and storing large
amounts of information with the least possible cognitive effort (Misra and Beatty
1990; Gwinner and Eaton 1999). Categorization allows individuals to organize similar
information in the same category, thus differentiating it from information that is not in
that category.

When a new stimulus is perceived, its similarity or congruence with existing
schemas is assessed. If the stimulus is perceived to be congruent with an existing
schema, then this new piece of information is incorporate into the schema. If a
stimulus is perceived to be slightly incongruent with an existing schema, individuals
try to assimilate the information with the schema. If the incongruity between stimulus
and schema is perceived to be severe, individuals try to employ an alternate schema
which better matches the stimulus or develop a new schema to accommodate the
stimulus (Roy 2000).
From the sponsorship perspective, perceived congruence between the sponsored entity
(e.g., an event) and the sponsor is critical to whether the sponsor brand is incorporated
into the event schema or not. Essentially, it determines how strong the mental link a
between sponsor and event becomes, which in turn influences whether an image
transfer takes place (discussed in more detail below).
2.4.4 The Role of Consumer Involvement in Cognitive Learning
Over the last 30 years there has been a lot of interest in consumers involvement with a
product, an issue, or, in this case, an event (cf. Kroeber-Riel and Esch 2000; Roy
2000). Involvements role in explaining and predicting behavior has been aptly
described by Allport (1943, p. 459): Ego-involvement, or its absence, makes a critical
difference in human behavior. When a person reacts in a neutral, impersonal routine
atmosphere, his (her) behavior is one thing. But when he (she) is behaving personally,
perhaps excitedly, seriously committed to a task, he (she) behaves quite differently.
Despite the undisputed importance of the construct, no commonly agreed upon
definition exists. A number of partly congruent, partly alternative concepts are
therefore presented. Krugman was among the first to apply involvement theory to the
field of consumer research. He defined involvement as the number of conscious
bridging experiences, connections, or personal references per minute that the viewer
makes between his own life and the stimulus (quoted in Foxall and Goldsmith 1998,
p. 79).
Mitchell (1979) offers an alternative view of involvement that uses the personal
importance component of Krugmans theory, but gives it different emphasis. He views
involvement as an individual level, internal state variable that indicates the amount of
arousal, interest, or drive evoked by a particular stimulus or situation (p. 194).
Involvement, according to Mitchell, consists of the two dimensions intensity (level of
arousal or drive) and direction (towards the evoking stimulus of object or situation).
Houston and Rothschild (1978) provide a very useful definition for discussing event
sponsorships. It consists of three dimensions: situational involvement, enduring
involvement, and response involvement. Situational involvement refers to the ability
of a situation to elicit arousal, interest and possibly behavior from individuals in that
situation, while enduring involvement reflects an individuals ongoing involvement
with an object or issue. Response involvement is seen as a function of situational and
enduring involvement. It is the behavior one exhibits as a result of having either one or
both of these involvements.
This concept was later refined by Zaichowsky (1985). She defines three types of
involvement, namely personal involvement, physical involvement, and situational
involvement. Personal involvement refers to ones inherent interests that motivate one
toward an object. Physical involvement is created by characteristics of an object that
cause differentiation and create interest. Situational involvement is something that
temporarily increases the relevance of or interest in an object or event. While all three
forms of involvement could be important to this research, situational involvement of
event visitors with sponsors on-site presence may well be a key factor in increasing
audience-based brand equity.
High-Involvement vs. Low-Involvement Learning
There are a number of theories concerned with how consumers learn about brands, and
how they develop attitudes towards them, which may lead to a subsequent purchase of
goods or services (Foxall and Goldsmith 1998; Kroeber-Riel and Esch 2000).
Involvement is theorized to moderate the persuasive effectiveness of advertising
messages (and other forms of communication). Depending on the state of involvement,
persuasion may take different routes, the central (high) or the peripheral one (low).
Consumers who display high involvement in a product area are more likely to pay
attention to a related advertising message than consumers who lack this level of
involvement. The attention of high-involvement consumers will be focused upon the
message argument and they will process more of the information contained in the
message. They are more likely to experience more cognitive responses from the
message. This is called the central route (see Figure 11). For consumers less involved,

the message will hold no intrinsic interest. However, their attention may be attracted
by some aspect of the presentation of the message presented rather than by the
message argument itself. Nonetheless, the message may still be persuasive. Consumers
may, for instance, develop positive feelings about the advertised brand or product
simply because they like the music, color, or attractiveness of the spokesperson
deployed in an advertisement without really evaluating the brand or product itself.
This kind of brand learning represents the peripheral route (Foxall and Goldsmith
1998, p. 82). Many product categories are essentially low involvement categories
which requires marketers to deploy adequate techniques (cf. Haedrich and Tomczak
1996, p. 41 f.).
Because higher involvement increases the chances that a message will be given a
certain amount of thought, this theory is called the Elaboration Likelihood Model
(ELM, Petty, et al. 1983).
Kroeber-Riel and Weinberg (1999) have taken the ELM model and expanded it with a
message component, which distinguishes between factual and emotional messages.
Their model discusses the routes that persuasion typically takes in four combinations:
factual and emotional messages may be communicated to high or low-involvement
consumers. The respective routes are presented in Figure 12 and Figure 13.
1. Factual message to
low-involvement audience
Contact with
commercial message
Low
involvement
High
involvement
Cognitive
processing
Emotional
processing
Attitude
Intention
to purchase
Behavior
2. Emotional message to
low-involvement audience
Contact with
commercial message
Low
involvement
High
involvement
Cognitive
processing
Emotional
processing
Attitude
Intention
to purchase
Behavior

Figure 12: Persuasion routes of factual and emotional messages with low-involvement consumers. Source: Kroeber-Riel and
Weinberg 1999, p. 596 ff.
3. Factual message to
high-involvement audience
Contact with
commercial message
Low
involvement
High
involvement
Cognitive
processing
Emotional
processing
Attitude
Intention
to purchase
Behavior
4. Emotional message to
high-involvement audience
Contact with
commercial message
Low
involvement
High
involvement
Cognitive
processing
Emotional
processing
Attitude
Intention
to purchase
Behavior

Figure 13: Persuasion routes of factual and emotional messages with high-involvement consumers. Source: Kroeber-
Riel/Weinberg 1999, p. 596 ff.
Some of the implications of Kroeber-Riel and Weinberg which go beyond the
Elaboration Likelihood Model, are that factual information seldom shows an effect
with low-involvement message recipients, while emotional messages work with both
high-involvement and low-involvement recipients.

2.4.5 Mood States Influence on Encoding, Recall, and Attitude
Mood states of individuals at the time when they are exposed to a stimulus have a
considerable effect on how the stimulus is perceived, evaluated, stored and recalled.
Mood states may be defined as feeling states that are subjectively perceived by
individuals (Gardner 1985, p. 282). In general, mood states seem to bias evaluations
and judgment of stimuli in mood congruent directions. A good mood may be
associated with looking at ones world through rose-colored glasses, while a bad mood
may analogously color evaluations.
It has also been suggested that both the intensity and direction of mood states at the
time of encoding may affect recall of information. Heightened arousal elicited by a
primary task, for instance, has been shown to impair performance on a secondary task.
Heightened arousal appears to produce an attention narrowing process: the primary
task is attended to at the expense of the secondary task (Pham 1992). It has been
suggested that people learn better when in a positive mood than when in negative
mood. In an experiment, better recall of commercials which were inserted in a happy
TV program was observed compared to commercials which were inserted in a sad
program (Goldberg and Gorn 1987).
Recall is also affected by the consumers mood at both the time of exposure and
retrieval. Mood at the time of exposure may affect what information is later recalled,
as memorization of mood-congruent items is stronger. This effect is believed to be due
to greater encoding-elaboration of mood-congruent material at the time of exposure.
Furthermore, recall is enhanced when mood at the time of retrieval matches mood at
the time of encoding, and when the encoding mood is provided as a retrieval cue
(Gardner 1985).
With regard to event sponsorship, the discussed properties of mood states of the
audience may be a critical moderating factor in the creation of audience-based brand
equity.
2.4.6 Multi-Sensory Experiences
Most forms of marketing communications rely heavily on visual and, to some extent,
also on audio stimuli, but neglect the other senses that humans possess, namely touch,
smell, and taste. Much research has been conducted on how different sensations affect
human behavior and cognition. It is believed that sound, touch, smell and taste have a
more direct influence on human emotions than visual impressions (e.g., Bruner 1990;
Fiore, et al. 2000).
Sensory pleasure entails positively evaluated activation of sensory receptors (e.g.,
eyes, ears, nose, skin, muscles, and mouth) by qualities of the form of the object or
environment. Examples of such qualities are intensity of color, sound, odor,
smoothness of texture, movement rhythm and sweetness of taste. Sensory pleasure
may be transferred to cognitive pleasure and memorized. As discussed above,
understanding and memorization requires congruity between the sensory stimulus and
an existing cognitive schema.
Because multi-dimensional sensations (i.e., the combination of sensory stimuli)
stimulate mental imagery of rich memories and associations, they are increasingly
considered an important element for the marketing discipline and have found
widespread usage mainly in retail settings (Donovan, et al. 1994, cf. Sherry, et al.
2001). Kotler (1973, p. 48) noted that buyers respond to the total product. [] One
of the most significant features of the total product is the place where it is bought or
consumed. In some cases, the place, more specifically the atmosphere of the place, is
more influential than the product itself in the purchase decision. In some cases, the
atmosphere is the primary product, (original emphasis).
Sensory stimulation (such as specific scents or sounds) enhances the vividness and
clarity of the memory (Bruner 1990; Fiore, et al. 2000). It is therefore argued that
multi-dimensional sensations may play an important role in the recall of an event
experience.
2.4.7 Vivid Memories of Events: the Role of Episodic Memory
Recent research into the structure of memory has looked at why certain events (as in
one-time occurrences) in life are more vividly remembered than others. Cornwell and
Maignan (1998) suggest that this research may yield interesting insights into how
event visitors remember sponsorship messages.
Conceptually, the structure of memory can be divided into a semantic and an episodic
part. Semantic memory contains general knowledge such as words, concepts, rules and
abstract ideas. It may be likened to a general encyclopedia or dictionary of knowledge.
Semantic memory has a formal structure, which is organized for easy retrieval.
Episodic memory on the other hand consists of personally experienced events. Most

notably, it stores information about the timing of events and episodes important to a
persons life. As such, it represents personal knowledge and is organized by time and
place of occurrence (Tulving 1985).
Visitors emotional experiences at events may result in the build up of episodic
memory of the event in conjunction with the sponsors brands. Compared to semantic
memory, information stored in the episodic memory is more vividly remembered. It
contains not only information central to the event, but also peripheral information, e.g.,
on sponsors (cf. Heurer and Reisberg 1990; Pillemer 1998).
2.5 How Does Event Sponsorship Affect Brand Equity?
A Summary of Current Research
As mentioned, several scholars have conducted empirical and theoretical research into
the question of which factors determine the success of event sponsorships (defined in
terms of audience-based brand equity). This section summarizes their work in a
comprehensive framework, which classifies the factors for sponsorship success
according to three dimensions. First, whether they concern a cognitive process (i.e.,
inside event visitors minds) or a physical aspect of sponsorship, second, timing,
when the factors impact the sponsorship success (before, at or after the event), and
third, whether the factors are in the direct sphere of influence of marketers or not.
The framework is presented in Figure 14 (factors are identified with bullet points,
factors which marketers may directly influence are underscored in the illustration):

Event's
brand equity
Sponsor's
brand equity
Transfer of attributes
Cognitive processes inside
event visitors' minds
Before the event
Communication
activities of sponsor
Communication
activities of event
At the event
Duration and frequency of event
attendance
Intensity and quality of event
experience (not sponsor related)
Level of on-site brand-experience
After the event
Post-event
communication
activities to induce
event recall
Involvement
with event
Other
sponsors
Prior
Contem-
porary
Involvement
with brand
Other
sponsor-
ships/
number of
sponsor-
ships
influences
Link of association
Fit between sponsor and event

Figure 14: Selected factors influencing audience-based brand equity.
Moderating factors on Sponsorship Success
Ten main factors that are believed to have a moderating influence on audience-based
brand equity are discussed in the research to date. The main theoretical advances
concerning the three most discussed factors are briefly summarized in the following
sections, i.e., perceived fit between sponsor and event, level of audience involvement
with both the event and the sponsoring brand, and duration and frequency of event
attendance.
Fit Between Sponsor and Event
Today, the perceived fit, or match-up, between a sponsored property and the sponsor is
widely believed to be an important factor in making the association between the two
stick in consumers minds (e.g., Gwinner and Eaton 1999; Johar and Pham 1999;
McDaniel 1999). Conceptually, this belief is founded on studies of celebrity
endorsement advertisement (e.g., Friedman and Friedman 1979; Kahle and Homer
1985; McCracken 1989; Misra and Beatty 1990; Lynch and Schuler 1994), an area of
research that has received considerably more attention than sponsorship (McDaniel
1999).

Friedman and Friedman (1979) were among the first to mention the role of
similarity in an endorsement advertising context. They based their argument on
source credibility theory, but did not test it. The first empirical test of the match-up
hypothesis was provided by Kahle and Homer (1985). They showed that similarity (in
terms of beauty) between the endorser and the product increases advertising
effectiveness, specifically brand recall, recall of arguments in the ad, brand attitude,
and purchase intention. Again, they used source credibility theory to interpret their
findings. However, while source credibility theory may provide a stringent explanation
for the persuasiveness of an endorsement-based advertisement, it can only be partially
used to explain increased brand recall, and even less to predict potential effects on
image-transfer between the endorser and the brand.
A more useful conceptual framework that overcomes these weaknesses was first
applied to endorsement advertising by Speck, et al. (1988) and Misra and Beatty
(1990): schema theory. A schema is an abstract or generic knowledge structure,
stored in memory, that specifies the defining features and relevant attributes of some
stimulus domain, and the interrelations among these attributes (Crocker 1984, p.
472). Schemata develop through exposure to or experience of a stimulus domain (e.g.,
a situation, person, or object) and are believed to guide perception, thought and action
of consumers in subsequent instances (Speck, et al. 1988; McDaniel 1999). Schemata
enable individuals to function in complex environments by facilitating information
processing: instead of having to evaluate each specific situation, person, or object with
high cognitive effort, one is able to simply recall general knowledge pertaining to the
present stimulus domain (Speck, et al. 1988; Gwinner and Eaton 1999). Schemata are
considered to be fairly stable over time, but may be altered by repeated failure to help
correct decision making or incongruence with present stimuli (Crocker 1984).
Misra and Beatty (1990) evaluated the applicability of the schema theory based match-
up hypothesis for predicting consumer responses to different endorser/brand pairings.
They found empirical support for what they called the filtering model (p. 162):
When an individual receives new information on a brand, any information that is
incongruent with or irrelevant to the celebritys characteristics (existing schema) may
be filtered out, while congruent information will be more readily encoded, thus leading
to subsequent recall superiority for the congruent information (i.e. brand attributes).
Subsequent empirical research of the match-up hypothesis in both endorsement and
sponsorship contexts has been explicitly or implicitly based on the filtering model.
(e.g., Lynch and Schuler 1994; Gwinner and Eaton 1999; McDaniel 1999).
The match-up hypothesis was adapted to sponsorship research early on. Several
authors have proposed, on a theoretical basis, that perceived sponsorevent fit may be
a key factor in making sponsorship work (e.g., Meenaghan 1983; Otker and Hayes
1987; McDonald 1991). Subsequently, a number of empirical studies have investigated
the match-up hypothesis in the sponsorship context and have shown that sponsor
event fit affects constructs such as sponsorship awareness (Johar and Pham 1999),
brand image (Gwinner and Eaton 1999), corporate image (D'Astous and Bitz 1995;
Roy 2000) and brand attitude (Roy 2000), as well as sponsor interest, favorability and
product use (Speed and Thompson 2000).
Models of Image Transfer in Event Sponsorship
In pointing out that sponsorship may operate on the transfer or by the translocation of
an aura from the event to the sponsor, Otker and Hayes (1987, p. 4) were the first
researchers to acknowledge image transfer as an important sponsorship effect. Despite
its undisputed practical relevance, image transfer has subsequently received very little
research attention (exceptions: McDonald 1991; Stipp and Schiavone 1996). However,
their conceptualizations of the image transfer process did not go beyond a vague
notion of positive attitudes which can rub off on a sponsor (Stipp and Schiavone
1996, p. 27) or failed to provide a sound theoretical basis for the proposed factors
moderating the extent of image transfer (McDonald 1991).
The first comprehensive and conceptually sound model of image transfer was
proposed by Gwinner (1997), drawing heavily on previous research into celebrity
endorsement by McCracken (1989). His model conceptualized how an event acquires
its specific image and what moderating variables affect its transfer to the sponsoring
brand. Specifically, three factors are believed to affect event image: the type of event
(e.g., sports-related, music-related), the specific characteristics of the event (e.g., size,
history, professional status) and individual factors (e.g., number and strength of
meanings, personal history with event). It is proposed that the image transfer is
moderated by the degree of similarity between sponsor and event, the sponsorship
level, the frequency of the event and the level of involvement with the sponsoring
product (Gwinner 1997, p. 148). How an event acquires its specific image is not
further discussed in the present work. It should be noted, however, that an events

image (along with its audience reach) may be a key motivating factor for entering a
sponsorship agreement.
Surprisingly, the study by Gwinner and Eaton (1999) is the only one (to our best
knowledge) that discusses how image transfer is affected by sponsorevent fit. Their
research showed that the image transfer from the event to the brand was more
pronounced for eventproduct pairings that exhibited a good match-up. A key strength
of their study is that they actually measured event and brand image at an individual
attribute level and were thus able to judge the amount of image transfer by assessing
the degree of similarity between the images of the brand and event. Using a classroom
experiment, they confronted subjects with a number of eventbrand pairings that
exhibited good and poor fit, respectively, and asked them to rate both the event and the
sponsoring brand on a battery of adjectives specific to each event. Eventbrand
pairings with a good perceived sponsorevent fit thereby exhibited a higher
congruence of attributes profiles than those pairings with a poor fit.
Level of Involvement with Event and/or Brand
The level of involvement with an event and/or brand is believed to influence the
information processing of a sponsorship stimulus at an event. Several authors have
empirically evaluated this proposition (Celsi and Olson 1988; Pavelchak, et al. 1988;
Pham 1992; Roy 2000; Lardinoit and Derbaix 2001). In a study about the relationship
between felt (situational) event involvement and recognition of billboard
advertisements at a sporting event, Pham (1992) found that recognition of billboards
was highest with medium and highly involved fans. Low involved fans did not have
much interest in the games and the billboards, while very highly involved fans were
too absorbed by the game to recognize the billboards. The effect of mood states on
recognition of sponsorship stimuli was also researched in this study. While arousal had
a negative impact, pleasure did not have a significant influence on recognition. This
latter finding is at odds with previous studies on advertising. Pham (1992, p. 90)
concludes that the effects of pleasure on memory may be too subtle to be captured in
a recognition task [experiment] (addition by the author). In a similar study,
Pavelchak, et al. (1988) were also unable to show an relationship between pleasure and
recall of embedded sponsorship stimuli.
Roy (2000) examined the moderating effects of enduring event and product
involvement on the relationship between the brand and event equity match-up (in
terms of high vs. low equity) and perceived sponsorevent fit. He found that as
product or event involvement increased, pairings of high equity events and high equity
brands were increasingly perceived as exhibiting a good fit. However, he did not test a
direct influence of event or product involvement on the perceived sponsorevent
match-up. Lardinoit and Derbaix (2001) found a positive, albeit small, relationship
between event involvement and sponsor recognition. He concluded that enduring
involvement is a minor factor in terms of the effectiveness of sponsorship (Lardinoit
and Derbaix 2001, p. 178).
A construct related to involvement, that also influences processing of sponsorship
stimuli, is consumer knowledge and expertise (Zaichowsky 1985; Alba and
Hutchinson 1987; Roy 2000). Communications activities (e.g., advertisements or
announcements by the speaker at the event) of both sponsors and the event organizers
before and during an event may influence consumer knowledge, and in turn affect
memorization of sponsorship stimuli.
Duration and Frequency of Event Attendance
One very straightforward, but nonetheless very important influence on the build-up of
audience-based brand equity is simply the duration and frequency of attendance. This
factor essentially represents the time a member of the audience is exposed to
sponsorship stimuli at the event site in other words: how much time he or she has to
learn about the sponsor. Two empirical studies of duration and frequency are worth
mentioning: Anne and Chron (1991) showed that sponsor brand recall increases
curvilinear with the number of minutes a sports event was attended. Bennet (1999)
found that sponsor brand recall increased with the number of football matches
attended.
A particularly interesting dimension of the duration of event attendance may result
from the application of Zajoncs (1968) mere exposure theory to sponsorship. As
discussed, it holds that mere exposure to a stimulus (e.g., a sponsor billboard) results
in liking of the stimulus over time, as familiarity with the stimulus increases. The
applicability of the mere exposure theory to sponsorship was empirically validated by
Bennet (1999).
As mentioned earlier, sponsorships are subject to cognitive processes inside the
audiences minds. It is therefore important to remember that all activities which a

sponsor undertakes are subject to perception. Marketers can only hope the audience
will understand the message as intended, but have no control over the cognitive
process that leads to a certain perception (of course, to be reasonably safe, some
elements can be tested beforehand).
Timing is also an important factor when assessing the impact of sponsorship factors on
brand equity. Sponsor and/or event activities before the event may create a basis for
brand learning through pre-exposure of the audience to sponsorship stimuli, which in
turn may affect the creation of brand equity at the event. Integrating the sponsorship
content into other communication channels after the event may lead to a longer lasting
effect of the sponsorship, in contrast to a temporary, but non-lasting surge in brand
equity (cf: Crimmins and Horn 1996).
Sphere of Influence of Sponsorship Managers
From a sponsorship managers perspective the key question, of course, is which of the
factors mentioned is he able to influence? Strikingly, the most researched factors are
outside the direct sphere of influence of sponsors, as they are very much dependent on
the perception and behavior of the event audience. Even perceived sponsor-event fit
depends to a large degree on the characteristics of the respective product or service
which makes it very difficult for certain potential sponsors to find adequate events to
sponsor (with both a good fit and the desired target audience). In fact, only three
factors are under the direct control (underscored in Figure 14) of the sponsors: the
number and kind of other sponsorships they engage in (Pham and Johar 2001), their
communication activities (Otker 1988), and the level of the event site brand experience
which they provide to the audience.
As mentioned earlier, this last aspect has, so far, been widely ignored by researchers
and left to practitioners, such as advertising or event marketing agencies, to explore.
The potential impact of the on-site brand experience on audience-based brand equity
and how to best design the on-site experience will therefore be discussed in
considerable detail in the remaining chapters of this thesis.
Case Studies Freestyle.ch 66
3 Case Studies Freestyle.ch
Two case studies of sponsors of Freestyle.ch, a popular Swiss youth sports event, are
presented. A detailed description of their on-site sponsorship activities reveals two
very different approaches to communicating to and to involving the event audience.
Survey data gathered by the event organizers allows making an assessment of how
the different approaches affect selected elements of audience-based brand equity. It
is concluded that sponsorship success is less a function of sponsor status (i.e., main
or lower-level sponsor), but rather of on-site execution. Of the different execution
approaches, the provision of an event-linked activity and sampling products to the
audience may be the most successful.
3.1 Research Design and Methodology
Cases studies are widely believed to be a very useful research tool when approaching a
new area of research (e.g., Tomczak 1992; Aaker, et al. 2001, p. 201). Case studies
allow the researcher to explore a subject in-depth and thus discover a large number of
potentially important factors, which may later be validated through larger-sample
research methodologies.
As with other forms of marketing communication, how a sponsorship is executed is as
important as the strategy behind it. For instance, sponsors may be ignored or even
rejected by music fans at an open-air festival because their on-site booths are
perceived as old-fashioned, or because they sell their product at rip-off prices (many
sponsorship contracts include exclusive commercial activities).
This piece of research aims at yielding insights into some of the qualitative factors
believed to be decisive for the creation of audience-based brand equity through
sponsorship, which are later deployed for operationalization and use in quantitative
research (cf. Lamnek 1995, p. 13). Specifically, the case studies aim at answering the
following two related research questions:
How was the on-site sponsorship engagement designed and executed?
What was the effect of the execution on audience-based brand equity?
To determine whether a case study approach is suited for these particular research
goals, it is necessary to know the characteristics of this specific research methodology.

Yin (1994, p. 13) defines a case study as an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially, when the boundaries
between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident. He also describes the
research situation in which a case study approach has the best fit (p. 9): when a how
or why question is being asked about a contemporary set of events over which the
investigator has little or no control.
Applying these criteria to the research task at hand yields a good fit between the
research strategy and the approach. The first of the two research questions is a how
question, the research object is a contemporary set of events, and the researcher does
not have any control over it. The second research question asks what the effect of the
observed sponsorship execution was. The data used in the case studies to answer this
question was collected by the event organizers by means of a survey.
3.2 Reason for Case Selection and Focus of Case Study
Rivellas engagement at the Freestyle.ch event in Switzerland was chosen for four
main reasons. First, to portray an innovative sponsorship engagement with the
potential to interest seasoned practitioners as well as novices Freestyle.chs
sponsorship philosophy (see below) allows sponsors like Rivella to fully implement
their ideas. Second, the case needed to be novel nothing is more boring than reading
about the same best practice example over and over again. Third, within the
inherent limits of case studies the case needed to be comparable to other events. By
choosing a medium-sized, three-day event, comparability to both large-scale events as
well as to smaller one-day events may be given. Fourth, Freestyle.ch was chosen for
reasons of accessibility: the event and its sponsors are located in Switzerland, and their
managers could be approached without much difficulty.
Freestyle.ch and its sponsors are multi-facetted. The following, however, contains only
information that helps to better understand the research questions at hand.
3.3 Freestyle.ch: Authenticity, Professionalism, Innovation
3.3.1 Facts and Figures
Freestyle.ch is Europes largest freestyle sports event. It has been hosted in Zurich,
Switzerland, every fall (usually at the end of September), since 1993. In the first two
years, the event was called Nescaf Zri Inline, after the formerly main discipline
inline skating. The sports showcased at Freestyle.ch have varied in recent years;
currently they include snowboarding, skateboarding, BMX, and FMX (Freestyle
Motocross). Many of the worlds best freestyle athletes compete at Freestyle.ch
(Interview with Erwin Flury; own observations).
Audience participation at Freestyle.ch has grown substantially over time, partially due
to the fact that there is no entrance fee. The event in 2002 (the unit of analysis of this
case study) drew more than 100,000 visitors over three days (NZZ 2002), making it
Switzerlands second largest sports event with regard to on-site spectators. The event
site is located on the shores of Lake Zurich. The most visible attraction at Freestyle.ch
2002 was a 28-meter high snowboard ramp, which is covered with man-made snow,
resulting in a stark contrast to the otherwise green surroundings. Other obstacles
included a halfpipe (for skateboard and BMX) and a FMX jump. On the premises,
there were also sponsor booths, an industry exposition, and several bars and
restaurants as well as a number of VIP-only areas (FAF/Swissmate 2002).
The climax event of Freestyle.ch 2002 was a so-called Ultimate Cross-Over Session
held at night, in which athletes of all four disciplines competed against each other to
determine the Crossover.champ. However, the event consists not only of the sport
contests, but also of parties, concerts, and premiers of the latest snowboard videos.
Freestyle.ch has an event budget of CHF 1.8 million, excluding expenses for sponsors
on-site activities, which amount to an estimated additional CHF 1.3 million. (Interview
with Erwin Flury).
3.3.2 Sponsorship Environment at Freestyle.ch
Freestyle.ch is an attractive communication platform for sponsors for a number of
reasons (see Figure 15).

Freestyle.ch
as a sponsoring
platform
Event characteristics
Top event (size, competitive level)
High credibility and authenticity
with target group
Positive audience mood
Professional organization
Attractive target group
80% between 15 and 24 years old
(average age 19.9)
60% male, 40% female
High loyalty towards the event
(94% plan to come again in 2003)
Open for commercial messages
Scope for design creativity
High degree of sponsor freedom
Active involvement of audience
welcomed (e.g., provision of
activity, sampling)
Innovative sponsoring forms (e.g.,
early Internet adoption, laser
voting)
Media reach
Live TV (SF DRS; 74,000 viewers)
Total of 2.2 million TV viewers in
Switzerland
Broadcasted to more than 160
countries
Several hours of radio coverage
Print: 11.6 m circulation

Figure 15: Characteristics of Freestyle.ch as a sponsorship platform.
Some of these characteristics are worth highlighting, as they may provide helpful
insights into the research question at hand.
Credibility with the Audience
Freestyle.ch enjoys high credibility with its audience (Cash 2000; ZrichExpress
2002). There are a number of reasons for this: many of the members of the organizing
committee are themselves active freestyle sports enthusiasts; the quality of the
competitions is very high (sports which do not have enough high-level athletes are
eliminated from the program, e.g., freeskiing); the organizing committee makes sure
that sponsors only engage in activities which will be respected by the audience (e.g.,
use of contemporary, high-quality photography in promotional material; Interview
with Erwin Flury). It can be assumed that large parts of the audience view themselves
as members of the freestyle sub-culture. Implicit, but clear rules exist that
differentiate this sub-group from the general public or other sub-groups (cf. Alkemeyer
and Gebauer 2003). Anybody posing as a member of the sub-culture without
complying with these rules is likely to be perceived as an impostor. Being associated
with a credible event such as Freestyle.ch gives sponsors an aura of authenticity and
the commercial message meets with less scrutiny. In fact, the audience sees sponsors
as highly positive (i.e., interesting, authentic, original, and progressive), according to
Venetz (2002).

Attractive Target Group
From a consumer goods marketers perspective, the audience at Freestyle.ch is a
dream come true (Venetz 2002):
Young: Average age 19.9; 80 percent between 15 and 24.
Male and female: 60% male, 40% female [for comparison: for PGA Golf, the
distribution is
70% male and 30% female Nicholls, et al. 1999].
Loyal: 94% plan on attending Freestyle.ch in 2003.
Pro-commercial: There is no backlash against commercialization; the younger the
members of the audience, the more open they are for sponsors
messages (Interview with Erwin Flury)
Positive Audience Mood
In the previous chapter, the effects of audience mood states on the build-up of brand
equity were discussed. Venetz 2002 shows that the audience feels very good during
Freestyle.ch. Negative activation (as used in the Circumplex Model of Emotions;
Watson and Tellegen 1985) is low (i.e., the audience does not feel stressed and
annoyed, but peaceful and relaxed) while positive activation is high (i.e.,
excited and fascinated). Applying the results of this study, Freestyle.ch appears to
have a mood climate which should facilitate the learning of sponsorship messages (cf.
Pham 1992).
Scope for Creative Design
Freestyle.ch encourages its sponsors to be active in shaping the event, to involve the
audience and to give it added value through their activities (Interview with Erwin
Flury). Compared to other large events (e.g., FIS Alpine World Ski Championships,
UEFA Champions League), sponsors have a high degree of freedom in the scope of
the design of their on-site activities (own observation). Only the core of the event, the
main competitions, is kept free from sponsoring brands. This was not always so: at
earlier events, there were branded competitions such as the Nokia Highest Air or the

Hollywood Inline Slalom. Freestyle.ch changed their sponsorship policy not least
because some of its athletes did not feel comfortable competing in an event whose title
sponsor was a direct competitor of their own sponsors. Despite this policy change,
there is still some room for sponsor activities around the core competitions. In 2001
for instance, the winner of one of the snowboard competitions was determined by the
audience using a SMS-voting mechanism sponsored by Sunrise, a provider of
telecommunications services. The progress of the voting was beamed on to the
snowboard ramp using laser technology (Interview with Erwin Flury).
3.3.3 Sponsorship Structure
Freestyle.ch deploys three different levels of sponsorship. Depending on their status,
sponsors are entitled to more or less signage, size and location of sponsor booth,
amount of free VIP guests, and presence in event communications (FAF/Swissmate
2002). Freestyle.ch had 10 sponsor brands in 2002, ranging from instant coffee, to
mobile phones, to video game consoles, and soft drinks (Figure 16):
B-Sponsors
C-Sponsors
A-Sponsors
~200250,000
(estimate)
Sponsorship
Fee (CHF)
Sponsors
130,000
75,000

Figure 16: Sponsorship structure at Freestyle.ch. Source: Interview with Erwin Flury (2002).
3.3.4 Sponsorship Effectiveness Tracking at Freestyle.ch
Freestyle.ch deploys sophisticated methodology to track how the event and its
sponsors are perceived among the event audience. In a yearly survey, which is
overseen by Martin Venetz (a psychologist), the audience is asked questions pertaining
to demographics, mood states, attitude towards the event, and attitudes towards the
sponsors. The survey is representative (Venetz 2002) and has been conducted since
1999, allowing time series analysis of constructs (e.g., sponsorship awareness of a
long-time sponsor).
Freestyle.chs proprietary audience survey contains a number of items that track how
sponsors are perceived by the audience. Some of these items may be used to determine
sponsors audience-based brand equity. The data available from the event organizers
allows making a statement about sponsorship awareness (aided and unaided) and
esteem. While aided sponsorship awareness is available in its standard form,
approximations must be used for unaided awareness and esteem. Sponsorship
awareness measures the strength of association between the sponsor and the event and
is part of brand image, while esteem is a component of brand loyalty (Keller 1993). An
overview is presented in Figure 17:
Brand
Equity
Measurements of Brand Equity
Standard Freestyle.ch
Sponsorship
Awareness
(Association)
Aided Aided
Unaided Unaided naming of sponsors'
activities (approximation)
Top-of-mind N/a
Brand
Image
Brand associations
Type
Strength
Qualitative assessment by
Catrin Wetzel and Erwin
Flury
Brand
Loyalty
Esteem Positive impressions of
sponsors
Propensity to buy N/a
Loyalty N/a

Figure 17: Measurements of audience-based brand equity at Freestyle.ch.
As an approximation for esteem, the number of respondents who rated a sponsors
presence as positive was used.
For unaided sponsorship awareness, the unprompted naming of sponsors on-site
activities may serve as an indication on how actively the sponsor brands are
remembered, although the actual score would likely be higher for two reasons: naming
the brand name only requires less cognitive effort, and this specific measurement

contains only positive impressions of sponsors, thus eliminating those visitors who
remember the brand and its on-site activities, but did not like it.
Because no statistically significant data on brand image is collected interview
statements are used as an approximation. Through the use of source triangulation the
reliability of these imperfect measurements may have been improved.
3.4 Rivella case: Experiencing the Cool Side of a Traditional Brand
Rivella is a manufacturer and distributor of soft drinks and fruit juices. It was founded
it 1952. Rivellas main brands are Rivella, Mivella, Michel, and Passaia. It also
distributes the Vall Noble and Grapillon brands. Most of these brands also have sub-
brands (see below). Outside its main market, Switzerland, Rivella is also distributed on
a small scale to the Netherlands, France, Luxembourg, Germany and Austria. In 2001,
Rivella (including the Michel brand) generated revenues of CHF 140 million (Rivella
2001). Because Rivella is a privately held company, further details are not available.
3.4.2 The Rivella Brands Color Coding
Rivella is a soft drink based on a unique milk serum formula that is produced with
natural ingredients. The fact that it is healthy, easy to digest, and thirst-quenching
makes it the ideal drink for active people. The original Rivella formula was introduced
in 1952 with a red label. In 1959, a diet version of the drink was launched, sporting a
blue label. 40 years later, a version containing green tea extract was introduced under
the label Rivella Grn [Green] Rivella 2003. The launch of Rivella Grn brought
about a redirecting of the Rivella brand policy. The three brands are now separately
positioned, targeting different consumption situations (Interview with Catrin Wetzel):
Rivella Rot: Sport
Rivella Blau: Leisure time, cultural activities
Rivella Grn: White-collar workplaces, schools and universities
The three brands feature separate marketing communication targets and activities, but
use a common advertising slogan Welche Farbe hat dein Durst? [Which color is
your thirst?]
3.4.3 Rivellas Brand Equity
Rivella is one of Switzerlands strongest brands. It is associated with attributes such as
likeable, healthy, high quality, and refreshing (Rivella 2001). It is seen as a more
traditional brand, and is not necessarily perceived as being cool by young people.
Since the launch of Rivella Grn, however, Rivella is increasingly seen as a dynamic
brand. Within Switzerland, Rivella has a very high top-of-mind awareness, second
only to Coca Cola, and also a high unaided awareness (Rivella does not disclose these
two values). The fact that virtually every Swiss person knows the Rivella brand is
reflected in the aided awareness of 99% (Interview with Catrin Wetzel). Due to the
new advertising campaign, awareness has increased over the last three years (Rivella
2001).
3.4.4 Brand Targets and Marketing Communication Activities
Brand Targets
Rivellas marketing communication targets must be viewed in light of its brand equity
situation. Considering the strong link between top-of-mind awareness and actual
consumption (Morgan 1999), as well as Rivellas number two position behind Coca
Cola, increasing top-of-mind levels is one of the key quantitative targets for Rivella.
At a qualitative level, Rivella aims to be perceived as more dynamic than it is
perceived today. As well, Rivella wants to further foster the distinct and differentiating
positioning of its sub-brands Rot, Blau and Grn (Interview with Catrin Wetzel).
Activities
Rivella deploys a large number of different marketing communications instruments.
While classic advertising plays an important role, promotions and sponsorship are also
regarded as core activities (Interview with Catrin Wetzel).
Classic advertising: Combined communication of brand and product messages.
Promotions: POS activities at retail outlets (e.g., in-store displays), POS
activities at food outlets (e.g., place mats), on products (bottle
label).
Sponsorship: Event sponsorship, federation sponsorship (i.e., Swiss Ski, Swiss
Olympic, Swiss Track and Field, Swiss Unihockey), event
service.

