Evaluating Social Marketing Elements in Sponsorship

Evaluating Social MarketingElements in Sponsorship

BY NORMAN J. O’REILLY AND JUDITH J. MADILL

ABSTRACT

Organizations of all types increasingly recognize the importance of sponsorship as

a source of revenue and as a means to achieve their objectives. This trend is driv-

ing the broader adoption of sponsorship, which has resulted in its use to pursue

objectives other than those related to promotion, including those related to beha-

vior change and, thus, social marketing. Concurrently, sponsors and sponsees are

demanding the development of legitimate, reliable, and meaningful methods for

the evaluation of sponsorship as investment in the area increases. For organiza-

tions whose objectives include behavior change and, thus seek to market behaviors

(i.e., social marketers) this results in a need to be able to evaluate the social

marketing elements of their sponsorships, distinct from other objectives that

may be sought. The current research conceptualizes social marketing in sponsor-

ship and then develops hypothetical examples for each resulting scenario to

demonstrate how social marketing elements in sponsorship should be evaluated.

Introduction

Sponsorship is where a ‘‘corporation (or other investor) creates a link with an

outside issue or event, hoping to influence the audience by the connection’’

(Rifon et al. 2004). In a typical sponsorship transaction, the sponsor provides cash

and=or in-kind product to a sponsee in return for promotional opportunities and

the ability to leverage the association. ‘‘In-kind’’ refers to the contribution of product

in lieu of cash by a sponsor. For example, an athletic apparel company provides the

volunteer t-shirts and draw prizes to a running event. In today’s competitive mar-

ketplace, sponsees compete for limited sponsorship opportunities from a variety of

sources in an environment where the demand from sponsees for sponsorship

resources is significantly greater than the supply of interested sponsors (e.g., Nike,

General Motors, Coca-Cola). This results in the sponsor being in a position of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016smq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://smq.sagepub.com/

power when dealing with all but the most valuable sponsees (i.e., the Olympic

Games, Expo, The Academy Awards, World Cup of Soccer, Super Bowl, Tiger

Woods, etc.). Although these ‘‘super-valuable’’ sponsees are in the enviable business

situation of having interested sponsors bidding for their property rights, the majority

of sponsees who are seeking resources struggle to attract, satisfy, and maintain

sponsors (Hoek and Gendall 2002). Overall, the use of sponsorship has been grow-

ing steadily over the past 25 years. Global investment has progressed from approxi-

mately US $500 million in 1982 (Kuzma and Shanklin 1994) to US $24.4 billion

in 2002 (Kolah 2003), and to an estimated US $28 billion in 2004 (IEG 2004).

Sponsees include a very wide range of organizations and events ranging from

sport organizations and sporting events (e.g., the Canadian Swim Team, Olympic

Games, or other events) to cultural organizations or events (e.g., theater groups or

specific theater productions), as well as numerous other organizations, awards

(e.g., City of Toronto–Green Toronto Awards whose sponsors included Loblaws,

Roots, the TD Bank Financial Group among others), and events (e.g.,

conferences, conference meals). Sponsees are often not-for-profit organizations

or governmental organizations that are trying to develop and implement public

awareness, educational or social marketing programs. These sponsees exist in

all countries of the world, developed and developing. Those organizations whose

objectives are social marketing-based are the focus of this research and range from

large national organizations such as the Canadian Institute of Public Health

(which has sought and obtained sponsorship for the organization itself as well

as for its social marketing programs around Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS)

and other children’s programs such as Canadian Institute of Child Health

2006), to smaller locally based organizations (such as FEES4 – an environmental

education society that has received sponsorship for their website development, as

well as community-based social marketing initiatives from such companies as

Lever Ponds, Tetra Pak Canada Inc.) (Tools of Change 2006). Thus, this

research will benefit any type of organization (government, not-for-profit, com-

mercial) that engages in a sponsorship with social marketing objectives. What dif-

ferentiates these organizations from most sponsees is that they are seeking

resources from sponsors to support social marketing programming to encourage

behavior change. Although not as common, sponsors may also pursue social mar-

keting objectives through sponsorship programs. For example, Health Canada’s

sponsorship of the National Eating Disorder Information Centre’s Eating Disorders

Awareness Week in February 2006 is an example (see www.nedic.ca) of the sponsor

having social marketing objectives in a sponsorship. Health Canada is the Ministry

of the Government of Canada that is responsible for health in the country.

