Sanghak Lee Indiana University April 18, 2009 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

sanghak lee indiana university april 18 2009 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Sanghak Lee Indiana University April 18, 2009 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Sanghak Lee Indiana University April 18, 2009

play fullscreen
1 / 21
Sanghak Lee Indiana University April 18, 2009
106 Views
Download Presentation
latoya
Download Presentation

Sanghak Lee Indiana University April 18, 2009

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Sanghak Lee Indiana University April 18, 2009 Analyzing the Impact of Sponsorship Signage on Brand Awareness and Brand Attitude: An Examination of Mere Exposure Effects in College-Sport Sponsorship Contexts Advisor: Paul M. Pedersen, Ph.D.
  2. Sponsorship Growth Sponsorship growth worldwide $13.4B in 1996  $43.5B in 2008 Sponsorship growth in North America Sport sponsorship makes up about 70% of total sponsorship expenditure (IEG Sponsorship Report, 2007)
  3. Sponsorship Financial support to a property for creating commercial opportunities by building association with the property (Ukman, 1995) Sport sponsorship is a part of marketing communication to achieve sponsors’ marketing goals (Madrigal, 2000; Meenaghan, 1983) Increasing brand awareness Enhancing brand image (equity/attitude) Increasing sales Enhancing brand image is the key objectives (Kinney, 2006)
  4. Major Sponsorship Research Major approaches Image transfer model (Gwinner and Eaton, 1999; Meenaghan, 2001) Social alliance model (Madrigal, 2000) Major findings Important variables Image congruence (Match-up) Team identification Demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, education) Affective variables > Cognitive variables (Madrigal, 2001) Good Match Bad Match
  5. Limitations of Prior Sponsorship Research Limited to the two models Potential to utilizing marketing communication theories Mere exposure is a widely respected communication theory under low attention and low information contexts (Grimes, 2008; Matthes, Schemer, & Wirth, 2007) Sponsorship is low attention (or involvement) and low information conditions (Hansen, 2005) Mere exposure would explain sponsorship effects (Cianfrone et al., 2008; Cornwell, 2000; Woisetschläger, 2007)
  6. Theoretical Framework: Mere Exposure (Zajonc, 1968)
  7. Purpose of Study To propose a new model to explain sponsorship effects based on mere exposure Furthermore: To understand NASCAR sponsorship effects among college students To suggest practical implications
  8. Research Hypotheses H1: After accounting for team identification, brand exposing frequency will be positively related to attitude toward sponsoring brand H2: Brand exposing frequency will be positively related to brand recall H3: Team identification will be positively related to brand recall Brand Recall Exposure frequency  Attitude toward brand  Team Identification
  9. Significance of Study No experiment has been conducted to examine mere exposure effects in sport sponsorship context Measure NASCAR team identification among college students and its effects on NASCAR sponsorship
  10. Constructs and Variables Demographic variables Year in college, age, gender, and race Independent variables: Exposure frequency Team identification (covariate) Dependent variables: Brand recall Attitude toward brand
  11. Experimental Design Pre – stimulus – post test design Stimulus: 20-minute edited televised NASCAR race Two experimental sponsors: Lowe’s and Office Depot Each sponsor’s logo exposure frequency manipulated Two crashes included One group experiment Lowe’s – 9 times, Office Depot – 84 times, and others (DeWALT – 24 times, US Army – 3, Miller Lite – 4, etc.)
  12. Sampling & Group Assignment Convenience sampling University students in the Midwest 37 subjects
  13. Brand Attitude No statistically significant difference between the means (before and after) * Attitude toward brand: 7 point scale (1:Most negative – 7:Most positive) ** Lowe’s: Wilks’ Lambda = .991 (Sig. = .582) *** Office Depot: Wilks’ Lambda = .986 (Sig. = .480)
  14. Brand Recall Lowe’s and Office Depot show the highest recall Office Depot: High exposure frequency Lowe’s: The Sprint Cup Champion and announcer mentions High recall for crash: US Army and Miller Lite Home Depot: Confusion with Office Depot
  15. Team Identification and Brand Familiarity Most students are weakly identified with NASCAR or NASCAR teams Many students are familiar with Lowe’s and Office Depot * Team identification: 7 point scale (1: lowest – 7: highest) ** Brand familiarity: 4 point scale (1: lowest – 4: highest)
  16. Team Identification and Brand Recall The higher team identification, the more brand recall (Kinney, McDaniel, & DeGaris, 2008) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
  17. Results H1: After accounting for team identification, brand exposing frequency will be positively related to attitude toward sponsoring brand – Not Supported H2: Brand exposing frequency will be positively related to brand recall – Not Supported (inconclusive) H3: Team identification will be positively related to brand recall - Supported Brand Recall Exposure frequency  Attitude toward brand  Team Identification
  18. Research Findings: Attitude Exposure   Attitude  (Insignificant) Possible reasons Duration of exposure: 20 min. Using real and familiar brands (2.5-2.7/4) Hypotheses based on the findings Mere exposure effects need cumulative exposure for a long period of time Mere exposure works better with new or unfamiliar brands
  19. Research Findings: Recall Exposure   Recall  Video AND audio affect recall Lowe’s Crash increases recall Miller Lite and US Army
  20. Research Findings: Recall Team identification   Recall  Low college students’ team identification toward NASCAR: (1.685/7)  less recall expected
  21. Q & A