Anyone who has ever attended a number of Swiss events will have noticed the
presence of Rivella. In 2001, Rivella supported, in one form or another, roughly 1,100
events. To cope with this large number, Rivella has its own Events unit. This
specialized unit not only takes care of beverages, but can also supply anything from
marker tape to PA and lighting systems.
From a marketing perspective, three event sponsorships stand out: the Trinity Events
(so called because the three units Marketing, Events and Sales are involved). Trinity
events are event sponsorships that play an important role in the marketing
communications mix. These events may also be incorporated in other communication
channels, such as advertisements and billboards. The three Trinity events are
(Interview with Catrin Wetzel; Interview with Erwin Flury):
Lake Parade: Electronic music parade, French-speaking part of Switzerland,
brand building for Rivella Blau
Film Festival Locarno: Film festival, Italian-speaking part of Switzerland, brand
building for Rivella Blau
Freestyle.ch: Freestyle sports event (see below), German-speaking part of
Switzerland, brand building for Rivella Rot.
Targets at Freestyle.ch
Rivellas main target at Freestyle.ch was to positively influence the perceptions that
the young, dynamic and urban on-site audience holds about Rivella. Given the events
characteristics (see below), management hoped for an image transfer between
Freestyle.ch and Rivella (Interview with Catrin Wetzel; Interview with Erwin Flury).
Earlier in the relationship (Rivella has been a sponsor in some form since the
beginning), a surprise effect was also intended, as in wow, Rivella sponsors this cool
event! The fact that consumption of Rivella soft drinks is generally lower in the
greater Zurich area than in the rest of Switzerland also contributed to the decision to
sponsor Freestyle.ch (Interview with Catrin Wetzel).
3.4.5 Rivellas On-Site Activities
In 2002, Rivella designed its entire on-site presence around snowskating, a novel
variation of snowboarding. Instead of a regular snowboard with bindings, a smaller
board without bindings roughly resembling a skateboard without wheels is used.
Experienced users can perform movements and tricks on a snowskate that are similar
to those that can be performed on a regular skateboard (e.g., ollies, slides on
obstacles).
Rivellas prominently placed booth featured a small snow-covered slope, on which
rails were placed. Visitors to the booth could borrow a snowskate in exchange for a
deposit (e.g., a back-pack, ID) and skate on the slope for 20 minutes. Once a day, there
was also a small competition called Best Style Contest, which anybody could enter.
The facts and figures about Rivellas booth are summarized in Figure 18 (Interview
with Catrin Wetzel):
Booth size: 72 m
2

Skate-able area: 6 by 10 meters (60 m
2
)
Amount of snow: 20-30 m
3
, sourced from nearby ice rinks
Staff: 68 (2 at welcome desk/registration, 4 shapers, 2
universally deployed)
Participants: Around 600 in 3 days
Waiting time: Up to 80 minutes
Prices: Snowskates (for contest winners), T-Shirts (for
contest participants)
Give-aways: Specially designed stickers, and postcards; all
featuring snowskating motifs
Cost: Around CHF 50,000
Figure 18: Facts and figures on Rivellas on-site booth. Source: Interview with Catrin Wetzel (2002).
Special attention was paid to the visual impact of the booth. In previous years, Rivella
had used a standard silhouette tent (the same kind it deploys for drink stands) featuring
only small brand logos. In 2002, it used large-scale banners, which were mounted on a
metal frame. This had two effects: the booth and the Rivella brand could be seen from
far away, and the booth was well-defined vis--vis the crowded general area of the
event. At nighttime, the Rivella brand logo was projected on the slope. To generate
traffic to its booth, Rivella deployed small posters, which were distributed across the
event site.
Through its booth design, Rivella enabled parts of the audience (close to 100 percent
of whom are snowboarders, skateboarders, or both; Venetz 2002) to actively play in
the snow at the end of summer, instead of only passively watch pro athletes ride on a
snow ramp, which is closed-off to the public. Also, as is apparent from comparisons of
event footage of 2002 and earlier years, the visual impact of the booth was greatly
enhanced.

3.4.6 Excursion: The Case for Integrated Communication
Rivellas on-site offering was right on target, as snowskating is definitely a very
attractive activity from the viewpoint of the average Freestyle.ch visitor. But, a critical
observer might ask, what does snowskating have to do with Rivella? A whole lot in
fact, as will be explained in this section, which represents only a brief excursion from
the quest of finding answers to the research questions at hand.
As explained above, promotions are a key element in Rivellas marketing
communication mix. Typically, Rivella runs two promotions a year, one in the summer
and one in the winter. Promotions consist of a number of attractive prizes (e.g., a video
camera), which with a bit of luck can be won by sending in a coupon (e.g., a label
from a bottle, a section of a place mat). When choosing promotion prizes, Rivella is
looking for innovative products with a high level of desirability, in order to generate a
high response rate. Snowskates fit these criteria, and so they were chosen as the
promotional theme for the winter 2002/2003.
In a fully integrated manner, Rivella used its sponsorship of Freestyle.ch to launch its
winter promotion. In the weeks leading up to Freestyle.ch, Rivella-branded billboards
featuring a snowskater were placed in the greater Zurich area, referring to the
upcoming event. Subsequently, all Rivella bottles featured special promotion labels,
prominently sporting a snowskate. To further target a younger audience,
advertisements featuring a snowskater were run in special interest publications (e.g.,
SeventhSky).
Integration of the three communication elements promotion, sponsorship and classic
advertising led to a very coherent picture of Rivella during that period of time. As
discussed above, it is very likely that the snowskating billboards led to pre-
involvement of a part of the Freestyle.ch audience with Rivella. This pre-involvement
may have positively influenced the build-up of brand equity. Furthermore, as Rivella
rebuilt the visual impression of its billboards at Freestyle.ch, the level of recognition
may have been greatly increased (Otker 1988).
Postcard/Print-Advertisement Event-Site Sponsorship Execution

Figure 19: Rivella's integration of advertising and event-site sponsorship. Source: Rivella
3.5 Case Chupa-Chups: Evoking Vivid Memories through Product
Sampling
Chupa-Chups, the worlds first lollipop was invented in the 1950s in Spain. In 1958, a
manufacturing company was founded under the same name. Ever since, Chupa-Chups
have dominated the industry. Today, Chupa-Chups manufactures roughly 4 billion
lollipops per year in more than 40 flavors. It also produces Smint brand mini-mints
and Crazy Planet brand candy, chocolate, and bubble gum. In 2002, its total sales
reached USD 370 million. Chupa-Chups is still privately owned by the founding
family (Hoover's 2003).
3.5.2 Brand Equity, Brand Targets, and Marketing Activities
Chupa-Chups is the most popular brand of lollipop in the world. Since its beginnings,
Chupa-Chups has put considerable emphasis on creativity in their approach to
marketing. For instance, the company commissioned the surrealist painter Salvador
Dali to design the Chupa-Chups logo (Hoover's 2003). More recently, Chupa-Chups
was among the first companies to successfully use viral marketing programs via Short
Message Services (Breen 2003).

Chupa-Chups has recognized the need to target somewhat older customers to be able
to increase its sales volume. Among others, the company has identified the freestyle
sports community and its events as a prime marketing environment for its product. In
Australia, for instance, Chupa-Chups partners with surfwear industry leader Billabong
in sponsoring a series of events targeted at teenage surfer girls (Chupa-Chups 2003).
3.5.3 Chupa-Chups On-Site Activities
2002 was the first year that Chupa-Chups was a sponsor of Freestyle.ch (Intverview
with Erwin Flury). Chupa-Chups entered a C-level sponsorship, which gave them the
rights to third-tier, on-site signage, to set up a small event booth, to sample their
products, and to entertain a limited number of guests (FAF/Swissmate 2002).
The cornerstones of Chupa-Chups on-site presence were on the one hand a sponsor
booth, and on the other hand an extensive sampling of their product. Chupa-Chups
booth consisted of a play area where visitors could try their balancing skills on little
podiums in the fight against oversized, padded lollies, which aimed at knocking them
down. The booth was located just besides the main sponsors booths and bordered one
of the main circulation areas. During the events highlights, the area was so crowded
that it was hard to even see the booth. Nonetheless, the booth was well visited, and the
audience seemed to enjoy the participation in the knock-down game.
More important than the booth, however, were Chupa-Chups product sampling
activities. Chupa-Chups deployed several teams of male and female hostesses who
circled the premises in teams of two. The hostesses were carefully selected for fit with
the Freestyle.ch audience (Interview with Erwin Flury). The teams would approach
visitors at random and offer them a free Chupa-Chups lollipop. Not only were they for
free, visitors were also able to choose their preferred variety from a portable dispenser.
In some cases, a brief conversation about the best-tasting variety would take place.
Visitors could receive several free Chupa-Chups during the event. In fact, a sizeable
share of the audience could be observed with a lollipop in their mouths. The sampling
activities gave Chupa-Chups an on-site presence which was disproportionately large to
their sponsor status (Interview with Erwin Flury).
Chupa-Chups did not gather any information about the people who received their free
products. The main purpose was to get as many visitors as possible to taste their
lollipops. For many visitors, it may have well been many years since they had last
tasted a Chupa-Chups lollipop. In this regard, the familiar taste and feel of the lollipop
may have evoked some vivid childhood memories among the event audience. It is also
likely that the sampling may have led to a higher rate of unpremeditated buying
actions among those who have been exposed to the sampling.
Besides its on-site presence, Chupa-Chups prominently featured Freestyle.ch on its
website, but no promotion or advertising was undertaken in conjunction with the
sponsorship.
3.6 Results: Impact on Brand Equity
In the following, the quantitative and qualitative impact of Rivellas and Chupa-
Chups on-site sponsorship activities on their respective brand equity is discussed.
Because no pre-event data is available on these measures, an estimation of the
potential impact is derived both through a comparison of the scores with those of
earlier years (not available for Chupa-Chups) and between sponsors. An overview of
the brand equity measurements for Rivella, Chupa-Chups and other selected sponsors
are presented in Table 2:

Year

Measurement 1999 2000 2001 2002
Aided awareness
Main Sponsor A 73.6% 86.2% 85.9% 80.7%
Main Sponsor B 86.7% 90.1% 71.5% 77.1%
Rivella (B-Level) 74.0% 87.4% 78.4% 82.4%
B-Level sponsor C 70.8% 80.9% 84.7% 79.6%
B-Level sponsor D 15.3% 51.2% 44.0% 45.5%
Chupa-Chups (C-Level) n/a n/a n/a 79.1%
Esteem
Main Sponsor A 10.9% 10.6% 18.0% 16.2%
Main Sponsor B 40.5% 28.9% 8.8% 19.1%
Rivella (B-Level) 16.8% 10.1% 7.4% 17.9%
B-Level sponsor C 15.6% 19.7% 9.2% 14.1%
B-Level sponsor D 0.0% 3.5% N/a 15.4%
Chupa-Chups (C-Level) n/a n/a n/a 41.2%
Table 2: Time series of audience-based brand equity of selected sponsors. Source: Venetz 1999; 2000; 2001; 2002
3.6.1 Rivella
Rivella has the highest aided sponsorship awareness in 2002, despite being a B-level
sponsor only. In absolute terms, the aided sponsorship awareness is higher than in the
previous year and than in 1999, but lower than in 2000 (for an unknown reason, most
sponsors had higher levels in that year).
With regard to esteem, Rivella also scored within the top group, ranking fourth in a
total of 10 sponsors (not all sponsors shown in Table 2).
Rivella also shows high levels of unaided sponsorship awareness (not shown).
Roughly half of the 19 percent of respondents, who elaborated on why they rated
Rivellas sponsorship as especially positive, named snowskating as the reason.
Catrine Wetzel and Erwin Flury (Interviews) believe that Rivellas on-site activity had
a positive impact on Rivellas image. Wetzel cites the large amount of positive
feedback they received from the audience. She believes that being associated with
snowskating gives Rivella more credibility among the target group, and that there also
was a kind of surprise effect, as in potztuusig Rivella! [wow, Rivella!].
3.6.2 Chupa-Chups
With a score of almost 80 percent, Chupa-Chups aided sponsorship awareness is on
a par with that of the main sponsors and the best performing B-level sponsors.
Truly exceptional is Chupa-Chups score on esteem. Its 41 percent is twice as high as
the scores of the main sponsors, and 80 percent higher than the second highest-scoring
sponsor X-Box (another C-level sponsor, not shown in Table 2). Interestingly, X-Box,
the video game console producer, also allowed visitors to try out their product at a
number of gaming points across the event site.
As an approximation of unaided sponsorship awareness, it should also be mentioned
that more than half of the respondents named the sampling of free lollipops as the
reason why they had positively noticed Chupa-Chups as a sponsor.
There is little doubt that the reason for Chupa-Chups high brand equity scores is
closely connected to their sampling activities (Venetz 2002; Interview with Erwin
Flury).
3.7 Discussion of Findings
The two case examples discussed above indicate that the impact of a sponsorship on
sponsors brand equity among on-site spectators depends heavily on the on-site
execution and less on the sponsor status, i.e., the amount paid for the sponsorship
rights. Furthermore, the two cases suggest that depending on the design of sponsors
on-site activities, quite different qualitative effects on their brand equity may be
achieved.
It is evident that Chupa-Chups had the highest return on its sponsorship expenditure
of all Freestyle.ch sponsors (at least with regard to the measurements assessed in the
two case studies), as it paid only a third to half as much as other sponsors with equal
and lesser brand equity scores.
With regard to qualitative effects on brand equity, the evidence suggests that Rivella
has mainly achieved improvements in brand image, while Chupa-Chups may have
primarily boosted its top-of mind position and product knowledge.
The theme of Rivellas on-site activity was closely tuned to the Freestyle.ch event,
while Chupa-Chups was not (with the exception of the target-group-congruent
selection of hostesses). Through its snowskating booth, Rivella may have achieved
two key goals. First, it made its booth highly relevant to the audience, thus fostering
its positive perception (as discussed in the previous chapter). Second, because Rivella
credibly showed that it understands and caters to the needs of the Freestyle.ch
audience, they may have reinforced the perceived fit between their brand and the

event, which in turn may foster the image transfer between the two. Overall, Rivellas
on-site activity appears having been an enrichment of many visitors event experience.
Chupa-Chups on the other hand did little to increase its association with Freestyle.ch.
Rather, they concentrated on getting their product out to as many people as possible.
Possibly, the multi-sensory perception of its lollipops in combination with the event
experience may not only stimulate future unpremeditated buying actions, but also lead
to a close link between Chupa-Chups and Freestyle.ch in visitors minds.
3.8 Reliability and Limitations of the Research
Four tests are commonly applied to judge the quality of empirical social research (Yin
1994, p. 33) construct validity, internal validity, external validity and reliability. For
this case study, the following precautions were taken in order to comply with these
criteria:
Construct validity: Multiple data sources were deployed to establish key facts (data
triangulation): two interviews, media reports, proprietary research
of event, own observations.
Drafts of key concepts were reviewed with key informants.
Internal validity: A study design was chosen that kept other known potential factors
constant, so that they would not interfere with the causal
relationship to be researched.
External validity: Only analytical validity, as single case studies. Application of the
findings of this particular event to other events may be difficult, for
instance with regard to the event size (medium to large), and to the
event audience (very homogeneous).
Reliability: To allow other researchers to challenge the findings, a case study
database was compiled, consisting of all data collected during the
course of this research project (e.g., countersigned interview
protocols, e-mail and written correspondence, internal publications,
photographic material).
The main limitations of the research lie in the imperfect measurements for brand
equity, i.e., unaided sponsorship awareness, brand image, and brand loyalty that were
available from the event organizer. Also, the on-site activities of the other sponsors
have only superficially been analyzed. It is possible (however, rather unlikely, given
their long-time involvement with the event) that Rivella scored higher because other
sponsors had poor execution.
3.9 Conclusions and Next Steps
This case study has reinforced the view that the on-site design and execution of a
sponsorship can make or break the success of a sponsorship with the direct event
audience. The insights gathered from Freestyle.ch suggest that sponsors should not be
satisfied with only deploying perimeter signage, but instead aim at engaging the
audience in a sponsor-related activity and give them the opportunity to have a direct
brand experience, preferably by letting them try out their products.
Next research steps
Because the data available on Freestyle.ch sponsors brand equity only partly allows
making a quantitative assessment, an aptly designed quantitative survey at a further
event should be conducted to determine the relevance of on-site activities for the
creation of brand equity among the event audience. Furthermore, a framework needs to
be developed which allows the categorization of different on-site brand experiences.
Such a framework might allow prediction of the different designs impact on audience-
based brand equity.
Survey FIS Alpine World Ski Championships St. Moritz 85

4 Survey of FIS Alpine World Ski Championships
St. Moritz
The findings of a survey are presented which was designed to determine the impact
of sponsorship activities among different groups of audiences, which vary by their
exposure to sponsors event site execution and thus have different experiences with
sponsors brands. The survey was conducted before and during the FIS Alpine
World Ski Championships
St. Moritz 2003 and included interviews with a total of 446 persons. Results indicate
that both sponsorship awareness and sponsors image ranks are significantly higher
among visitors who visited sponsors event site booths or participated in their
activities than among visitors who were only exposed to perimeter signage.
This chapter presents the findings of a survey conducted at the FIS Alpine World Ski
Championships St. Moritz 2003. The World Championships are conducted bi-annually
and feature competitions of the worlds best female and male downhill skiers in five
disciplines. The races in St. Moritz, conducted over a two-week period, were watched
by almost 170,000 on-site spectators and a multi-million TV-audience
predominantly in Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and North America.
This chapter has six parts. First, the research model and hypotheses are introduced.
Second, the methodology and data collection processes will be described. The results
of the hypotheses tests will be presented in part three, while part four features a
qualitative discussion and interpretation of each sponsors scores. Part five consists of
the distilled essence of this chapter: it explores the factors identified in this survey that
are believed to have an effect on the creation of audience-based brand equity. Last, but
not least, the limitations of this research are discussed.
4.1 Research Question and Hypotheses
At sponsored events, spectators may have different brand experiences with the
sponsors brands. In fact there will typically be no homogeneous brand experience
among all attendants. Instead, visitors event experience is unique based on their
personal situation and the circumstances of their event experience.
Some spectators will arrive at the event site hours before the start of the event and
possibly walk around the premises. They might visit sponsors booths, collect free
give-aways and participate in activities offered. Some might purchase merchandise or
other memorabilia, while hard-core fans often try to collect autographs from their
favorite athletes. Part of the audience will fetch some food and something to drink
before entering the stands in search of the best seats. There, they might look around
excitedly and are thus exposing themselves to sponsor signage in the stadium and
commercials broadcast on larger-than-life video screens.
Another group of spectators might arrive at the event late, possibly even after the event
has officially started. In many cases, they rush to their numbered seats or fight their
way through the crowds. Being late, they watch only a part of the event and then
leave the premises early, in order to avoid the crowds and heavy traffic after the event.
They will not have time to contemplate sponsors on-site advertising. They often only
notice the presence of some of the sponsors taking part in the event: perhaps the logo
of the car sponsor on athletes bibs that might remind them they have not yet paid their
car insurance.
It is likely that different behaviors (and thus exposure to on-site sponsorship activities)
of spectators as described above will result in disparate levels of brand perception. It is
assumed that some brands will be perceived strongly, while others may go unnoticed.
The most common and basic form of brand experience is the exposure to sponsors
logos as displayed on perimeter billboards. As discussed in the preceding case study,
many sponsors set up their own areas (booths or activity zones), in which they
welcome visitors to see and possibly try out their products, participate in lucky-draws
and refresh themselves (for a classification of on-site sponsorship activities, see
section 1). Compared to mere signage, these booths enable sponsors to provide visitors
with a deeper insight and experience of what they and their brands stand for. This
study aims at enquiring whether these different levels of brand experience impact
selected dimensions of sponsors brand equity and, if so, whether their effects on
brands vary with respect to type and intensity of exposure.
Literature research has shown that the existence and degree of such a relationship has
not been empirically validated so far. This part of the thesis therefore will examine the
following research question:

Q: Does the level of on-site brand experience affect the build-up of audience-based
brand equity (as measured by two selected indicators, sponsorship awareness and
image)?
From a sponsors perspective it is important to know whether it is (in terms of brand-
equity created) worthwhile investing in a higher-level brand experience (e.g., the set-
up of a sponsor booth, product sampling or offering of an activity), or whether it is
sufficient to just deploy sponsor signage throughout the event site.
The research question can be translated into a basic stimulus-organism-response model
(Kotler and Bliemel 2001, p. 324; see Figure 20), with the on-site brand experience
being the independent and the audience-based brand equity being the dependent
variable. Between the controlled input variable and the observed output variable, a
cognitive process takes place (mainly learning and attitude development, as discussed
in the following chapter), which cannot directly be observed and is therefore referred
to as a black box.
Cognitive process
inside event
visitor's mind
Organism
On-site brand
experience
Stimulus
Audience-based
brand equity
sponsorship
awareness
image
Response
Input Output Black Box
Moderating variables

Figure 20: Basic input-output model for on-site brand experience. Source: based on Kotler and Bliemel 2001, p. 324
A number of moderating variables may have an influence on all three stages of the
input-output model, possibly skewing an empirical validation. Possible moderating
variables may stem from factors discussed in Figure 14. Therefore, a research design
was chosen for this survey which ensures that these sponsorship success factors were
held as constant as possible. Other moderating variables may arise from individual
aspects pertaining to the specific sponsors brands. Furthermore, sponsorship
execution at the respective levels may to some degree influence the research results.
The explorative character of this survey presents the opportunity to collect and discuss
these variables at a qualitative level as they appear.
The input variable on-site brand experience in this survey was assessed at three
levels differing with respect to the degree of brand exposure and experience. Three
corresponding groups of respondents were therefore identified:
Group 1 (level 1): no on-site brand experience
Group 2 (level 2): exposure to signage, no interaction with sponsor
Group 3 (level 3): exposure to signage and visit to sponsor booth/participation in
sponsor
activity.
As discussed in section 2.3, audience-based brand equity can be measured using
several constructs. For this survey, sponsorship awareness (as a measure of the
strength of association between brand and event) and selected elements of brand
image were chosen. Improving brand image is among the top objectives for sponsors,
along with boosting brand awareness (compare Figure 7 in section 2.1.4).
Cognitive learning theory suggests that a person who spent some time in direct contact
with a sponsor (e.g., at the sponsors booth) is more likely to remember the sponsors
brand than someone only being exposed to signage. Further, Zajoncs (1968) mere
exposure theory (discussed in section 2.5 in detail) proposes that closer contact to a
sponsors brand may result in a more positive image of the brand. In addition, it can be
argued that spectators who have specific shared brand experience are more likely to
agree on the brands image than spectators who are solely exposed to signage and
remain alone to draw their own inferences about the sponsors brand.
Therefore, the following hypotheses can be formulated with regard to the two
measurements of audience-based brand equity:
H1: Sponsorship awareness will be highest for group 3 and lowest for group 1:
A3 > A2 > A1
H2: Image dimensions will be most favorable for group 3 and least for group 1:
3 > 2 > 1

H3: Sponsor's image will be most clearly defined on level 3 and least on level 1
(measured using the standard deviation): SD1 > SD2 > SD3
A summary of the research design is shown in Figure 21:
Research question:
Does the level of on-site brand experience affect the build-up of audience-based brand
equity?
Research design:
Survey of brand equity of sponsor n (1-5) among three separate groups, whose exposure to
the sponsor's activities differs.
Level 1:
Not at event
Level 2:
Event visitor
No participation
in sponsor activity
Level 3:
Event visitor
Participation in sponsor
activity
Hypotheses:
Sponsorship awareness will be highest on level 3 and lowest on level 1: A
3
> A
2
> A
1
Image dimensions will be most favourable on level 3 and lowest on level 1:
3
>
2
>
1
Sponsor's image will be most clearly defined on level 3 and least on level 1 (measured
using the standard deviation): SD
1
> SD
2
> SD
3
Selected measurements for brand-equity:
Unaided sponsorship awareness
Image of sponsor

Figure 21: Overview of the research design deployed at FIS Alpine World Ski Championships St. Moritz 2003.
Source: own illustration.
4.2 Methodology and Operationalization of Variables
4.2.1 Methodology
In accordance with the differing levels of brand experience presented above, three
groups of respondents were identified among the target audience of the FIS Alpine
World Ski Championships. By definition, they differed in their level of on-site brand
experience, while the other sponsorship success factors were assumed to remain
constant. Group 1 had not yet visited the event and therefore had no on-site brand
experience; Group 2 visited the event, but had no contact with sponsors on-site
activities except for exposure to signage; Group 3 had an on-site brand experience,
which went beyond mere exposure to perimeter billboards, consisting in some sort of
direct contact with sponsors, either at their booths and/or through receiving product
samples or merchandise.
Each of the groups described consisted of 55 to 70 respondents. For the sample sizes, a
comparable study as described by Bennet (1999) was applied as point of reference
since the variances expected in the study could not be established a priori. Bennet used
sample sizes of 35 respondents, which proved to be enough in order to yield
statistically significant results.
The next step matched the levels of on-site brand experience with the World
Championships sponsors. For that purpose, a telephone survey among the responsible
managers of the sponsoring brands served to determine what kind of sponsorship
activities they would conduct at the event in St. Moritz. The evaluation showed that
among nine main sponsors only five offered an open-to-all brand-experience which
went beyond the posting of signage at the event site a prerequisite for Group 3 (all
sponsors, however, provided hospitality for selected guests). These findings led to the
selection of the five sponsors mentioned to be included in the survey. The brands
chosen, their status and their on-site activities are summarized in Figure 22:
Audi: Presenting sponsor; large ice bar near site of prize-giving ceremony
Carlsberg: Main sponsor; beer huts and tents at the event site
Milka: Main sponsor; sampling of products, distribution of flags and sale of merchandise
at the event site
Swisscom: Main sponsor; distribution of cheering ratchets (dubbed the Ski racer
accelerator), demonstrating MMS technology at the event site
Xbox: Main sponsor; party venue with video gaming facilities in the town.
Figure 22: Sponsors on site-activities at FIS Alpine World Ski Championships St. Moritz 2003.
4.2.2 Measurements
For every sponsor, an indication of brand equity was established using the two
constructs sponsorship awareness and image. Image was measured in two dimensions:
how sympathetically and how dynamically the sponsors were perceived.
Sponsorship awareness
Sponsorship awareness measures the strength of association that consumers on average
make between a sponsor brand and an event. It is therefore a component of brand
image. In general, awareness can be measured at the following three levels: Top-of-
mind, unaided and aided awareness (compare section 2.3.2); the same measurements
are applicable to sponsorship awareness. To measure sponsorship awareness for the
World Championships sponsors, unaided awareness was chosen. Among the
alternatives, top-of-mind awareness might not have yielded fine variations between
different levels, while aided sponsorship awareness is often skewed toward the strong

brands (cf. Pham and Johar 2001, p. 123). Unaided sponsorship awareness is measured
giving only the category as a prompt (Bennet 1999: 300).
Image
In order to also capture potential changes in brand equity at an emotional level (cf.
Eilander and Koenders 1995, p. 77), two image attributes were included in the
questionnaire: sympathetic and dynamic.
Keller (1993, p. 14) lists brand loyalty as one of the key elements of brand equity.
However, in order to be able to include respondents who are non-users of certain
brands (and therefore would not feature the brand element loyalty), sympathetic as a
pre-stage of loyalty was used.
As discussed above, it is assumed that an image transfer takes place between the event
and the event sponsor. Dynamism has been established as being a dominant
characteristic of ski racing based on a focus group discussion with a group of Ph.D.
students.
Moderating variables
Further possibly moderating variables were included as well: involvement with ski
racing was determined for all groups and usage of sponsoring brand for Group 3 only
(direct contact with sponsor). As discussed in the section on sponsorship success
factors, involvement with the event or the sport presented at the event may influence
the build-up of audience-based brand equity at two levels: First, learning of the
sponsorship message is facilitated by a higher involvement level; second die-hard
ski fans are likely to have been exposed to some of the sponsors at other events, as
three out of the five sponsors (Audi, Carlsberg, Milka) are also prominent sponsors of
other world cup series events. Another sponsor (Swisscom) happens to be the main
sponsor of the Swiss National Ski Team.
Usage of sponsor brand was included as a potential moderating variable for Group 3 to
get an additional indication of the comparability of results between sponsors, as in this
group an independent sample was interviewed for each sponsor while in groups 1 and
2, each respondent answered questions to all five sponsors.
Age and gender were the demographic variables included in the questionnaires to be
used for two purposes: As possible moderating variables and to receive an indication
about the demographics and comparability of the different samples.
4.2.3 Questionnaire Design
A questionnaire was developed with the assessment of selected dimensions of
sponsors brand equity being the main three questions. The questionnaire design was
tested and reviewed with a group of 25 Ph.D. students.
Awareness was determined using the following open question (shown here for
Carlsberg, the beer sponsor):
Q1: Which beer brand sponsors the Ski World Championships in St. Moritz?
The image dimensions were levied using one question for each image dimension and
measured on a balanced, equidistant, five category scale.
Q2: How sympathetic are you towards the Carlsberg brand?

Very sympathetic Sympathetic Neutral Unsympathetic Very unsympathetic

Q3: How dynamic do you find the Carlsberg brand?

Very dynamic Dynamic Neutral Undynamic Very undynamic

Involvement with ski racing was measured on a balanced, equidistance, three category
scale.
Q4: How often do you watch ski races, both on TV or live?

Never Sometimes Often
4.3 Data Collection and Demographics
4.3.1 Data Collection
Data was collected from group samples using the personal, standardized interview
technique. Personal interviews were necessary for two reasons: to measure unaided
recall and to supply the name of the sponsor (if not answered correctly), a neutral
intermediary was needed (cf. Stier 1999: 184). Furthermore, the personal interview
allows for a higher rate of fully completed questionnaires (cf. Aaker, et al. 2001, p.
235).

Group 1 (not at the event) was interviewed at train stations across the German part of
Switzerland (i.e., Lucerne, Zurich, St. Gallen, Chur) two weeks before the World
Championship (between January 18 and 24 2003). The respondents were asked to
answer questions about all five sponsors included in the survey. Since the interviews
took place before the World Championships started, it is ensured that none of the
respondents had prior brand experience by being at the event itself or through
watching the race on TV. In some cases, however, they could have been exposed to
publicity about the upcoming event through mass media and advertising. At least one
sponsor (Carlsberg) had already started communicating their engagement through a
billboard campaign. For Group 1, a sample of 56 completed and valid surveys was
collected.
Spectators of Group 2 (only exposure to signage) were interviewed when leaving the
event site in St. Moritz. The interview location was carefully selected in order to avoid
the possibility that any sponsorship logos could be seen from the location where the
interview took place. Respondents were asked questions pertaining to all five
sponsors. To prevent corruption of the samples of Groups 2 and 3, a filter question was
included for every sponsor: Respondents were asked whether they had been in direct
contact with a sponsor, giving specific examples of the respective brand experiences
provided. A total of 70 surveys were collected. Answers pertaining to sponsors to
which respondents indicated that they had direct contact with were later included in
the answer pool of Group 3. Depending on the brand in question, this was the case for
between zero (Xbox) and 14 responses (Carlsberg).
Respondents belonging to Group 3 were asked outside sponsors booths/facilities or
in the case of Milka leaving the event site. In this last case, group membership was
determined through observation by the interviewer based on whether spectators carried
sponsors give-aways. A sample of 63 to 69 valid responses was collected individually
for each sponsor.
Respondents were approached at random. Interviewer positioned themselves at exit
gates or in front of a clear point of reference. The first person to pass the gate or point
of reference was approached and asked to complete the interview. As soon as the
interview was terminated, the very next person was approached. The procedure
adopted may be described as quasi-random systematic sampling, with respondents at
each exit gate being approached at fairly consistent time intervals analogous to
picking units from a production line periodically (Bennet 1999: 298). If a large
proportion of people approached are willing to answer the questionnaire, such a
sampling method can be considered as generating near random samples (Owen and
Jones 1994).
The data was collected by a group of 15 researchers (mostly Ph.D. students). All
interviewers were briefed beforehand about the research purpose and carefully trained
to properly use the questionnaire. A special focus was laid on two factors: diligent
deployment of the random sampling technique and unbiased presentation of the
answer scales (full read-out).
Good discipline in adherence to the random sampling technique was observed. The
level of auto-selection of respondents varied between groups (and interview settings).
While in Group 2 (exposure to signage) and 3 (direct contact) only 1.5 percent (6 out
of 390) of all respondents approached declined to be interviewed, an average of 2.4
persons had to be approached in Group 1 (not at event) for each completed survey
(140 approaches to yield 56 responses). Overall, people in smaller cities such as Chur
or Lucerne were more than twice as willing to answer questions as those in Zurich.
4.3.2 Demographics
The demographics for the different audience groups are shown in Table 3:
Group Age group Gender
0-15 16-30 31-45 46-60 >60 Mean Male Female n
1: Not at event 3.6% 46.4% 16.1% 14.3% 19.6% 39.2 62.5% 37.5% 56
2: Exposure to
signage
3.2% 26.5% 23.9% 26.8% 19.7% 43.9 67.7% 32.3% 62
3: Direct contact 5.2% 34.1% 30.5% 21.0% 9.1% 37.2 62.8% 37.2% 328
Table 3: Demographics of audience groups.
The three groups do not vary significantly with regard to average age or gender, but
slightly in the composition of age groups. With regard to average age, the sample
collected at train stations corresponds well with the average of the total Swiss
population (BFS 2003). In terms of gender, males are over-represented in the sample
at hand (62.5% vs. 49% Swiss average). This may be attributed to self-selection as
discussed above. Unintentionally, this may have led to a better comparability between
Groups 1 and 2 both being predominantly male (68%) and around 44 years old. This

audience profile corresponds well with comparable sports events (Quester and Farrelly
1998; Nicholls, et al. 1999).
In aggregate, the spectator Group 3, having had direct contact with a particular
sponsor, is somewhat younger (average age 37) and also predominantly male. The
demographics for the direct audiences of individual sponsors are shown in Figure 23:
Age
Gender
29% 30%
40%
43%
44%
71%
70%
60%
57% 56%
4%
0%
6%
15%
0%
22%
32%
75%
32%
11%
41%
27%
14%
32%
38%
28%
29%
5%
12%
30%
6%
12%
8%
21%
<16
16-
30
31-45
>60
Audi Carlsberg Xbox Milka Swisscom
F
e
m
a
l
e
40 25 33 46
46-
60
0%
C X M S
M
a
l
e
A
39

Figure 23: Demographic profiles of audience group 3 (direct contact) for individual sponsors.
While Xbox attracted the youngest visitors (average age 25), Swisscom was the choice
for the older parts of the audience. Together with Milka they enjoyed the most gender-
balanced participants in their on-site activities.
The frequency of brand usage was determined for Group 3,. The results indicate
whether sponsors mainly communicated to existing customers (potential aim:
increasing customer loyalty) or to non-users (potential aim: encouraging product trial).
Swisscom and Milka were mainly visited by current customers while Audi, Xbox and
Carlsberg attracted mostly non-users.
Sponsor Brand
Carlsberg Milka Audi Xbox Swisscom
often
9.6% 28.3% 10.0% 6.6% 86.3%
yes
sometimes
28.8% 58.5%
How often do you
use brand [name
of brand]?
never
61.5% 13.2% 90.0% 93.4% 13.7%
no
Are you a customer
of brand [name of
brand]?
Table 4: Frequency of brand use among audience group 3.
4.4 Testing of Hypotheses
The results for all three groups were statistically assessed and used for hypothesis
testing. While awareness data is available on a nominal scale (sponsor named or not
named), image data can be viewed as interval-scaled (given the fact that equidistance,
balanced scales are used, cf. Stier 1999: 71).
Awareness levels
H1: To test for differences in awareness levels between groups as stated in hypothesis
1 (H1), the scores of the three audience groups for each sponsor were compared.
An overview of the awareness levels and the corresponding absolute number of
respondents is presented in the following table (Table 5):
Sponsor Brand
Audi Carlsberg Milka Swisscom Xbox
Type of
audience
Awareness n Awareness n Awareness n Awareness n Awareness N
Not at event (1) 32% 56 16% 56 18% 56 68% 56 12% 56
Only exposure
to signage (2) 90% 63 71% 56 72% 60 75% 61 26% 70
Direct contact
with sponsor (3) 94% 69 93% 68 95% 65 94% 63 68% 63
Table 5: Awareness levels of sponsor brands among different spectator groups.
Awareness level scores are highest in Group 3 (direct contact with sponsors) and
lowest in Group 1 (not at event) for all five sponsor brands included in the
survey. Application of the standard t-test for differences between proportions
revealed that the differences between Group 3 and Group 1 were significant at a
p < .01 level in all cases. The differences between Group 3 and Group 2 were
significant at a p < .05 level in four of the five cases (exception: Audi).
Hypothesis 1 is therefore strongly supported.
Image dimensions
The results for the scores of the different audience groups on the two image
dimensions sympathetic and dynamic are presented in Table 6. N denotes the number
of valid responses and differs from the number of responses in Table 5, as some
respondents were not sufficiently familiar with the sponsors brands and thus unable to
rate them.

Image dimensions

Group
How sympathetic is
brand?
How dynamic is
brand? N
Audi 1: Not at event 3.83 3.96 54
2: Exposure to
signage
4.16 4.27 63
3: Direct contact 4.41 4.30 69
Carlsberg 1: Not at event 3.15 3.07 47
2: Exposure to
signage
3.27 3.43 49
3: Direct contact 3.91 3.94 67
Milka Not at event 3.61 3.68 56
Exposure to signage 3.95 3.82 60
Direct contact 4.32 3.98 65
Swisscom Not at event 3.29 3.54 56
S
p
o
n
s
o
r

Xbox Not at event 3.54 3.54 26


1 = very unsympathetic/undynamic, 2 = unsympathetic/undynamic, 3 = neutral,
4 = sympathetic/dynamic, 5 = very sympathetic/dynamic
Table 6: Scores on image dimensions of sponsor brands among different spectator groups.
H2: With regard to the image dimensions, hypothesis 2 (H2) was tested using the
ANOVA method (univariate analysis of variance; cf. Herrmann and Seilheimer
2000, p. 268 ff.). In the present case, the null-hypothesis assumes that the means
of the individual groups are equal, i.e., that differences between the groups are
random (Aaker, et al. 2001, p. 475 f.).
To test the null-hypothesis, the F-statistic is calculated and compared to the values of
an F-distribution table, which lists F-values at different degrees of freedom and levels
of probability. If the F-statistic is larger than the F-value in the distribution table, the
null-hypothesis can be rejected at the given probability level. The results for the
different sponsors are shown in the ANOVA table below (Table 7).

Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between Groups 4.085 2 2.042 3.855 0.023
Within Groups 96.947 183 0.530
How dynamic is brand?
Total 101.032 185
Between Groups 9.929 2 4.965 7.497 0.001
Within Groups 120.525 182 0.662
A
u
d
i

How sympathetic is brand?
Total 130.454 184
Between Groups 21.712 2 10.856 20.906 0.000
Total 104.278 161
Between Groups 19.552 2 9.776 14.811 0.000
Within Groups 104.948 159 0.660
C
a
r
l
s
b
e
r
g

Total 124.500 161
Between Groups 1.641 2 0.820 1.412 0.248
Total 62.075 106
Between Groups 3.806 2 1.903 2.337 0.102
X
b
o
x

Total 88.505 106
Between Groups 2.845 2 1.423 2.107 0.125
Within Groups 120.182 178 0.675
Total 123.028 180
Between Groups 15.489 2 7.745 9.679 0.000
Within Groups 142.423 178 0.800
M
i
l
k
a

Total 157.912 180
Between Groups 5.817 2 2.908 3.518 0.032
Within Groups 145.491 176 0.827
Total 151.307 178
Between Groups 13.743 2 6.872 7.118 0.001
Within Groups 169.921 176 0.965
S
w
i
s
s
c
o
m

Total 183.665 178
Significant at the p < .05 level
Not significant at the p < .05
level
Table 7: ANOVA table for individual sponsors.