APPLICATIONS

2 SMQ | Volume XIII | No. 4 | Winter 2007

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



Although they are rarely the only objectives of a sponsorship, instances of

social marketing elements in sponsorships are common. Examples of government

social marketing initiatives are numerous and include approximately 300

public-private sponsorships of Health Canada’s programs in areas such as the

‘‘Challenge to Youth’’ tobacco cessation contest=campaign sponsored by, among

others, Cineplex Odeon and Heritage Canada’s Anti-Racism social marketing

program (Health Canada 2006; Lee et al. 2005; Madill and Abele 2004). Social

marketing elements in sponsorship are equally common and wide ranging in most

other countries around the world and include such examples as Beyer Health Care

and its Aleve Brand’s sponsorship of the Arthritis Foundation in the United

States as well as the American Bone Health campaign concerning bone health

behaviors (Lee et al. 2005; Lefebvre 2006).

As investment in sponsorship to achieve a broadening array of

objectives – social marketing, promotion and otherwise – continues to increase

(Kolah 2003) so do the incentives for both sponsors and sponsees to evaluate

whether these sponsorships are enabling the achievement of such objectives. This

research focuses specifically on the social marketing elements in sponsorship,

where both sponsors and sponsees are interested in the evaluation of such. Spon-

sors pursuing social marketing objectives in a sponsorship are questioning the

resulting impacts of that investment as a means of validating the selection of

sponsorship compared to (a) other sponsorship options (i.e., alternate sponsees)

that it might have pursued, and (b) alternative promotional strategies and=or tac-

tics that it might have pursued. Similarly, sponsees seeking social marketing

objectives in a sponsorship want to demonstrate that sponsorship’s ability to

attract and maintain investment by sponsors as well as provide evaluation of

the ability of said sponsorship to support social marketing programming. The

purpose of the current research is fourfold:

1. Review the literature concerning the evaluation of sponsorships;

2. Introduce and propose Agency Theory as a theoretical framework appropriate in the

evaluation of social marketing sponsorships;

3. Conceptualize social marketing elements in sponsorship;

4. Propose a process model that can be used for social marketing sponsorship evaluations,

including a hypothetical demonstration as to how the model would work in various

sponsorship scenarios.

Agency Theory is adopted as the theoretical foundation for the proposed

model, where the sponsor-sponsee relationship is viewed as a principal-agent

APPLICATIONS

SMQ | Volume XIII | No. 4 | Winter 2007 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



relationship, where the agent acts on behalf of the promotional interests of the

principal (Bahli and Rivard 2003). In this context, Agency Theory provides a

way by which to view cooperative effort where one entity (the principal) engages

another (the agent) to act on their behalf, where the sponsee as agent is seen as

offering a service to the sponsor as principal. Given that ‘‘Agency Theory provides

a unique, realistic, and empirically testable perspective on problems of cooperative

effort’’ (Eisenhardt 1989) and that agency relationships have been shown to

pervade marketing (Bergen, Dutta, and Walker 1992), the application of an

agency perspective on the sponsor-sponsee relationship, particularly with respect

to the evaluation of its success, may be useful.

Background Literature on Sponsorship and Sponsorship Evaluation

Abratt and Grobler (1989) and Armstrong (1988) note that while sponsorship

has its roots in philanthropy, it has developed into a promotional activity that

mutually benefits both the sponsor and the sponsee in a relationship where the

association is key in the resulting promotional strategy. Akin to most promotional

endeavors, both sponsors and sponsees decide to engage in sponsorship in order

to seek certain benefits. Typically, a sponsorship provides a sponsor with targeted

promotional value that builds their brand through the resulting association with

the sponsee’s brand, while sponsees gain needed resources (cash or in-kind pro-

duct) in return. In the case of sponsees seeking social marketing objectives, the

sponsor typically benefits further as it is also able to associate itself with a good

cause, while the sponsee uses the resources generated to pursue its social market-

ing objectives (typically via the implementation of social marketing programs). It

is important to note that social marketing objectives are rarely the only objectives

in a sponsorship and are usually utilized in combination with other objectives

such as building awareness, branding, promotion, reaching new target markets,

etc. The use of resources is particularly important with social marketing sponsor-

ships where the complex objective of behavior change is sought as opposed to

typical sponsees who seek product or service sales (see Rothschild 1999, 1979).

