Presented at the 2011 Academy of Marketing Science conference: The study undertaken for this conference paper advances the concept of sponsorship fit beyond the historical one sponsor – one sponsored entity dyadic research framework. The research question is if concurrent co-sponsors affect the brand perceptions of an incongruent co-sponsor.

1. MARK GROZA,
University of
Massachusetts
JOE COBBS,
Northern Kentucky
University
ATTENUATING THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF
A LOW-FIT SPONSORSHIP:
THE ROLE OF CONCURRENT SPONSORS
“When we are approached by sports bodies to act as a sponsor, we
immediately investigate who else they may be courting”
-- Lothar Korn, head of marketing communications at Audi

2.  Distinct brand image increases recall; more attractive (Fournier
1998; Currás-Pérez et al. 2009)
 Clarity of brand positioning  favorable attitudes, purchase
intentions (Simmons and Becker-Olsen 2006)
 Sponsorship frequently used for differentiation, creation of
distinct image (Amis et al. 1999; Cornwell et al. 2001)
 Sponsorship rarely occurs in isolation (Chien et al., 2010)
 Incongruent sponsorships adversely effect brand distinctiveness
and clarity of positioning (Fleck and Quester 2007)
 Articulating congruence is one avenue to assuage the adverse
effects of a low-fit sponsorship (e.g., Cornwell et al. 2006; Simmons and
Becker-Olsen 2006)
RQ: How do concurrent sponsors influence the adverse
effects of a low-fit sponsorship?
BRANDING THROUGH SPONSORSHIP

3. March 14, 2011
SPORTS-
BUSINESS
JOURNAL

4.  H1: The adverse effects of a low-fit sponsorship are
hypothesized to be less prevalent in the presence of a fellow
incongruent (versus congruent) co-sponsor.
 Categorization & accentuation theories (Loken et al. 2008; Rosch and Mervis
1975; Krueger and Clement 1994; Tajfel 1959)
 H2 (Moderation): Effects reversed when the number of co-
sponsors is increased. Incongruent sponsor rated better in the
presence of multiple congruent co-sponsors versus multiple
incongruent co-sponsors.
HYPOTHESES

5.  Experiment: 2 (congruence of co-sponsor(s): congruent versus
incongruent) x 2 (portfolio size: one versus five co-sponsors) between
subjects factorial design
 Participants: n=106, cell size 24-29.
 Dependent variables
 Brand identity distinctiveness (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003; Currás-Pérez et al. 2009)
(The brand) is different from the other brands in the sector.
(The brand) is different from the rest of its competitors .
(The brand) stands out from its competitors.
 Brand identity clarity (Simons and Becker-Olsen 2006)
(The brand) clearly communicates what it stands for.
(The brand) has an image that is difficult to understand.
(The brand) conveys a clear image in all of its actions.
DESIGN

6. Manipulation Check
(Congruence of Concurrent Sponsors)
Congruent 5.10
(1.29)
Incongruent 4.58
(1.18)
F=4.299
P=.041
MANIPULATION CHECK

7. Brand Identity Distinctiveness of Incongruent Title Sponsor
(Buca di BEPPO)
Congruence of Concurrent Sponsors
Congruent Incongruent
Number of
Concurrent Sponsors
One 4.31
(1.47)
4.75
(0.98)
Five 4.54
(1.30)
4.04
(0.98)
RESULTS
Clarity of Positioning of Incongruent Title Sponsor
(Bucca Di Beppo)
Congruence of Concurrent Sponsors
Congruent Incongruent
Number of
Concurrent Sponsors
One 4.08
(1.11)
4.56
(1.26)
Five 4.21
(1.30)
3.79
(1.08)

8. MANCOVA
Wilks’s λ F-Value
Intercept .456 39.01*
Gender .896 3.80*
Age .965 1.86
Co-Sponsor Congruence .993 .232
Portfolio Size .993 .539
Congruence*Size .949 2.67*
Note: * p < 0.10
RESULTS

9. Tests of Between Subjects Effects
Brand Distinctness Brand Clarity
F-Value F-Value
Intercept 76.82 106.56
Gender .026 4.467*
Age 2.144 3.534
Co-Sponsor Congruence .013 .001
Portfolio Size 1.062 1.544
Congruence*Size 4.264* 4.491*
Note: * P<.05
RESULTS

10. RESULTS
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
One Co-Sponsor Five Co-Sponsors
Congruent Co-Sponsor Incongruent Co-Sponsor
4.31
4.75
4.54
4.04
BrandIdentityDistinctivenessofBuca

11.  Single co-sponsor: brand distinctiveness and clarity of
positioning of incongruent sponsor lower when paired with a
congruent (versus incongruent) co-sponsor
 Five co-sponsors: distinctiveness and clarity of incongruent
sponsor higher in a portfolio of otherwise congruent (versus
incongruent) co-sponsors
 Incongruent sponsors should aim to align with…
 Sponsored entities with small portfolios inclusive of another
incongruent sponsor
 Large portfolios composed primarily of co-sponsors congruent to the
sponsored enterprise
CONCLUSION