In seven out of 10 cases, the null-hypothesis can be dismissed at a probability level
exceeding p < .05 (marked in normal typeface). In other words, the means of the
individual groups are different from each other. Significance levels are generally
higher for sympathetic than for dynamic. Hypothesis 2 is supported.
H3: Hypothesis 3 holds that the perceived image of the sponsor becomes more
unanimous from Group 1 to 2 and from Group 2 to 3. H3 can be tested through
a comparison of the group standard deviations as shown in Table 8:
How sympathetic
is brand?
How dynamic
is brand?
Type of audience
Std. Deviation Std. Deviation
Not at event
0.84 0.83
Exposure to signage
0.78 0.61
Carlsberg
Direct contact
0.81 0.72
Not at event
0.86 0.78
Exposure to signage
0.81 0.77
Audi

Direct contact
0.77 0.65
Not at event
1.03 0.86
Exposure to signage
0.93 0.79
Xbox

Direct contact
0.83 0.71
Not at event
0.91 0.86
Exposure to signage
0.95 0.91
Milka
Direct contact
0.83 0.70
Not at event
1.17 1.09
Exposure to signage
0.97 0.92
S
p
o
n
s
o
r

B
r
a
n
d

Swisscom

Direct contact
0.79 0.69
Table 8: Standard deviations of individual groups.
Between Groups 1 and 2, as well as between Groups 2 and 3, the hypothesis holds in
eight out of ten cases; between Groups 1 and 3 in all cases. Hypothesis 3 is therefore
supported.
4.5 Regression Analysis
Further support for the strong influence of the on-site experience (as measured by
belonging to a specific audience group) on sponsorship awareness and selected image
dimensions is provided by a regression analysis (Table 9).

Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Predictors
Beta Beta
t Sig.
Constant
0.113 2.030 .042
Type of audience
0.284 0.477 15.840 .000
Involvement with ski racing
0.030 0.047 1.548 .122
Age of respondent
-0.003 -0.128 -4.459 .000

Dependent variable: unaided sponsorship awareness
Table 9: Regression analysis of potential predictors for unaided sponsorship awareness.
Two possibly moderating variables, involvement with ski racing and age of respondent
(see discussion in section 4.2.2) were included in a regression analysis besides the core
construct, type of audience. The results indicate that sponsorship awareness is mainly
driven by type of audience (p < .001). The age of the respondents has a significant (p <
.001), albeit small, negative influence on sponsorship awareness, while the
involvement with ski racing has no significant influence.
At first sight, this last result is somewhat surprising: it could be argued that die-hard
ski fans would be not only more inclined to learn about who the sponsors of their
favorite sport are, but also more frequently exposed to the respective sponsors
throughout the season (as discussed, all sponsor brands except for Xbox have a long-
time and high-exposure involvement with ski racing). However, this result is in line
with mixed previous findings on the relationship between the duration of a sponsorship
and sponsorship awareness. In a survey of the Australian Formula One Grand Prix,
Quester and Farrelly (1998, p. 548) were not able to show such a relationship, while
Rajaretnam was (1994, p. 153), however in a single-case study only.
Regression analyses with the dependent variables of how sympathetic and how
dynamic the sponsor brands were perceived yielded results that are comparable to
those presented above.
4.6 Discussion of Findings for Each Sponsor
4.6.1 Audi
Audi was the presenting sponsor of the World Championships. As such, it had a
ubiquitous presence in and around St. Moritz. Not only was the logo included in every
communication activity of the event (e.g., on all banners, tickets, accreditation cards),
but Audi cars were also the official vehicles circulating to and from the finish-line

stadium. Furthermore, the latest Audi models were prominently placed during the
opening ceremony and on the stage of the medal awards. Audis sponsorship activities
for the general audience consisted of a large ice bar that was located next to the
ceremony stage in the town center. Constructed entirely out of large ice blocks
(including the actual bar counter itself) and stylishly designed, it featured ice
sculptures of the model plates of all Audi cars. The bar was heavily frequented before,
during and after the medal ceremonies, as it provided a great view over the crowds and
onto the stage. It was also occasionally used by TV stations for live commentary.
The results of the survey indicate that a visit to the bar had only a small, not very
significant impact on the brand-equity of Audi (see Figure 24).
3.83
4.16
4.41
1 = very unsympathetic
5 = very sympathetic
AUDI
1 = very undynamic
5 = very dynamic
3.96
4.27
4.30
Unaided sponsorship
awareness
Percent
32%
90%
94%
Signage
only
(2)
Direct
contact
(3)
Not at
event
(1)
Signage
only
(2)
Direct
contact
(3)
Not at
event
(1)
Signage
only
(2)
Direct
contact
(3)
Not at
event
(1)

Figure 24: Audis brand scores among different spectator groups.
Audi has a very high sponsorship awareness among general spectators (group 2). The
further increase observed in group 3 of 4% is not significant at a p < .05 level.
Among the image dimensions, only the attribute sympathetic enjoys a (significant)
increase. This may be due to the fact that the bar enabled visitors to have an inter-
personal exchange with Audi: actually meeting people, not just machines. No
significant increase in the attribute dynamic could be observed between Groups 2 and
3. In Group 2, Audi already has the absolute highest score on this dimension.
However, when considering the difference between Group 1 and 2, a large increase
could be observed, which may be attributed to an image transfer between the World
Championships and the brand.
The lower increase in the selected dimensions of brand equity in absolute terms
(compared to, e.g., Carlsberg, see below) may be due to the fact that Audi already has
a very strong brand with strong associations. It is hypothesized that it is generally
more difficult to have impact on the equity of strong brands especially on image
attributes with sponsorships (and any other form of marketing communications) than
it is for weaker brands that can still be shaped in the minds of the audience.
4.6.2 Carlsberg
Among the five sponsors included in the survey, Carlsberg appears to have benefited
from its on-site execution the most. This is true for awareness and, most importantly,
image improvement. Carlsbergs on-site brand experience consisted of a number of
prominently placed and well-designed beer bars. The main tent was located center
stage on the main square (Plazza Publica, public square) where most fans mingled
before and after races. It was designed to invoke the feeling of an alpine hut, decorated
with ski posters and featuring a number of ski racing simulators for visitors to try out.
3.15
3.27
3.91
CARLSBERG
1 = very undynamic
5 = very dynamic
3.07
3.43
3.94
Unaided sponsorship
awareness
Percent
16%
71%
93%
Signage
only
(2)
Direct
contact
(3)
Not at
event
(1)
Signage
only
(2)
Direct
contact
(3)
Not at
event
(1)
Signage
only
(2)
Direct
contact
(3)
Not at
event
(1)

Figure 25: Carlsbergs brand scores among different spectator groups.
With regard to sponsorship awareness, Carlsberg (together with Milka) enjoyed the
largest increase of all sponsors between Groups 2 and 3 (23%). This has to be seen in

light of the still weak brand position of Carlsberg in the Swiss market. The brand,
introduced to Switzerland five years ago, generally has low awareness in Switzerland
which is dominated by large traditional (i.e., Feldschlsschen and Cardinal, both
owned by Carlsberg) and regional brands (e.g., Calanda, Klosterbru) (Interview with
Philipp Wetzel). As noted earlier, sponsorship awareness is closely correlated with
general awareness levels (Pham and Johar 2001, p. 123). Spectators often simply infer
that their top-of-mind brand is most likely to be a sponsor. The brand experience at the
World Championships clearly enabled Carlsberg to increase the recognition of its
brand among Groups 2 and 3.
More striking than the increase in awareness was the positive and highly significant
development in the two image dimensions sympathetic and dynamic, which could be
observed when comparing Groups 2 and 3. Sympathy increased by 0.64 and dynamic
by 0.51, by far the highest increases among all sponsors. Again, Carlsbergs initial
brand position can serve as an explanation. Few consumers in Switzerland hold an
active image in their minds with clear attributes of Carlsberg. Rather, Carlsberg is
just another foreign beer, which many have not even tasted yet (Carlsberg has a
share of the Swiss market lower than 1%). This is reinforced by the mostly low-
involvement character of beer: many consumers have simply never thought about the
brand. The lack of a clear image is reflected in the neutral score among Group 1,
which can be seen as a (not entirely representative) cross-section of Swiss consumers.
By visiting the Carlsberg beer tents, and possibly also tasting the product, their
perception of Carlsberg was greatly enhanced through sensations of taste, sound,
vision in short through the entire (brand) experience provided by Carlsberg.
This interpretation is supported when analyzing data collected on Group 3 about the
previous use of the Carlsberg products. Less than 10% were frequent Carlsberg
drinkers, while 28% indicated that they drink it sometimes, and more than 60% had
never tasted the product before.
The amount of increase also indicates that Carlsbergs on-site execution of their
sponsorship was well designed. This view is shared by a number of observers
(Interview with Philipp Wetzel, Interview with Jrg Capol). The main Carlsberg bar
was by far the most prominent of all sponsor booths (in fact, of the other four sponsors
included in this survey, only Swisscom featured a race-side booth open to all
spectators). Its location opposite the main stage, where bands performed throughout
the day made the stay at and around the bar enjoyable and diversified. Furthermore,
Carlsberg reinforced its link with the event through the creation of a ski hut
atmosphere and the use of the claim Carlsberg. Probably the best after-ski in the
world. This may have led to an increased image transfer from the World
Championships to the brand, as reflected by the greatly increased image attribute,
dynamic.
4.6.3 Milka
Milka is another very strong brand among the World Championships sponsors. Its on-
site activities beyond signage consisted of a small-scale sampling of chocolate and the
distribution of national flags to fans. These flags were available for a number of
countries and featured the national symbol on one side and the Milka logo on the
other. This activity was partly also targeted towards the TV audience, aiming to
increase Milkas logo presence during broadcasts of the races. Further, official
merchandise was available from sales teams circulating the event site.
With regard to the selected dimensions, Milkas brand equity clearly benefited from its
on-site activities both in terms of the sponsorship awareness and image dimensions
(see Figure 26). Milkas scores on unaided sponsorship awareness in Groups 1 and 2
are lower than one would expect. Not only is Milka one of the main sponsors of the
Ski World Cup, they are also heavily engaged in other popular winter sports such as
ski jumping. Besides, they are the main sponsor of Switzerlands current top female
skier. The relatively low awareness scores may be attributed to the fact that Milka is a
German product in a category dominated (in the minds of Swiss customers) by Swiss
brands such as Toblerone, and Lindt and Sprngli. Not surprisingly, these brands were
considered to be the sponsor by a considerable proportion of Group 1.
With regard to image attributes, the increase on the dimension sympathetic is most
striking. Milka already has a very high level (not surprising for a product such as
chocolate), but was still able to increase this rating. As was the case with Audi, this
may be attributed to a personal relationship which was formed between spectators and
the people representing Milka on the event site. Since respondents in Group 3 had all
received some free articles, they might have felt more sympathetic or even obliged
towards Milka.

3.61
3.95
4.32
MILKA
1 = very undynamic
5 = very dynamic
3.68
3.82
3.98
Unaided sponsorship
awareness
Percent
18%
72%
95%
Signage
only
(2)
Direct
contact
(3)
Not at
event
(1)
Signage
only
(2)
Direct
contact
(3)
Not at
event
(1)
Signage
only
(2)
Direct
contact
(3)
Not at
event
(1)

Figure 26: Milkas brand scores among different spectator groups.
Milkas rating on the attribute dynamic increased only slightly. Again, the question
needs to be asked whether the image transfer between the event was small or whether
the brand was already perceived as being dynamic. In Milkas case, both factors may
have contributed equally. Milkas on-site activities (except for the flags) did little to
increase the link between Milka and the World Championships or Skiing in general.
On the other hand, through its advertising and corporate color purple Milka is already
perceived as a dynamic brand, reflected in its second highest score in Group 1 among
all sponsors.
4.6.4 Swisscom
Swisscoms on-site presence consisted of a small and simple sponsor booth, located at
the far end of the event site, far away from the audience stands. In front of the booth,
visitors could have their picture taken with a mobile phone (demonstrating the MMS
technology). Inside the booth, hostesses distributed a limited number of cheering
ratches which were designed to look like a Swiss downhill skier (Swisscom is also the
main sponsor of the Swiss National Skiing Team).
The interpretation of Swisscoms results requires special attention and very thorough
analysis. While the results partly confirmed the hypotheses, they also show some
anomalies. The first deviation can be found in Swisscoms scores on unaided
sponsorship as depicted in Figure 27, which are very high at a nominal level. Among
non-spectators, Swisscom was correctly named as the sponsor by 68% of respondents
two to four times more often than for the other sponsors. Several factors may have
contributed to this score, namely frequent sponsor bias, due to the more or less
monopolistic market structure of the Swiss telecom market, and related to the later,
Swisscoms strong initial brand position.
Clearly, Pham and Johars frequent sponsor bias (2001, p. 123), which holds that
regular sponsors are more likely to be named than irregular sponsors, contributed to
the inflated rating. Many respondents may have been unsure about the identity of the
sponsor, but Swisscom seemed to be the only logical choice. Not only is Swisscom the
market leader with roughly 70 percent market share (Tages-Anzeiger 2003) and the
dominant player in the residential sector, it also holds the monopoly on the last-mile,
requiring every telephone user to subscribe its basic connection with the former
national telecom company. Only a few serious competitors exist, among them only
two (Sunrise and Orange) have succeeded (so far) in building highly recognized
brands. Combining Swisscoms market position with its heavy spending on marketing
communications (roughly twice the amount of advertising spending as its closest
competitor, Sunrise, according to Media Focus Hergiswil) results in a ubiquitous
presence of the brand in the minds of Switzerlands consumers.
As one of Switzerlands strongest brands (AY&R 2003), Swisscom also commands a
set of stable associations. The short-term impact on image attributes of even a major
sponsorship is therefore questionable. Swisscom appears to have benefited from the
sponsorship mostly on the dimension sympathetic and less so on the dimension
dynamic. Scores on sympathetic increased between Groups 1 and 2 as well as Groups
2 and 3. It must be noted that Swisscoms low scores on sympathetic within Group 1
may be partly attributed to controversial staff lay-offs which the company announced a
few days before the survey was conducted. The divided opinions about Swisscom at
the time of the survey are also reflected in the highest standard deviation score for all
sponsors analyzed. When taking into account the increase between Groups 2 and 3, the
direct contact with Swisscoms staff and the toy give-away may have contributed to a
higher rating on sympathetic.
Clearly, Swisscoms on-site presence was not perceived as dynamic (as reflected in the
scores of Group 3), muting the positive image transfer that led to an increased rating
among Group 2. Swisscom appears to be an example of a brand where unspectacular if

not poor on-site execution led to a negative impact on certain dimensions of audience-
based brand equity. This view was also expressed by observers during both the World
Championships and in expert interviews. With regard to the attribute dynamic,
Swisscom may have been better off if they had foregone an on-site booth.
3.29
3.61
3.97
SWISSCOM
1 = very undynamic
5 = very dynamic
3.54
3.95
3.61
Unaided sponsorship
awareness
Percent
68%
75%
94%
Signage
only
(2)
Direct
contact
(3)
Not at
event
(1)
Signage
only
(2)
Direct
contact
(3)
Not at
event
(1)
Signage
only
(2)
Direct
contact
(3)
Not at
event
(1)

Figure 27: Swisscoms brand scores among different spectator groups.
4.6.5 Xbox
Xbox signed up as a sponsor to the World Championships at the last minute because
another sponsor had withdrawn (Interview with Thomas Fink). This may have made
the planning period too short to conceive an attractive and brand-reinforcing on-site
presence beyond signage and blow-ups. Xbox paired with Carlsberg in sponsoring a
night-time bar in St. Moritz. The two-storied facility, located in a car garage, featured
a bar and gaming lounge on the ground floor and a dance floor on the upper level. In
the gaming area, four Xbox video game consoles were available to the public for free
use, each featuring a different video game. No Xbox staff were visibly present and the
lounge was only very moderately Xbox branded.
Xboxs brand-equity profile among different groups varied from that of the other
sponsors mainly with regard to the two image dimensions (see Figure 28).
Sponsorship awareness increased considerably between Groups 1, 2, and 3, but
remained at a relatively low level compared with the other brands present. This needs
to be seen in light of a very weak brand position as the starting point. Compared to the
other sponsors, Xbox is a very young brand which has not succeeded (yet) in building
brand awareness outside its main target group. Many respondents were completely
unaware of the brand and even the product category. Consequently, among visitors
exposed to signage only (Group 2) the awareness level is a mere 30 percent of
Carlsbergs, the second lowest ranking brand.
Since most respondents (roughly two thirds) were unaware of what the Xbox brand
stands for, the image ratings did not reach a sufficient significance level. The
interpretation of the results is further complicated by the demographically substantially
different consistency of the individual samples (see Figure 23). It appears that the
more urban respondents in Group 1 were more familiar with the Xbox brand than the
general audience at the World Championships. Also, the increase between Groups 2
and 3 may not be attributed to a well-executed brand experience (which in the eyes of
observers it was not), but rather to the fact that the visitors to Xbox gaming corner
(group 3) were mostly 16-30 years old.
3.56
3.00
3.41
XBOX
1 = very undynamic
5 = very dynamic
3.56
3.36
3.68
Unaided sponsorship
awareness
Percent
12%
26%
68%
Signage
only
(2)
Direct
contact
(3)
Not at
event
(1)
Signage
only
(2)
Direct
contact
(3)
Not at
event
(1)
Signage
only
(2)
Direct
contact
(3)
Not at
event
(1)

Figure 28: Xboxs brand scores among different spectator groups.
As a conclusion one must say that Xbox suffered mainly from a very poor fit of its
brand and products with the World Championships, especially with regard to the
targeted on-site audience. Video game consoles appear not to be a relevant product for
the average ski racing fan, and Xbox has missed the opportunity of making it more

relevant. For instance, Xbox could have deployed a skiing game in its gaming lounge
(Interview with Thomas Fink).
4.7 Reliability and Limitations of the Research
Like any piece of research, this survey has a number of limitations. As discussed in the
context of the case study, four tests are commonly applied to judge the quality of
empirical social research (Yin 1994, p. 33): construct validity, internal validity,
external validity and reliability. In the following, each dimension is discussed
separately.
Construct validity asks the question whether correct operational measures for the
concepts being studied were deployed. This survey needed to collect and measure data
for two main constructs: brand equity (selected dimensions) and level of brand
experience.
With regard to brand equity, the selection of the image dimensions could be criticized.
Instead of sympathetic, a more sales-oriented attribute could have been chosen as a
preceding measure for brand loyalty, such as preference or propensity to buy.
However, sympathetic as a more general attribute allowed capturing the human
dimension of a direct contact with the sponsor. More critically, the measurement for
the image transfer (dynamic) between event and sponsor may be regarded as rather
crude. Arguably, other attributes such as sporty or luxurious (to account for the
fact that the event was held in St. Moritz) would have been possible. The result of the
focus group, which produced the attribute dynamic, could have been verified among
a test sample of potential World Championships spectators (testing with the actual
audience was not possible because the study design foresaw starting interviews before
the event). The deployment of a multi-item scale might have yielded further insights.
The level of brand experience respondents had been exposed to was assumed to be
determined by their belonging to different groups. It may be rightfully argued that the
brand experience of individual spectators within these groups may have varied greatly.
Also, any line of distinction between the groups must be drawn arbitrarily. Due to
these facts, the results may have been somewhat diluted. Furthermore, the limitation to
three groups did not allow capturing possible variations in brand equity within Group
3, e.g., between spectators who had tried sponsors products rather than having just
been inside their booths.
Even though ski racing is among the sports that attract most interest among the Swiss
population, it may be argued that not all people interviewed for Group 1 were potential
spectators of the World Championships and that Group 1 can therefore not be
compared to Groups 2 and 3.
Internal validity, which discusses whether causal relationships were correctly
identified, may be questioned on two grounds: sample sizes (and thus significance)
and moderating variables. A larger sample size might have allowed to reach higher
significance levels for pair-wise inter-group comparisons. As in any real-life field
study, some moderating variables may have unconsciously affected the results.
However, a systematic influence which would threaten internal validity is not evident.
How far results of a study can be generalized is determined by its external validity.
This survey included five sponsors. To establish a greater level of significance through
a larger sample, the study would have to be repeated at comparable events. While the
methodology and survey material are well documented, full reliability through an
exact replication of the study would not be attainable because the event with its
spectators cannot be repeated (test-retest-reliability).
An additional considerable limitation of this study is that it does not give any
indication as to the stability over time of the observed increases in the selected
dimensions of audience-based brand equity. It may be argued that these effects are of
short-term nature only. To research this question, a longitudinal study design among
independent samples of the three audience groups could be adopted, measuring brand
equity at specified time intervals (cf. Rajaretnam 1994 for one of the few studies with
a longitudinal design). However, a main problem with longitudinal studies is the likely
corruption of results through ongoing promotional activities of sponsors during the
period of research (e.g., Bennet 1999).
4.8 Conclusions and Next Steps
The research goals of this survey were to, first, determine whether the on-site brand
experience has an influence on brand equity at all, and second to gain further insights
into which moderating variables may influence how sponsors on-site brand presence
is perceived by the audience.
This survey has clearly shown that sponsors stand to benefit from offering a higher-
level on-site brand experience to the audience. In most of the cases observed, selected

dimensions of brand equity were not only increased with regard to awareness, but also
in terms of improved image. The survey, however, does not allow comment on the
longevity of these brand equity improvements. Cognitive theory (as discussed in the
following chapter) suggests that while the effects typically weaken over time, the
positive brand associations created by sponsorships may serve as mental hooks to
which additional, selective perceptions can be added in the future.
A positive relationship between the level of brand experience and audience-based
brand equity would hardly be questioned by any marketer or researcher in the field. In
this regard, it may be argued that the survey has just statistically confirmed what
appears to be common sense. Why is it then that four of nine sponsors did not offer a
possibility for the audience to interact with their brands? If this relationship and the (in
some cases) substantial extent of increases were more widely known and accepted,
more sponsors would probably be willing to take advantage of this potential. Clearly,
brand managers are not yet fully aware of the potential in the on-site exploitation of
their sponsorships.
Besides searching to confirm the basic relationship between on-site brand experience
and audience-based brand equity, this survey was designed to be explorative. The
variations observed in the size and direction of changes in audience-based brand equity
offer the opportunity to gain some qualitative insights into what determines an
impactful on-site brand experience. Also, some inferences can be drawn about how the
initial brand position, and its competitive environment, influence the scope for
increases in brand equity that are likely to be achieved.
The in-depth discussion of the individual sponsors in the previous section allowed
collecting a number of influencing factors and/or moderating variables (see Table 10).
Techniques Used by Sponsors
Environmental Factors
Initial Brand position Existing brand equity, e.g.,
Brand awareness
Image
Sponsorship frequency
Product characteristics Services vs. products
High vs. low involvement products
Category attributes
Event reference Strengthening of the link between sponsor
and event
General execution Creativity of execution
Fit with and relevance for target audience
In-line with branding goals
Personal interaction
(relationship/obligation forming)
Opportunity for interaction
Selection of representatives
Generosity of sponsor
Product use Opportunity for product testing
Sampling of products

Table 10: Potential factors influencing the impact of event site sponsorship execution.
These factors can be roughly attributed to two categories: conditional factors, which
pertain to the situation of the individual brand and cannot or can only modestly be
influenced, and techniques which represent possible levers for brand managers to pull
in order to improve their on-site executions.
Next Research Steps
The potential influence of the discovered techniques and environmental factors need to
be discussed in-depth in light of the existing literature to better understand their impact
on audience-based brand equity and what cognitive processes they trigger. The
potential influence of these levers should be empirically assessed individually in a
controlled environment (e.g., in an experiment).

5 Designing the On-Site Brand Experience
I hear and I think. I see and I remember. I do and I know.
Confucius (450 BC)
This chapter discusses approaches to optimally designing event site implementations
of sponsorships and their respective theoretical backgrounds. The empirically
gathered techniques are matched with previous research on event marketing,
combined in a framework and discussed individually. It is theorized that sponsors
brand equity will benefit if they succeed in establishing an event site presence that is
closely attuned to the event, that enables the forming of personal relationships
between sponsor representatives and visitors, allows them to gain active, first-hand
brand and product experiences, and that stimulates perception and memory through
a multi-sensory, 3-D brand world which builds on existing brand schemas.
In 1988, Otker noted that exploitation was the key to sponsorship success. Surprisingly
however, his early insight was not heard in the academic community. In most of the
research on sponsorship, the actual design and execution of the sponsorship
engagement at the event is not discussed at all. One explanation for this might be the
fact that most studies focus on strategic issues such as, e.g., sponsorship selection and
ambush marketing. Also, when large-scale event sponsorships are discussed, the on-
site event audience is often negligibly small compared to the TV and other mass media
audiences.
In practice, however, the actual design and execution of the on-site presence is one of
the main tasks for sponsors, as many event sponsorships come with the opportunity or
obligation for sponsors to present themselves to visitors or guests at the event site
(Interview with Eugen Brunner). As sponsors typically lack the necessary skills, they
often deploy specialized event marketing agencies for both the design and the
execution. Nonetheless, every sponsor must address the question of which kind of
brand experience the audience should have.
5.1 Overview of Design Techniques for Event Site Brand Presences
When discussing event site activities, many sponsors seem to think in two main
categories: signage and hospitality. While signage is aimed at the general audience,
hospitality facilities are often reserved for the sponsors VIP guests. The evidence
Designing the On-Site Brand Experience 114
gathered in the explorative empirical stages of this thesis strongly suggests that these
sponsors are missing out on a higher return (in terms of brand equity generated) on
their sponsorship expenditure. Bringing together this dissertations own empirical
work and previous research on sponsorship and event marketing, this section aims at
establishing an overview of important levers for the design of event site
sponsorship executions and shedding some light on how different design approaches
may affect the audience and its knowledge, beliefs and attitudes towards sponsors
brands. The following discussion draws heavily on the constructs from cognitive
psychology introduced in section 2.4.
5.1.1 Empirically Observed Techniques
Consistent with their explorative character, the two preceding empirical sections
observe and describe a number of techniques which the respective sponsors deployed
to design the event site executions of their sponsorships. They range from basic
personal interaction between sponsor representatives and event visitors, to the
opportunity to test a product, from inviting the audience to participate in a special
activity to tailoring the on-site presence to the theme of the sponsored event. Table 11
provides an overview:

Design Techniques Description
Empirically observed
Case Studies Survey
Personal interaction Opportunity for interaction x x
Product usage Opportunity for product testing
Sampling of products
x x
Event reference Strengthening of the link between
sponsor and event
x x
Target group
specificity
Match of on-site offering with target
group
Selection of brand representatives
x x
Audience
participation
Active participation of visitors in
activity provided by sponsor
x
3-D Brand World Provision of a brand theme-
consistent 3-D experience (semiotic
engineering)
x
Obligation forming Rendering of special services
Generosity of sponsor
x
Integration Integration with other
communication activities
x x

Table 11: Empirically observed techniques for the design of event site brand presences.
5.1.2 Additional Techniques
As discussed earlier, event sponsorship and event marketing are two closely related
disciplines. Event marketing theory and practice is therefore highly applicable to the
discussion of how sponsors can provide their audience with an effective brand
experience. What needs to be kept in mind, however, is that one very important
difference between the two disciplines is the level of involvement that visitors to
either sponsored events or marketing events display vis--vis the marketed brand. At
marketing events, visitors are there because of the brand and its products. At
sponsored events, visitors are there because of the event the sponsors are at best a
side show. These different reasons for event attendance are mirrored by a usually
highly enduring involvement of marketing event visitors towards the marketed brand,
and a low enduring involvement of audiences towards sponsors at regular events,
respectively. Therefore, a simple transfer of complete event marketing concepts to a
sponsored event may not yield the hoped for result. As will be shown in the
following paragraphs, the art in designing an on-site brand experiences at sponsored
events lies in the creation of a high situational involvement or at least a heightened
state of alertness of the audience towards the sponsors offering.
Nickel (1998b, p. 127 f.) provides a useful overview of possible techniques that allow
providing event visitors with a unique (brand) experience and are believed to be
effective in influencing consumers:
Integration with other communication activities
Semiotic engineering (three dimensional brand worlds)
Dramaturgy to provide a continuous and suspenseful experience
Multi-sensory stimuli
Active participation of audience.
These techniques compare well with the ones empirically observed (see Fehler!
Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. above). Integration, 3-D brand world,
and active participation were also identified as potentially important design
techniques. However, neither the deployment of dramaturgy nor deliberate use of
multi-sensory stimuli (e.g., scents or wind) was observed. One reason might be that
these two techniques are rather advanced; many marketers are not yet familiar with
them in the context of event marketing or sponsorship.
5.1.3 Introduction of Framework
The empirically observed techniques and those from the literature can be combined to
produce a list of ten possible design techniques. Before reviewing them one by one, it
is useful to classify them within a concise framework rather than in a long list,
allowing quick comprehension of the main traits of the individual techniques. While
many potential single dimension classifications exist (e.g., with regard to cost, impact
on brand equity, or cognitive processes induced), a more eclectic classification allows
for a discussion of the techniques from different perspectives rather than from just
one by grouping related techniques according to their main trait. The disadvantage of
such an approach, however, is that classification becomes somewhat arbitrary, as
individual factors may belong to several categories. In the following, the eclectic
approach was chosen because it yields a framework which aptly serves the purpose of
jointly discussing the individual techniques.

The logical first step in the design of the on-site execution of an event sponsorship is
the question of who the target audience is and what needs it has (e.g., Tomczak, et al.
1995, p. 16 f.; Nickel 1998b, p. 126; Erber 2000, p. 66 f.). The on-site execution has to
be carefully tailored to the event and its audience, it needs to be congruent.
Compared to impersonal forms of marketing such as advertising, event sponsorships
offer the opportunity for personal interaction between company representatives and the
audience. It is likely that personal interaction and forms of obligation forming (e.g.,
through generosity or helpfulness) may result in the emergence of a relationship
between the sponsor and individual visitors.
Learning theory holds that active participation leads to better understanding and
memory. This thinking can be expanded to product trials.
Last, but not least, there are a number of techniques which are primarily concerned
with how the sponsor brand is presented to the audience. Does the brand display
draw upon existing schemas of the brand and its communication in consumers minds?
Does it allow perceiving the brand through all five senses? Does it have a clearly
structured script, which leads the visitor in his brand experience?
The categorization of the ten identified techniques along these four dimensions yields
the following framework (Figure 29):
Design
Techniques
Congruence with Event
Reinforcement of fit
Target group specificity
Relationship Forming
Personal interaction
Obligation forming
Audience Participation
Audience participation in
activity
Product usage
Brand Display
Semiotic Engineering
Integration
Multi-sensory perception
Dramaturgy

Figure 29: Framework for event site execution.
In the following sections, each category and its individual techniques are discussed
with regard to how these techniques may be deployed and what the underlying
psychological processes are (see paragraph 2.4 Perception, Learning and Moderating
Factors).
5.2 Congruence with Event
Congruence of the on-site execution with the sponsored event can be achieved through
the integration of the event theme into the sponsor presence (event reference) and
through tailoring it to the demands of the event audience (target group specificity).
5.2.1 Event Reference
The perceived fit between event and sponsor is believed to be among the most
important factors determining the success of a sponsorship with regard to the creation
of audience-based brand equity (as discussed in section 2.5). While perceived fit is
generally not a problem for products closely related to the specific event (e.g., camera
manufacturer Nikon sponsoring an exhibition of contemporary photography, Adidas
sponsoring the Olympics), for some product categories it may be quite a stretch to
come up with a credible explanation of how their brand and the sponsored event fit
together, as the following example of car manufacturer Lincoln, sponsor of the US
Open of Tennis, illustrates (Lincoln 2003):
Lincoln and the US Open share a dedication to energy, discipline and
drive. That's why Lincoln is proud to be an enthusiastic and official
sponsor of this world-class event. [Emphasis added]
Event site activities present sponsors with the unique opportunity to actively reinforce
their perceived fit with the sponsored event something that is more difficult to
achieve with mere signage. This enhancement of perceived congruence may be
achieved through making reference to the event topic in a sponsors on-site activities,
instead of just presenting its brand without any link to the event. For instance, at the
booth of Freestyle.chs telecommunication sponsor Sunrise there was a sizeable
skating ramp, which was heavily used by skateboarders, inline skaters, and BMX
riders (all freestyle sports).
Additionally, sponsors may refer to their brands and the events shared history, or
explain why the brand has relevance to the event. Carlsberg, the FIS Alpine World

Ski Championships beer sponsor, designed its whole sponsorship execution around
the slogan Carlsberg. Probably the best after-ski in the World. Drilling equipment
manufacturer Bosch, another sponsor of that same event, rhetorically asked the
question of how do the holes [for the gates] get into the slopes? in its sponsor booth
and in commercials which were broadcasted on large screens.
Cognitive Processes
Making reference to the event strengthens mainly two cognitive constructs: likelihood
of perception and congruence between sponsor and event.
As discussed earlier, humans filter out the majority of stimuli aimed at them and
perceive only those which are deemed relevant to their current situation. Event visitors
are usually highly involved with the event and therefore highly alert not to miss the
action, i.e., anything outstanding going on at the event. If sponsors provide visitors
with event-related stimuli they improve their chances of getting noticed by event
visitors.
If done well, sponsors may benefit from high situational involvement aimed directly
towards their event-site presence, resulting not only in better memory but even product
sales at the event. For instance, the New York City Marathon Expo draws 60,000
highly involved visitors, many of whom buy merchandize as a souvenir and motivator
for the next year of training.
Perceived congruence between the event and the sponsors critically determines how
well the sponsor will be remembered in conjunction with the event, and subsequently,
whether an image transfer takes place between the two. Sponsors aiming to strongly
associate themselves with an event and its image are therefore advised to pay special
attention to this factor.
5.2.2 Target Group Specificity
On-site activities of a sponsor do not necessarily have to reflect the event theme in
order to have an impact on audience-based brand equity. They may also offer some
other feature which is important to the lifestyle of the events target group. As
discussed, lifestyles typically consist of building blocks such as music, clothes, food,
or pastime activities. Taking reference to such a lifestyle element will therefore also
increase the likelihood of perception. For instance, many freestylers enjoy playing
video games or eating fast food. Video game console manufacturer Xbox therefore
was able to generate substantial brand equity among Freestyle.ch visitors through their
on-site gaming lounge.
In any case, if the event site presence of a sponsor is not carefully tailored to the needs
of the event audience, they are doomed to failure. While this seems to be a truism,
practitioners all too often seek to simply leverage an existing concept to another event.
5.3 Relationship Forming
Tomczak, et al. (1995, p. 17) point out that customers have a need for interaction with
the companies, and that non-traditional forms of marketing communication such as
sponsorships provide them with an opportunity to satisfy this need. The underlying
driver of this need for interaction is a very basic human need for forming trustworthy
relationships, as Knowles (2003) eloquently expressed:
[...] business is also a highly social activity. Homo sapiens has not
changed much over the past 25,000 years. Before any transaction can
take place, we still ask the fundamental questions of can I trust you?
and are you one of us? That makes trust the social currency of
business.
So how can sponsors deploy event sponsorships to build a trustworthy and possibly
even obliging relationship with them? The two main techniques to achieve this goal
are personal interaction and obligation forming.
5.3.1 Personal Interaction
Events are prime instruments for encouraging a dialogue between companies and
existing or potential customers (e.g., Gndling 1998, p. 87). Personal interaction with
visitors at sponsored events may have several goals, such as market research,
attracting new customers, or increasing customer loyalty.
If there is a good match between the event audience and the companys target group,
sponsor-visitor interaction may be deployed for formal and informal market
research. Informal chats with event visitors may allow marketers or product
developers to feel the pulse of potential customers and to get their opinions on
existing and new products. For many marketers, events may be a welcome occasion to
interact with their target groups (Interview with Catrin Wetzel). Event sponsorships
are sometimes also used for formal market research, such as the testing of new

products. The instant coffee brand Nscaf, for instance, used Freestyle.ch to test a
new coffee formula (Interview with Erwin Flury).
Personal interaction with event visitors may simply be used to break down the barrier
of anonymity between the sponsor and potential customers and to give the sponsor a
human face. In many cases, the event itself and a companys sponsorship thereof
provide enough stimuli to initiate a conversation. However, as visitors may be more in
a consuming mode than in an interactive one (cf. Nickel 1998b, p. 126), it may be
useful for sponsors to initiate the conversation. For this purpose, hosts and hostesses
can be deployed who approach visitors to, for instance, invite them to the sponsor
booth, offer a free gift or product sample, or ask them to participate in a sweepstake.
As discussed earlier, invitations to sponsored events are often deployed to reinforce
the relationship between customers and companies, leading to an increase in
customer loyalty (cf. also Gndling 1998, p. 87). The excitement and leisure-time
character of events provide a useful backdrop for sales managers to get to know
customers on a personal basis. The presence of product experts may further foster
customer loyalty. A sports equipment manufacturer, for instance, may engage current
or former athletes to speak to customers about the manufacturers products.
As already mentioned, the careful selection of the personnel at a sponsors event-site
booth may be critical to the perception of the sponsor by visitors. They must fit well
with the target audience. As discussed, one of the key strengths of event sponsorship is
that they allow marketers to effectively reach selected target groups. Often, visitors at
sponsored events form quite homogeneous sub-cultures with their own codes of
conduct, language, and communication patterns (e.g., Gerken 1996; Nickel 1998b, p.
126; Schmidt, et al. 2000; Alkemeyer and Gebauer 2003). To effectively engage these
visitors in a conversation and to come across as a credible event partner, sponsors
representatives must at least understand the sub-cultures-specific codes, or better yet,
be a part of the sub-culture itself (Interview with Erwin Flury). At the same time,
however, they need to have some in-depth knowledge of the sponsor and its products
or services that they are representing. If this aspect is neglected, the sponsor may be
perceived as incompetent.
5.3.2 Obligation Forming
Events not only provide sponsors an opportunity to form a relationship with
consumers, they also offer the possibility of making them feel obliged to the sponsor.
Two selected techniques to achieve this are gifts and special services.
With regard to gifts, sponsors must take special care that they are truly appreciated
(see below). Besides gifts, sponsors may render special services to event visitors, such
as meet and greets with stars or free equipment tuning (e.g., at a cross-country skiing
or bicycle race). Zanger and Sistenich (1996, p. 235) note that the resulting feeling of
obligation towards the sponsors stems from visitors feeling of imagined preferential
treatment.
5.4 Audience Participation
Joachimsthaler and Aaker (1997, p. 46) were hardly the first to advocate involving the
consumer in brand building experiences. Their message, however, was not heard. Too
many event site presences of sponsors resemble, at best, a three-dimensional
advertisement. Many sponsors do not allow visitors to take part in an activity and thus
actively experience the brand or product. Essentially, these sponsors are missing out
on one of the key advantages of event sponsorship (or marketing) over more
traditional forms of communication such as advertising (Interview with Eugen
Brunner). When discussing audience participation, a distinction must be made between
participation in an activity and product trial.
5.4.1 Audience Participation in Activity
A wide range of authors agree that the key to a long-lasting brand impression in the
minds of event visitors lies in enabling them to actively participate in an activity (e.g.,
Nickel 1998b, p. 141; Schmitt 1999, p. 68; Erber 2000, p. 83; Sistenich and Zanger
2000, p. 367 ). Activities need to be attractive, related to the sponsor and event,
and non-exclusive.
Attractiveness is, of course, a basic requirement for making people want to visit a
sponsor booth or participate in the activities sponsors provide. To attract visitors,
sponsors activities must be novel (or at least special) and rewarding. The reward for
participation in an activity might be a prize or lie in the activity itself, such as, for
instance, the feeling of thrill that is evoked by bungee jumping or pleasure in feeding
an elephant. Sponsors activities may be so attractive to event visitors that they are

willing to stand in line in order to participate. At Freestyle.ch for instance, visitors
waited up to 80 minutes to participate in Rivellas snowskating activity (Interview
with Catrin Wetzel).
Active participation in an activity is a primary learning technique (see below).
Marketers therefore need to ask themselves what they want consumers to learn about
in the activities that they provide. This implies that sponsors may be better off
providing an activity closely linked to their brand or product than one that does not
have any connection. As discussed, sponsorship objectives are mostly concerned with
shaping brand image or fostering product knowledge and image (see below). Event
site executions of sponsorships must be measured against these criteria. For instance,
the activity may build on a brands core positioning such as Red Bulls (the energy
drink manufacturer) Flying Days. The Flying Days are Red Bull branded events in
which thrill seekers launch themselves with self constructed planes from an elevated
platform and try to glide as far as possible just as in Red Bulls brand claim Red
Bull gives you wings (Erber 2000, p. 83).
Providing an activity with a connection to the event, on the other hand, may increase
its relevance for the event audience (see above). Depending on the sponsorship
objectives, sponsor might best offer activities with both a connection to the sponsored
event and their brand.
Nickel (1998b, p. 144) stresses that activities must be accessible to all, i.e., non-
exclusive. Sponsors required to turn down requests from visitors to participate in an
activity are likely to invoke the opposite effect than that intended. This is especially
true for so-called VIP programs which, if possible, should be completely separated
from the rest of the event audience. An incident from the FIS Alpine World Ski
Championships serves as an illustration: guests of Winterthur Insurance, a main
sponsor, were booed by a furious crowd when they attempted to board an exclusively
reserved gondola.
Cognitive Processes
Cognitive theory holds that active participation leads to better memory. Mainly two
cognitive processes are credited with this: episodic memory and elaboration likelihood
(cf. Nickel 1998b, p. 139 f.)
As discussed in section 2.4.7, humans are believed to have two conceptually different
kinds of memory: semantic and episodic memory. While the first contains general
knowledge, episodic memory stores information about personally experienced events.
Compared to semantic memory, information stored in the episodic memory is more
vivid, i.e., it also includes information about circumstances of the event such as place,
time, weather or the brand which enabled the experience in the first place.
Learning through active participation may also be discussed from an involvement
perspective. Petty, et al. s (1983) Elaboration Likelihood Model holds that persuasive
information may either take a central or peripheral route to consumers memory,
dependent on the involvement of the respective consumer. The central route leads to
longer lasting memory and stronger beliefs. It can be assumed that event visitors
actively participating in a sponsors activity are highly involved with that activity (cf.
Nickel 1998b, p. 140).
5.4.2 Product Usage
Events generally provide sponsors with the opportunity to not only display their
products and services in a favorable environment, but to get event visitors to actually
try them. Sampling and trial of products or services may in some cases result in first-
time contact of visitors with the respective item, in others it simply refreshes
consumers memories with a product sensation. In the case of new products, product
sampling results in a first personal experience of consumers with the product which
may lead to the breakdown of purchasing barriers such as perceived risk or habitual
buying habits (cf. Kuss and Tomczak 2000, p. 114 f.). In the case of established
products, product sampling may move a product to a top-of mind position or make it
relevant for a new target group (as was the case with Chupa Chups at Freestyle.ch).
For some products, such as investment goods and many services (e.g., time
consuming, or expensive ones) it may be difficult to encourage product trial on the
event site. For instance, an insurer will have difficulties demonstrating its product to
visitors. However, sponsors with non-tryable products may revert to simulators or
symbolizations of their core proposition. In the case of an insurer, the feeling of safety
may be dramatically staged in an activity such as a crash test wearing safety belts.