It has long been understood that one of the most difficult tasks in sponsorship

is being able to observe tangible results that are attributed to the sponsorship pro-

gram (Harvey 2001; Meenaghan 1983). Gardner and Shumman (1988) report

that over 50% of sponsors do not evaluate their sponsorships, and Berrett and

Slack (1995) find that most Canadian companies under study had no clear idea

of the benefits they received from sponsorship and that most evaluations were

relatively informal and fairly infrequent. Other researchers (e.g., Farrelly, Quester,

and Burton 1997; Marshall and Cook 1992) have corroborated these findings

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



worldwide. Further, those who do evaluate often use only ad hoc procedures such

as media impressions, TV ratings, and print coverage (Marshall and Cook 1992).

The authors were unable to find any literature specific to the evaluation of social

marketing elements in sponsorship.

Although some academic researchers have looked at sponsorship evaluation,

for the most part, they focus on the use of measurement techniques borrowed

from advertising (Olkkonen 2001; Meenaghan 2001), as opposed to the develop-

ment and adoption of sponsorship-specific measurement (Farrelly, Quester, and

Burton 1997; Abratt and Grobler 1989). Although such approaches may provide

evidence of impact, they are deficient in their ability to assess all aspects of a spon-

sorship, particularly the association image transfer and exclusivity. In a review of

international sponsorship research, Walliser (2003) finds 83 published studies

related to the measurement of sponsorship impact and notes that 65% of those

studies were published after 1996 and that many of these papers did not provide

actual metrics. Walliser’s review did not uncover any work specific to social

marketing elements in sponsorship.

In recent years, organizations, including those involved with social marketing,

have shown more interest in sponsorship evaluation and are beginning to demand

effective measurement tools and models. This change in attitude is likely due to a

number of factors:

1. An increase in clutter in the sponsorship marketplace,

2. The vastly increased dollar investments by sponsors in sponsorship, and

3. The growing acceptance of sponsorship as part of the promotional mix (Mullin,

Hardy, and Sutton 2000).

It is likely that practitioner approaches to evaluation have been developed and

are being used in management practice although they may remain proprietary and

may not be shared in management journals.

Copeland, Frisby, and McCarville (1996) and Cornwell (1995) cite evalu-

ation as the greatest challenge facing research in sponsorship, while Bowey

(1998) describes sponsorship evaluation as ‘‘notoriously difficult.’’ A major aspect

of the difficulty of this challenge stems from the many objectives that sponsors

seek with sponsorship programs, which makes them very difficult, if not

impossible, to evaluate (Cornwell and Maignon 1998; Berrett and Slack 1995;

Berrett 1993). This expression of difficulty or even ‘‘impossibility’’ (Berrett 1993),

however, is not well received in practice. For reasons introduced earlier in this

article, the calls from organizations (both sponsors and sponsees alike) for a viable

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



tool for measuring sponsorship effectiveness have increased in recent years

(Mullin, Hardy, and Sutton 2000; Milne and McDonald 1999).

In 1994, Pope and Voges were the first to note in the literature that sponsors

should begin to make use of evaluation techniques to assess the return on their spon-

sorship investments. Following that call, a limited number of methods to evaluate

sponsorship were developed, mostly by practitioners. In practice, these methods

include counting ‘‘footsteps’’ (i.e., number of people who came to your store as

a result of sponsorship), measuring ‘‘impressions’’ or ‘‘eyeballs’’ (i.e., the number of

people who likely saw your sponsorship and were made aware of it), and gauging

changes in sales figures. A number of evaluation studies (Cornwell, Maignan, and

Irwin 1997; Quester 1997a, 1997b; Walliser and Nanopoulos 2000) have demon-

strated that brand recall levels increase slightly before and during a sponsored event,

then fall back to prior levels following the event. Specific to social marketing

elements in sponsorship, effectiveness should be gauged based on behavior change.