Cognitive Processes
In addition to the build-up of brand equity through episodic memory and ELM
(discussed above) product usage at sponsored events may also lead to product
familiarity effects as described by Alba and Hutchinson (1987). In their extensive
research on consumer knowledge and its effect on purchasing behavior they found that
as product familiarity increases (Alba and Hutchinson 1987, p. 412),
The cognitive structures used to differentiate products become more refined,
more complete, and more veridical.
The ability to remember product information improves.
5.5 Brand Display
Last, but not least, a number of techniques exist to make the on-site brand experience
more vivid and more memorable. In the following, the characteristic and benefits of a
brand display are discussed which
represents the brand three dimensionally
is integrated with existing communication activities
may be perceived through all senses
is staged according to a clearly defined dramaturgy.
5.5.1 Semiotic Engineering
The marketing communication departments of companies, typically in charge of
sponsorships, are used to thinking in two dimensions, because their prime marketing
activities (print ads, posters, TV spots, web-pages, direct mailings etc.) are two-
dimensional. Events, however, take place in the real world, in three-dimensional space.
Bouissac (1987, p. 391) calls the task of building three-dimensional brand worlds
semiotic engineering.
There are two primary approaches to creating three-dimensional brand worlds (cf.
Nickel 1998b, p. 136): building on brand identifiers or on brand meanings. Two
examples clarify the differences. In the case of shoe manufacturer Nike, an event site
execution based on its identifiers might consist of a larger-than-life three-dimensional
swoosh (Nikes logo). An execution based on Nikes brand meanings, i.e.,
competition, winning, provocation, coolness (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000, p. 173)
may encompass a locker room decorated with posters, coaches instructions, sweaty
laundry, cooled drinks, etc. In either case, the three-dimensional implementation lets
event visitors not just mentally, but also physically explore brands.
Cognitive processes
Visitors experiences in these three-dimensional brand worlds lead to the creation,
reinforcement and expansion of cognitive structures, depending on the development
status of the brand (Nickel 1998b, p. 134).
For newly launched brands, semiotic engineering allows the creation of very rich and
multi-facetted cognitive structures, to which future promotional information can be
added.
For existing brands, semiotic engineering strengthens existing knowledge of the brand.
Through the exposure to and experience of a brand world, which is congruent with the
existing brand image, the cognitive structures are reinforced (reinforcement through
repetition).
Semiotic engineering may also be very effective in expanding the meanings that
consumers attribute to a brand. The repositioning of a brand becomes more credible if
it can be experienced first hand rather than as just an advertising claim.
5.5.2 Integration
What has been said about the integration of sponsorship strategy with the other
communication activities of a company also applies to the actual execution of a brand
display at a sponsored event.
Integration means coordination within and more importantly between the different
communication activities a company might engage in, resulting in a homogenous and
congruent marketing communications approach. The two main means to achieve this
aim are formal and content integration (Kroeber-Riel and Esch 2000, p. 109 f.; Esch
2001a, p. 612 f.).
Formal integration refers to the consistent use of corporate design components such as
colors, fonts, shapes and logos. The use of brand identifiers in three-dimensional
space, as described in the previous section, is an example of formal integration.
Content integration may be achieved through the use of language or pictures which
carry the same meaning (Kroeber-Riel and Esch 2000, p. 114; Esch 2001a, p. 613).

From the viewpoint of event sponsorship (or event marketing), this list must be
expanded to include other design techniques discussed in this chapter. Content
integration must encompass other multi-sensory elements (i.e., sound, smell, taste, and
touch) as well as dramaturgical techniques (e.g., suspense, surprise, moods, etc.).
Rivella deployed both formal and content integration in its sponsorship execution at
Freestyle.ch. Formal integration consisted of the consistent use of the Rivella brand
color red and its typical font throughout its booth, but also on give-aways such as T-
Shirts, drink mats, and stickers. The snowskating activity was an effective three-
dimensional incarnation of Rivellas print advertisements and in-store promotions,
reinforced with an overhead display of the print advertisements tag line (see section
3.4).
The deployment of brand themes already established in other communication channels
may foster recognition and evoke a feeling of familiarity with the sponsors event-
site presence. Sistenich and Zanger (2000, p. 366) turn this argument around and claim
that sponsors on-site presence may guide customers in how they are to understand a
companies communication activities in other channels. In practice, the influence is
most likely reciprocal, in that all communication activities affect each other.
Cognitive Processes
Integrated communication facilitates learning about brands through the establishment
of distinct schemas in consumers minds (Esch 2001a, p. 609). As discussed in section
2.4, congruence with existing schemas determines whether information is deemed
relevant and perceived at all. Integrated communication, therefore, facilitates the
perception process: Communication activities that are consistent with each other
reinforce an existing brand schema.
5.5.3 Multi-Sensory Perception
Modern-day sponsorship has come a long way compared, for example with the early
eighties, when Meenaghan (1983, p. 54) described sponsorship as a mute, non-verbal
medium. Today, state-of-the-art event-site sponsorship executions allow the spectator
to hear, touch, smell and taste the brand.
As one of the few communication channels, events allow activation of all senses a
consumer has at his or her disposal, not just vision and hearing (Nickel 1998b, p. 139):
Vision (images, staging)
Hearing (Music, sounds, speech)
Smell (scents)
Taste (flavors)
Touch (surfaces, floors, wind)
Roughly 75 percent of all sensory stimuli are perceived through vision. The human
eye constantly scans its environment for relevant information. Most information is
filtered out, but unusual or moving objects are registered (Kroeber-Riel and Esch
2000, p. 161). Visual impressions are believed to unconsciously influence mood states
(Erber 2000, p. 135). Flat surfaces such as water ponds, for instance, evoke a feeling of
calm, while wood evokes coziness. In the setting of a sponsored event visual stimuli
(in combination with other stimuli) are important in attracting visitors to a sponsor
booth and in creating a brand-congruent visual style.
The ability of sound, most importantly music, to influence mood states has long been
recognized and readily been adapted by marketers (Bruner 1990). Music is, therefore,
one of the key means of creating a brand-congruent mood at sponsors booths.
Freixenet for instance, the Spanish producer of sparkling wine, uses Flamenco music
at some of its events to evoke the association with Spain (Nickel 1998b, p. 136). The
pitfall of deploying sounds in event settings, however, is that they are often
misunderstood or perceived differently depending on prevailing intrinsic mood states
A noisy restaurant may evoke feelings as far apart as this place is really happening
to this place gives me a headache. It is therefore recommendable to rigorously test
sounds before using them in event settings, or to only deploy sounds with a universal
meaning, such as the ticking of a clock, which signifies a countdown in many different
cultures (Erber 2000, p. 137).
Smells have a very direct, non-cognitive impact on mood states and in some cases on
behavior (e.g., musk). Unless smells are typical for the product and generally
positively perceived (e.g., flowers, coffee, bread; not: fish, meat, cars), they should be
mainly deployed to create a subconscious atmosphere (cf. Nickel 1998b, p. 141; Erber
2000, p. 138 f.).
In the context of sponsored events, taste and touch may be deployed in relation to the
product. Food manufacturers may offer the audience the opportunity to taste their

products or selected ingredients, while a car manufacturer may invite visitors to their
sponsor booth to examine or even test drive their latest models.
These sensory stimuli cannot be judged individually, but must be seen as a synthesis
of the arts (in Richard Wagners original sense), where the skilled combination of
these techniques evoke a coherent mental picture (cf. Erber 2000, p. 140). Nickel
(1998b, p. 139 f.) further points to the interdependencies between sensory stimuli, such
as between color and perceived temperature.
Cognitive Processes
As discussed, multi-sensory stimuli on the one hand affect the moods of spectators
(which in turn may affect perception of sponsorship messages), but they also foster
memorization of the event experience. The combination of several sensory stimuli is
believed to stimulate mental imagery of rich memories and associations, leading to
better recall of an event sponsor, and therefore increases the sponsors brand equity.
5.5.4 Dramaturgy
By definition (compare section 2.2), sponsored events are unique happenings. As such,
much of the excitement of events stems from both the anticipation and the recollection
of the event (cf. Schmidt, et al. 2000). Once at the event, visitors spend considerable
time on the premises, and possibly also at sponsors booths. Instead of leaving how
they spend their time up to visitors, sponsors have an interest in influencing and
structuring time frames around their brands. How they best go about this is the topic of
event dramaturgy.
Event dramaturgy typically deploys two techniques (Mikunda 1996, p. 138 f.): story
lines and suspense arcs (e.g., from classical drama). Story lines take a theme (such as
the brand image or the event topic) and give it a temporal structure. This is best
illustrated by an example. Shower gel brand Cliff consistently used the image of a cliff
jumper in its advertising. If Cliff were to sponsor a cliff jumping competition, they
could use the following story line for their event-site activity. Welcome drink (tropical
fruit juice), changing into swimwear, instruction by a cliff jumper, jump from a low
cliff, shower with cliff gel, tropical barbeque.
A suspense arc may, for example, be used by a beer brand, whose event site consists
of a tug-of-war for free beer. Participants would first form two teams and discuss
individual tactics. To increase suspense, the prize (a barrel of beer) is presented at
great length. Then the tug-of-war begins. The suspense is resolved by the winning
team inviting the losers to a round of drinks.
The two examples show how the experience at the sponsors booth might be
structured. As mentioned at the beginning, sponsors are well advised to also use the
time before and after the event for brand building measures (Nickel 1998b, p. 137).
The invitation to an event may be integrated into the story line or the suspense arc.
Materials produced during the event, such as pictures, may be sent to participants a
couple of days after the event to reinforce memory of the event.
Cognitive Processes
Dramaturgy serves the purpose of giving the event experience a clear structure rather
than a random form. This clear structure in turn facilitates memorization of the
experience, as it may be stored in long-term memory with less cognitive elaboration
effort (compare section 2.4). The expansion of the event experience to before and after
the event gives a sponsoring brand more opportunities for contact. And, repetition is a
prime factor influencing memorization of messages (e.g., Kroeber-Riel and Esch 2000,
p. 176 f.).
5.6 Does a First-Best Sponsorship Execution Exist?
The survey at the World Ski Championships, and the data available from Freestyle.ch,
confirm that sponsors could generate more brand equity among the audience by
creating a brand experience that goes beyond visitors being exposed to perimeter
billboards. The present work, however, looks beyond this hardly disputed result and
tries to answer the following questions:
1. Which techniques available for the design of such event site brand experiences have
the highest impact on audience-based brand equity?
2. Does the deployment of these techniques universally lead to the highest creation of
audience-based brand equity, or do situational factors play an important role?
Two design factors are hypothesized to be essential to increasing brand equity: the
overall brand experience and the enhancement of the sponsor-event fit. These two
factors are now discussed separately.
5.6.1 Event Site Brand Experience
As a working definition, the term brand experience means

the intensity and richness of an event visitors contact with a sponsors
brand.
The main means for shaping the brand experience are design techniques such as
audience participation, brand display, and relationship forming, as discussed above.
The key driver that determines the level of brand experience is believed to be
audience involvement with a sponsors on-site presence. This view is shared by
Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000, p. 224) who argue that sponsors should look for the
possibility of high interactivity and involvement (in the sense of making the audience
part of the sponsorship activity) when evaluating a sponsorship opportunity. Audience
involvement in turn is believed to have a reciprocal relationship with active
participation in a sponsor-provided activity and to a lesser degree with personal
interaction with sponsor representatives. The brand experience is further directly
influenced by the brand display. Use of certain brand display techniques may also
affect audience involvement with a sponsors event-site presence, such as deployment
of activation techniques (e.g., specific music or bright colors, cf. Kroeber-Riel and
Esch 2000, p. 164). These relationships are depicted in Figure 30.
Brand experience
Audience Involvement
with Sponsor's
Event Site Presence
Memory
(Brand Equity)
Audience Participation in
Sponsor-Provided Activity
Personal Interaction with
Sponsor Representatives
Brand
Display
Strong influence
Weak influence

Figure 30: Determinants of brand experience.
Based on these conceptual relationships, a hierarchical model of event-site brand
experiences can be developed. Audience participation in the sponsor-provided activity
and personal interaction with sponsor representatives are used to determine the
hierarchical position in the framework, given their presumed strong influence on
involvement. Brand display techniques are treated as enabling factors. It is argued that
the mere, although sophisticated, display of a brand does not greatly influence
audience involvement. The brand experience model is shown in Figure 31. It has the
shape of a pyramid to illustrate that higher-level brand experiences are more difficult
to provide and that they are less frequently deployed by sponsors. For simplicitys
sake, the brand experience pyramid consists of three levels.
Exposure to Signage
Dialog with Sponsor
Participation in
Sponsor Activity
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

o
f

b
r
a
n
d

e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Examples
Use of simulator
Participation in game
Product use
Examples
Information booth
Sweepstake
Survey
Examples
Perimeter advertising
Logo on jerseys
Logo on entry ticket
Sophisticated
brand display
techniques
Advanced brand
display
techniques
Supported by:
Basic brand
display
techniques

Figure 31: The on-site brand experience pyramid.
Level 1 brand experiences consist of mere exposure to sponsor signage, such as
perimeter advertising and sponsors logos on players jerseys or entry tickets. Even at
this first level, some basic brand display techniques such as auditory stimuli, semiotic
engineering or integration with other communication activities may be deployed.
Level 2 brand experiences primarily consist of a dialog between the event visitor and
the sponsor. This dialog may have the form of a sweepstake or survey, but may also
take place at a sponsor booth, where a sponsor displays its products. At this level,
more advanced brand display techniques, such as dramaturgy, can be used.
Level 3 requires the active participation of event visitors in the activity a sponsor
offers. Such activities are preferably closely linked to the product or the brand
positioning, and may consist of participation in a game or contest (such as designing
an advertisement for the sponsor) or a the sampling of the sponsors products and

services. The effect of active participation can be reinforced through sophisticated
brand displays, including, for instance the use of scents, dramaturgy and state-of-the
art semiotic engineering.
It must be stressed that these three levels are only of a conceptual nature, as they
assume average execution and a constant environment. In practice, large variations
may be observed within and in between these levels with regard to the creation of
audience-based brand equity.
5.6.2 Enhancement of Sponsor-Event Fit
As discussed, the perceived fit between the sponsor brand and the event is believed to
be the main driving factor behind the occurrence of image transfer from the event to
the brand. Enhancement of sponsor-event fit is therefore believed to be the second key
driver for the creation of audience-based brand equity through event-site executions of
sponsorships. This is also the critical difference to mere event marketing, where event
experiences can be fully geared towards the brand.
Sponsors may or may not take action to increase the perceived fit. The situation where
sponsors do not take any action to reinforce the link between their brand and the
sponsored event may be termed contextual image transfer, as sponsors simply place
their brand in the context of the event. Reinforced image transfer describes the
situation where a sponsor takes action to improve the perceived fit between its brand
and the event.
Whether a contextual image transfer takes place or not is largely dependent on how
the image of the brand and the product category relate to the sponsored brand. If
Puma, the German sports equipment manufacturer, places its logo on perimeter boards
during a football game, perceived sponsor-event fit is good, as there is clearly a
functional connection between Puma and football. Puma is therefore likely to benefit
from an image transfer. Consider Saecco, the Italian producer of household equipment,
engaging in the same sponsorship. There is no evident connection between Saecco and
football in general. Sponsor-event fit, therefore, is poor and no or only limited image
transfer takes place.
Saecco of course could have adopted the strategy of reinforcing the image transfer
by taking action to explain the audience why there is a good fit between Saecco and
the particular football event. Perhaps Saecco has been the main sponsor of the event
for the last 50 years, or perhaps Saecco sells a line of products in the design of popular
football clubs. If no credible connection can be made between the sponsor and the
brand, the sponsorship should not be undertaken in the first place (i.e., from a branding
perspective). Enhancement of fit may be achieved through simple techniques such as
adding a slogan to the brand name that makes reference to the event (e.g., Fords
Destination Football) or through a slight adaptation of the logo (e.g., Mastercard,
both sponsors of the UEFA Champions League). More sophisticated improvements to
perceived fit may encompass sponsors making reference to the event in their on-site
sponsorship executions (e.g., Ford displaying its Champions League edition cars or
Mastercard having former football star Pele sign autographs at their booth), or in
accompanying communication activities, such as event programs or advertising.
5.6.3 Situational Factors
The title of this sub-chapter asked the question whether a first-best event-site
execution exists. First best of course implies that such an event execution would be the
best regardless of factors pertaining to a specific situation. This section discusses what
these situational factors may encompass.
As a by-product of the empirical research presented in chapter 1, two main
environmental factors were identified that were believed to have an influence on the
effectiveness of the various event site presence design techniques observed at the
World Ski Championships (cf. Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden
werden. on p. 112): the initial position of a brand and the characteristics of the
product.
Initial Brand Position
Changes in brand equity induced by an event sponsorship must be judged with regard
to the initial brand equity. Different sponsors brands may have very different scores
on brand awareness; some brands carry a rich set of attributes, while others are
perceived as blank; some brands may be frequent sponsors of the particular event, of
its activity (e.g., contemporary art or football) or of other properties; some brands may
be central to event visitors lives, while others may be peripheral.
In general, it may be stated that the larger the initial brand equity, the smaller the
impact that may be achieved through sponsorship (or any other communication
activity). High equity brands typically have a long history with consumers and have

been carefully built-up, often with considerable resources (Biel 2001, p. 88 f.). A
single sponsorship will do little to change that equity.
It is believed (with partial empirical support from the World Ski Championships
survey) that different initial brand positions mainly affect the size of the impact on
brand equity induced by event sponsorship. Whether the initial brand position impacts
the hierarchy of techniques within the on-site brand experience pyramid is doubtful,
but will have to be determined empirically.
Product Characteristics
If a sponsoring brand is primarily a product or service brand (vs. a corporate brand, cf.
Meffert and Perrey 2001, p. 685 f.) the characteristics of the respective product or
service may influence not only the impact of different even-site design techniques on
brand equity, but also whether some of these techniques may be deployed at all.
Generally speaking products, in most cases, are easier to display or sample than
services, due to their inherent characteristics (such as e.g., simultaneous production
and consumption or labor intensity). For some frequent sponsors, such as banks or
insurers, it is very difficult to conceive of an attractive way of displaying their services
or encouraging people to try them.
This present work discusses techniques for involving visitors with a sponsors brands
or products. Some sponsors are able to benefit from highly involved consumers simply
because they manufacture products that belong to a high-involvement category. Other
sponsors that manufacture low-involvement products must try very hard to involve the
audience with their products. Consider a sports car manufacturer (assumed to be a
high-involvement product), such as Porsche, sponsoring a golf tournament. All
Porsche has to do to attract large numbers of visitors to their sponsor booth is to
display its latest models. Now consider Saecco, the kitchen equipment manufacturer
(assumed to be a lower involvement product), deploying the exact same sponsorship
strategy and execution (simply displaying its products). Not many visitors will find
their way to Saeccos booth. Thus, design techniques which foster visitors
involvement with a particular brand or product may be more important for sponsors
belonging to low-involvement categories than for those from high-involvement
categories.
Sponsorships are often undertaken to change the image of the sponsors brand or
product (e.g., as in the Rivella case study). In order to achieve this, events with the
desired image are sponsored. Changes in image dimensions are more likely to occur if
a certain perception gap exists between the image of the sponsoring product and the
event. In other words: sponsors that offer a product or service which carries very
similar image attributes to those of the sponsored event may benefit less from the
sponsorship than sponsors who have a product or service with different image
attributes.
However, if the gap between product attributes and those of the sponsored event
becomes too large, perceived sponsor-event fit may suffer and thus prevent an
effective image transfer. This may be the case if, for instance, a fast-food restaurant
such as McDonalds was to sponsor the up-scale Gourmet Festival of St. Moritz (cf.
Danuser 1998).
5.6.4 Sponsorship Execution Matrix
The previous sections discussed the characteristics of the two factors that are
hypothesized to be the key to increasing brand equity: the overall brand experience
and the enhancement of sponsor-event fit. These two factors can be combined in a
matrix which allows discussion of their six possible combinations (Figure 32).

On-Site Brand Experience Level
Exposure to Signage (1) Dialog with Sponsor (2)
I
m
a
g
e

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

(
R
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

S
p
o
n
s
o
r
-
E
v
e
n
t

F
i
t
)
C
o
n
t
e
x
t
u
a
l
R
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d
Brand message is
transmitted through signage
Message of sponsor does
not refer to context of
event/activity sponsored
Execution examples:
Brand logo on players jersey
Perimeter billboards spotting
just logo
"Ford"
Brand message is
Message of sponsor refers to
context of event/activity
sponsored
Execution examples:
Perimeter billboards with
combined brand and event
message
Special brand logo on
players jersey
"Ford cares about football"
Brand message is
transmitted through dialog
with sponsor
sponsored
Execution examples:
Sweepstake which links
sponsor to event
Event related give-aways
available at sponsor booth
"Win a trip to the finals with
ford"
Brand message is
transmitted through dialog
with sponsor
Execution examples:
Sweepstake to win sponsor-
related price
Product information at
sponsor booth
"Come see the new Ford
Fusion"
Participation in Activity (3)
Brand message is
transmitted through
participation in activity
sponsored
Execution examples:
Brand world at sponsor booth
with combined brand and
event message
Product testing/sampling
combined with event message
"Experience Ford's World of
Football"
Brand message is
transmitted through
Execution examples:
Brand world at sponsor
booth with brand message
only
Product testing/sampling
"Experience the world of
Ford with all your senses"

Figure 32: Matrix combining brand experience and enhancement of fit.
It is argued that for most brands (with the potential exception of certain product
categories), implementation that is consistent with the criteria in the upper right-hand
matrix cell would yield the largest creation of audience-based equity. Alarmingly, the
matrix also reveals that many sponsors today are stuck at the opposite end of the
spectrum, in the lower left-hand corner the worst position to be in if this framework
is valid (validation of this framework through an experiment will be the task of the
next research step).
5.7 Cost implications
Providing a lasting brand experience to event audiences carries a price tag higher than
the cost of putting up perimeter signage. However, it is argued that the incremental
cost often is not only small in comparison to the investment in the sponsorship rights,
but that effective execution does not necessarily have to be expensive.
As discussed earlier, sponsors typically deploy 1.5 to 2 times the amount for the
exploitation of their sponsorship than they paid for the sponsorship rights. With regard
to event sponsorship, an on-site presence is often already included in sponsorship
contracts or available at a small additional cost, given the fact that many event
organizers see sponsors activities as an enrichment of their event proposition
(Interview with Erwin Flury). If an on-site presence is already planned, the
incremental cost of providing a truly outstanding brand experience is even lower. At
Freestyle.ch for instance, Rivellas on-site experience cost no more than CHF 50,000
to implement compared to the CHF 130,000 for the sponsorship rights. The
Freestyle.ch case also shows that sometimes a cost-intensive booth is not even needed.
Chupa-Chups could have achieved almost the same surge in audience-based brand
equity if they had only performed the sampling, which cost an estimated CHF 5,000-
7,000.
The cost of event site brand experience measures is further put in perspective by
comparing contact prices and contact quality with other forms of communication. The
price per contact is calculated by dividing the cost of the event site implementation by
the number of visitors to the sponsor booth (or the number of participants in the
sponsor activity, the number of recipients of sampled products). Rivella at Freestyle.ch
had some 600 active participants in its snowskating activity. The cost of this very high
quality contact amounted to CHF 83 per participant. If the thousands of spectators are
considered who watched others perform in the Rivella booth, this cost comes down to
a single-digit amount. In another example from the Freestyle.ch context, Sunrise (a
telecommunication company) provided an SMS-controlled laser-voting facility (cost:
CHF 25,000) which was used by around 5,000 spectators, yielding a cost per contact
of CHF 5 (Interview with Erwin Flury). These figures compare well to the cost of
contact of other forms of marketing communication such as direct mail, or advertising,
where contact quality is often very poor.
There are a number of levers to keep the incremental cost of providing an event-site
brand experience low, mainly leveraging existing materials and creativity.
5.7.1 Leveraging Existing Materials
Sponsors typically engage in a number of marketing communication activities besides
sponsorship, such as event marketing (proprietary or at trade fairs), in-store
presentations, promotions, and advertising. The materials used for these activities may
potentially be leveraged to the event site execution of sponsorships. For instance, the
booth from a trade fair can just as easily be used to host the event site activities. Other
building blocks such as product displays may be available from in-store promotions,

computer-based product simulators from marketing events, and requisites such as key
visual or largerthan-life brand logos from the production of a TV commercial. This
inter-exchange between communication means is facilitated by the increasing
integration of brand messages across channels. For companies that use their
sponsorship engagement as the key brand building tool in all channels (e.g., UBS),
such an integration is most feasible. Undoubtedly, coordination of these building
blocks across channels and through time requires diligent planning.
While the repeated use of key visuals may have a positive effect on visitors
familiarity with the brand (Kroeber-Riel and Esch 2000, p. 109 f.; Esch 2001a, p. 609),
the recycling of existing material has its limits. The effects of, for instance, a race car
simulator on an event visitor is greatly diminished if he or she has already tried one out
on a previous occasion. To draw high interest from the audience, the main attraction in
many cases must be a novel experience (Goldblatt 1990, p. 3).
5.7.2 Creativity and Focusing
High quality and right-on-target brand experiences do not necessarily have to be
expensive. An often neglected factor that can keep costs to a minimum is creativity
(Walter Bosch in: Tomczak, et al. 1995, p. 18 f.; Morgan 1999, p. 13; Sorrell 2003). If
marketers have a large budget, they often simply select a standardized, expensive
solution, which is best illustrated by the following example: VIP meals at sponsored
events typically cost around USD 300 per person (e.g., FIS Alpine World Ski
Championships 2003). That is a lot of money wasted on something few participants
truly appreciate. A more creative solution would have saved money and at the same
time been more effective. A sponsor such as Milka could have rented a nearby
mountain hut or cow stable and served a traditional alpine meal, prepared on an open
fire stove.
Of course, besides being an effective way to save costs, creativity primarily ensures
that event-site brand experiences are unique and differentiating. As more and more
companies engage in event sponsorships and event marketing, many activities offered
are reacted to with boring as they have been seen too many time before (e.g., bull-
riding, sky-biking, bungee-jumping). While these activities may still be great
attractions, visitors are bound to forget which sponsor enabled them to participate in it
(Nickel 1998b, p. 127 f.).
Focusing on the key elements of the brand experience may also help to curb costs.
Instead of offering as many attractions, such as activities, displays and promotional
give-aways, as possible, sponsors need to ask themselves what is really most
appreciated by the audience. Branded pens, for instance, are often perceived as cheap,
throw-away items. Yet they still cost the sponsor a lot of money if they are given away
in the hundreds or even thousands. What such a pen does, at best, is increase brand
awareness among those who keep it and at worst negatively influence brand image the
minute it fails to function (Nickel 1998b, p. 146).
The discussion in this chapter has revealed that the provision of higher-level event-site
brand experiences may be very beneficial to the creation of audience-based brand
equity and at the same time may be achieved with limited additional resources.
Compared to the expenditure on sponsorship rights, these exploitation costs are often
marginal.

6 Influence of Selected Sponsorship Design Techniques on Brand
Image (Experiment)
A classroom experiment was used to determine the influence of selected sponsorship
on-site execution techniques on the perception of sponsors brand image and on the
evaluation of sponsorevent fit. The results indicate that on-site sponsorship
execution significantly affects brand image, namely the transfer of attributes from
the event to the brand, as well as brand vividness and brand attitude. It is also shown
that sponsorship execution influences the evaluation of sponsorevent fit.
Furthermore, the data highlights the crucial role of perceived sponsorevent fit in
enabling the image transfer from the event to the brand.
The empirical and theoretical research so far has yielded a number of techniques for
on-site sponsorship execution that appear to influence how event audiences perceive
the brands of the sponsors. However, it remains unclear
whether individual techniques actually do have an impact on audience-based
brand equity (Q1),
which parts of brand equity are affected (Q2),
and
how large the brand-impact of individual techniques is (Q3).
Ad Q1: The first two empirical parts of this thesis, i.e., the case studies at
Freestyle.ch and the survey among spectators of the FIS Alpine World Ski
Championships St. Moritz 2003, were designed to determine whether
different forms of sponsorships execution impacted the brand perception of
event audiences at all, and to explore what kind of design techniques could
be identified. In this context, real-life sponsorship executions were evaluated
in their totality in most cases representing a combination of design
techniques. However, some partial evidence of the brand-equity impact of
selected single design techniques was found, namely sampling (e.g., Chupa-
Chups at Freestyle.ch, Milka at Ski World Championships) and congruence
with event (e.g., Rivella at Freestyle.ch and Carlsberg at Ski World
Championships). Since individual design techniques are easily identified, it
Influence of Selected Sponsorship Design Techniques on Brand Image (Experiment) 142
would be of great interest to determine each individual techniques impact on
selected aspects of brand perception.
Ad Q2: It may be argued that not all design techniques have an impact on the same
elements of brand equity. Some might be more effective in generating
sponsorship awareness, while others might have an impact on attitude
towards the brand. Other techniques might be especially effective in
facilitating the transfer of image attributes from the event to the brand.
Ad Q3: Keeping in mind that some sponsorship execution design techniques may be
more expensive than others to deploy, it is of interest which design
techniques have the largest impact on brand equity. For instance, sampling
may be a quite costly endeavor depending on the product while making
ones sponsorship congruent with the event and its audience may carry a
considerably smaller price tag.
With the help of an adequate research methodology, the attempt was made to find
answers to questions 13. This chapter has six parts. First, the research model with its
key constructs and related hypotheses is introduced. Second, the research design and
methodology, including the deployed measures, are thoroughly discussed. Part 3
contains the hypotheses test and the discussion of the results. In part 4, the data is
analyzed using structural equations modelling methodology. A summary of the key
findings and conclusions are presented in part five. The chapter is concluded with a
comment on the limitations of this research.
6.1 Research Model and Hypotheses
It would hardly be feasible to individually test the brand equity impact of all 10
sponsorship execution techniques that were discussed in chapter 1 (for an overview,
see Figure 29). Nor would it make a lot of sense: many techniques typically need to be
combined, as they are seldom deployed on their own. Sophisticated dramaturgy, for
instance, is typically only found when there is some form of audience participation.
Audience participation, in turn, often implies a multi-sensory brand experience, often
in 3-dimensional space (semiotic engineering). It therefore appears sensible to focus
on the two main levers that were identified in section 5.6: The level of brand
experience provided (i.e., exposure to signage, dialog with sponsor, participation in
sponsor activity; with accompanying increasing sophistication of brand display) and

the enhancement of sponsor-event fit (i.e., sponsorship executions that are especially
tailored to the event theme or audience).
6.1.1 Conceptual Model
The hypothesized effect of the two design techniques brand experience level and
enhancing sponsorevent fit with selected aspects of brand equity can be described
in a conceptual model. The model consists of two independent (light grey shade), five
dependent (no shade) and two moderating (dark grey) variables (Figure 33).
Enhancing
sponsor
event fit
Brand
experience
level
Brand
attributes
(event-specific)
Brand
attitude
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

o
f

b
r
a
n
d

i
m
a
g
e
Event
involvement
+
H
3c
Product
involvement
Brand
vividness
+
H
1c
+
H
2
Moderating
variables
+
H
1b
+ H
3a
+
H
3b
+/
+
+/
Situational
brand
involvement
Empirically observed
no
yes
+
H
1d
Perceived
sponsor
event fit
+ H
1a
H
4b
H
5a
H
5bd
+
H
4a
1
2
3
4 5

Figure 33: Conceptual model of relationships between sponsorship execution techniques and selected elements of brand
image.
Instead of simply depicting input (design techniques) and output (selected elements of
brand equity) variables, an attempt was made to also include precursor variables (i.e.,
perceived brandevent fit and situational brand involvement) that are believed to have
a causal relationship with the final output variables (selected elements of brand
image).
Independent Variables
The model contains two independent variables that were to be manipulated in this
study: the level of brand experience provided by the sponsor (brand experience
level) and whether an attempt was made to enhance the perceived sponsorevent fit
through adapting the sponsorship execution to the event (enhancing sponsorevent
fit). An in-depth discussion of these two sponsorship execution design techniques is
provided in sections 5.6.1 and 5.6.2.
Dependent Variables
The model consists of five dependent variables, four of which are empirically
observed in this study. This section discusses the conceptual meaning of the variables,
while their operationalization is presented in section 6.2.4.
This study is primarily concerned with the (short-term) impact of sponsorship
executions on brand equity as perceived by the on-site audience. According to Kellers
(1993) conceptualization, consumer-based brand equity can be indirectly measured by
assessing consumers brand knowledge. Brand knowledge is comprised of the two
elements brand awareness and brand image. Both enhancing brand awareness and
changing brand image are among the top sponsorship goals (as discussed in section
2.1.4, p. 27). Due to the particular design of this experiment (the brands are openly
provided to respondents), this study focuses on the enhancement of brand image. As
discussed, current thinking ascribes the image-changing power of sponsorships to the
attribute transfer that may take place between an event and its sponsors. This effect has
been conceptualized in several conceptual models (McDonald 1991; Gwinner 1997;
Gwinner and Eaton 1999). It is surprising, however, that only a limited number of
empirical studies have been concerned with the impact of sponsorship on (corporate)
image (mainly Otker and Hayes 1987; D'Astous and Bitz 1995; Hansen and Scotwin
1995). The host of empirical studies examine only sponsorship awareness, which
from a brand knowledge perspective (Keller 1993) at best represents a rough
indication of whether the sponsorship has been anchored in consumers memories as a
brand association. What astonishes even more is that among the empirical studies into
sponsorships effect on brand image, only one has attempted to measure the transfer
of specific attributes from the event to the sponsoring brand (Gwinner and Eaton
1999).
In this study, three measures for brand image were deployed: brand attributes, brand
attitude, and brand vividnesss.
Brand attributes (as transferred from the event): Brand attributes are those
descriptive features that characterize a brand, i.e., what a consumer thinks the brand is
or has and what is involved with its purchase or consumption (Keller 1993, p. 4).

According to Plummer (1985), brands may be characterized by personality descriptors
(e.g., colorful, gentle). Keller (1993) states that these types of associations seem
to arise most often as a result of inferences about the underlying user or usage
situations, and that brand personality attributes may also reflect emotions or feelings
evoked by the brand. Applying this line of argument, it may also be hypothesized that
brand attributes may be inferred by association with a sponsored event.
The goal of this study is not to observe the impact of the sponsorship on the overall set
of attributes that a brand carries, but rather whether a transfer of specific attribute
dimensions takes place from the event to the sponsoring brand. Therefore, the variable
brand attributes, as used in this study, measures the congruence of sponsor and event
image on specific attributes.
Brand attitude: Brand attitude can be defined as consumers overall evaluation of a
brand (Keller 1993, p. 4). Brand attitudes are typically the result of a combination of
brand associations (positive or negative) and benefits that are salient for the brand.
This variable, which has been used in previous sponsorship research (e.g., Sandler and
Shani 1992; Roy 2000), provides a general indication of respondents feelings towards
a brand.
Brand vividness: this variable measures how vivid (e.g., how clear and multi-
facetted) a particular consumers mental picture of a brand is (Esch and Geus 2001, p.
1039). Vividness may be regarded as the super-dimension of all aspects concerning
brand imagery, as it provides a powerful indication of how well a brand is remembered
(Ruge 1988, p. 105). An important facet of brand vividness is how easily consumers
are able to access their mental imagery of brands. As accessibility of brand imagery
and brand vividness are highly correlated, they are often summarized under the general
term brand vividness (Ruge 1988).
The three sub-constructs of brand image (as an indication of consumer-based brand
equity) used in this study are of course highly inter-related. While brand attributes
represent neutral associations that consumers make when thinking about brands, brand
attitude indicates how consumers judge these associations based on their personal
values. The construct brand vividness, finally, tells us how strong these brand
associations are.
Perceived sponsorevent fit: this construct measures how well consumers think a
sponsor fits with the event that it sponsors. This evaluation of fit is widely believed to
be based on schema congruence (see in-depth discussion in section 2.4.3). The key
premise of schema theory, termed match-up hypothesis, is that the more two objects
are viewed as being congruent (matching-up), the stronger the resulting schemas in
memory and the higher the strength of association between the two objects (Roy 2000,
p. 45).
Situational brand involvement: the construct brand involvement conceptualizes to
what extent consumers display arousal, interest, and possibly behavior when exposed
to a particular brand (cf. Houston and Rothschild 1978). This involvement may be of
enduring or situational character, depending on whether it is displayed all the time
based on personal interest in a brand or whether it is elicited by a specific situational
context (Houston and Rothschild 1978; Zaichowsky 1985). Sponsorship typically
takes place in an environment where audiences are highly involved with the event.
Depending on the sponsorship (and its execution), the placement of a brand as a
sponsor in this environment may result in situational involvement towards the
sponsoring brand, thus increasing perception, learning and possibly influencing
attitudes (see discussion in section 2.4.3).
Because of these important effects, situational brand involvement has been included in
the conceptual model used for this study. Due to the studys experimental character,
however, it is not possible to assess this construct empirically: given that respondents
were asked to evaluate particular brands, they would typically all show a high
situational brand involvement simply because the task they are asked to complete
requires them to do so. It may, therefore, be assumed that the situational brand
involvement of respondents in this study is somewhat higher than it would be in
reality, however, at a constant level across all scenarios, thus not impairing the
findings of this study.
Moderating Variables
In choosing an experimental set-up for this study, an attempt was made to exclude or
control any moderating variables influencing the perception of sponsorships and
brands (discussed in more detail below). However, it would hardly be correct to
discuss these aspects without including the possible moderating effects of product

involvement and event involvement. Thus, these two constructs are included in the
model as moderating variables.
Product and event involvement: according to what has been said about brand
involvement, these two constructs measure the level of arousal, interest, and possibly
behavior that a specific product category and a specific event may elicit in consumers
exposed to them.
6.1.2 Development of Hypotheses
The following sections develop the hypotheses that have been depicted in the
conceptual model (Figure 33). Hypotheses are organized and presented according to
the constructs on which they depend.
Influence of brand experience level on brand attributes, vividness, and attitude
and on sponsorevent fit
The level of brand experience that the on-site execution of a sponsorship provides to
spectators essentially determines the amount of information about the brand that they
receive. This information is likely to increase the set of information the spectator
already holds about the brand (Aaker 1996, p. 10), which may affect brand attributes
and brand vividness (Ruge 1988, p. 105; Kroeber-Riel and Esch 2000, p. 164 f.). In
turn, these additional brand impressions might also change brand attitude. Therefore,
the following hypotheses are stated:
H
1a
: Subjects exposed to higher-level brand experiences will be more likely to hold
brand attributes that are congruent with the attributes of the event than subjects
exposed to lower level brand experiences.
H
1b
: Subjects exposed to higher-level brand experiences will have a more vivid
perception of sponsoring brands (brand vividness) than subjects exposed to
lower level brand experiences.
H
1c
: Subjects exposed to higher-level brand experiences will have a more positive
brand attitude than subjects exposed to lower level brand experiences.
When presented with a brandevent linkage in the form of a sponsorship, consumers
will access existing information stored in memory that is related to the brand (brand
schema) and to the event (event schema). These schemas are then used to make
judgments on the appropriateness of a product and event presented together via
sponsorship (Roy 2000, p. 35 f.). In other words, consumers evaluate the fit between a
sponsor and an event through the comparison of existing schemas in order to
determine their congruence. It is argued here that the level of brand experience may
influence this assessment of congruence in several ways: first, the assessment of
congruence may be more favorable simply because more information about the brand
is available in a higher-level brand experience situation. Second, higher-level brand
experiences demand a higher effort from the part of the sponsor and are therefore
likely to be evaluated more favorably by the event audience than lower-level brand
experiences, thus facilitating the accommodation with the (positively valued) event
schema (Fiske and Pavelchak 1986). Third, a higher-level brand experience is likely to
increase situational involvement with the brand, thus stimulating brand perception and
(conscious or sub-conscious) elaboration of congruency. This leads to the following
hypothesis:
H
1d
: Subjects exposed to higher-level brand experiences will perceive sponsors as
having a better fit with the event than subjects exposed to lower level brand
experiences.
Influence of enhancing sponsorevent fit on perceived sponsorevent fit
Perceived sponsor-event-fit is hypothesized to be one of the key factors determining
the impact of sponsorships on brands. Sponsor-event fit may be assessed at two levels:
product category as well as target group and image. The suitability of individual
product categories as sponsors for a specific event may be regarded as a functional fit
(or logical fit, cf. Cornwell 1995; Gwinner and Eaton 1999). At this level, sponsor-
event fit is primarily determined through an assessment of relatedness between the two
(Wakefield, et al. 2002). For instance, a sports equipment manufacturer may be
regarded as being highly related to a sports event, while a provider of financial
services is not.
At the target group/image-level (sometimes called strategic fit, cf. Cornwell 1995;
Gwinner and Eaton 1999), the question is how well a sponsor fits with the target group
and the specific image of an event. From this perspective, a provider of financial
services (e.g., a private bank) may have a good fit with a golf tournament because a
large part of the audience may consist of potential clients. For many large-scale
sponsorships fit at the first level is poor, but good at the second.

One of the key questions of this study is whether sponsorevent fit is a given, fixed
value for each sponsorevent pairing, or whether the perceived congruence between
the two may be influenced by appropriate exploitation measures such as
accompanying communication or on-site sponsorship executions.
H
2
: Subjects exposed to scenarios that reference the event will perceive sponsors as
having a better fit with the event than subjects exposed to lower level brand
experiences.
The positive communications environment with highly activated and involved
audiences is one of the key arguments for sponsorship in a cross-media comparison.
However, it is important to point out that event audiences are primarily involved with
and activated towards the actual event, not towards the sponsors (Lardinoit and
Derbaix 2001). If the sponsor makes active reference to the event or fully attunes its
sponsorship to the event theme it is likely that audiences will display high situational
involvement with the brand. Thus, similar effects on brand attitude, vividness, and
image as discussed in hypotheses H
1a
H
1c
may result from enhancing sponsorevent
fit. Given the set-up of the experiment, situational involvement cannot be measured.
Influence of perceived sponsorevent fit on brand attributes, vividness, and
attitude
Perceived sponsorevent fit is widely believed to be a key element in the functioning
of sponsorships. Most importantly, it is believed to facilitate the transfer of image
elements from the event to the brand (McDonald 1991; Gwinner 1997; Gwinner and
Eaton 1999). The following hypotheses discuss what relationships are to be expected
between perceived sponsorevent fit and brand image.
According to Roy (2000, p. 82), consumer may show cognitive and affective responses
when exposed to marketing communications such as sponsorships (c.f. Lavidge and
Steiner s hierarchy-of-effects model; 1961). Using schema theory to explain how
sponsorevent linkages are processed, a consumers assessment of congruence or fit
between a brand and event influences his cognitive responses. If the linkage is
perceived to be congruent, the information is transferred to existing schemas. If the
linkage is perceived to be incongruent, the information is either assimilated into the
target schema, assimilated into another schema, or processing is abandoned altogether
(Roy 2000, p. 82)
With regard to the constructs used in this study, perceived sponsorevent fit is
expected to influence two cognitive responses. First, as Gwinner and Eaton (1999)
have shown, the attributes that consumers associate with the event are likely to carry
over to the brand if consumers perceive a strong congruence or fit between the event
and the sponsoring brand. Second, because the brand schema is enriched with an
association to the event, consumers hold a richer set of information about the brand,
possibly rendering the brand more vivid. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H
3a
: Subjects having a good perceived sponsorevent fit will be more likely to hold
brand attributes that are congruent with the attributes of the event than subjects
having a bad perceived sponsorevent fit.
H
3b
: Subjects having a good perceived sponsorevent fit will have higher brand
vividness than subjects having a bad perceived sponsorevent fit.
The third element of brand image used in this study brand attitude may be
influenced by perceived sponsorevent fit in two ways. First, schema theory holds that
affective responses generally point in the same direction as the perceived congruence
of two schemas, with match-ups positively and mismatches negatively perceived
(Cohen 1982; Fiske and Pavelchak 1986; Roy 2000). Thus, attitudes toward a brand
that has a good perceived fit with an event are likely to be of positive nature. Second,
brand attitude is generally viewed as a result of the brand attributes held by consumers
(Keller 1993). If attributes transferred to the brand from the event are positively
connoted, brand attitude is also likely to be positive. In the case of event sponsorships,
a positive evaluation of the event should be the rule, at least for live audiences (as they
would otherwise not waste time watching the event), and thus also the influence of
transferred attributes on brand attitude. In the context of this experiment, however, a
positive evaluation of the event cannot be taken for granted, as it was conducted in a
forced-exposure environment. Based on these arguments, the following hypothesis is
stated:
H
3c
: Subjects having a good perceived sponsorevent fit will have a more positive
brand attitude than subjects having a bad perceived sponsorevent fit.
Moderating effects of event involvement and product involvement
Information processing, such as the assessment of a sponsorship, is influenced by
subjects involvement with the properties at hand (as discussed in more detail in

section 2.4.3). As a situation becomes more relevant, an individual will be motivated
to process information pertaining to that situation (Celsi and Olson 1988). This
increased involvement results in a larger number of thoughts and a larger proportion of
thoughts that are related to the stimulus object.
Applying these findings to the two constructs of interest, event involvement and
product involvement, it can be assumed that both will influence the information
processing about and the resulting assessment of the combination of a brand and event
by means of a sponsorship. For the present study, the question of how product and
event involvement moderate the assessment of sponsorevent fit and of the sponsoring
brand is of primary concern.
Effects of event involvement
It is hypothesized that event involvement will affect perceived sponsorevent fit and
brand vividness. With regard to perceived sponsorevent fit, it may be argued that
persons highly involved with the event will, first, more thoroughly evaluate the fit of
the sponsor, and second, also have more knowledge available to make this assessment
simply because their high-involvement will have led them to accumulate a rich set of
information about the event. People with a very high involvement with the event may
also be more opinionated about it and possibly more critical about potential sponsors
trying to associate themselves with it. This may especially be the case for events that
are essential to the identity of certain sub-cultures (as discussed in section 2.2.1).
Because these two effects depth of elaboration and skepticism may affect the
evaluation of sponsorevent fit in different directions, they are likely to dampen or
completely cancel each other out. These effects may not be important among low to
medium involvement spectators, but might be strongly accentuated for high-
involvement, hard-core fans. Previous research by Roy (2000, p. 115 ff.) found a
positive effect of event involvement on perceived sponsorevent congruence, but a
non-linear effect on event knowledge. Considering that the events used in his study
were all major international sporting events and that respondents generally exhibited
low to medium involvement, his findings may be accommodated with the arguments
put forward above. Thus the following hypothesis is stated:
H
4a
: The effects of varying sponsorship executions on perceived sponsorevent fit
will not generally be greater as event involvement increases.
On the other hand, event involvement is likely to positively affect the vividness of the
sponsoring brand. By definition, spectators highly-involved with the event pay
attention to all things related to the event. When confronted with a sponsoring brand,
they may exhibit a high situational brand involvement. This situational brand
involvement (not observed) will increase their perception of the brand and in turn
enrich or refresh their set of information available about the brand, leading to higher
brand vividness.
H
4b
: The effects of varying sponsorship executions on brand vividness will be
greater as event involvement increases.
Effects of product involvement
What has been said about the effect of event involvement on perceived sponsorevent
fit is likely to also hold for product involvement. While more highly involved
spectators may have more information available to accommodate the product with the
event schema, they may also hold stronger general (positive or negative) attitudes
towards the product. Therefore, while product involvement likely has a moderating
effect on the perception of sponsorevent fit, based on different sponsorship
executions, the direction of the moderating affect may differ and cannot be expected to
generally increase the effects observed between sponsorevent fit and brand image.
H
5a
: The effects of varying sponsorship executions on perceived sponsorevent fit
will not generally be greater as product involvement increases.
There should be no doubt, on the other hand, about the moderating role of product
involvement on brand perception. Consumers highly involved with a certain product
category, on aggregate, may be assumed to be aware of a large number of brands in
that category (brand vividness and brand attributes), and to also extend the general
attitude exhibited towards the category to the brand. This higher involvement is likely
to lead to a higher elaboration of the brand characteristics in the context of the event
sponsorship. Therefore, the following hypotheses are stated:
H
5bd
: The effects of varying sponsorship executions on brand attributes, brand
vividness, and brand attitude will be greater as product involvement increases.

6.2 Research Design and Methodology
6.2.1 Experimental Set-Up
An experimental set-up in a classroom environment was chosen as the data collection
procedure. Because the effect of fine variations of individual variables on brand
perception was to be observed, a maximum level of control over the artifacts was
desired.
Experiments have been widely used in consumer research (c.f. Gardner 1985), but less
so in sponsorship research (e.g., Pham 1991; Pham 1992; Roy 2000). While their main
benefits lay in the mentioned high degree of control over variables and in its
convenience in generating large, homogeneous samples (mostly student samples),
there are also some common drawbacks. The inappropriate use of student samples,
especially, has been criticized, where, e.g., students were questioned on subjects with
little relevance to them (e.g., expensive wines). In the same context, questions about
the generalizability of findings that are generated from student samples are raised (cf.
Bergmann and Grahn 1997). Special care was therefore taken in the design of the
present study to avoid these common traps.
The design of the experimental set-up required three main steps.
1. Identifying a suitable event
2. Choosing one or several brands as sponsors for the event
3. Developing a credible cover story as a disguise
Event
In choosing a suitable event, four main criteria were developed and applied to a
number of possible events: first, the event needed to be appropriate for a student
sample; second, because an important research goal was the investigation of image
transfer, the event needed to have a distinctive profile; third, the event should appeal to
a wide range of students and not polarize the sample into lovers and haters; fourth,
the particular event had to be compatible with a credible cover story as a disguise for
the experiment.
A short-list of potential events was drawn up based on an overview of the largest
sports events in Switzerland and on a group discussion with research colleagues.
Because the two other events observed in this thesis are sports events, cultural events
were also included. Based on the four criteria, the Street Parade Zurich was chosen:
originally designed as a political demonstration for love, peace, freedom and tolerance
of the electronic music scene in 1992, the Street Parade today draws up to 1 million
participants from a wide range of population segments, with a focus on 15 to 30 year-
olds (Interview with Martin Schorno). Similar events are also conducted in other cities
across Europe, most notably Berlins Love Parade. Due to the extroverted character of
the electronic music scene and its staging in (usually) hot August, it has a very distinct
profile that is also widely known, as the Street Parade receives enormous media
attention (e.g., several hours live coverage on Swiss national TV). Given the Street
Parades appeal to huge numbers of people and its increasing street carnival character,
it could be assumed that it is not polarizing to a degree that it would harm respondents
motivation to participate in the experiment. As the Street Parade is one of the largest
and most popular events in Switzerland, it was believed to be a credible disguise for
the experiment.
Sponsoring Brands
Three brands were included in the experiment as fictitious sponsors of the Street
Parade. Because the unit of analysis is the different sponsorship executions of one
brand, the three observations taken from one respondent may still be treated as
independent observations. Such a method has been used in previous sponsorship
research, (e.g., Roy 2000; Speed and Thompson 2000), and it allows the collection of a
larger number of observations than the sample size itself. This procedure should also
allow for a more in-depth discussion of the hypothesized effects of sponsorship
executions on different brands, while keeping the duration of the experiment to a
reasonable length.
A number of brands were evaluated as possible fictitious sponsors for the Street
Parade according to the following criteria: sponsor-event-fit, brand strength, and
credibility as sponsors of the Street Parade.
Sponsorevent fit is, as discussed, a measure for the congruence and appropriateness
of a sponsorevent pairing. It may be assessed at two levels: a functional relatedness at
the level of product category (i.e., product is instrumental to the event) and at the level
of the target group and image (i.e., the product is highly relevant for the event
audience or the event has similar image attributes to those of the sponsor).

In order to increase the generalizability of the findings of this study, it was decided to
choose a number of brands from the snacks/sweets category for the experiment
because they had no evident fit at the first level (relatedness), but a reasonable fit at the
second (target group/image). Furthermore, these brands typically sponsor large events,
a fact that was assumed to contribute to the credibility of the disguise for the
experiment. It was also stipulated that the brands chosen should not be direct
competitors in the same sub-category (e.g., two chocolate brands), again, to broaden
the qualitative aspects of this study. As it was expected that some of the participating
students would be from abroad only international brands were considered.
To increase the comparability of the results between the three brands, the brands had
to be of similar strength. Roy (2000) showed that, on average, high-equity brands have
a better perceived fit with events than low-equity brands from the same product
category. Furthermore, Pham and Johar (2001) found that evaluations of sponsorships
are subjected to a market-prominence bias, i.e. that well-known brands are more likely
to be correctly identified as sponsors. It is likely that this bias also affects the
perception of other elements of brand equity.
Brand strength for a number of international brands from the snacks/sweets category
was assessed with the help of Young & Rubicams BrandAsset-Valuator (BAV).
According to Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000), the BrandAsset-Valuator is one of
the most ambitious efforts to measure brand equity. For Switzerland, data is available
on more than 1,000 brands from the perspective of different target groups (AY&R
2003). In BAV, brand strength is calculated using the two elements brand vitality
(composed of brand differentiation and relevance) and brand stature (familiarity and
knowledge). The strongest brand in a country receives a value of 100, and all other
brands are ranked relative to this value (for an in-depth discussion of BAV
methodology, see Aaker 1996, p. 304 ff. or Esch and Geus 2001, p.1044 ff.). Among
the brands that matched the criteria as discussed above, three exhibited very similar
brand strength: KitKat, Pringles, and Mentos (Table 12).

Brand
Strength
Brand
Vitality
Brand
Stature
KitKat 93.4 97.0 89.8
Pringles 92.0 95.3 88.7
Mentos 90.4 93.4 87.5

Table 12: Brand strength of selected snacks/sweets brand in percent relative to the strongest brand in Switzerland. Source:
AY&R 2003.

Disguise
A key feature of experiments is that respondents should not know the true purpose of
the research (e.g., Hansen and Scotwin 1995). It was therefore necessary to provide the
students with a credible disguise for the research. Participants were told the following
story:
The organizers of the Street Parade have approached the research
institute to help them in selecting an appropriate sponsor for next years
event. The background for this request is that they have received three
sponsorship offers from three major consumer good manufacturers that
are eager to use the Street Parade one of the most attractive
sponsorship platforms in Switzerland for commercial purposes. They
are all applying for the same sponsorship slot and are willing to pay the
full sponsorship fee.
The organizers have explicitly asked us to help them evaluate the
potential sponsors based on their planned activities at the Street Parade
in 2004. Because they are negotiating for a long-term sponsorship, they
want to make sure that all parties involved benefit from the partnership,
i.e., the event, its participants and the sponsors.
Which sponsor is chosen will be primarily based on this evaluation.
Please keep this information confidential and please take extra care
when completing the survey.
The disguise was designed to motivate students to participate in the experiment and to
diligently answer the questions, while at the same time drawing attention away from

the main purpose of the study. While the purpose of the study is to evaluate changes in
the perception of a single brand due to different sponsorship executions, the
respondents focused on evaluating single sponsorship proposals for three different
brands.
After the experiment, a short debriefing was conducted in which the true purpose of
the study was revealed. Respondents were asked whether they had had any doubts
about the purpose of the survey, which none of them did. As the experiment was
conducted almost simultaneously in 11 different classrooms and because after the
experiment students were sworn to confidentiality vis--vis their colleagues, it is
highly unlikely that respondents were aware that they were subject to an experiment.
6.2.2 Operationalization of Independent Variables
The variable brand experience was provided at three levels. Level 1 consisted of
mere perimeter signage such as billboards, flags, balloons, and inflatables. At level 2,
sponsors tried to engage on-site audiences in a dialog by offering a sweepstake. Also,
they deployed some advanced brand-display techniques (cf. Figure 31, p. 132)
which consisted of a sponsor booth where participants could relax, talk to staff and
watch advertising spots. In more technical terms, they deployed the execution
techniques 3-D brand display and personal interaction. The brand experience at level 3
consisted mainly in making the product available to audiences in an interactive way: at
a large and fully branded sponsor booth, participants could individually create their
own flavors of the respective products. At this level, some sophisticated brand
display techniques were deployed, such as 3-D brand display, multi-sensory
perception, personal interaction, participation of the audience in an activity and
product usage.
To allow for the clear attribution of variations in the dependent variables to specific
changes in the sponsorship execution design, the brand experience levels were
designed to be additive: the level 2 brand experience built on level 1 in that it also
contained signage, level 3 built on levels 1 and 2, as it contained both signage as well
as the sweepstake of level 2.
The independent variable enhancing sponsorevent fit was manipulated in a
dichotomous way: sponsorevent fit was either actively enhanced or not. In the case of
no enhancement of fit, brands do not make reference to the event that they sponsor in
any way, while in the case of enhancement, the on-site sponsorship execution is in
some way tailored to the event. For the 3 brand experience levels, as discussed above,
the enhancement of sponsorevent fit was operationalized as follows. At level 1, the
signage was completed with a brand claim that made reference to the event. For
instance, for the sponsor brand KitKat (see below), the original claim of Have a
break. Have a KitKat., was adapted to Have a break from dancing. Have a KitKat.
At level 2 (dialog), the original price of the sweepstake (sponsor branded merchandise)
was replaced with an event-specific price (an entry ticket to a dance party). Fit
enhancement at level 3 was simulated through the provision of event-specific
ingredients to the mixing of ones own product as well as through the provision of a
dance floor at the sponsor booth featuring well-known DJs.
The 3 levels of brand experience and the two treatments of enhancement of sponsor
event fit yield a 3 x 2 research design. Figure 34 provides an overview of the 6
resulting scenarios:
Brand message is
not refer to context of event
sponsored
Execution at Street Parade:
Billboards and flags at event
site spotting just logos
Brand message is
context of event sponsored
Billboards and flags at event
site with combined brand and
event message
Brand logos with adapted
brand claim that takes
reference to the Street
Parade
Brand message is
transmitted through basic
dialog with sponsor
context of event sponsored
Sweepstake which links
sponsor to event
"Win tickets to the all
exclusive after-parade party
with DJ X, ambassador of
Brand A"
Brand message is
transmitted through basic
dialog with sponsor
Sweepstake to win Brand A
merchandise
Brand message is
transmitted through
Message of sponsor refers
to context of event
sponsored
Dance on the exclusive
brand A dancefloor in a
stylish brand world
"Experience Brand A's
world of electronic music
and taste product"
Brand message is
transmitted through
"Experience Brand A and
taste product"
Brand Experience Level
Exposure to Signage (1) Dialog with Sponsor (2)
A
c
t
i
v
e

e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

b
r
a
n
d
e
v
e
n
t

f
i
t
n
o
y
e
s
Participation in Activity (3)
1
22
3
4
5
6
Independent Variables Scenarios

Figure 34: Scenarios for the independent variables.
Combining these six scenarios with the three brands to be used in the experiment
resulted in six clusters of 3 brands each to be evaluated by the respondents. As
scenarios 1 and 2, 3 and 4, and 5 and 6, are very similar, they were allocated to the
different clusters so that they did not appear together (see Table 13).

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6
K/1 K/2 K/3 K/4 K/5 K/6
P/4 P/3 P/6 P/5 P/2 P/1
M/5 M/6 M/1 M/2 M/4 M/3

Brand/Scenario K = KitKat, P = Pringles, M = Mentos
Table 13: Clusters with brand/scenario combinations.
In order to fully stimulate the participants of the experiment, each scenario was
brought to life through a short text (written from the perspective of an event visitor)
and a vivid illustration of the respective sponsorship execution. Each scenario was
identically prepared for the three fictitious sponsoring brands KitKat, Mentos, and
Pringles. The material used in the experiment can be found in Appendix C.
6.2.3 Data Collection Procedure
The experiment was conducted in a forced exposure environment in November of
2003 at the University of St. Gallen. 327 economics students (bachelor level)
participated in the experiment during a mandatory seminar class. The 327 students
were distributed to 11 different sessions all of which took place simultaneously (over
the course of four hours) on the same afternoon.
The experiment lasted approximately 35 minutes and consisted of six main parts
(Figure 35).
After a short introduction in which the fictitious study purpose was explained, a first
questionnaire was administered to measure involvement with the three product
categories bonbons, chocolate, and potato chips as well as involvement with the Street
Parade. After everybody had completed the first questionnaire, a short video (5
minutes) was shown to stimulate respondents with impressions from the Street Parade
in 2003. The video had been professionally edited and contained no logos from any of
the sponsors. The only logos present were the names of the different dance clubs that
had entered the parade with so called Love Mobiles (large semi-trailer trucks turned
into moving dance floors). Directly after the video, event image was measured with a
brief questionnaire before entering the main part of the survey, the evaluation of the
individual sponsors.
Each sponsor was treated with an individual questionnaire, consisting of a sponsorship
scenario (text and illustration) and the measurement of the dependent variables brand
attitude, vividness, image, and sponsor-event fit.
Finally, the students were debriefed and introduced to the true purpose of the study. As
a small reward for their participation, all students received a chocolate bar, which one
of the brands included in the study (KitKat) had sponsored.
Introduction
into the
survey
purpose
(fictitious)
Short
presentation
about Street
Parade
Instructions
on how to
answer
question-
naires
Measurement
of
Product
involvement
with
Bonbons
Chocolate
Potato
chips
Event
involvement
Measurement
of event image
Viewing of a
short video
with specially
edited event
footage (no
major
sponsor
logos)
For each
brand
individually
Exposure to
sponsorship
scenario
Text
Illustration
Measure-
ment of
Brand
attitude
Brand
vividness
Brand
image
Sponsor-
event-fit
Introduction
Product
and event
involve-
ment
Event video
Event
image
Sponsor-
ship
evaluation
Revelation of
true study
purpose
Distribution
of chocolate
bar as
reward for
participation
De-brief
4' 6' 2' 5' 3 x 5' 3'
Duration

Figure 35: Running-order of classroom experiment.
Sample Sizes
The questionnaires were administered to maximize the number of valid responses from
the participants. For instance, besides having been pre-tested (n = 35) for their
understandability, each questionnaire was distributed individually. The subsequent
questionnaire was only distributed when all respondents had finished completing it and
had stored it away in a personal envelope. Additionally, experiment leaders were asked
to pay attention that no students were left behind or that no negative group dynamics
developed. These measures allowed for 312 fully completed questionnaires to be
collected from the 327 respondents.
The useable questionnaires are quite evenly distributed across the different clusters,
indicating that no systematic error was induced by a specific experiment leader. This

results in sample sizes of between 48 and 55 for each brand/scenario combination and
for a combined 936 evaluations of specific brandevent linkages (Table 14).
Brand

KitKat Mentos Pringles Total
1 54 48 50 152
2 55 54 52 161
3 48 51 52 151
4 53 52 55 160
5 52 55 55 162
6 50 52 48 150
Scenario
Number
Total 312 312 312 936
Table 14: Sample sizes for each brand scenario combination.
Demographics of Respondents
In the course of the experiment, all respondents were asked to complete a brief
questionnaire with selected personal questions. In addition to key demographic data
(age, sex, nationality), information was also collected about how often they had
participated in the Street Parade (or a similar event) and whether they had enjoyed
participating in the survey (this information was collected before respondents were
introduced to the real purpose of the study). Table 15 provides an overview of the
demographic profile of the respondents. The data shows that almost half of all
respondents had previously participated in the Street Parade or a similar event such as
Berlins Love Parade.
Age Nationality Sex

Mean 21.9 Swiss 72.5% Female 27.4%
Mode 21.0 German 18.9% Male 72.6%
Minimum 18.0 Austria 3.8%
Maximum 38.0 Other Europe 4.2%
Std. Dev. 2.2 Overseas 0.7%

Participation in
Street Parade
Enjoyed Participation
in Experiment

Measured on a 7-point Likert-scale

Never 55.6% Mean 4.4
1 time 18.2% Mode 5.0
23 times 18.7% Minimum 1.0
46 times 5.7% Maximum 7.0
> 6 times 1.8% Std. Dev. 1.7

n = 312
Table 15: Demographics of participants in classroom experiment.
6.2.4 Evaluation of Measurement Scales
The constructs of interest for this study were operationalized based on previous
sponsorship and brand research. Two constructs (brand vividness and Street Parade-
specific image) did not have previously fully developed measures appropriate for the
purpose of this study. For these two constructs, (partly) new measurement scales were
developed. Because the study was conducted in German, the scales had to be
translated from the original English versions. To ensure that their original meaning did
not get lost in translation, all scales were re-assessed based on the data collected.
The evaluation of construct validity was carried out based on the procedure suggested
by Homburg (1995, p. 86 ff.) and Fritz (1995, p. 121 ff.). It combines the so-called
first generation procedures (introduced by Churchill 1979), which consist of a
reliability analysis (to test internal consistency) and an explorative factor analysis (to
test convergent validity), with the more stringent second generation procedures
(introduced by Gerbing and Anderson 1988 and Bagozzi and Yi 1988) that include a
confirmatory factor analysis of the constructs (which tests how well the observed data
fits with the model retained from exploratory factor analysis; Long 1983). The
following criteria are used to evaluate the measurement scales (Table 16):
Stage Criteria
Acceptable
Values Source
Cronbachs Alpha > .70 Nunally 1978
Reliability Test
Item-to-Total Correlation* > .40 Homburg 1995
Average Variance Extracted > 50% Fornell and Larcker 1981
Exploratory Factor
Analysis
Number of Factors
Extracted
1 Kaiser 1974
Significance Levels p < .05 Homburg 1995
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 Fritz 1995
Adjusted Goodness of Fit
Index (AGFI)
> .90 Fritz 1995
Confirmatory Factor
Analysis
Root Mean Square Residual
(RMR)
< .10 Fritz 1995
* used to determine factors to be eliminated in case Cronbachs Alpha is low
Table 16: Evaluation of study measures: stages and criteria deployed.
An initial assessment of the scales was performed by calculating the reliability for
each scale (Cronbach 1951). Observed reliabilities of the scales ranged from .75 for
the newly developed brand vividness scale to .97 for the perceived sponsorevent fit
scale that had been previously used. Scale reliabilities met or exceeded the

performance of the scales in previous research and exceeded the .70 threshold
considered as an acceptable level of reliability (cf. Homburg 1995, p. 86). A summary
of the origin and the reliability of the measurement scales can be found in Table 17.
Instrument
name Source
Previous
reliability*
Observed
reliability*
Brand attitude Kinney and McDaniel
(1996)
.95.99 .95
Brand attributes Customized scale for
Street Parade
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Event involvement Unger (1981) .77.96 .83
Product
involvement
Zaichkowsky (1985) .95-.98 .95
Perceived
sponsorevent fit
Roy (2000) .97 .97
Brand vividness New, based on Marks
(1973), Ruge (1988), and
Icon Brand Navigation
Not
applicable
.69
* Cronbach's Alpha

Table 17: Summary of measurement instruments.
In the following sections, the origins of the scales and their measurement
characteristics are discussed separately for each scale as they were deployed in the
questionnaires.
Scale Assessment for Product Involvement
To measure respondents involvement with the product categories that the sponsoring
brands represented, an adapted version of Zaichowsky s (1985) often-used 20-item
scale was used. This scale had previously proved to be useful for experiments in the
context of event sponsorships (Roy 2000). From the 20 original items, 17 were
retained after translation into German and after the evaluation of comments made by
the pre-test participants.
Even though the initial reliability test (Cronbachs Alpha .96) indicated a high internal
consistency for the scale, it had to be modified due to the results of the factor analysis.
Because the 17 items loaded onto two factors, six items were dropped. The resulting
11-item scale exhibits a high reliability (.95) and explains 67% of the variance
observed. An overview of the scale characteristics is provided in Table 18:

Product Involvement (n = 936)
Items Item-to-Total Correlation p-Value
important unimportant .833 .010
interesting not interesting .769 .023
relevant irrelevant .850 .026
means a lot means nothing .850 .020
valuable worthless .763 .007
essential nonessential .825 .009
matters does not matter .835 .004
fundamental trivial .796 .012
exciting not exciting .653 .012
fascinating mundane .620 .012
desirable undesirable .762 .005

Reliability
Average Variance Extracted
GFI
AGFI
RMR
.95
67%
.997
.996
.077
Table 18: Evaluation of product involvement scale.
Scale Assessment for Event Involvement
The event involvement scale was originally developed as a scale to measure
involvement with an activity (Unger and Kerman 1983), and later adapted by Roy
(2000) to better fit the event context. Roys original scale, which consisted of five
seven-point Likert-scale items, was merged into a four-item scale because the German
translation yielded very similar meanings for two items. The seven-point scale uses
anchors of strongly agree and strongly disagree.
All four items were retained in the scale following the analysis of reliability
(Cronbachs Alpha .84) and of factors: all items loaded onto the same factor, and the
average variance extracted was .68.

Event Involvement (n = 312)
It helps me forget about the days problems .698 .005
It totally absorbs me .702 .018
It makes me feel like I am in another world .607 .011
I could get so involved that I would forget
everything else
.692 .012
Reliability
GFI
AGFI
RMR
.84
68%
.999
.994
.060
Table 19: Evaluation of event involvement scale.

Scale Assessment for Brand attitude
Brand attitude was measured using a three-item scale with 7-point semantic
differentials. The scale had been previously used in the context of consumer responses
to sponsorships (Kinney and McDaniel 1996; Roy 2000). Results of initial reliability
analysis found that all three items had high item-to-total correlations and the scale
reliability was rather high (Cronbachs Alpha .95). All three items were therefore
retained. Analysis of factors yielded a high indication of convergent validity with an
average variance of 91% extracted. The model yields a perfect fit with high
significance. A summary of the analyses is provided in Table 20:
Brand Attitude (n = 936)
good bad .885 .009
favorable unfavorable .902 .004
negative positive .909 .019
Reliability
GFI
AGFI
RMR
.95
91%
1.000
1.000
.000
Table 20: Evaluation of brand attitude scale.
Scale Assessment for Brand Vividness
The construct brand vividness was measured using a 3-item scale assembled from
previous scales used by Marks (1973), Ruge (1988), and Icon Brand Navigation
8
(a
brand consultancy). The Marks scale, also referred to as the vividness of visual
imagery questionnaire (VVIQ) measures brand vividness on a 5-point scale, ranging
from No image at all, you only know that you are thinking of an object to
Perfectly clear and as vivid as normal vision. Icon Brand Navigation introduced a
similar scale for the measurement of brand vividness that takes into account
interpersonal differences in the ability to visualize objects. A slightly different aspect
of brand vividness is how easily visual imagery can be accessed. A marginally adapted
version of Ruge s (1988, p. 108, see also Esch 1998, p. 258) measurement scale was
been used to measure this dimension of vividness.
Despite its slightly below threshold value (Cronbachs Alpha .69) the second item was
kept in the scale, as both explorative and confirmatory factor analyses yielded good
results, with 76% of variance explained, small p-values and a perfect model fit. An
overview of the factor characteristics is provided in Table 21:
Brand Vividness (n = 936)
No image at all Perfectly clear and vivid .678 .015
Compared to my mental picture of brand
X is
.705 .005
Access very easy very difficult .698 .015
Reliability
GFI
AGFI
RMR
.69
76%
1.000
1.000
.000
Table 21: Evaluation of brand vividness scale.
Scale Assessment for Event and Brand Attributes
This measurement is intended to assess the transfer of event attributes to the brand.
Before being able to measure a potential transfer of attributes, these event-specific
attributes needed to be identified. For this purpose, a specific, tailor-made attribute
scale was developed for the event at hand (Street Parade Zurich), according to a

8
This scale has not been published.

procedure previously used for the purpose of sponsorship by Ferrand and Pages
(1999). As a first step, a long-list of attributes for the event was collected in a free-
association task using a convenience sample of 20 colleagues and friends (via e-mail).
Respondents were asked to write down five attributes that they thought the Street
Parade stands for and five attributes that the Street Parade does not stand for at all.
This procedure was chosen in order to obtain a polarized assessment of the event
attributes, allowing discerning differences in the potential transfer of high-ranking
attributes from low-ranking attributes. In a second step, 16 attributes were condensed
from this long-list according to how often they were mentioned (eight each that the
Street Parade stands for, and eight that it does not stand for). Two of these 16 attributes
were dropped after an initial pre-test (step 3) showed that they were potentially
confusing to respondents.
In the experiment, respondents were first asked to evaluate the event according to
these attributes. Later in the experiment, respondents were invited to evaluate the three
brands (based on the sponsorship scenarios provided) on these same attributes. An
overview of the 14 attributes and their scores for the event (measured on a 7-point
Likert-scale) is provided in Table 22.
Mean Std. Deviation
sexy 5.38 1.42
restrained 1.53 0.82
happening 5.67 1.18
old-fashioned 1.95 1.39
peaceful 5.02 1.49
honest 3.57 1.46
colorful 6.52 0.73
aloof 2.47 1.35
energetic 5.81 1.26
aggressive 3.38 1.57
dynamic 5.29 1.29
shrill 6.20 1.03
healthy 2.66 1.43
natural 2.38 1.45
n = 312
Table 22: Attribute scores for Street Parade.
A first analysis showed that only three of the attributes did not clearly polarize towards
strongly agree or strongly disagree: peaceful, honest, and aggressive were therefore
dropped from the analysis (step 4). In a fifth step, an exploratory factor analysis was
conducted to determine whether some of the attributes could be condensed into a
single factor. Three factors were extracted with Eigenvalues of more than 1. The three
factors, however, explained only 53 % of variance (Table 23).
Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues
Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Compo-
nent
Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
% Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
% Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
%
1 3.14 28.51 28.51 3.14 28.51 28.51 2.40 21.81 21.81
2 1.65 15.04 43.55 1.65 15.04 43.55 1.83 16.62 38.43
3 1.03 9.35 52.89 1.03 9.35 52.89 1.59 14.46 52.89
4 0.96 8.72 61.61
5 0.88 7.96 69.58
6 0.71 6.43 76.01
7 0.63 5.73 81.74
8 0.58 5.24 86.98
9 0.52 4.76 91.74
10 0.48 4.35 96.09
11 0.43 3.91 100.00
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Table 23: Table of variance for event attributes.

Rotated Component Matrix
Component

1 2 3
sexy 0.312 0.458 -0.173
dynamic 0.667 0.333 0.070
restrained -0.250 0.098 0.682
happening 0.206 0.229 -0.466
old-fashioned -0.550 -0.080 0.240
colorful 0.721 -0.031 -0.091
aloof -0.054 -0.071 0.800
energetic 0.673 0.215 -0.267
shrill 0.689 -0.185 -0.269
healthy 0.019 0.814 0.079
natural -0.019 0.831 -0.131
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
Table 24: Rotated component matrix for event attributes.
Based on the component matrix (varimax rotation, see Table 24), attributes that
strongly loaded onto the same component were collapsed into a single factor and re-
evaluated using the same procedure. After some iterations the following six attributes
(some of them with multiple items) were obtained for the event that met the criteria for
scale reliability and convergent validity. The Street Parade evenly ranks high and low
among three of them (Table 25).