Cornwell, Pruitt, and Clark (2005), Cornwell (1995), Pope and Voges

(1994), and Irwin and Asimakopoulis (1992) propose sponsorship evaluation

models to assist sponsors with the evaluation of their sponsorship programs in

relation to the measurement of specific sponsorship objectives. A deficiency in

these models is that they do not include return on investment analysis or the

measurement of recall in consumers which limits their practical value. The lack

of standardization in the evaluation process of sponsorship poses significant

challenges as well (Cornwell, 1995). Although these efforts contribute to the pro-

cess of moving sponsorship knowledge forward, to date they do not represent

sufficient approaches for dealing effectively with sponsorship evaluation.

McAllister and Ferrell (2002) has developed the most comprehensive pub-

lished (to date) six-step model (the steps include objectives setting, presponsor-

ship measurement, chosen promotional tactics, sponsorship implementation,

post-sponsorship measurement, and sponsorship results) of successful sponsorship

implementation. This model evaluates the success of the sponsorship from the

sponsor’s perspective. The process begins with the identification of objectives

for the sponsor, the sponsee, and the sponsorship relationship (association), with

– as previously supported – the sponsor’s objectives have the most influence on

the evaluation process. Following stakeholder agreement on objectives, market

research is used to measure key attributes that, in turn, enable presponsorship

measurement and provide information for the selection and implementation of

promotional tactics to leverage the sponsorship. Then, post-sponsorship measure-

ment occurs to provide data for the results. Finally, the results are compared to

the presponsorship data to ascertain success, and changes are made to the plan

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



as required. While this model has some significant strengths in that it represents

an attempt to develop a relatively comprehensive model where none have existed

before, its main weaknesses including the absence of a guiding theoretical frame-

work and an approach that generates reliable, legitimate, and conservative evalua-

tions. The current model outlined below utilizes a similar process approach as the

McAllister and Ferrell (2002) approach, but it is firmly developed from a strong

theoretical framework (described later) and offers a more focused approach to

examining social marketing elements in sponsorship.

Agency Theory as the Theoretical Framework

While many writers have called for the development of a process that could

be used in sponsorship evaluation, to date attempts to do so are quite rudimentary

and are not based on a solid theoretical approach. In taking up the challenge

of developing a process model for social marketing sponsorship evaluation, the

authors have chosen Agency Theory as the theoretical framework from

which to develop the evaluation process model in this article. Such a framework

also renders the evaluation a straightforward and clear process, it is such a

process that is required by practitioners and needed in the research literature.

Agency Theory requires that one views the sponsor-sponsee relationship as a

principal-agent relationship. Such a relationship exists whenever one group

(i.e., the principal) relies on another group (i.e., the agent) to carry out some

endeavor on behalf of the principal (Bahli and Rivard 2003; Bergen, Dutta, and

Walker 1992; Eisenhardt 1989). Eisenhardt (1989) points out that an agency

relationship assumes that each party in the relationship has their own motives since

their goals are not congruent. This infers that in any agency relationship, although

it involves the agent working on behalf of the principal towards a common objec-

tive (as determined by the principal), both groups have their own ‘‘bottom line’’

rationale (which may or may not be profit) for engaging in the relationship. In

the case of a social marketing sponsorship, the bottom line would refer to the beha-

vior change achieved. Also, it should not be assumed that the principal benefits

more than the agent, as this is not always the case (Sappington 1991; Ross 1973).

Sappington (1991) also points out that in Agency Theory, it is well estab-

lished that the principal cannot monitor the actions of the agent perfectly or with-

out costs. This brings forth such issues as ‘‘power’’ and ‘‘trust,’’ as both variables

impact how much autonomy the principal gives to the agent and how much cost

is incurred by the principal when such autonomy is not granted. It must also be

recognized that this issue can swing the other way, where the agent may not trust

the principal and must incur the costs of monitoring the principal (e.g., making

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



sure they are reimbursed, ensuring that their own brand is respected, etc.). In both

cases, it is the combination of the agency role and the sharing of risk that lead to

potential costs on both sides (Eisenhardt 1989). Indeed, Agency Theory typically

examines the trade-off between the cost of monitoring the agent and the attain-

ment of the principal’s objectives where the contract between the two groups is

the unit of analysis.