Attribute Composed of Reliability
(Cronbachs
Alpha)
Convergent
validity
(variance
explained)
Mean Standard
Deviation
Street Parade
IS
sexy, crazy,
happening
5.74 1.21
Sexy sexy n/a n/a 5.38 1.42
Crazy colorful
energetic
shrill
.67 62% 6.17 .81
Happening happening n/a n/a 5.67 1.18
Street Parade
IS NOT
organic,
restrained, old-
fashioned
1.99 .71
Organic healthy
natural
.71 77% 2.52 1.23
Restrained restrained n/a n/a 1.53 .82
Old-
fashioned
old-fashioned n/a n/a 1.95 1.39
Table 25: Assessment and scores of event attributes retained for Street Parade.
The occurrence of an attribute transfer from the event to the brand will be determined
by whether an increase in event-specific attributes can be observed for the sponsoring
brand from one sponsorship scenario to the other.
Scale Assessment for Perceived SponsorEvent Fit
The construct perceived sponsor-event fit used measures based on the scale developed
and used for sponsorship research by Roy (2000). His original scale consisted of 9
items measured with semantic differentials on a 7-point scale. The scale was translated
into German and pre-tested with a sample of 35 students. Based on their comments,
one confusing item was dropped.
The resulting 8-point scale performs well against the criteria used for scale evaluation.
Both the reliability (Cronbachs Alpha .97) and the average variance extracted, (82%),
meet or exceed the values achieved in the original study. Exploratory factor analysis
showed that all items load onto the same factor, which indicates a high convergent
validity, while confirmatory factor analysis yielded an almost-perfect and statistically
highly significant model fit (p-values well below the .05-threshold).

Perceived SponsorEvent Fit (n = 936)
positive negative .892 .012
consistent inconsistent .900 .004
good bad .907 .009
well suited poorly suited .908 .009
appropriate inappropriate .866 .011
logical illogical .804 .012
well matched poorly matched .916 .030
complementary not complementary .796 .008
Reliability
GFI
AGFI
RMR
.97
82%
1.000
.999
.036
Table 26: Evaluation of SponsorEvent Fit scale.
6.3 Hypotheses Testing and Discussion
This section describes the data analysis procedure used to test the hypotheses
developed earlier in this chapter. For each hypothesis, a discussion of the analysis and
findings is conducted. A summary of the hypotheses to be tested is presented in Table
27:
Hypotheses Result of hypothesis testing
H
1a
: Subjects exposed to higher-level brand experiences will be more likely
to hold brand attributes that are congruent with the attributes of the
event than subjects exposed to lower level brand experiences.
partly supported
H
1b
: Subjects exposed to higher-level brand experiences will have a more
vivid perception of sponsoring brands (brand vividness) than subjects
exposed to lower level brand experiences.
supported
H
1c
: Subjects exposed to higher-level brand experiences will have a more
positive brand attitude than subjects exposed to lower level brand
experiences.
supported
H
1d
: Subjects exposed to higher-level brand experiences will perceive
sponsors as having a better fit with the event than subjects exposed to
lower level brand experiences.
supported
H
2
: Subjects exposed to scenarios that take reference to the event will
perceive sponsors as having a better fit with the event than subjects
exposed to scenarios that do not.
supported
H
3a
: Subjects having a good perceived sponsorevent fit will be more likely supported

to hold brand attributes which are congruent with the attributes of the
event than subjects having a bad perceived sponsorevent fit.
H
3b
: Subjects having a good perceived sponsorevent fit will have higher
brand vividness than subjects having a bad perceived sponsorevent
fit.
supported
H
3c
: Subjects having a good perceived sponsorevent fit will have a more
positive brand attitude than subjects having a bad perceived sponsor
event fit.
supported
H
4a
: The effects of varying sponsorship executions on perceived sponsor
event fit will not generally be greater as event involvement increases.
supported
H
4b
: The effects of varying sponsorship executions on brand vividness will
be greater as event involvement increases.
supported
H
5a
: The effects of varying sponsorship executions on perceived sponsor
event fit will not generally be greater as product involvement
increases.
supported
H
5bd
: The effects of varying sponsorship executions on brand attributes,
brand vividness, and brand attitude will be greater as product
involvement increases.
supported
Table 27: Summary of research hypotheses.
6.3.1 Influence of Brand Experience Level on Brand Attributes, Vividness, and
Attitude as Well as on SponsorEvent Fit (H
1a
-
d
)
Hypotheses Testing
The influence of the level of brand experienced provided by a sponsor to the on-site
audience on the perception of brand image is the focus of hypotheses H
13
. Hypothesis
4 concerns the effect of higher-order brand experiences on perceived sponsorevent
fit. The hypotheses are tested by comparing the mean scores of the respective
constructs for different brand experience levels (Table 28).
Brand Experience Levels
Exposure to
Signage (1)
n = 152
Dialog with
Sponsor (2)
n = 151
Participation
in Activity (3)
n = 162

Mean Mean Mean
Brand Attributes Event Is
(sexy, crazy, happening)
3.83 4.01 4.32
Brand Attribute Event Is Not
(restrained, old-fashioned, organic)
3.01 2.97 2.98
Brand Vividness
4.25 4.30 4.60
Brand Attitude
5.12 5.17 5.62
Sponsor-Event Fit
4.02 4.47 4.86
Table 28: Mean scores for brand image and sponsorevent fit depending on the level of brand experience.
When moving from brand experience level 1 (exposure to signage) to level 2 (dialog
with sponsor), and level 3 (participation in activity), respectively, the constructs Brand
Attributes Event Is, Brand Vividness, Brand Attitude and SponsorEvent Fit all
receive higher (i.e., more positive) ratings. Interestingly, the scores for Brand Attribute
Event Is Not (which contains the attributes on which the Street Parade scored
lowest) do not greatly vary across the scenarios. More importantly, there is no increase
between scenarios as is the case with the other dependent variables.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows that the scores of these means on all
constructs except for Brand Attributes Event Is Not are significantly different
between scenarios at a probability level of p < .01 or .05 (Table 29; cf. Herrmann and
Seilheimer 2000, p. 268 ff.). Hypotheses 1ad for are therefore supported.

Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between Groups (Combined) 19.121 2 9.560 6.443 0.002
Within Groups 687.042 463 1.484
Brand Attributes Event Is
Total 706.162 465
Within Groups 417.143 463 0.901
Brand Attribute Event Is
not
Total 417.263 465
Within Groups 734.216 462 1.589
Brand Vividness
Total 745.390 464
Within Groups
779.176 462 1.687
Brand Attitude
Total
803.184 464
Within Groups 928.510 463 2.005
Sponsor-Event Fit
Total 983.788 465
Table 29: ANOVA table for constructs depending on the level of brand experience.
Discussion
The results clearly show that brand image is significantly influenced by the on-site
brand experience that sponsors provide to spectators. The level of on-site brand
experience affects all three dimensions of brand image included in this study, i.e.
brand attributes, brand vividness, and brand attitude.
With regard to brand attributes, this affect was only significant for attributes on which
the event ranks highly. It appears reasonable to conclude that this observed increase
for event-specific attributes is the result of an image transfer that takes place between
the event and the brand when respondents are exposed to higher-order brand

experiences. Whether this image transfer directly depends on the sponsorship
execution or whether the later primarily fosters perceived sponsorevent fit (as shown
in hypothesis 1d), which in turns enables image transfer, will be discussed later with
the help of a structural equations modeling.
The result of the testing of hypothesis d (influence of brand experience level on
perceived sponsorevent fit) deserves a great deal of attention. Until now, sponsorship
literature had considered sponsorevent fit as a function of the product category, the
event image, and the event target group (cf. Roy 2000). From this perspective, whether
a sponsor and an event were a good match was irrevocably determined at the time of
the setting of the sponsorship strategy. This study now shows that sponsorship
execution also has a significant influence on how favorably the match-up of a sponsor
and event is perceived. This finding is in line with earlier theoretical work by
McCracken (1989) who, in his discussion of deploying celebrity endorsers in
advertising, highlighted the importance of communication activities in reinforcing fit,
or in his words of designing the ad to suggest the essential similarity between the
celebrity endorser and the product (p. 316).
6.3.2 Influence of Enhancing SponsorEvent Fit on Perceived SponsorEvent Fit
(H
2
)
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis 2 stated that subjects exposed to scenarios that enhance sponsorevent fit
(by making reference to the event) will perceive sponsors as having a better fit with
the event than subjects exposed to scenarios that do not. A comparison of means
(Table 30) showed that making reference to the event in ones sponsorship execution
does in fact increase perceived sponsorevent fit. While the increases are rather small,
they are significant at the p. >.001 level, as shown in the ANOVA-table in Table 31.
Sponsor-Event Fit

Not enhanced Enhanced
Mean Mean
4.02 4.03
Exposure to
Signage (1) n = 152 n = 161
4.47 4.61
Dialog with
Sponsor (2) n= 151 n= 160
4.86 4.98
Brand Experience
Level
Participation in
Activity (3) n =162 n =150
Table 30: Mean scores for sponsorevent fit depending on the factor enhancement of sponsor event fit.

Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between Groups (Combined)
127.007 5 25.401 12.234 0.000
Within Groups
1'930.924 930 2.076
Sponsor-Event Fit
Total
2'057.930 935
Table 31: ANOVA-table for sponsorevent fit depending on the factor enhancement of sponsorevent fit.
Discussion
The factor enhancement of sponsorevent fit was simulated in this experiment by
slightly adjusting the sponsorship executions for each brand experience level to better
fit the event theme (i.e., by adjusting the brand claim to the event, by providing an
event-linked price for the lucky-draw, and by sampling products whose mixture was
adapted to the event, see section 6.2.2). In this respect, the testing of hypothesis 2 is
also a test of whether the independent variable enhancement of sponsorevent fit was
usefully operationalized. However, the results also show that very basic and basically
cost-neutral measures taken may increase perceived sponsor event fit. In real-life
sponsorships, finding more sophisticated and credible on-site measures for enhancing
sponsorevent fit is a creative task for sponsorship managers and agencies. If done
well, they are likely to have a much higher impact on perceived sponsorevent fit than
the basic techniques used in this experiment.
6.3.3 Influence of Perceived SponsorEvent Fit on Brand Attributes, Vividness,
and Attitude (H
3ac
)
Hypotheses Testing
Hypotheses 3ac

concerned the influence of perceived sponsorevent fit on brand
image. Based on schema theory and models of image transfer, it was assumed that
compared to subjects having a bad perceived sponsorevent fit subjects having good
perceived sponsorevent fit would
H
3a:
be more likely to hold brand attributes that are congruent with the attributes of
the event,
H
3b
: have higher brand vividness, and
H
3c
: have a more positive brand attitude.
To test these hypotheses, all respondents were classified into two groups, one
exhibiting a good perceived sponsorevent fit, and the other a bad perceived sponsor
event fit. Classification of good and bad fit groups was done using a median split of

perceived sponsorevent fit (split at 4.88). Group sizes were 502 for the bad fit and
434 for the good fit group. A two-sided t-test was performed to determine whether the
mean scores for the dimensions of brand image differed between the two groups of
respondents. Results are given in Table 32. Support is found for all three hypotheses,
with differences between means being highly significant for all constructs (p < .001).
One item deserves special attention: while the scores for the construct Brand Attributes
Event Is, Brand Vividness, and Brand Attitude are significantly higher in the good
fit group, the means for the construct Brand Attributes Event Is Not are lower.
Hypothesis 3a stated that brand and event attributes are expected to be more congruent
in the good fit group. This is exactly the case: Street Parade scored exceptionally high
on the items in the construct Brand Attributes Event Is (i.e., sexy, crazy, happening;
mean score: 5.74), and low on the items that make up the variable Event Is Not (i.e.,
organic, old-fashioned, restrained; mean score: 1.99).
Perceived Sponsor-Event Fit t-Test (Two-Sided)

Bad (n = 502) Good (n = 434) df t Sig.
Mean 3.38 5.78

Std. Deviation 1.09 0.54
Mean 3.55 4.67 935 -15.887 .000
Brand Attributes "Event Is"
Mean 3.25 2.75 935 7.654 .000
Brand Attributes "Event Is
Not"
Std. Deviation 1.03 .92
Mean 4.12 4.77 935 -8.063 .000
Brand Vividness

Mean 4.87 5.89 935 -12.360 .000
Brand Attitude

Table 32: Mean scores and t-tests for brand image depending on sponsorevent fit.
Additional support for hypotheses 3ac is provided by an analysis of correlations
between perceived sponsorevent fit and the selected dimensions of brand image
(Table 33). There is a significant correlation for all constructs, with Brand Attributes
Event Is exhibiting the strongest relationship. As expected from the preceding
analysis, sponsorevent fit and Brand Attributes Event Is Not are negatively
correlated.

Sponsor-
Event Fit
Brand
Attributes
"Event Is"
Brand
Attributes
"Event Is
not"
Brand
Vividness
Brand
Attitude
Pearson Correlation
1 .561 -.315 .275 .460
Sig. (2-tailed)
. .000 .000 .000 .000
Sponsor-Event Fit
N
936 936 936 936 936
All correlations are significant at the p < .001 level
Table 33: Correlations between perceived sponsorevent fit and elements of brand image.
Discussion
The results of this classroom experiment shed clear light on the crucial role of
sponsorevent congruence on the transfer of image from the event to the brand. These
results are in line with previous empirical findings (Gwinner and Eaton 1999; Roy
2000, p. 121 f.; Pham and Johar 2001). Yet, they go beyond previous research as they
are the first to account for the transfer of brand image from the event to the brand on
the level of individual, event-specific attributes (fitting and not) allowing for an
approximation of the event schema. Therefore, this aspect deserves to be discussed in
more detail.
The scores for brand attributes provide strong support for the hypotheses that a good
perceived sponsorevent fit is necessary in order for an image transfer to take place.
This assumption is at the core of the two most often cited conceptual models on the
subject (McCracken 1989; Gwinner 1997). In the operationalization of image transfer
as used in this study, event image may be regarded as a magnet, which draws brand
image in a specific direction. To highlight this, attributes were chosen for the event
that were expected to polarize into very high-scoring and very low-scoring items bi-
polar in the picture of the magnet. As the data shows, the respective brand attributes
are pulled from their originally slightly below neutral positions (3.55 for Event Is
and 3.25 for Event Is Not) to a much higher (4.67) and a significantly lower position
(2.75) as event involvement increases in the second group because respondents view
event and brand as being similar, they assimilate brand and event images in their
cognition. This means that not individual event attributes are transferred to the brand,
but that the brand is evaluated using the event schema, producing attributes that are
salient for the event.
With regard to the improvements in brand attitude, it should be noted that the observed
effect may have also been induced by a transfer of affect from the event to the brand.

Misra and Beatty (1990, p. 164) point out that if an item is congruent with an existing
schema, it will receive the affect linked to that schema. Given the fact that the
respondents represent a prime target group for the event used in the experiment (as
reflected in the fact that 44.6 percent have already participated in the event at least
once), there may well be a prevailing positive event attitude among the sample. In
turn, this attitude may have been transferred to the sponsoring brands. As event
attitude has not been measured in this study, this assumption could not be tested.
6.3.4 Moderating Effects of Event Involvement and Product Involvement (H
45
)
Hypotheses Testing
Hypotheses 4 and 5 concern the possibly moderating effects of event and product
involvement on the relationships between different sponsorship executions and the
dependent variables (as discussed in H
13
.). An overview of the different involvement
levels with the brands and the event used in this study is provided in Table 34.
Respondents generally exhibited a low to medium involvement with the product
categories and the event. Not surprisingly (considering the fact that the majority of the
respondents were Swiss), involvement with chocolate bars was highest.
Involvement

Mean
Std.
Deviation Count
Chocolate Bars
4.19 1.29 312
Bonbons
3.22 1.11 312
Potato Chips
3.75 1.39 312
Product Category
Total
3.72 1.33 312
Event Street Parade 3.06 1.53 312
Table 34: Mean involvement scores for product categories and Street Parade.
To test hypotheses 4 and 5, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted for
all relationships under examination, with event and product involvement being entered
as covariates into a linear regression model (cf. Roy 2000, p. 116 ff.; Aaker, et al.
2001, p. 502 ff.).
Hypotheses 4a and 5a examine the moderating influence of event and product
involvement on the relationship observed (in H
1d
and H
2
) between sponsorship
executions and perceived sponsorevent fit. Results of the ANCOVA are presented in
Table 35.
Dependent Variable: Sponsor-Event Fit
Source
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Event Involvement
1.03 1 1.03 .49 .482
Product Involvement
.64 1 .64 .31 .578
Sponsorship Execution
125.04 5 25.01 12.03 .000
Corrected Model
128.65 7 18.38 8.84 .000
Intercept
1'477.11 1 1477.11 710.50 .000
Error
1'929.28 928 2.08
Total
20'970.33 936
Corrected Total
2'057.93 935
R Squared = .063 (Adjusted R Squared = .055)
Table 35: ANCOVA results of product involvement for sponsorship execution and sponsor-event fit.
Results of the analysis support the hypotheses that neither event nor product
involvement have a significant influence on the observed relationship between
different sponsorship executions and perceived sponsorevent fit (p-values >.05).
Hypothesis 4b stated that the effects of varying sponsorship executions would be
greater as involvement with the event increases (due to a higher situational brand
involvement, leading to a deeper elaboration about the brand). Again, this hypothesis
was tested using a linear regression model with event involvement entered as a
covariate. Results of the ANCOVA are presented in Table 36:
Dependent Variable: Brand Vividness
Source
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Event Involvement
10.15 1 10.15 6.38 .012
Sponsorship Execution
31.40 5 6.28 3.95 .002
Corrected Model
41.29 6 6.88 4.33 .000
Intercept
3'321.30 1 3321.30 2088.99 .000
Error
1'477.03 929 1.59
Total
19'803.80 936
Corrected Total
1'518.31 935
R Squared = .027 (Adjusted R Squared = .021)
Table 36: ANCOVA results of event involvement for sponsorship execution and brand vividness.
The findings indicate that event involvement, indeed, positively influences the
relationship between sponsorship executions and brand vividness (p = .012). In other
words, when exposed to the same sponsorship execution, a person highly involved
with an event will get a more vivid mental picture of a sponsoring brand than a person
with low involvement towards the event. Hypothesis 4b is therefore supported.
The possibly moderating influence of product involvement on the observed
relationship between sponsorship execution and brand image is the focus of
hypotheses 5bd. ANCOVA results, as presented in Table 37, support these
hypotheses with probability levels of p < .01. With regard to brand attributes, product
involvement appears to only positively influence the transfer of attributes on which

Street Parade has high ratings (Brand Attributes Event Is), but not of those on which
the ratings are low (Brand Attributes Event Is Not), as indicated by the low F-value
(3.16, p = .076).

Source Dependent Variable
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
12.59 1 12.59 8.80 .003
Brand Attributes "Event Is not"
3.22 1 3.22 3.16 .076
Brand Vividness
21.83 1 21.83 13.84 .000
Product
Involvement
Brand Attitude
87.00 1 87.00 52.23 .000
33.55 5 6.71 4.69 .000
4.01 5 0.80 0.79 .558
Brand Vividness
26.51 5 5.30 3.36 .005
Sponsorship
Execution
Brand Attitude
63.20 5 12.64 7.59 .000
49.39 6 8.23 5.76 .000
6.91 6 1.15 1.13 .342
Brand Vividness
52.98 6 8.83 5.60 .000
Corrected Model
Brand Attitude
161.25 6 26.87 16.13 .000
1'462.31 1 1462.31 1022.70 .000
848.92 1 848.92 833.63 .000
Brand Vividness
1'662.21 1 1662.21 1053.81 .000
Intercept
Brand Attitude
2'097.09 1 2097.09 1258.96 .000
1'328.33 929 1.43
946.04 929 1.02
Brand Vividness
1'465.34 929 1.58
Error
Brand Attitude
1'547.47 929 1.67
16'878.23 936
9'473.22 936
Brand Vividness
19'803.80 936
Total
Brand Attitude
28'414.56 936
1'377.72 935
952.95 935
Brand Vividness
1'518.31 935
Corrected Total
Brand Attitude
1'708.71 935
R Squared = .007-.094 (Adjusted R Squared = .001-.089)
Table 37: ANCOVA results of product involvement for sponsorship execution and brand image.
Discussion
The findings that neither product nor event involvement have a (linear) effect on
perceived sponsorevent fit (H
4a
and H
5a
) are at first view contradictory with previous
research by Roy (2000, p. 115 ff.). His study found a positive effect for event
involvement on perceived sponsorevent congruence. A deeper analysis of his results,
however, shows that his findings may well be accommodated with the results of this
study. One of the key arguments in the current study for a non-linear influence of
event involvement on perceived sponsorevent fit was that highly-involved persons
would typically hold more information about the event and also stronger attitudes
towards it, thus increasing the likelihood of a more differentiated assessment of
sponsorevent fit. The findings of Roy s study implicitly confirm theses arguments, as
they found a non-linear influence of event knowledge on the assessment of sponsor
event fit.
The finding of hypothesis 4b, that event involvement positively affects the influence of
the sponsorship execution on brand vividness, accentuates the importance of providing
spectators with a well-designed on-site sponsorship execution. In real-life, the effects
on brand vividness will likely be larger, as visitors to an event are normally highly
involved with it (as they otherwise would not attend).
Not surprising, higher product involvement increases the effect of different
sponsorship executions on brand attitude. As discussed earlier, this effect may be
attributed to a more intensive elaboration of sponsorship stimuli of consumers highly
involved with a certain product category.
6.4 Modeling the Influence of Perceived SponsorEvent Fit on Brand
Image
The discussion above has confirmed the important role of perceived sponsorevent fit
in enabling image transfer from the event to the brand. This section takes a closer look
at the phenomenon by using a structural equations modeling approach. The benefit of
this approach is that it allows testing all hypothesized relationships between variables
at the same time, thus yielding a better understanding of the overall strength of the
effects than when hypotheses are tested individually (Maruyama 1998, p. 20 ff.).
6.4.1 Model Specification and Hypotheses
As the testing of hypotheses in the previous section yielded good overall results, there
was no need to modify the original model (see p. 143), except for two notable changes.
First, in this model perceived sponsorevent fit is treated as an independent variable
rather than a dependent variable. Because the two original independent variables
(brand experience level and enhancing sponsorevent fit had not been observed
(as they were simulated) in the data collection process, they were removed from the
model.
Second, an alternative, more direct measurement for image transfer was used. Rather
than judging the amount of image transfer by observing an increase or decrease in the

event-specific brand attributes, attribute congruence between the brand and the event
was directly calculated by subtracting the individual adjective scores for the event
from those of the brand (cf. Gwinner and Eaton 1999). Thus, the closer to zero, the
higher the similarity between event and brand images, based on the respective
adjectives.
The resulting model consists of three independent variables (perceived sponsorevent
fit, event involvement and product involvement) and four dependent variables
(brand attributes event is, brand attributes event is not, brand vividness, and
brand attitude; see Figure 36 below).
Specifically, the model contains the following ten hypotheses (developed in section
6.1.2), which have already been discussed in the previous section, with the mentioned
exceptions that in the model, product and event involvement are no longer treated as
covariates, but as independent variables, and that image transfer was directly measured
using attribute congruence between the event and the brand. These changes
necessitated a slight restatement of the respective hypotheses.
H
1a+b
: When perceived sponsorevent fit is good (poor),
a) brand attributes will become more (less) congruent with the positive attributes evoked
by the event schema.
b) brand attributes will become more (less) congruent with the negative attributes
evoked by the event schema.
H
2
: Subjects having a good perceived sponsorevent fit will have higher brand vividness
than subjects having a poor perceived sponsorevent fit.
H
3
: Subjects having a good perceived sponsorevent fit will have a more positive brand
attitude than subjects having a poor perceived sponsorevent fit.
H
4
: Event involvement does not affect perceived sponsorevent fit.
H
5
: Product involvement does not affect perceived sponsorevent fit.
H
6
: The higher product involvement, the higher brand vividness.
H
7
: The higher product involvement, the more positive brand attitude.
6.4.2 Hypotheses Testing and Overall Model Fit
The causal model as depicted in Figure 36 was analyzed using Amos (Byrne 2001;
Backhaus, et al. 2003). All constructs were modeled as latent variables and measured
using the same indicators (multi-item scales with between three and 11 items) as
discussed in the previous section (e.g., brand attitude was measured using the three
items good bad, favorable unfavorable, and negative positive).
Brand
attitude
Event
involvement
Product
involvement
Brand
vividness
Attribute
congruence
Event Is Not
Perceived
sponsor
event fit
H5
(no effect)
H4
(no effect)
+ H6
+ H3
+ H7
Attribute
congruence
Event Is
+ H2
+ H1a
H1b

Figure 36: Proposed causal model of how sponsorevent fit influences image transfer.
Hypotheses were tested by estimating the path coefficients for each proposed
relationship and their respective p-values (Homburg and Pflesser 2000). The ULS
(unweighted least squares) procedure was used as it does not depend on the restriction
that the data be normally distributed and works well with large sample sizes
(Backhaus, et al. 2003, p. 363 ff.). Estimations using other discrepancy functions such
as the maximum-likelihood method delivered very similar results (cf. Pham 1992).
A first estimation was conducted using the complete set of retained scale items as
indicators for the latent variables (as described in section 6.2.4). This model exhibits a
reasonably, yet not perfect fit with the data, according to the generally accepted fit
criteria goodness-of-fit index (GFI: .978) and adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI.
975). However, the root mean square residual (RMR: .132), which is slightly higher
than the desired benchmark of. < .10 (Fritz 1995, see also section 6.2.4), indicates the
necessity of a slight re-specifcation of the model. Because two of the items used as

indicators for attribute congruence event is not (healthy and natural) had very low
(.07 and .01) and highly insignificant (p = .41 and .87) path estimates, they were
removed from the model. The resulting revised model consists of 35 items and has
slightly improved goodness-of-fit statistics (see Table 38).

Model No. of items GFI AGFI RMR
Original 37 .978 .975 .132
Revised 35 .986 .984 .111
Table 38: Comparison of models with regard to goodness-of-fit statistics.
The final model with the respective factor score weights and significances are depicted
in Figure 37. The path coefficients represent standardized regression weights and
estimate the amount of variance observed in the dependent variable that is explained
by the respective factor.
Brand
attitude
Event
involvement
Product
involvement
Brand
vividness
Perceived
sponsor
event fit
.035 (p = .442)
.030 (p = .349)
.144 (p = .012)
.494 (p = .008)
.240 (p = .020)
Attribute
congruence
Event Is Not
Attribute
congruence
Event Is
.362 (p = .008)
.658 (p = .006)
.550 (p = .005)
4
items
8
items
11
items
2
items
4
items
3
items
3
items

Figure 37: Revised model with observed relationships among product and event involvement, sponsorevent fit, and selected
elements of brand image.
As shown in Table 39, the hypotheses received a considerable amount of support. All
the path coefficients have signs that are in-line with the hypotheses, and all the
expected relationships were statistically significant at a p < .05 level. As expected,
neither product nor event involvement have a significant influence on perceived
sponsor event fit (p = .442 and .349). The strongest relationships are found between
perceived sponsorevent fit and the congruence between brand and event on event-
specific attributes (.658 and .550) as well as between sponsorevent fit and brand
attitude and brand vividness, respectively (.494 and .362).

Parameter Estimate p Hypothesis Supported
Sponsor-Event Fit -> Brand Attributes Event Is .658 .006 H
1a
yes
Sponsor-Event Fit -> Brand Attributes Event Is Not -.550 .005 H
1b
yes
Sponsor-Event Fit -> Brand Vividness .362 .008 H
2
yes
Sponsor-Event Fit -> Brand Attitude .494 .008 H
3
yes
Event Involvement -> Sponsor-Event Fit -.030 .349 H
4
yes
Product involvement -> Sponsor-Event Fit .035 .442 H
5
yes
Product involvement -> Brand Vividness . 144 .012 H
6
yes
Product involvement -> Brand Attitude . 240 .020 H
7
yes
n = 936
Table 39: Results of hypotheses testing (standardized regression weights and p-levels).
6.4.3 Discussion
The results of the structural equations modeling analysis are in line with the findings
of the hypotheses testing in the previous section and empirically reinforce the crucial
role of sponsorevent congruence on the transfer of image from the event to the brand.
The results of this analysis are in line with previous empirical findings (Gwinner and
Eaton 1999; Roy 2000; Pham and Johar 2001). Yet, they go beyond previous research,
in so far as they are the first to examine the transfer of brand image from the event to
the brand on the level of individual, event-specific attributes (fitting and not)
allowing for an approximation of the event schema. Therefore, this aspect deserves to
be discussed in more detail.
The scores of the adjective-based measure of image congruence provide strong support
for the hypotheses that a good perceived sponsorevent fit is necessary in order for an
image transfer to take place. The assumption has been at the core of the most often
cited conceptual model on the subject (Gwinner 1997). In the operationalization of
image transfer as used in this study, event image may be regarded as a magnet, which
draws brand image in a specific direction. To highlight this, attributes were chosen for
the event that were expected to polarize into very high-scoring and very low-scoring
items bi-polar in the picture of the magnet. An additional analysis, using a median-
split of the sample into a good-fit and a bad-fit group makes this effect evident. When
comparing the two groups, the scores on the respective brand attributes are pulled from
their originally slightly below neutral positions (3.68 for event is and 3.50 for event
is not) in the bad-fit group to a much higher (4.78) and a significantly lower position
(2.67) in the good-fit group because the event scores a high 6.07 on event is and a

low 1.72 on event is not (these values vary statistically not significantly (p = .52 and
.52) by .03 to .04 between the bad- and the good-fit groups). In other words, because
respondents view event and brand as being similar, they assimilate the brand image
with that of the event in their cognition. This means that not individual event attributes
are transferred to the brand, but that the brand is indeed evaluated using the event
schema, producing attributes that are salient for the event.
The increases in brand vividness induced by better sponsorevent fit may be regarded
as a direct result of the stronger mental link between the brand and the event, resulting
in more information linked to the brand and thus rendering it more vivid.
With regard to the improvements in brand attitude, it should be noted that the observed
effect may have also been induced by a transfer of affect from the event to the brand.
Misra and Beatty (1990, p. 164) point out that if an item is congruent with an existing
schema, it will receive the affect linked to that schema. Given the fact that the
respondents represent a prime target group of the event used in the experiment (as
expressed by 44.6 percent that have already participated in the event at least once),
there may well be a prevailing positive event attitude among the sample. In turn, this
attitude may have been transferred to the sponsoring brands. As event attitude has not
been measured in this study, this assumption could not be tested.
The finding that neither product nor event involvement have a (linear) effect on
perceived sponsorevent fit (H4 and H5) are at first view contradictory with previous
research by Roy (2000, p. 115 ff.). His study found a positive effect of event
involvement on perceived sponsorevent congruence. A deeper analysis of his results,
however, shows that his findings may well be accommodated with the results of this
study. One of the key arguments in the current study for a non-linear influence of
event involvement on perceived sponsorevent fit was that highly-involved persons
would typically hold more information about the event and also stronger attitudes
towards it, thus increasing the likelihood of a more differentiated assessment of
sponsorevent fit. The findings of Roy s study implicitly confirm theses arguments, as
they found a non-linear influence of event knowledge on the assessment of sponsor
event fit.
6.5 Limitations of the Research
As with any piece of research, this study has some limitations that must be addressed.
Specifically, four limitations need to be mentioned: the generalizability of the studys
results to other populations and the applicability to real-life sponsorship situations, the
use of real brands and a real event to develop sponsorship stimuli, and possible order
effects of the sponsorship scenarios and measurement scale items.
First, the use of a convenience sample from a population of bachelor students could
raise concerns about generalizing the studys results to the general population of
consumers. Research into the appropriateness of using students for the purpose of
generating findings that hold for the wider populations has yielded mixed results (e.g.,
Park and Lessing 1974; Bergmann and Grahn 1997). In this study, concerns about the
use of students were addressed by choosing brands and an event of which students in
the specified age range are a key target group (cf. Roy 2000). It should also be
mentioned that mainstream popular events generally draw audiences that are generally
younger than TV audiences (as discussed in the context of the survey of the Ski World
Championships).
Questions may also be raised about the generalizability of the findings of this
experiment to real-life event situations. One main difference between the experimental
set-up and reality may certainly be found in the higher cognitive effort with regard to
the sponsorship stimuli by the subjects participating in the experiment. In the
classroom experiment, subjects made largely conscious judgments about the properties
of the brands and the event as well as the appropriateness of a combination of the two.
At real-life events, these judgments are likely to happen in the sub-conscious. Another
closely related limitation pertains to the level of situational brand involvement. While
in a real-life situation a large part of the brand impact of a sponsorship execution lies
in its ability to evoke interest in the brand (and not only in the event), the brand
involvement level in the experiment is by definition high, as the task of evaluating a
brand requires full attention from the respondents. To which extent these differences
affect the findings of this experiment may only be estimated. Results from previous
empirical field research for this thesis suggest that there may be a critical perception
threshold, below which sponsorships go mostly unnoticed. On the other hand, once a
sponsor is able (e.g., by means of his on-site executions) to cross this perception
threshold, the impact on the brand may be quite significant.

A possible third limitation of the research is the decision to use real brands and a real
event for the sponsorship scenarios. This was necessary in order to measure image
transfer (as with fictitious brands, respondents would have had no associations about
the brand) and to determine the influence of event involvement. Also, the use of real
brands and a real event helped to stimulate a real-life atmosphere and made for a
credible disguise for the experiment. One problem with using real brands and events is
that subjects could have responded to the questionnaires based primarily on brand or
event information they held in memory and less so based on the sponsorship stimuli
provided in the experiment. In this sense, subjects responses may have been
influenced by previous exposure to the brands advertising, prior product usage
experiences, or event experiences. However, given the sample size, a systematic bias
across all brands due to existing information and strong attitudes of individual
respondents is largely ruled out.
Finally, it is possible that the order in which the sponsorship scenarios were presented
as well as the order of the scale items influenced subjects responses. Respondents
were asked to evaluate three possible sponsoring brands, one at a time. For the first
scenario, they might have been somewhat unsure of how to evaluate goodness of
sponsorevent fit, while for the second scenario they could rely on the evaluation of
the first one and simply decide whether it had a better or a poorer fit. To forego a
possible systematic bias to one brand, the order of the brands was changed between
groups of respondents, so that all brands were equally in positions one, two, and three
in the order of the experiment. In evaluating the three possible sponsors, respondents
were asked to complete the same measurement scales three times in a row. The same is
the case for product involvement. It is possible that subjects responses for the scale
items could have differed if they had been asked to complete the scale one time only,
or if the scale items were presented in a different order.
6.6 Conclusions
The study discussed in this chapter sought to find answers to three questions. First,
whether on their own individual design techniques of on-site sponsorship execution
influence the brand perception of consumers, second, which selected elements of
brand equity are affected, and third, how large this influence is. The findings of the
study provide a solid basis for confident answers to the first two questions, and some
indications for partially answering the third.
Choosing an experimental design allowed individual manipulation of the sponsorship
design techniques under review in this study. The findings clearly indicate that even
fine variations in individual design techniques influence the perception of the
sponsorship and of the resulting impact on the sponsoring brand.
As discussed, this study used the indirect approach to measuring brand equity as
proposed by Keller (1993), which focuses on the brand perception of consumers rather
than on how they behave based on these perceptions. Given the research goals and the
methodology, this study focused on the perception of brand image, which was
operationalized using the constructs brand attributes, brand vividness, and brand
attitude. The results indicate that all three elements of brand image are significantly
influenced by sponsorship execution.
The amount of change in perceived brand image between different sponsorship
scenarios provide some indication of how effective individual techniques are. From the
two techniques used in the experiment, the level of brand experience appeared to have
a higher impact on the selected elements of brand image than the technique enhancing
sponsorevent fit. Also, it appears that brand attributes and brand attitude are
influenced more by the different scenarios than brand vividness. However, these
findings should be treated carefully for two reasons. First, brand attributes, brand
vividness, and brand attitude are conceptually closely related. Brand attributes provide
an indication of what associations a consumer makes to a brand, brand vividness is a
measure of how strong these associations are, and brand attitude is the result of the
judgment of these brand associations based on personal values. Second, the data was
collected using different scales (mostly five- to seven-point Likert and semantic
differential scales). The data can therefore be assumed to exhibit interval scale
properties, but not ratio scale properties, as there is no common meaningful zero for all
scales. It is therefore possible to compare the influence of different design techniques
on brand vividness, but it is not possible to say whether this influence is larger for
brand attributes, brand vividness, or brand attitude (Aaker, et al. 2001, p. 274 ff.).
This study also provided empirically well-anchored answers to the question of what
makes or breaks the success of a sponsorship. The findings clearly highlight the
paramount importance of perceived sponsorevent fit: only sponsors that are perceived
to be a good match with an event can expect to benefit from their engagement with
regard to brand perception. As the data collected from the experiment clearly shows,

these changes in brand perception may be largely attributed to an image transfer that
takes place between the event and the sponsoring brand but only if the sponsor and
the event match well. In this respect, this finding empirically confirms the theoretical
work done by other authors.
What is more, however, this study also sheds some light on the characteristics of the
construct sponsorevent fit: the manipulations of sponsorship executions performed in
the experiment significantly influenced the perception of sponsorevent fit. In other
words: sponsorevent fit does not only depend on the careful pairing of a brand with a
highly suited event (strategic level), but also to a large degree on how a sponsorship
is executed (operational level). If done properly, sponsorship on-site executions
provide spectators with relevant stimuli that enable them to better accommodate the
brand schema with the event schema in their cognition be it through a higher degree
of elaboration (as inferred by a higher-order brand experience) or through an
explanation of why the brand is a good match with the event (e.g., by tailoring the
sponsorship execution to the event). This finding is good news, especially for brands
from product categories that generally have a poor functional and image-based fit with
most of the attractive sponsorship properties available, i.e., those that reach large
audiences of potential customers. It appears reasonable that a similar increase in
perceived sponsorevent fit may also be achieved through off-site exploitation
measures such as advertising or public relations.
Last, but not least, this study investigated the moderating role of involvement on the
observed effects, namely of product and event involvement. Not surprisingly, product
involvement affected the perception of brand image. Contrary to previous research,
however, no linear relationship between product or event involvement and perceived
sponsorevent fit was found. The role of involvement should be more thoroughly
investigated by future research, and also include brand involvement rather than just
involvement with the product category.
Overall Discussion and Conclusions 190
7 Overall Discussion and Conclusions
An overview of the main findings of this thesis is presented based on the empirical
and conceptual work. It is concluded that on-site sponsorship execution does have a
significant influence on audience-based brand equity that is created by a
sponsorship: the improvement of perceived sponsorevent fit through adequate
sponsorship execution measures may lead to a substantial increase in the brand-
building effect of sponsorships. The findings of this thesis imply that sponsorship
managers should more consciously deploy on-site execution to leverage their
sponsorship investment by providing the often substantially large audiences with
a strong and event-specific brand experience. To enable exploitation measures that
are specific to the needs of the sponsoring brand, the parties involved must
cooperate more closely and flexibly.
7.1 Overview and Discussion of Key Findings
Based on the findings of previous research (as discussed in the literature review), this
thesis has attempted to find answers to the question how sponsors could increase the
build-up of brand equity created by their sponsorships through adequate on-site
exploitation measures. Answers were developed in four main steps (three of empirical
character, one conceptual), each dedicated to a specific aspect of this general question.
The case studies conducted at Freestyle.ch were helpful in exploring the field of
research and in identifying possible execution techniques. During the Ski World
Championships in St. Moritz, data was gathered by means of a survey that allowed the
conclusion (with high confidence) that on-site execution indeed influences the
perception of sponsoring brands by the event audience. Based on practices used in
event marketing and drawing from qualitative data gathered in the first two empirical
steps, a conceptual framework of on-site sponsorship execution was developed that
systematically maps and discusses individual design techniques. Last, but not least,
two of these design techniques for the on-site execution of sponsorships were selected
and individually tested with regard to their influence on the perceived image of the
sponsoring brand (by means of a classroom experiment). This section provides and
overview of the main findings (see Figure 38) of each research step and discusses the
most important findings in a wider context.