In terms of the evaluation of social marketing elements in a sponsorship,

Agency Theory provides a lens by which to evaluate (1) a sponsor’s investment

in a sponsee and the resulting relationship’s ability to achieve the sponsee’s specific

promotional objectives with respect to achieving behavior change, and (2) a spon-

sor’s desire to promote behavior change and the impact that their association with

a given sponsee has on such objectives. First, the use of a contract and analyses of

such contracts have become the ‘‘unit of analysis’’ of Agency Theory, which has led

theory to focus on developing more efficient principal-agent contracts, whether

they be ‘‘behavior-oriented’’ or ‘‘outcome-oriented’’ (Bergen, Dutta, and Walker

1992). Therefore, the analysis of the sponsor-sponsee contract will need to become

the unit of analysis when developing a process model for sponsorship evaluation

when agency theory provides the theoretical base for the model.

Figure 1 below represents the theoretical development of the Agency Theory

situation (from Eisenhardt 1989) adapted to the sponsorship relationship. As the

figure outlines, the sponsor-sponsee relationship is complex and the monitoring

of sponsee behavior by the sponsor is not trivial.

Figure 1 is based on the contract as the unit of analysis to identify both the

explicit and the implicit objectives of both parties – objectives that they seek in

the context of the very uncertain sponsorship environment. In addition, there

are a number of assumptions that Agency Theory makes that must be fully under-

stood before applying it to a given context.

1. Both the principal and the agent are assumed to be motivated by self-interest, typically

focused on the maximization of profits or maximizing achievement of their objectives

(whatever they might be). Bergen, Dutta, and Walker (1992) point out that ‘‘the

theory can also accommodate relationships in which one or both parties pursue

broader social goals.’’ This is particularly relevant to social marketing, where the spon-

see or the sponsor is focused on social goals rather than profit.

2. It is assumed that principals normally function with incomplete information about the

characteristics of the agent, while the agent functions with complete information

about the principal and its objectives. This is termed ‘‘information asymmetry’’

(Bergen, Dutta, and Walker 1992) since the knowledge levels of the principals and

agents are dissimilar.

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



It is assumed that environmental factors (e.g., competition, the political

environment, economic conditions, environment, and changes in technology) have

some bearing on outcomes, which means that writing a ‘‘perfect’’ contract is

impossible and that both the principal and the agent incur risk in this regard. In

the case of social marketing, this aspect is particularly important given the complex

nature of human behavior. An Agency Theory approach to sponsorship views the

sponsor-sponsee relationship as a case of the principal-agent relationship, where

each sponsor-sponsee case is unique in terms of its composition and application.

Viewing each individual sponsorship as a case of the principal-agent relationship

seems appropriate, as it is the sponsor who must insure that the tenets of the spon-

sorship contract (e.g., the promotional benefits promised) are adhered to once a

contract is signed. The sponsor as principal and sponsee as agent is also deemed

appropriate as it is the sponsor who has specific objectives to achieve through

the use of a sponsorship, and the provision of resources to some sponsee (agent)

whom they expect will carry out a task as dictated by the contract. In this regard,

the sponsee is clearly an agent who, in return for resources, carries out a task.

FIGURE 1

Agency Theory Adapted to the SponsorshipRelationship (from Eisenhardt, 1989)

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



Agency Theory directs attention to the sponsorship contract as the unit of

analysis when evaluating a sponsorship relationship (see Eisenhardt 1989). Most

sponsorship contracts include both explicit (formal) and implicit (informal) parts

with the explicit aspects being those that are included in the contract while

implicit aspects are understood but not written. Agency Theory, thus, requires

researcher knowledge of all aspects of the sponsorship contract both explicit

and implicit, including both sponsor and sponsee objectives. Methodologically,

all contracted and implicit expectations of a sponsorship contract can be articu-

lated from both the sponsor’s and sponsee’s points of view and evaluated through

a review of key documents and in-depth interviews. Of course, full access to data

and decision makers in both organizations is required in order to achieve this.

Conceptualizing Social Marketing Elements in Sponsorship

Prior to being able to evaluate the social marketing elements in sponsorship, it is

necessary to conceptualize the different scenarios in which they may occur and

how those might look. First, a social marketing element is defined as either a for-

mal (in the contract) or informal (expressed by sponsor or sponsee in strategy

documents or verbally) objective where a social marketing behavior is the unit

of analysis. Table 1 outlines five potential sponsorship scenarios and shows

how social marketing objectives may exist in four of the five.