A first key finding of this dissertation is that sponsor brand perception by event
audiences depends only to some degree on the sponsorship status. This is indicated
by the results from both Freestyle.ch and the Ski World Championships, where same
level sponsors (i.e., sponsors that had roughly the same space available for their
branding activities) generated highly different amounts of brand equity among
spectators. In the case of Freestyle.ch, some lower level sponsors were even able to
outperform the main sponsors on all or selected dimensions of brand equity assessed.
If sponsorship status, which is a rough indication of how much money was invested in
the acquisition of sponsorship rights, only partially explains variances observed in
brand equity created by sponsorships, what other factors determine whether
sponsorships are successful in building brands? The quasi-experiment in the field that
was conducted at the Ski World Championships in St. Moritz confirmed the initial
hypothesis that the on-site execution of a sponsorship has a large influence on how
sponsoring brands are perceived by the audience of an event, along with a number of
moderating variables such as the initial brand position (i.e., how much brand equity
already exists) and the product category (e.g., competitiveness, consumer
involvement).
When designing their on-site activities, sponsorship managers are able to draw from a
large number of brand presentation techniques that have been developed for event
marketing purposes. Generally speaking, techniques that are highly effective in event
marketing may be expected to also perform well in a sponsorship context. One main
difference between event sponsorships and event marketing, however, must be
considered. Visitors to sponsored events cannot per se be expected to be highly
involved with the sponsors. Their high involvement and activation is typically directed
only to the event. Sponsors wanting to benefit from this high involvement must
therefore apply sponsorship execution techniques that aim at drawing attention to their
brands (e.g., by making reference to the event or by providing highly attractive
activities).
Key Findings
Case studies
at Freestyle.ch
Sponsors have very different approaches to on-site sponsorship execution
On-site execution appears to be a key determinant for sponsorship success, as
no evident relationship exists between amount paid for sponsorship rights
(presenting, main, or supporting sponsor) and brand perception by audience
Two execution techniques are identified which seem to have a large impact on
audience-based brand equity
Product sampling
Fully tailoring the sponsorship execution to the event topic
Survey
Ski World
Championships
Event visitors that visited sponsors' booths or received product samples have
significantly higher brand equity than visitors that were only exposed to
perimeter signage
The observed increase in brand equity depends on a number of factors
Design of on-site sponsorship execution
Initial brand position with regard to brand awareness and brand image
Marketing activities of competitors from same product categories
Classroom
experiment
The level of brand experience provided to on-site audiences significantly
influences brand image, namely the transfer of event attributes to the brand,
brand vividness and attitude towards the brand
The perception of sponsorevent fit is affected by sponsorship execution
Good perceived sponsorevent fit is a necessary prerequisite for an image-
transfer to take place from the event to the brand
Discussion of
execution design
techniques
On-site execution must provide a multi-sensory brand experience to event
visitors to foster memorization of the brand message
Techniques used for event marketing are largely applicable to sponsorships
Additionally, on-site executions must aim at directing involvement with the event
towards the brand, e.g., by taking reference to the event

Figure 38: Overview of the main findings of this dissertation.
Last, but not least, this thesis was able to show that sponsors can greatly benefit from
providing a higher-level brand experience to event visitors. The key variable is the
perception of sponsorevent fit: if the perceived match-up between sponsor and event
is good, the sponsor is likely to benefit from an image transfer from the event. The
findings of the classroom experiment clearly indicate that sponsorship execution
affects the perception of sponsorevent fit.
7.2 Implications for Practitioners
The findings of this research project have direct and indirect implications for
practitioners. The direct implications concern sponsorship managers and their on-site
execution of sponsorship, and are relatively simple to implement. The indirect
implications, on the other hand, concern the entire brand-building and sponsorship
value chain and require not only a significantly higher effort from sponsors in the way
they manage their branding and sponsorship activities, but even more so a thorough
change of mind in large parts of the sponsorship industry.
7.2.1 Implications for Sponsorship Managers
The key implications for sponsorship managers can be summarized in three main
action points:

1. Systematically deploy on-site exploitation to increase the return on sponsorship
expenditure in terms of improvements in brand perception.
2. Actively manage the perception of sponsorevent fit at the executional level,
not just at the strategic level.
3. Provide on-site audiences with a fully engaging brand experience that is
tailored to the specific event.
Considering the clear results of this study and the fact that the benefits of on-site
sponsorship exploitation are intuitively evident, the first point should be nothing but a
confirmation of current sponsorship practice. Surprisingly, this is not the case:
systematic on-site exploitation of sponsorships today is not a standard procedure, but
rather a feature that sets innovative sponsorship managers apart from the rest.
There are several reasons for this: to start with, many sponsors have unclear objectives
for their sponsorships that may range from increasing awareness and improving image
to entertaining guests and doing something good. In these cases, the sponsorship
serves mostly as a backdrop for a number of largely uncoordinated activities around an
event. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having several objectives with a single
sponsorship. However, it is necessary to specify explicit goals for each activity,
because if there is no objective, there is no return on sponsorship expenditure to
maximize.
A second reason may be that there are not enough funds available for on-site
sponsorship exploitation, as the whole sponsorship budget has been used for the
acquisition of the sponsorship rights. For these cases, it may make sense to consider
some inexpensive, but highly effective exploitation techniques such as product
sampling or focusing on improving the perceived match-up between sponsor and
event. As with advertising, creativity not marketing spend appears to be the most
effective lever to create brand equity from a sponsorship engagement. Third, on-site
audiences are often considered too small (in comparison to mediated audiences) to
bother. This short-sightedness is in most cases the result of a lack of coordination
between the marketing activities of a company. On-site audiences may often be
reached at a very favorable cost per contact when compared with the cost of other
means of marketing communications such as direct marketing (e.g., by call center) or
advertising. This advantage becomes even more accentuated when the on-site presence
is used for leads generation or actual selling.
That impactful on-site exploitation has not yet become a standard is illustrated by the
sponsors of the FIS Alpine World Ski Championships as discussed in this study. A
combination of these three general (and possibly of a number of sponsor-specific)
reasons has lead to the situation where only 5 out of 9 sponsors truly tried to exploit
their substantial sponsorship investments towards the 170,000 on-site spectators.
For those sponsorship managers who are aware of the benefits of on-site exploitation,
the challenge remains to design and execute a highly effective brand experience for the
audiences of the events that they sponsor. The techniques described in this study may
be helpful to them in the sense that they allow a systematic approach to designing the
on-site brand experience. In any case, however, the full sponsorship experience has to
be considered from a consumers point of view, not only whether individual brand
stimuli are provided.
The second key implication for sponsorship managers is based on the finding that
perceived sponsorevent fit can be greatly influenced by sponsorship execution,
and not just by strategy setting. This is good news for many sponsors from product
categories that have difficulties finding sponsorship properties with which their brands
have a good functional (logical) fit.
The results of this study imply that the perception of fit with the event may be
influenced by the sponsor in several ways. As demonstrated in the classroom
experiment, the provision of a higher level brand experience affects the perception of
fit. A large potential appears to lie also in tailoring the brand experience to the event
theme, thus showing the event audience that the sponsor understands what the event is
all about and at the same time increasing the likelihood that the sponsor brand is
perceived. For some sponsorships, it may even be helpful if the sponsor actively
explains to the audience the role it plays in making the event happen (e.g., if audiences
are very skeptical about the commercialization of their event).
The finding that perceived sponsorevent fit is influenced by sponsorship execution of
course also carries a negative implication. Poor sponsorship execution might of course
also impair a strategically good fit, for instance, if the on-site brand experience is
disappointing or the sponsor displays limited knowledge of the event and the (sub-)

culture of its visitors. Sponsorship managers are therefore advised to possibly pre-test
their activities with the event organizers or better still actual event audiences.
The third main implication for sponsorship managers is derived from the discussion of
involvement. While it is true that event sponsorships provide a favorable environment
for marketing communications because of the high involvement of participants and
spectators, marketers must always keep in mind that this high involvement is directed
towards the event, and not towards the sponsors. In order to benefit from this high
involvement, sponsors must make an effort to direct it towards their brand or product:
their on-site activities must create a situational involvement with their brands. The
discussion of elaboration likelihood (perception and learning, see section 2.4) implies
that unless this is achieved, many sponsors will go unnoticed due to the low
involvement of event visitors with their brands. A simple, yet effective technique of
drawing the attention of the fans of a particular event towards its sponsor is by
incorporating the topic of the event in the sponsorship execution. As fans are eager
not to miss the action, they will scan the event site for all relevant stimuli. If a
sponsors on-site presence is closely attuned to the event (e.g., by providing activities
linked to it), it is thus increases the likelihood of being perceived by fans. Unless
sponsors can rightfully expect that their products or their on-site activities are so
attractive to event audiences that they will pay close attention to them, they may be
best off tailoring their activities to the specific event.
7.2.2 Implications for the Sponsorship Industry
The arguments put forward in this piece of research carry implications for sponsorship
managers and for the wider sponsorship industry, which can be described as the
economic system containing sponsors, owners of sponsorable properties,
intermediaries, and the media. This section discusses the insights achieved in this
study in a wider context.
A number of factors discussed in this thesis provide strong evidence that sponsorship
will continue to grow in importance as a brand building tool in the foreseeable future.
Communication clutter in traditional advertising channels, increasingly elusive
audiences and thus decreasing returns on advertising expenditure are, as
discussed, among the key drivers behind the enormous growth of sponsorship
expenditure over the last two decades. Some recent developments have the
potential of further accentuating this issue. First, the advent of digital video
recorders and related services (such as TiVo) not only allows consumers to
easily tape and re-play any TV program at their convenience, but also to watch
them without the advertisements making it even harder for advertisers to
reach their potential customers. Second, patterns of news usage are changing.
The opportunities for high-quality advertising that traditional high-quality news
channels, namely newspapers, provide, are shrinking, as more and more people
rely on the Internet and digital newsletters for their daily news intake,
Many sponsors today still deploy sponsorship primarily as a tool to boost
awareness. This research reinforces the findings of previous studies, which have
shown that, given a good perceived sponsorsponsee fit, sponsorship is also a
potent tool for image-building.
Last, but not least, this study has shown that sponsorship exploitation appears to
be a considerable lever for increasing the return on marketing communications
expenditure (cf. Cornwell, et al. 2001). While some of the findings of this thesis
are only applicable to event-site sponsorship executions, are others transferable
to off-site exploitation. One of the key insights is the paramount role of
perceived sponsor-event fit, and more importantly, the notion that this
perceived fit can be drastically enhanced through communication measures. In
other words: exploitation no longer means that sponsorships are communicated
to further audiences (quantitative), but, rather that also their qualitative role in
brand-building may be enhanced or that in some cases even unfortunate
sponsorship strategies may be corrected (at least to some degree). This will
undoubtedly lead to higher effectiveness of sponsorship engagements and might
contribute to a sustained cost advantage compared to advertising.
If the assertion is true that sponsorship will continue to grow in its importance as a
brand-building tool, how can the sponsorship industry take best advantage of it? In the
following, the key implications of this study for the sponsorship industry are discussed
along the sponsorship planning and execution process (Figure 39).

Analysis
Target groups
Competitors
(in- and
outside of
category)
Brand-
building
environment
Strategy
Positioning of
brand
Definition of
core brand-
building
measures
Definition of
sponsorship's
role in brand-
building
Definition of
needed
branding
platform(s)
Determination
of ideal level
of ownership
(make or buy)
Identification
of interdepen-
dencies with
other brand-
building
measures
Identification
of fitting
sponsorship
proprieties
Image
Target
groups
Match-up
Execution in
sponsor's
channels
Brand
experience
Target group
specific
Reinforcing fit
brand/
sponsored
property
Exploitation in
other channels
(e.g., advertise-
ment, PR,
promotions)
Integration
Reinforcing fit
Leveraging
sales
opportunities
Securing first-
mover access
to prime
properties
Negotiation
Branding
platforms
within
property
Level of
influence on
property
content
Collabora-
tion
Co-
Branding
Cost
Management
of relationship
to sponsored
property
Measurement
of sponsor-
ship-linked
brand
performance
versus
branding
targets
Continuous
improvement
Brand Strategy
Sponsorship
Strategy
Access to
Prime
Properties
Sponsorship
Execution &
Exploitation
Success
Tracking

Figure 39: Sponsorship planning and execution process.
If sponsorship is to be deployed for brand building, it must be based on a sound
brand strategy. Ideally, the brand strategy rests on a thorough analysis of the market
environment in which the branding process is supposed to take place. Given the
overcrowding of traditional communication channels, it becomes more and more
important for companies to formulate an explicit plan for targetting consumers with
the brand message, and which role non-traditional brand building measures such as
sponsorship are to play in it. There are a number of examples (namely from the sports
and consumer goods industries) where sponsorship is not an additional, but actually
the core element of the brand strategy (cf. Joachimsthaler and Aaker 1997).
Companies should base their sponsorship strategies on the kind of sponsorship
properties that they need to attain their brand-building goals rather than on what
properties are readily available. There is compelling evidence, further strengthened by
this study, that the perceived match-up between sponsor and sponsee makes or breaks
the success of a sponsorship. If companies realize that their branding goals may not
fully be achieved through the sponsorship of existing and available properties, then
they must create their own sponsorship platforms. Adidas Streetball events and Red
Bulls Flugtage are cases in point. On the same note, in advance, sponsors should
determine how much control over the properties that they sponsor they must have in
order to attain their branding goals. How sponsorships are to be exploited across
communication channels is another important aspect of the sponsorship strategy. For
instance, the sponsorship might have to be closely coordinated with a product
launch or a promotion.
In the two first stages of the sponsorship planning and execution process, companies
might depend on the advice of external specialists such as brand consultants and
sponsorship or advertising agencies. With or without external support, a likely pitfall
in designing a brand and sponsorship strategy is that of thinking in channels rather
than of brand needs. Unless they have largely independent consulting units,
advertising agencies are likely to come up with mass-media-communication-based
solutions, while sponsorship agencies will try to sell the sponsorship properties that are
part of their portfolio. The sponsorship industry should, therefore, try to find incentive
structures that allow advisors to be media agnostic.
As sponsorship grows in importance, prime sponsorship properties are becoming
increasingly rare (Kover 2001), with two main effects: their price will go up and due
to a lack of exclusivity or to sponsorship clutter they will become less effective
brand-building tools. Both effects lead to lower returns on sponsorship expenditure. A
key challenge for companies seeking sponsorship opportunities, as well as for
intermediaries will, therefore, become the identification and securing of access to
prime sponsorship properties well ahead of competitors.
For media companies, sponsorship has always been an ambiguous issue. To this day,
some (mostly public) TV stations, view sponsorship as surreptitious advertising. A
further rise of sponsorship at the expense of the advertisement may well put many
media companies under considerable economic pressure. On the other hand, media
companies are also on the receiving end of the sponsorship value chain. As discussed,
program or broadcast sponsorship already accounts for some 12 percent of all
sponsorship rights expenditure. To ensure that they stay the prime receiver of
marketing communications funds (advertising and sponsorship), media companies
must reinforce their ability to create blockbuster programming. Despite what has been
said about the trend of asynchronous program viewing at a personally convenient time,
there will always be a number of limited events that everybody wants to watch live.
For instance, the final of the FIFA Worldcup, hosted every four years, is something
nobody wants to miss in large parts of the world. The same is true for some TV
programming, as recent examples such as Deutschland sucht den Superstar

[American Idol in the U.S.], or Survivor have shown. Such media-generated
events may provide sponsors with extremely attractive branding platforms that span
different channels and reach well-defined target groups. As an example, if a clothing
brand was to sponsor a show such as American Idol, it would not only get the
branding opportunity on TV and on the site of the event (with on-site fans), but it
could also furbish all participants and staff with clothes, market a exclusive line of
American Idol merchandize, advertise with the shows participants in the context of
the show and in related print and online media. When discussing such high-impact
sponsorship designs, it also becomes evident that one of the greatest dangers lies in the
over-commercialization of a property to the degree that spectators are turned-off by it
or that it loses its credibility. It may be argued that some spectator groups are more
skeptical in this regard than others, and that sponsors with a good fit are less likely to
be rebuked than sponsors with no evident fit.
The findings of this thesis have emphasized the importance of execution for
sponsorship success. Tailoring sponsorship and its leveraging measures to the unique
features of a sponsorship property requires a close cooperation between the sponsor
and the sponsee. In the context of event site execution, for instance, a sponsors need
may be best served by the opportunity to sample a newly-introduced product to the
audience; another sponsor may need a large amount of space for a spectator activity.
Both sponsors are poorly served with a standard sponsorship package as it typically
sold today by most large sports events often with the help of sports marketing firms.
As the growth in the value of sponsorship rights is reaching a plateau and sponsor
retention is becoming increasingly difficult for many events, a change of mind can be
observed. Close collaboration and individually tailored packages are more and more
common, and some of the largest sports associations have insourced the marketing of
sponsorship rights (e.g., FIFA, UEFA). What does this mean for the sport marketing
firms that have so far relied mostly on the trade of sponsorship rights? Their services
as intermediaries will likely still be needed, not least to make the sponsorship market
more transparent. However, whether properties will still allow them to market their
sponsorship rights on a buyerre-seller basis (with a hefty margin), remains to be seen.
FIFA has shown that alternative means of risk transfer exist by securitizing their rights
on the capital market. On the other hand, the role of sport marketing firms as
consultants is likely to increase, supporting both sponsors and sponsees with specific
know-how.
As the focus of the sponsorship industry shifts to better exploitation, a rise in co-
branding and cross-channel activities is likely to be observed. This is true for both co-
marketing activities of sponsor and sponsee as well as of a group of sponsors together
with similar images.
Last, but not least, the success of sponsorship activities, with regard to brand equity
created, must be measured according to the brands specific articulated goals. A
number of marketing research companies have identified the monitoring of
sponsorship success as a promising market and are developing standardized
sponsorship-related brand tracking tools (e.g., WPPs Sportz). As these methods
become widely accepted, the cost of monitoring sponsorship success although
already miniscule compared with the expenditure on sponsorship rights may further
decrease.
7.3 Future Research Directions
An interesting aspect of doing research is that for every answer that is found, a whole
set of new questions arises. This is especially true when a new field of research is
explored, as was the case with event-site sponsorship execution. This section lists
some of the unresolved questions that the author has come across in the course of
writing this dissertation.
A number of questions to be answered by further research can be derived directly from
the empirical work done in this thesis. First, the effect of specific design techniques on
sponsorship awareness could not fully be determined, as the experimental set-up
deployed in chapter 1 did not allow it. While the survey at the Ski World
Championships provides an indication that sponsorship awareness can be significantly
enhanced by higher-level sponsorship executions, further research is necessary to
explore what execution techniques are most effective in establishing a mental tie
between a sponsor and an event as well as to lay a sound theoretical foundation for the
observed effects.
A key variable used in this thesis is sponsorevent fit. Given its demonstrated
importance in enabling the mental association between an event and a sponsor in the
cognition in the minds of consumers, a better understanding of the construct would be
most welcome. Specifically, the two related questions of what heuristics consumers

deploy to determine fit, and which aspects of fit are crucial in establishing a mental
link between sponsor and event should be addressed by future research.
Third, very little research has been conducted with regard to the long-time effects of
sponsorship. Future research should shed some light on whether on-site sponsorship
execution affects the long-term memorization of sponsors and on how the effects on
brand equity observed in this thesis are affected by time.
Further research should also consider how sponsorships are best exploited towards
other audiences than event-site spectators, namely live TV audiences and the wider
public. Combining this thesis results with previous findings of advertising research
might yield some interesting insights.
With regard to image transfer, this piece of research primarily looked at a transfer
from the event to the sponsor. However, an image transfer is also likely to occur in the
opposite direction. The effects of sponsor image on event image (to my best
knowledge) have not been researched so far, even though they carry great practical
relevance. Events and other sponsorship properties increasingly market themselves as
essentially consumer brands with a carefully positioned image. In this light, sponsors
should be carefully selected, not least because, if a match-up with a particular sponsor
increases the events brand equity, it may become a more valuable partner for other
sponsors. A related issue is how (possibly conflicting) images of different sponsors in
a multi-sponsor set-up affect both sponsor and event images.
Hopefully, these thoughts on future research directions will inspire and encourage
other academic scholars in the small, but steadily growing research community to
devote more time and energy to sponsorship-related issues.
References xii
References

Aaker, D. A. (1991): Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand
Name, New York: Free Press

Aaker, D. A. (1996): Building Strong Brands, New York: Free Press

Aaker, D. A./Joachimsthaler, E. (2000): Brand Leadership, New York: Free Press

Aaker, D. A., et al. (2001): Marketing Research, 7th ed., New York: Wiley

Abratt, R., et al. (1987): Corporate Objectives in Sports Sponsorship, in: International
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 6, pp. 299-311

Aitken, P. P., et al. (1986): Childrens' Awareness of Cigarette Brand Sponsorship of
Sports and Games in the U.K., in: Health Education Research, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 203-
211

Alba, J. W./Hutchinson, J. W. (1987): Dimensions of Consumer Expertise, in: Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, March, pp. 411-454

Alkemeyer, T./Gebauer, G. (2003): Die neue Welt, in der man gleitet, in: NZZ am
Sonntag, 8 June 2003, p. 36

Allport, G. W. (1943): The Ego in Contemporary Psychology, in: Psychological
Review, Vol. 50, pp. 451-478

Anne, F./Chron, E. J. (1991): Mesure de l'efficacit du sponsoring: une analyse des
effets intermdiaires sur l'audience directe de l'vnement, in: Revue Franaise du
Marketing, No. 131, pp. 69-81

Armstrong, C. (1988): Sports Sponsorship: A Case-Study Approach to Measuring its
Effectiveness, in: European Research, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 97-103

AY&R (2003): Brand Asset Valuator Database (unpublished), Gockhausen

Backhaus, K., et al. (2003): Multivariate Analysemethoden: eine
anwendungsorientierte Einfhrung, 10. Aufl., Berlin: Springer

Bagozzi, R. P./Yi, Y. (1988): On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models, in:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, Spring, pp. 74-94

Bennet, R. (1999): Sports Sponsorship, Spectator Recall and False Consensus, in:
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33, No. 3/4, pp. 291-313

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience xiii

Bergmann, T./Grahn, J. (1997): The Credibility of Using Students As Surrogates in
Empirical Research: A New Perspective on an Old Issue, in: Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 7 (Fall/Winter), pp. 106-112

BFS (2003): Bundesamt fr Statistik: Statistisches Jahrbuch der Schweiz, Zrich:
Verlag Neue Zrcher Zeitung

Bieger, T. (2002): Management von Destinationen und Tourismusorganisationen, 5.
Aufl., Mnchen: Oldenbourg

Biel, A. L. (1993): Converting Image into Equity, in: Aaker, D. A./Biel, A. L. (ed.):
Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising's Role in Building Strong Brands,
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers, pp. 76-82

Biel, A. L. (2001): Grundlagen zum Markenwertaufbau, in: Esch, F.-R. (ed.): Moderne
Markenfhrung, 3. Aufl., Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp. 63-90

Bonham-Group (2003): Top 10 Professional Facility Naming Rights Deals, 12 May
2003, http://www.bonham.com/inside/fun.html#name

Bouissac, P. (1987): The Marketing of Performance, in: Umiker-Sebeok, J. (ed.):
Marketing and Semiotics, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 390-406

Breen, B. (2003): Generation Y Provides Wireless Potential,
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/features/032003.asp

Bruhn, M. (1986): Sponsoring als Kommunikationsinstrument - Ziele,
Einsatzbereiche, Konzeptionen, in: Dahlhoff, H. D. (ed.): Sponsoring - Chancen fr
die Kommunikationsarbeit, Bonn: BDW Deutscher Kommunikationsverband, pp. 1-20

Bruhn, M. (1997): Sponsoring: Mzenatentum oder Schleichwerbung?, in: Harvard
Manager, No. 3, pp. 46-52

Bruhn, M. (1998): Sponsoring: systematische Planung und integrativer Einsatz, 3.
Aufl., Frankfurt a.M./Wiesbaden: Frankfurter Allgemeine/Gabler

Bruhn, M./Mehlinger, R. (1999): Rechtliche Gestaltung des Sponsoring, 2. Aufl.,
Mnchen: Beck

Bruner, G. C. (1990): Music, mood, and marketing, in: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54,
No. 4, pp. 94-104

Byrne, B. M. (2001): Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts,
Applications and Programming, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Cash (2000): Im Freestyle in die Herzen der Kids, in: Cash, 22. September, p. 28

References xiv
Castells, M. (1997): The Power of Identity, Malden, Mass.: Blackwell

Celsi, R. L./Olson, J. C. (1988): The Role of Involvement in Attention and
Comprehension Processes, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, September, pp.
210-224

Chupa-Chups (2003): Billabong Girls Get out there Day, 9 June 2003,
http://www.chupachups.com.au/partners/billabong.html

Churchill, G. (1979): A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Constructs, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp. 64-73

Clarey, C. (2001): Because Schranz Paid Price, Others Are Now Paid, in: The New
York Times, 4 February 2001, p. 7

Cohen, J. B. (1982): The Role of Affect in Categorization: Towards a Reconsideration
of the Concept of Attitude, in: Mitchell, A. A. (ed.): Ann Arbor, MI: Association for
Consumer Research, Vol. 9, p. 94-100

Cornelius, A. (1979): Raleigh's European Tour de France, in: Marketing, June, pp. 16-
18

Cornwell, B. T. (1995): Sponsorship-Linked Marketing Development, in: Sport
Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 13-24

Cornwell, B. T./Maignan, I. (1998): An International Review of Sponsorship
Research, in: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 1-21

Cornwell, B. T., et al. (2001): Exploring Managers' Perceptions of the Impact of
Sponsorship on Brand Equity, in: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 42-51

Cotting, P. (2000): Der Sponsoring- und Eventmarketing-Ansatz, Linz:
Universittsverlag Rudolf Trauner

Crimmins, J./Horn, M. (1996): Sponsorship: From Management Ego Trip to
Marketing Success, in: Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36, July-August, pp. 11-
21

Crocker, J. (1984): A Schematic Approach to Changing Consumers' Beliefs, in:
Kinnear, T. C. (ed.): Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, pp. 472-477

Cronbach, L. J. (1951): Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests, in:
Psychometrika, 16, pp. 97-334

Crowley, M. G. (1991): Prioritising the Sponsorship Audience, in: European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 11, pp. 11-21
Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience xv

Danuser, H. (1998): St. Moritz: Events als Marketinginstrument fr einen Ferienort,
in: Nickel, O. (ed.): Eventmarketing: Grundlagen und Erfolgsbeispiele, Mnchen:
Vahlen, pp. 241-250

D'Astous, A./Bitz, P. (1995): Consumer Evaluations of Sponsorship Programmes, in:
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29, No. 12, pp. 6-22

Diekhof, R. (2002): Was den Kult zum Kochen bringt, in: Werben und Verkaufen, 8
March 2002, p. 120

Dischinger, N. (1992): Kultur, Macht, Image: Frankfurter Banken als Sponsoren,
Frankfurt a. M.: Inst. fr Kulturanthropologie und Europ. Ethnologie

Donovan, R. J., et al. (1994): Store Atmosphere and Purchasing Behavior, in: Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 70, No. 3, pp. 283-294

Drees, N. (1989): Sportsponsoring, Leverkusen: Deutscher Universitts-Verlag; Zugl.:
Dissertation, Hochschule der Bundeswehr, Munich, 1989

Economist (2002): Face Value: Selling Energy, in: The Economist, 11 May 2002, p.
68

Eilander, G./Koenders, H. (1995): Research into the Effects of Short and Long-Term
Sponsorship, in: Meenaghan, T. (ed.): Researching Commercial Sponsorship,
Amsterdam: ESOMAR, pp. 75-90

Erber, S. (2000): Eventmarketing: Erlebnisstrategien fr Marken, Landsberg/Lech:
Verlag moderne Industrie

Ernd, W. (1993): Direktmarketing-Wertanalyse: Effizienzsteigerung durch Methode,
in: Deutscher-Direktmarketing-Verband (ed.): Jahrbuch Direktmarketing '93,
Wiesbaden: Max Schimmel, pp. 138-144

Esch, F.-R. (1998): Wirkung integrierter Kommunikation - ein
verhaltenswissenschaftlicher Ansatz fr die Werbung, Wiesbaden: Gabler; Zugl.:
Saarbrcken, Univ., Habil.-Schrift, 1996

Esch, F.-R. (2001a): Aufbau starker Marken durch integrierte Kommunikation, in:
Esch, F.-R. (ed.): Moderne Markenfhrung, 3. Auflage, Wiesbaden: Gabler, 601-635

Esch, F.-R. (2001b): Moderne Markenfhrung Grundlagen, innovative Anstze,
praktische Umsetzung, 3., erw. und aktualis. Aufl., Wiesbaden: Gabler

Esch, F.-R./Geus, P. (2001): Anstze zur Messung des Markenwertes, in: Esch, F.-R.
(ed.): Moderne Markenfhrung, 3. Aufl., Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp. 1025-1057

References xvi
Esch, F.-R./Langner, T. (2001): Branding als Grundlage zum Markenaufbau, in: Esch,
F.-R. (ed.): Moderne Markenfhrung, 3. Auflage, Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp. 439-450

Esch, F.-R./Wicke, A. (2001): Herausforderungen und Aufgaben des
Markenmanagements, in: Esch, F.-R. (ed.): Moderne Markenfhrung, 3. Auflage,
Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp. 5-55

FAF/Swissmate (2002): Freestyle.ch (Sponsoring Documentation), 21 November
2002, Zrich, Lausanne

Farrelly, F. J., et al. (1997): Intergrating Sports Sponsorship into the Corporate
Marketing Function: An International Comparative Study, in: International Marketing
Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 170-182

Feldwick, P. (1996): Do We Really Need 'Brand Equity'?, in: The Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 9-28

Ferrand, A./Pages, M. (1999): Image Management in Sport Organizations: The
Creation of Value, in: European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33, No. 3/4, pp. 387-401

FIFA (2002): Media Information: FIFAworldcup.com Breaks Record after Record, 10
June 2002, Seoul

FIFA (2003): 41,100 hours of 2002 FIFA World Cup TV Coverage in 213 Countries,
29 May 2003, http://www.fifa.com/en/marketing/facts/key.html

Fiore, A. M., et al. (2000): Effects of Product Display and Environmental Fragrancing
on Approach Responses and Pleasurable Experiences, in: Psychology & Marketing,
Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 27-54

Fiske, S. T./Pavelchak, M. A. (1986): Category-Based versus Piecemeal-Based
Affective Responses: Developments in Schema-Triggered Affect, in: Sorrentino, R.
M./Higgins, E. T. (ed.): Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, New York: The
Guilford Press, pp. 167-203

Fornell, C./Larcker, D. (1981): Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error, in: Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 18, February,, pp. 39-50

Foxall, G. R./Goldsmith, R. E. (1998): Consumer Psychology for Marketing, 2nd ed.,
London: International Thomson Business Press

Friedman, H. H./Friedman, L. (1979): Endorser Effectiveness by Product Type, in:
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 19, October/November, p. 63-71

Fritz, W. (1995): Marketing-Management und Unternehmenserfolg: Grundlagen und
Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung, Stuttgart: Schffer-Poeschel
Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience xvii

Gardner, M. P. (1985): Mood States and Consumer Behaviour: a Critical Review, in:
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, December, pp. 281-300

Gardner, M. P./Shuman, P. J. (1987): Sponsorship: An Important Component of the
Promotions Mix, in: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 11-17

Gebhardt, W. (2000): Feste, Feiern und Events, in: Gebhardt, W., et al. (ed.): Events:
Soziologie des Aussergewhnlichen, Opladen: Leske + Budrich, pp. 17-32

Geisser, R. (2003): Die mit dem Checkbuch wedeln, in: NZZ am Sonntag, 9. February
2003,

Gerbing, D./Anderson, J. (1988): An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development
Incorporating Unidimensionality and its Assessment, in: Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 25 (May), pp. 186-192

Gerken, G. (1996): Interfusion statt Marketing: Der Weg zur neuen Masse, in: Gerken,
G./Merks, M. J. (ed.): Szenen statt Zielgruppen, Frankfurt: Deutscher Fachverlag, pp.
75-102

Goldberg, M. E./Gorn, G. (1987): Happy and Sad TV Programs: How They Affect
Reactions to Commercials, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, December, pp.
387-403

Goldblatt, J. J. (1990): Special Events : The Art and Science of Celebration, New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold

Greenwald, A./Leavitt, C. (1984): Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels,
in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, June, pp. 581-592

Grimes, E./Meenaghan, T. (1998): Focusing Commercial Sponsorship on the Internal
Corporate Audience, in: International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 51-74

Gross, A. C., et al. (1987): Corporate sponsorship of art and sports events in North
America, in: Esomar Congress, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 9-13

Gndling, C. (1998): Bedeutung der Kundenbindung im Rahmen des Eventmarketing,
in: Nickel, O. (ed.): Eventmarketing: Grundlagen und Erfolgsbeispiele, Mnchen:
Vahlen, pp. 79-90

Gwinner, K. (1994): Event Sponsorship as a Promotional Tool: The Impact on Brand
Awareness and Brand Image, in: AMA Winter Educators' Conference Proceedings:
Marketing Theory
and Applications, pp. 133-139

References xviii
Gwinner, K. (1997): A Model of Image Creation and Image Transfer in Event
Sponsorship, in: International Marketing Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 145-158

Gwinner, K./Eaton, J. (1999): Building Brand Image through Event Sponsorship: The
Role of Image Transfer, in: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 47-57

Haedrich, G./Tomczak, T. (1996): Strategische Markenfhrung: Planung und
Realisierung von Marketingstrategien fr eingefhrte Produkte, 2. Aufl., Bern: Haupt

Hansen, F./Scotwin, L. (1995): An Experimental Enquiry into Sponsoring: What
Effects Can Be Measured?, in: Marketing and Research Today, Vol. 29, No. 3
(August), pp. 173-181

HarperCollins (1994): Collins English dictionary and thesaurus, 3rd ed., Glasgow:
HarperCollins Publishers

Harrell, G. D. (1986): Consumer behavior, San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich

Hastings, G. B. (1984): Sponsorship Works Differently from Advertising, in:
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 171-176

Hermanns, A. (1989): Sport- und Kultursponsoring, Mnchen: Vahlen

Hermanns, A. (1997): Sponsoring Grundlagen, Wirkungen, Management,
Perspektiven, 2. Aufl., Mnchen: Vahlen

Herrmann, A./Seilheimer, C. (2000): Varianz- und Kovarianzanalyse, in: Herrmann,
A./Homburg, C. (ed.): Marktforschung: Methoden - Anwendungen - Praxisbeispiele,
Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp. 265-294

Heurer, F./Reisberg, D. (1990): Vivid Memories of Emotional Events: The Accuracy
of Remembered Minutiae, in: Memory and Cognition, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 496-506

Hoek, J. (1999): Sponsorship: An Evaluation of Management Assumptions and
Practices, in: Marketing Bulletin, Vol. 10, p. 1-10

Hofmann, S. (2002): "Was zum Teufel soll das sein?" (...) Ein Gesprch ber Geld mit
Geist, in: NZZ am Sonntag, 3 November 2002, p. 99

Homburg, C. (1995): Kundennhe von Industriegterunternehmen: Konzeption -
Erfolgsauswirkungen - Determinanten, Wiesbaden: Gabler

Homburg, C./Pflesser, C. (2000): A Multiple-Layer Model of Market-Oriented
Organizational Culture: Measurement Issues and Performance Outcomes, in: Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 37, November, pp. 137-144

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience xix

Hoover's (2003): Chupa Chups S.A. - Hoover's Company Profile, 14 May 2003,
Austin, Tx.

Houston, M. J./Rothschild, M. L. (1978): Conceptual and methodological perspectives
on involvement, in: 1978 Educators' Proceedings, pp. 184-187

IEG (2003): IEG Glossary and Lexicon, 7 January 2003,
http://www.sponsorship.com/learn/glossary.asp

IEG/Performance-Research (2001): Sponsorship Decisionmakers Survey, February
2001, Chicago

IEG/Performance-Research (2002): Sponsorship Decisionmakers Survey, February
2002, Chicago

Interbrand (2001): The World's Most Valuable Brands Ranked by Interbrand 2001,
Chicago

IOC (2002): Marketing Fact File, Lausanne: IOC Marketing Department

Javalgi, R. G., et al. (1994): Awareness of Sponsorship and Corporate Image: An
Empirical Investigation, in: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 47-59

Joachimsthaler, E./Aaker, D. A. (1997): Building Brands without Mass Media, in:
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75, No. 1, pp. 39-50

Johar, G. V./Pham, M. T. (1999): Relatedness, Prominence, and Constructive Sponsor
Identification, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36, August, pp. 299-312

Kahle, L. R./Homer, P. M. (1985): Physical Attractiveness of the Celebrity Endorser:
A Social Adaptation Perspective, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, No. 4,
pp. 4-13

Kaiser, H. F. (1974): An Index of Factorial Simplicity, in: Psychometrika, Vol. 39, pp.
31-36

Keller, K. L. (1993): Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based
Brand Equity, in: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22

Kinney, L./McDaniel, S. R. (1996): Strategic Implications of Attitude-Toward-the-Ad
in Leveraging Event Sponsorships, in: Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 10 (July),
pp. 250-261

Klein, N. (2000): No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies, Toronto: Knopf Canada

Knowles, J. (2003): Leadership in Turbulent Times: Credit for Credibility, in: WEF
Featured Publication, electronic copy
References xx

Kotler, P. (1973): Atmospherics as a Marketing Tool, in: Journal of Retailing, Vol. 49,
No. 4, pp. 48-64

Kotler, P./Bliemel, F. (2001): Marketing Management : Analyse, Planung und
Verwirklichung, 10. Aufl., Stuttgart: Schfer-Poeschel

Kover, A. J. (2001): Editorial: The Sponsorship Issue, in: Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 30, January-February, p. 5

Kroeber-Riel, W./Esch, F.-R. (2000): Strategie und Technik der Werbung:
verhaltenswissenschaftliche Anstze, 5. Aufl., Stuttgart: Kohlhammer

Kroeber-Riel, W./Weinberg, P. (1999): Konsumentenverhalten, 7. Aufl., Mnchen:
Vahlen

Krugman, H. E. (1965): The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without
Involvement, in: Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 29, Fall, pp. 249-65

Kuss, A./Tomczak, T. (2000): Kuferverhalten: eine marketingorientierte Einfhrung,
2. Aufl., Stuttgart: Lucius und Lucius

Kuzma, J. R., et al. (1993): Number one Principle for Sporting Events Seeking
Corporate Sponsors: Meet Benefactor's Objectives, in: Sport Marketing Quarterly,
Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 27-32

Lamnek, S. (1995): Qualitative Sozialforschung, Band 1 Methodologie, 3. Aufl.,
Weinheim: Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union

Lardinoit, T./Derbaix, C. (2001): Sponsorship and Recall of Sponsors, in: Psychology
and Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 167-190

Lavidge, R. C./Steiner, G. A. (1961): A Model for Predictive Measurements of
Advertising Effectiveness, in: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25 (October), pp. 59-62

Ledwith, F. (1984): Does Tobacco Sports Sponsorship on Television Act as
Advertising to Children?, in: Health Education Journal, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 85-88

Levermann, T. (1998): Markt- und Kommunikationsbedingungen fr den Einsatz
innovativer Marketingmassnahmen, in: Nickel, O. (ed.): Eventmarketing: Grundlagen
und Erfolgsbeispiele, Mnchen: Vahlen, pp. 15-24

Lincoln (2003): US Open 2002 Sponsors, 13 June 2003,
http://www.usopen.org/about/sponsors_lincoln.html

Locke, K. D. (2001): Grounded Theory in Management Research, London; Thousand
Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications
Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience xxi

Long, S. J. (1983): Confirmatory Factor Analysis; Sage University Paper Series on
Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences; No. 07-033, Beverly Hills and
London: Sage Publications

Lutz, R. (1991): Editorial, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, March, pp. 1-2

Lynch, J./Schuler, D. (1994): The Matchup Effect of Spokesperson and Product
Congruency: A Schema Theory Interpretation, in: Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 11,
No. 5, pp. 417-445

Marks, D. F. (1973): Visual Imagery Differences in the Recall of Pictures, in: British
Journal of Psychology, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 17-24

Maruyama, G. M. (1998): Basics of Structural Equation Modeling, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications

McCracken, G. (1989): Who Is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the
Endorsement Process, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16, December, pp. 310-
321

McDaniel, S. R. (1999): An investigation of Match-up Effects in Sport Sponsorship
Advertising: The Implications of Consumer Advertising Schemas, in: Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 16, March, pp. 163-184

McDonald, C. (1991): Sponsorship and the Image of the Sponsor, in: European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 11, pp. 31-38

Meenaghan, T. (1983): Commercial Sponsorship, in: European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 17, No. 7, pp. 5-73

Meenaghan, T. (1991a): The Role of Sponsorship in the Marketing Communications
Mix, in: International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 35-48

Meenaghan, T. (1991b): Sponsorship - Legitimizing the Medium, in: European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 11, pp. 5-10

Meenaghan, T. (1994): Point of View: Ambush Marketing: Immoral or Imaginative
Practice?, in: Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 77-88

Meenaghan, T. (1996): Ambush marketing - a threat to corporate sponsorship, in:
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38, Fall, 103-113

Meenaghan, T. (1998): Current Developments and Future Directions in Sponsorship,
in: International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 3-28

References xxii
Meffert, H./Burmann, C. (1996): Identittsorientierte Markenfhrung, in:
Markenartikel, Vol. 58, No. 8, pp. 373-380

Meffert, H./Perrey, J. (2001): Mehrmarkenstrategien - Ansatzpunkte fr das
Management von Markenportfolios, in: Esch, F.-R. (ed.): Moderne Markenfhrung, 3.
Aufl., Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp. 685-710

Meyer-Hentschel, G. (1996): Alles was Sie schon immer ber Werbung wissen
wollten, Wiesbaden: Gabler

Mihalik, B. J. (1984): Sponsored Recreation, in: Public Relations Journal, June, pp.
22-25

Mikunda (1996): Der verbotene Ort, Dsseldorf: Econ

Misra, S./Beatty, S. E. (1990): Celebrity Spokesperson and Brand Congruence, in:
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 159-173

Mitchell, A. A. (1979): Involvement: A Potentially Important Mediator of Consumer
Behavior, in: Wilkie, W. L. (ed.): Advances in Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI:
Association for Consumer Research, pp. 191-196

Morgan, A. (1999): Eating the Big Fish: How Challenger Brands Can Compete against
Brand Leaders, New York: John Wiley

N.N. (1994): The Adidas Trump Card, in: Media and Marketing Europe, 22 September
1994, p. 43

N.N. (2003): Marketing Definitions: Brand, May 25 2003,
http://www.buildingbrands.com/definitions/02_brand_definition.shtml

Nicholls, J. A. F., et al. (1999): Brand Recall and Brand Preference at Sponsored Golf
and Tennis Tournaments, in: European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33, No. 3/4, pp.
365-386

Nickel, O. (1997): Werbemonitoring, Wiesbaden: Gabler/DUV

Nickel, O. (1998a): Event - ein neues Zauberwort des Marketing?, in: Nickel, O. (ed.):
Eventmarketing: Grundlagen und Erfolgsbeispiele, Mnchen: Vahlen, pp. 3-14

Nickel, O. (1998b): Verhaltenswissenschaftliche Grundlagen erfolgreicher
Marketingevents, in: Nickel, O. (ed.): Eventmarketing: Grundlagen und
Erfolgsbeispiele, Mnchen: Vahlen, pp. 121-148

Nunally, J. C. (1978): Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience xxiii

NZZ (2002): Flieger, grss mir die Sonne: Freestyle.ch mit Besucherrekord, in: Neue
Zrcher Zeitung, 30 September 2002, p. 33

Otker, T. (1988): Exploitation: The Key to Sponsorship Success, in: European
Research, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 77-86

Otker, T./Hayes, P. (1987): Judging the Efficiency of Sponsorship: Experience from
the 1986 Soccer World Cup, in: European Research, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 53-58

Park, W. C./Lessing, V. P. (1974): Students and Housewives: Differences in
Susceptibility to Reference Group Influence, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.
4, September, pp. 102-110

Pavelchak, M. A., et al. (1988): The Super Bowl: An Investigation into the
Relationship Among Program Context, Emotional Experience, and Ad Recall, in:
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, December, pp. 360-367

Petty, R. E., et al. (1983): Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness:
The Moderating Role of Involvement, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10,
September, pp. 135-146

Pham, M. T. (1991): The Evaluation of Sponsorship Effectiveness: A Model and Some
Methodological Considerations, in: Gestion 2000, pp. 47-65

Pham, M. T. (1992): Effects of Involvement, Arousal, and Pleasure on the Recognition
of Sponsorship Stimuli, in: John F. Sherry, J./Sternthal, B. (ed.): Advances in
Consumer Research, Provo: Association of Consumer Research, pp. 85-93

Pham, M. T./Johar, G. V. (2001): Market prominence Biases in Sponsor Identification:
Processes and Consequentiality, in: Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 123-
143

Pillemer, D. B. (1998): Momentous Events, Vivid memories, Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press

Plummer, J. T. (1985): How Personality Makes a Difference, in: Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 27-31

Quester, P./Farrelly, F. (1998): Brand Association and Memory Decay Effects of
Sponsorship: The Case of the Australian Formula One Grand Prix, in: Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 539-556

Quester, P./Thompson, B. (2001): Advertising and Promotion Leverage on Arts
Sponsorship Effectiveness, in: Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 41,
January/February,

References xxiv
Quinn, E. (1982): Sponsorship as a Marketing Tool, Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University College of Dublin

Rajaretnam, J. (1994): The Long-Term Effects of Sponsorship on Corporate and
Product Image: Findings of a Unique Experiment, in: Marketing and Research Today,
February, pp. 62-74

Realencyclopdie, P. (1991): Paulys Realencyclopdie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft, Microfiche Edition, Munich: Saur

Rivella (2001): Rivella Holding AG: Ttigkeitsbericht 2001, Rothrist

Rivella (2003): Rivella Produktbersicht, January 8 2003, http://www.rivella.ch/che-
pro-rivella.htm

Roy, D. P. (2000): An Examination of the Influence of Perceived Brand-Event
Congruence on Consumer Responses to Event Sponsorships, Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Memphis

Ruge, H.-D. (1988): Die Messung bildhafter Konsumerlebnisse, Reihe Konsum und
Verhalten, Bd. 16, Heidelberg: Physica

Ryssel, C./Stamminger, E. (1988): Sponsoring World Class Tennis Players, in:
European Research, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 110-116

Sandler, D./Shani, D. (1989): Olympic sponsorship vs. ambush marketing: who gets
the gold?, in: Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 29, August/September, pp. 9-14

Sandler, D./Shani, D. (1992): The Value of Sponsorship in Sports Marketing: An
Empirical Study, in: Proceedings of the 1992 Conference of the American Academy of
Advertising, pp. 82-83

Schmidt, A., et al. (2000): Wie ein Event zum Event wird. Ein Snow-Board-Contest
im Erleben und in der kommunikativen Vergegenwrtigung Jugenlicher, in: Gebhardt,
W., et al. (ed.): Events: Soziologie des Aussergewhnlichen, Opladen: Leske +
Budrich, pp. 115-136

Schmitt, B. H. (1999): Experiental Marketing: How To Get Customers to Sense, Feel,
Think, Act, and Relate to Your Company and Brands, New York: Free Press

Sherry, J. F., et al. (2001): Being in the Zone: Staging Retail Theater at ESPN Zone
Chicago, in: Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 465-510

Simeons, M. (1998): Was ist ein Event?, in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 2
February 1998, p. 31

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience xxv

Sistenich, F./Zanger, C. (2000): Eventmarketing: Das Marketing-Event als
metakommunikativer Baustein zur Etablierung von Kundenbeziehungen, in:
Pfadenhauer, M. (ed.): Events: Soziologie des Aussergewhnlichen, Opladen: Leske +
Budrich, pp. 365-380

Sorrell, M. (2003): Beans and Pearls - The Beginning of the End of Either/Or?, Speech
Delivered as Part of the Design and Art Direction President's Lecture Series, February
2003, London

Speck, P. S., et al. (1988): Celebrity Endorsement - Scripts, Schema and Roles:
Theoretical Framework and Preliminary Tests, in: Lutz, R. (ed.): Advances in
Consumer Research, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 69-75

Speed, R./Thompson, P. (2000): Determinants of Sports Sponsorship Response, in:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, Spring, pp. 226-238

SRI (2001): World-Wide Sponsorship Market Values, Sponsorship Research
International, London

Stake, R. E. (1995): The Art of Case Study Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications

Stier, W. (1999): Empirische Forschungsmethoden, 2. Aufl., Berlin: Springer

Stipp, H./Schiavone, N. P. (1996): Modeling the Impact of Olympic Sponsorship on
Corporate Image, in: Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36, No. 2, p. 22-28

Suttner, J. (1998): Der Lwe vom Arlberg strzte wegen eines Fotos, in: Stuttgarter
Zeitung, 18 November 1998, p. 30

Tages-Anzeiger (2003): Studie Telekommunikation, Zrich

Thomas, V. (1999): Der Sponsoringmarkt in Zahlen, in: Strahlenberg, P. (ed.):
Jahrbuch Sponsoring 99, Hamburg: VMK Verlag fr Marketing + Kommunikation,
pp. 9-23

Tomczak, T. (1992): Forschungsmethoden in der Marketingwissenschaft: Ein Pldoyer
fr den qualitativen Forschungsansatz, in: Marketing ZFP, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 77-87

Tomczak, T./Coppetti, C. (2004): Shareholder durch Corporate Brand Management
berzeugen, in: Esch, F.-R., et al. (ed.): Corporate Brand Management, Wiesbaden:
Gabler,

Tomczak, T., et al. (1995): Nicht-Klassiker in der Kommunikation: Erfolgsreserven im
Erklrungswettbewerb, in: Tomczak, T., et al. (ed.): Die Nicht-Klassiker in der
Unternehmungskommunikation, St. Gallen: Thexis, pp. 12-20

References xxvi
Townley, S. E. (1993): Some Legal Issues Associated with International Sports
Marketing, in: Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 31-42

Tulving, E. (1985): How Many Memory Systems Are There?, in: American
Psychologist, Vol. 40, pp. 385-398

UDL (2003): Consumer Price Index, 3. April 2003, http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

Unger, L. S./Kerman, J. B. (1983): On the Meaning of Leisure: An Investigation of
Some Determinants of the Subjective Experience, in: Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 9, March, pp. 381-391

v.Specht, A. D. (1984): Sponsoring als Marketinginstrument, Arbeitspapier des
Instituts fr Marketing an der European Business School, Schloss Reichartshausen

Varadarajan, P. R./Menon, A. (1988): Cause-Related Marketing: Co-Alignment of
Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy, in: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52,
July, pp. 58-74

Venetz, M. (1999): Schlussbericht der freestyle.ch 1999 Umfrage, Chur

Venetz, M. (2000): Schlussbericht der freestyle.ch 2000 Umfrage, Chur

Venetz, M. (2001): Freestyle.ch 2001 aus Sicht der Besucher(innen), Chur

Venetz, M. (2002): Freestyle.ch 2002 aus Sicht der Besucher(innen), Chur

Vradarajan, P. R. (1996): From the editor: Reflections on research and publishing, in:
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 3-6

Waite, N. (1979): Sponsorship in Context, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Cranfield Institute of Management

Wakefield, K., et al. (2002): How Event Sponsors Are Identified: An Individual-Level
Field Analysis, in: Journal of Consumer Psychology (forthcoming),

Walliser, B. (1997): What Sponsorship Can Learn from Outdoor Advertising: What
Does It Mean for Integrated Communication?, in: Australia-Asia Marketing Journal,
Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 19-28

Watson, D./Tellegen, A. (1985): Toward a consensual structure of mood, in:
Psychological Bulletin, No. 98, pp. 219-235

Willems, H. (2000): Events: Kultur - Identitt - Marketing, in: Gebhardt, W., et al.
(ed.): Events: Soziologie des Aussergewhnlichen, Opladen: Leske + Budrich, pp. 51-
73

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experiencexxvii

Wise, S. L./Miles, M. P. (1997): Corporate Sponsorship of Events and Tax
Implications: Is There an Opportunity for Global Co-Ordination?, in: International
Marketing Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 183-195

WPP (2002): WPP partneriship in practice: Lincoln Mercury 2001 US Open Tennis
sponsorship, New York

Yin, R. K. (1994): Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications

Zaichowsky, J. L. (1985): Measuring the Involvement Construct, in: Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 12, December, pp. 341-352

Zajonc, R. B. (1968): Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure, in: Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, No. 2, Special Supplement Part 2, pp. 1-29

Zanger, C./Sistenich, F. (1996): Eventmarketing. Bestandesaufnahme,
Standortbestimmung und ausgewhlte theoretische Anstze zu Erklrung eines
innovativen Kommunikationsinstruments, in: Marketing ZFP, pp. 233-242

ZrichExpress (2002): Das Woodstock der Freestyler, in: ZrichExpress, 30
September 2002, p. 11

References xxviii
Interviews
Eugen Brunner: Partner, Rufener Events; 24 June 2003, 12.001.30 pm, Zurich.

Jrg Capol: Chief Marketing Officer, FIS Alpine World Ski Championships; 12
January 2003 7.007.30 pm, telephone conference.

Thomas Fink: Channel Marketing Specialist, Microsoft AG; 15 January 2003, 5.00
5.30 pm, and 28 May 2003, 4.30-5.00 pm, telephone conference.

Erwin Flury: Partner, FAF AG; 13 December 2002; 9.0011.30 am, and 11 April
2003; 12.002.00 pm, Zrich.

Catrin Wetzel: Product Manager, Rivella AG; December 19 2002, 10.00 am 12.30
pm, and 6 February 2003 in St. Moritz, 3.304.00 pm, Rothrist.

Martin Schorno: Head of Marketing, Verein Street Parade; 1. Oktober 2004, 9.30
11.00, Zrich.

Philipp Wetzel, Head of Marketing Communication, Feldschlsschen AG; 30 April
2003, 1.304.00 pm, Rheinfelden.
Appendices xviii
Appendices
A. Interview Guide, Expert Interviews
Catalogue of typical questions
Which role does event sponsorship play in the marketing communications mix?
Are your or your clients sponsorship activities integrated with other communication
activities?
When you or your clients engage in event sponsorships, what are the primary goals?
How effective are event sponsorships in building/shaping brands?
How important is the event-site audience for you compared to TV audiences?
How large is your budget for the event-site presence typically measured in percent of
the amount paid for the sponsorship rights?
When you design your or your clients event-site presence, what criteria do you
consider?
What makes for a successful event-site presence?
Are you consciously designing a brand experience for the event audience?
How much do you tailor your event-site presence to each individual event?
How important is the opportunity for interaction with visitors?
Do you offer activities to visitors?
How do you present your or your clients brand in 3-D?
Do you use visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or gustatory stimuli?
Does your event-site presence have a specific theme?
How structured is the experience of visitors to your booth?
What aspects of event sponsorship execution will gain in importance in the future?

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience xix

B. Survey Instruments FIS Alpine Ski World Championships
Questionnaire Group 1
Interviewer: ______________
Interview Nr: ______________
Fragebogen FIS Alpine Ski-WM St. Moritz 2003 (Gruppe 1)

A) Vertrautheit mit Skisport

Frage 1:
Wie oft schauen Sie sich Alpine Ski-Rennen an? (egal ob vor Ort oder am TV)
oft ab und zu nie

B) Sponsoren
1a) Welche Bier-Marke sponsert die Ski-Weltmeisterschaften in St. Moritz?
Antwort: ________________________________________
[Interviewer: Die richtige Antwort ist: Carlsberg]
1b) Kennen Sie diese Marke?
ja nein (weiter zum nchsten Sponsor)
1c) Als wie dynamisch schtzen Sie diese Marke ein?

sehr dynamisch dynamisch neutral undynamisch sehr undynamisch
1d) Wie sympathisch ist Ihnen diese Bier-Marke?

sehr sympathisch sympathisch neutral unsympathisch sehr unsympathisch

2a) Welche Auto-Marke sponsert die Ski-Weltmeisterschaften in St. Moritz?
Antwort: ________________________________________
[Interviewer: Die richtige Antwort ist: Audi]

2d) Wie sympathisch ist Ihnen diese Marke?


3a) Welche Video-Spielkonsolen-Marke sponsert die Ski-Weltmeisterschaften in St. Moritz?
Antwort: ________________________________________
[Interviewer: Die richtige Antwort ist: Xbox]

Appendices xx



4a) Welche Schokoladen-Marke sponsert die Ski-Weltmeisterschaften in St. Moritz?
Antwort: ________________________________________
[Interviewer: Die richtige Antwort ist: Milka]

4d) Wie sympathisch ist Ihnen diese-Marke?


5a) Welche Telekommunikations-Marke sponsert die Ski-Weltmeisterschaften in St. Moritz?
Antwort: ________________________________________
[Interviewer: Die richtige Antwort ist: Swisscom]



C) Demographie
1. Schlussfrage:
Wie alt sind sie?
Antwort: _________________________
2. Geschlecht der Person [von Interviewer notiert]
mnnlich weiblich

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience xxi

Questionnaire Group 2

Interviewer: ______________ Interview Nr: ______________
Fragebogen FIS Alpine Ski-WM St. Moritz 2003 (Gruppe 2)


Frage 1:
Wie oft schauen Sie sich ausser an der Ski-WM sonst Alpine Ski-Rennen an? (vor Ort oder
am TV)
oft ab und zu nie
B) Sponsoren
1a) Welche Bier-Marke sponsert die Ski-Weltmeisterschaften in St. Moritz?
Antwort: ________________________________________
[Interviewer: Die richtige Antwort ist: Carlsberg]

1d) Wie sympathisch ist Ihnen diese Bier-Marke?

1e) Sind Sie an der Ski-WM in direkten Kontakt mit Carlsberg gekommen?
ja nein
Antwort: ________________________________________


2e) Sind Sie an der Ski-WM in direkten Kontakt mit Audi gekommen?
ja nein
3a) Welche Video-Spielkonsolen-Marke sponsert die Ski-Weltmeisterschaften in St. Moritz?
Antwort: ________________________________________
[Interviewer: Die richtige Antwort ist: Xbox]

Appendices xxii


3e) Sind Sie an der Ski-WM in direkten Kontakt mit Xbox gekommen?
ja nein
4a) Welche Schokoladen-Marke sponsert die Ski-Weltmeisterschaften in St. Moritz?
Antwort: ________________________________________
[Interviewer: Die richtige Antwort ist: Milka]


4e) Sind Sie an der Ski-WM in direkten Kontakt mit Milka gekommen?
ja nein
5a) Welche Telekommunikations-Marke sponsert die Ski-Weltmeisterschaften in St. Moritz?
Antwort: ________________________________________
[Interviewer: Die richtige Antwort ist: Swisscom]


5e) Sind Sie an der Ski-WM in direkten Kontakt mit Swisscom gekommen?
ja nein
C) Demographie
1. Schlussfrage:
Wie alt sind sie?
Antwort: _________________________
mnnlich weiblich

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience xxiii

Questionnaire Group 3 (Audi example)

Interviewer: ______________ Interview Nr: ______________
Fragebogen FIS Alpine Ski-WM St. Moritz 2003 (Gruppe 3, Audi)


Frage 1:
Wie oft schauen Sie sich ausser an der Ski-WM sonst Alpine Ski-Rennen an? (vor Ort oder
am TV)
oft ab und zu nie

B) Sponsoren
Antwort: ________________________________________
1b) Kennen Sie die Marke Audi?
ja nein
1c) Fahren Sie einen Audi?
ja nein
1d) Wie sympathisch ist Ihnen die Marke Audi?

1e) Wie dynamisch finden Sie die Marke Audi?


C) Demographie
1. Schlussfrage:
Wie alt sind sie?
Antwort: _________________________
mnnlich weiblich

Appendices xxiv
C. Stimulus Material and Questionnaires Classroom Experiment
Scenarios (Pringles example)
Scenario 1
Pringles ist an der Street Parade sehr prsent. Bereits am Besammlungsort auf dem
Utoquai, wo das Gedrnge schon gross ist, siehst Du vier grosse Pringles-Fahnen im
Wind wehen. Sobald sich die Parade in Bewegung setzt, siehst Du beim Tanzen in
regelmssigen Abstnden Pringles-Plakate entlang der Route. Beim Bellevue siehst
Du ein 10 x 20 Meter grosses Pringles-Banner. Auf der Quaibrcke, wo die Street
Parade ihrem Hhepunkt entgegenrckt, ziehst Du zusammen mit den Lovemobiles
unter einem gigantischen, aufblasbaren Pringles-Torbogen durch. Im Ziel auf dem
Mythenquai wirst Du und die Hundertausenden von Tanzenden wiederum durch
vier grosse Pringles-Fahnen begrsst.
Siehe Illustration auf der nchsten Seite.
Bewertung von Pringles als Sponsor der Street Parade Zrich
Stell Dir vor, Du wrst an der Street Parade und wrdest das Folgende erleben:

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience xxv

Appendices xxvi
Scenario 2
Pringles ist an der Street Parade sehr prsent. Bereits am Besammlungsort auf dem
Utoquai, wo das Gedrnge schon gross ist, siehst Du vier grosse Pringles-Fahnen im
Wind wehen mit dem Slogan Pringles. Einmal getanzt, nie mehr gestoppt. Sobald
sich die Parade in Bewegung setzt, siehst Du beim Tanzen in regelmssigen
Abstnden Pringles-Plakate entlang der Route, wieder mit dem Slogan Pringles.
Einmal getanzt, nie mehr gestoppt. Beim Bellevue siehst Du ein 10 x 20 Meter
grosses Pringles-Banner. Auf der Quaibrcke, wo die Street Parade ihrem
Hhepunkt entgegenrckt, ziehst Du zusammen mit den Lovemobiles unter einem
gigantischen, aufblasbaren Pringles-Torbogen durch mit dem Slogan Pringles.
Einmal getanzt, nie mehr gestoppt. Im Ziel auf dem Mythenquai wirst Du und die
Hundertausenden von Tanzenden wiederum durch vier grosse Pringles-Fahnen
begrsst.

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experiencexxvii

Appendices xxviii
Scenario 3
Pringles ist an der Street Parade sehr prsent. Entlang der ganzen der Strecke findest
Du Fahnen und Plakate mit dem Slogan Pringles. Einmal gepoppt, nie mehr
gestoppt. Whrend Du tanzt, kommen Pringles-Mitarbeiterinnen und -Mitarbeiter
im sexy Techno-Look auf Dich zu, die Dich an einen der Pringles-Stnde einladen:
Auf dem Weg der Street Parade hast Du am Bellevue und am Brkliplatz die
Mglichkeit, die zwei Pringles-Event-Stnde zu besuchen. Von den Pringles-
Mitarbeiterinnen erhltst Du auch einen Pringles-Wettbewerbsflyer.
Am Pringles-Stand kannst Du am grossen Pringles-Wettbewerb mitmachen:
Gewinnen kannst Du eine Tasche voller Pringles-Artikel im Wert von 150 Fr. Du
hast Glck und erhltst Deine Pringles-Tasche: Darin findest Du nicht nur alle
Pringles Geschmacksrichtungen, sondern auch ein Pringles-Cap, einen Pringles-
Regenschutz und eine Pringles-Trinkflasche. Neben der Teilnahme am Wettbewerb
kannst Du Dir an den Pringles-Stnden auf grossen Bildschirmen auch die neuesten
Pringles-Werbespots ansehen.

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience xxix

Appendices xxx
Scenario 4
Pringles ist an der Street Parade sehr prsent. berall an der Strecke findest Du
Fahnen und Plakate mit dem Slogan "Pringles. Einmal getanzt, nie mehr gestoppt."
Beim Tanzen wirst Du von sexy Pringles-Mitarbeiterinnen und -Mitarbeitern im
Rave-Look angesprochen, die Dich an einen der Pringles-Stnde einladen: Entlang
der Route hast Du am Bellevue und am Brkliplatz die Gelegenheit, die zwei
Pringles-Event-Stnde zu besuchen. Die Pringles-Mitarbeiterinnen berreichen Dir
auch einen Pringles-Wettbewerbsflyer.
Am Stand kannst Du am grossen Pringles-Wettbewerb mitmachen: Gewinnen
kannst Du limitierte Tickets zur exklusiven Pringles Never-Stop-Dancing-Party. An
der Pringles Never-Stop-Dancing-Party legen die DJs Jeff Mills aus Detroit und Der
Dritte Raum aus Deutschland auf, mit denen Pringles speziell fr die Street Parade
die Scheibe "Never stop dancing in 2004. Presented by Pringles" produziert hat. Fr
die Street Parade fliegt Pringles Jeff Mills und Der Dritte Raum extra nach Zrich
ein.
Du hast Glck und gewinnst: Das Eintrittsticket zur Party ist auf eine Packung
Pringles "Street Parade Flavour" gedruckt mit dem Hinweis: "Fleissig Pringles
knabbern und non-stop abtanzen. Pringles. Einmal gepoppt, nie mehr gestoppt. Keep
dancing." Neben der Teilnahme am Wettbewerb kannst Du Dir an den Pringles-
Stnden auf grossen Bildschirmen auch die neuesten Pringles-Werbespots ansehen.

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience xxxi

Appendices xxxii
Scenario 5
Pringles ist an der Street Parade sehr prsent. Entlang der ganzen Strecke findest Du
Fahnen und Plakate mit dem Slogan Pringles. Einmal gepoppt, nie mehr gestoppt.
Beim Tanzen wirst Du von sexy Pringles-Mitarbeiterinnen und -Mitarbeitern im
Rave-Look angesprochen, die Dich an einen der Pringles-Stnde einladen: Entlang
der Route hast Du am Bellevue und am Brkliplatz die Gelegenheit, die zwei
grossen Pringles-Event-Stnde zu besuchen. Die Pringles-Mitarbeiterinnen
berreichen Dir auch einen Pringles-Wettbewerbsflyer.
Am Pringles-Stand tauchst Du ab in die Welt von Pringles. Zuerst hngst Du etwas
auf den Lounge-Sesseln ab, ruhst Dich aus und schaust Dir die neuesten Pringles-
Werbespots und die vorbeiziehende Raver an.
Danach kannst Du im Pringles-Taste-Mixer aus acht Gewrzen Deinen eigenen
Pringles-Geschmack kreieren: Pringles-Mitarbeiter in Labor-Umhngen mischen ihn
fr Dich zusammen, und Du kannst Deine MyPringles sofort probieren.
Beim Betreten des Pringles-Standes konntest Du eine Nummer ziehen und an einer
Sofortverlosung teilnehmen. Du hast Glck und gewinnst eine Tasche voller
Pringles-Artikel im Wert von 150 Fr. Darin findest Du nicht nur alle Pringles
Geschmacksrichtungen, sondern auch ein Pringles-Cap, einen Pringles-Regenschutz
und eine Pringles-Trinkflasche.

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experiencexxxiii

Appendices xxxiv
Scenario 6
Pringles ist an der Street Parade sehr prsent. Die Strecke ist gesumt mit Fahnen
und Plakaten mit dem Slogan Pringles. Einmal getanzt, nie mehr gestoppt. Beim
Tanzen wirst Du von sexy Pringles-Mitarbeiterinnen und -Mitarbeitern im Rave-
Look angesprochen, die Dich an einen der Pringles-Stnde einladen: Entlang der
Route hast Du am Bellevue und am Brkliplatz die Gelegenheit, die zwei grossen
Pringles-Event-Stnde zu besuchen. Die Pringles-Mitarbeiterinnen berreichen Dir
auch einen Pringles-Wettbewerbsflyer.
Am Pringles-Stand tauchst Du ab in die Street-Parade-Welt von Pringles. Auf dem
Dach des Standes tanzt Du auf dem Pringles-Danceflor ab zu Sound, den die DJs
Jeff Mills aus Detroit und Der Dritte Raum aus Deutschland auflegen. Pringles hat
mit ihnen speziell fr die Street Parade die Scheibe Never stop dancing in 2004.
Presented by Pringles produziert. Die Aussicht vom Pringles-Dancefloor auf die
vorbeiziehenden Raver ist atemberaubend.
Danach kannst Du im Pringles-Taste-Mixer Deinen eigenen Pringles-Geschmack
kreieren aus acht Gewrzen, darunter auch eine mexikanische Kakteenwurzel, die
eine energiespendende Wirkung hat, mit dem NamenStreet Parade Energy Flavor.
Pringles-Mitarbeiter in Labor-Umhngen mischen die Zutaten fr Dich zusammen,
und Du kannst Deine Street Parade Pringles sofort probieren.
Beim Betreten des Pringles-Standes konntest Du eine Nummer ziehen und an einer
Sofortverlosung teilnehmen. Du hast Glck und gewinnst limitierte Tickets zur
exklusiven Pringles Never Stop Dancing-Party mit den DJs Jeff Mills und Der Dritte
Raum. Das Eintrittsticket zur Party ist auf eine Packung Pringles Street Parade
Flavour gedruckt mit dem Hinweis: Fleissig Pringles knabbern und non-stop
abtanzen. Pringles. Einmal gepoppt, nie mehr gestoppt. Keep dancing.

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience xxxv

Appendices xxxvi
Comparison of illustrations for different brands (scenario 2 example)

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experiencexxxvii

Questionnaire Product Involvement (Potato Chips Example)
Meinung zu Produktkategorien.
Mit diesem Fragebogen messen wir Deine Meinung zu und Dein Interesse an den folgenden drei
Produktkategorien: Bonbons, Schokoladenriegel und Kartoffelchips. Dazu bitten wir Dich, die jeweilige
Produktkategorie bezglich verschiedener Kriterien zu bewerten. Uns interessiert bei allen Fragen jeweils
Deine PERSNLICHE Einstellung.
Anweisungen:
Bitte markiere bei jedem Eigenschafts-Paar diejenige Linie mit einem X, die am ehesten das Ausmass
Deiner Meinung trifft. Hier sind einige Beispiele, wie Du den Fragebogen ausfllen sollst:
Falls Du die Produktkategorie als sehr zutreffend zu einem der Skalenenden bewertest, markierst Du die
Skala wie folgt:
__x__ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
wichtig unwichtig
oder
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ __x__
wichtig unwichtig

Falls Du die Produktkategorie als ziemlich zutreffend zu einem der Skalenenden bewertest, markierst Du die
Skala wie folgt:
_____ __x__ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
wichtig unwichtig
oder
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ __x__ _____
wichtig unwichtig

Falls Du die Produktkategorie als nicht besonders zutreffend zu einem der Skalenenden bewertest (aber
nicht vllig neutral), markierst Du die Skala wie folgt:
_____ _____ __x__ _____ _____ _____ _____
wichtig unwichtig
oder
_____ _____ _____ _____ __x__ _____ _____
wichtig unwichtig

Bitte bewerte jedes Eigenschafts-Paar einzeln. Du solltetst Dich flssig, aber trotzdem sorgfltig durch
diesen Fragebogen arbeiten. Uns interessiert Dein spontanes Gefhl, Deine ersten Gedanken zum
jeweiligen Eigenschafts-Paar.
Auf der nchsten Seite gehts los.
Appendices xxxviii
Kartoffel-Chips sind fr mich ...
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
wichtig unwichtig
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
uninteressant interessant
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
irrelevant relevant
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
bedeutet mir viel bedeutet mir nichts
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
ntzlich nutzlos
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
wertvoll wertlos
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
unwesentlich wesentlich
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
dienlich hinderlich
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
nicht von Belang von Belang
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
bedeutungsvoll bedeutungsarm
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
unverzichtbar berflssig
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
langweilig spannend
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
ansprechend abstossend
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
banal faszinierend
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
nicht begehrenswert begehrenswert
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
erwnscht nicht erwnscht
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
bentigt nicht bentigt

Hast Du jede Zeile bewertet? Dann weiter zur nchsten Seite.

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experiencexxxix

Questionnaire Event Involvement
Teilnahme an der Street Parade.
1. Wie oft warst du an der Street Parade (und/oder an der Love Parade)?
nie 1 mal 23 mal 4-6 mal mehr als 6 mal

Anmerkung:
Auch wenn Du noch nie an der Street Parade teilgenommen hast, ist Deine Teilnahme an dieser Befragung
sehr wichtig.
Meinung zur Street Parade.
Mit diesem Fragebogen messen wir Deine Meinung zur Street Parade.
Anweisungen:
Bitte umkreise fr jede Aussage diejenige Nummer, die am ehesten das Ausmass Deiner Zustimmung oder
Ablehnung trifft.
Bitte bewerte alle Aussagen. Nur eine Zahl pro Aussage umkreisen.

1. Die Street Parade hilft mir, meine Alltagsprobleme zu vergessen.

Stimme sehr zu
Stimme berhaupt
nicht zu
7 6 5 4 3 2 1

2. Die Street Parade absorbiert mich vllig.

Stimme sehr zu
Stimme berhaupt
nicht zu
7 6 5 4 3 2 1

3. An der Street Parade fhle ich mich wie in einer anderen Welt (wrde ich mich wie in
einer anderen Welt fhlen)

Stimme sehr zu
Stimme berhaupt
nicht zu
7 6 5 4 3 2 1

4. An der Street Parade knnte ich mich so gehen lassen, dass ich alles andere vergesse.

Stimme sehr zu
Stimme berhaupt
nicht zu
7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Appendices xl
Questionnaire Event Attributes
Image der Street Parade.
Mit diesem Fragebogen messen wir, wie Du die Street Parade wahrnimmst.
Die Street Parade ist ...

Stimme sehr zu
Stimme berhaupt
nicht zu
sexy 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

zurckhaltend 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

erlebnisbetont 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

altmodisch 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

friedlich 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ehrlich/
aufrichtig
7 6 5 4 3 2 1

farbenfroh 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

distanziert/
unnahbar
7 6 5 4 3 2 1

voller Energie 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

aggressiv 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

dynamisch 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

schrill 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

gesund 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

natrlich 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Stimme sehr zu Stimme berhaupt
nicht zu

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience xli

Questionnaire Sponsor Evaluation (Pringles Example)
Einstellung zu Pringles.
Mit diesem Fragebogen messen wir, wie Du aufgrund Deines simulierten Event-Erlebnisses Pringles als
Sponsor der Street Parade beurteilst.
1. Einstellung zu Pringles.
Meine Einstellung zu Pringles ist ...
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
schlecht gut
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
gut gesinnt schlecht gesinnt
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
positiv negativ

2. Inneres Bild und Vorstellung von Pringles.
A. Wie ist Dein inneres Bild von Pringles?
vllig klar und so lebendig wie die Realitt
klar und ziemlich lebendig
mssig klar und lebendig
vage und undeutlich
Ich habe berhaupt kein Bild. Ich weiss nur, dass

ich an Pringles denke

B. Stelle Dir bitte vor Deinem geistigen Auge die Person vor, die Dir am meisten bedeutet (z.B.
Deinen Partner, oder Deinen besten Freund). Wie klar und lebendig siehst Du ihn vor Dir auf
einer Skala von 0100? Der Wert 100 bedeutet dabei ein Bild genau so klar und lebendig wie in
der Realitt, der Wert 0 bedeutet berhaupt kein Bild.
Wert fr Deine bedeutendste Person: ________________
Wie klar und lebendig siehst Du Pringles vor Deinem geistigen Auge?
Wert fr Pringles: ____________________________

C. Der Zugriff auf mein inneres Bild von Pringles fllt mir...
sehr leicht sehr schwer
7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Appendices xlii
3. Image
Pringles ist ...

Stimme sehr zu
Stimme berhaupt
nicht zu
sexy 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

zurckhaltend 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

erlebnisbetont 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

altmodisch 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

friedlich 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ehrlich/
aufrichtig
7 6 5 4 3 2 1

farbenfroh 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

distanziert/
unnahbar
7 6 5 4 3 2 1

voller Energie 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

aggressiv 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

dynamisch 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

schrill 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

gesund 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

natrlich 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Stimme sehr zu Stimme berhaupt
nicht zu

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience xliii

4. Beurteilung des Sponsorings
Im Folgenden messen wir, wie gut Deiner Meinung nach Pringles zur Street Parade passt (wieder aufgrund
Deines simulierten Event-Erlebnisses).
Die Kombination von Pringles und Street Parade beurteile ich als
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
negativ positiv
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
bereinstimmend nicht bereinstimmend
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
schlecht gut
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
gut geeignet fr einander schlecht geeignet fr einander
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
angemessen nicht angemessen
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
unlogisch logisch
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
passen gut zusammen passen schlecht zusammen
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
ergnzen sich ergnzen sich nicht

Appendices xliv
Questionnaire Demographics
Angaben zu Deiner Person.

1. Alter: __________________________

2. Geschlecht: mnnlich weiblich

3. Nationalitt: _____________________________________

4. Die Teilnahme an dieser Befragung hat mir Spass gemacht.

Stimme sehr zu
Stimme berhaupt
nicht zu
7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Vielen herzlichen Dank fr Deine Mitarbeit!
Torsten Tomczak und Caspar Coppetti

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience xlv

Curriculum Vitae

Caspar Coppetti

Education
20022003 Doctoral studies, University of St. Gallen (HSG)
19962000 Studies of Business Administration with a major in International
Management, University of St. Gallen (HSG)
19891995 Matura (type B, Latin), Kantonsschule Glarus

Professional experience
2003 Brand strategist, Advico Young & Rubicam
20012003 Consultant, McKinsey & Company
19982000 Sports marketing consultant, self-employed
19981999 Research assistant, Media and Communication Management Institute
at the University St. Gallen (HSG)
19951998 Journalist, several newspaper and magazines

Building Brands Through Event Sponsorships

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building Brands Through Event Sponsorships

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building Brands Through Event Sponsorships

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building Brands through Event Sponsorships:

Providing On-Site Audiences with a Vivid Brand Experience

Ich habe berhaupt kein Bild. Ich weiss nur, dass

You might also like