TABLE 1

Scenarios of Social Marketing (SM) Elementsin Sponsorship

SCENARIO SPONSOR SPONSEE OTHER SPONSORS

No SM objectives

exist in the sponsorship

No SM objectives No SM objectives No SM objectives

Only sponsee has

SM objectives

No SM objectives At least one

SM objective

No SM objectives

Only sponsor has

SM objectives

At least one

SM objective

No SM objectives No SM objectives

Both sponsor and

sponsee have SM objectives

At least one

SM objective

At least one

SM objective

No SM objectives

Co-sponsor with

SM objective

Zero, one, or more

than one SM

objective(s)

Zero, one, or

more than one

SM objective(s)

At least one SM

objective

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



The first scenario (no social marketing objectives exist in the sponsorship) is not

of relevance to this research. However, the remaining four scenarios show that there

can be quite divergent types of sponsorships where social marketing objectives are

relevant and come into play. These range from instances where only the sponsor

or the sponsee have social marketing objectives to instances where both sponsor

and sponsee have social marketing objectives and instances where co-sponsors have

social marketing objectives, while the main sponsor and the sponsee may or may not

have social marketing objectives. Because the authors have adopted an Agency

Theory approach, it follows that clarification of which parties in the sponsorship

hold social marketing objectives, as well as clarification of whether and how social

marketing objectives co-exist with other objectives, is a critical theoretical step for

moving forward with successful evaluation. The authors also suggest that such

knowledge is fundamental in (a) fully understanding the nature and type of social

marketing elements in sponsorship that exist, as well as (b) building a base of

knowledge of the interplay between=among social marketing and other objectives

that may be part of what we might label social marketing elements in sponsorship.

The Proposed Process Model for Social Marketing

Sponsorship Evaluation

Based on a comprehensive model developed by the authors to evaluate sponsor-

ship in general (O’Reilly and Madill 2006), a draft process model for the evalu-

ation of the social marketing elements within a sponsorship is presented in

Figure 2. It is important to note that the proposed model is a tool that primarily

outlines a process to follow in evaluating social marketing elements in sponsor-

ship. The purpose of the model is to guide researchers and practitioners through

the evaluation process of these elements.

Issues of attribution and resources are important in sponsorship evaluation,

particularly in the evaluation of social marketing elements in sponsorship. It is

recognized that attribution can be a challenge in many types of evaluation.

Metrics have been proposed in the literature that allow for an assessment of

the impact of one specific influencer in the context of multiple influencers

(Feldman and Lynch 1988; Schwarz 1999). Typically, such metrics involve asking

respondents multiple questions about the many potential influencers and then

determining which are most impactful. With regards to resources, the model sets

out the specific steps which include identifying the objectives of the sponsorship

and establishing metrics for each objective. The process of metric establishment

would incorporate decisions related to resources and the metrics would be chosen

that are best for the given objectives vis-a-vis the resources available. The notion

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



of prioritization of objectives is also implied in Figure 2. Here, the parties

involved would prioritize the objectives to be evaluated and the sophistica-

tion of the metrics=measures adopted based on the following hierarchy: (1)

SM-related objectives, (2) objectives important to entity funding the evaluation,

and (3) objectives of a collaborative nature.

The process model is designed specifically for social marketing elements in

sponsorship and is comprised of seven steps. The steps are ‘‘setting the stage,’’

‘‘collect data,’’ ‘‘articulate objectives,’’ ‘‘identify social marketing elements establish

metrics collect data and analyze,’’ and ‘‘generate and interpret outcomes and

impacts.’’ As noted in Figure 2, the model also considers the effects of the specific

sponsor-sponsee relationship, the behavior change of interest, the market and

other uncontrollable external influences during the evaluation process.

The first step is the precursor to the research and involves two key steps

before proceeding: (i) determining if the relationship of interest is a sponsorship,

and (ii) achieving buy-in from the sponsor, the sponsee, and any important

intermediaries. It must be determined that the promotion of interest is in fact

a sponsorship and identifying that sponsorship includes some aspect that involves

a social marketing objective.

FIGURE 2

Proposed Process Model for the Evaluationof Sponsorships Involving SocialMarketing Elements

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



The second step – ‘‘collect data’’ – involves the researcher accessing four key

sources of data (the sponsorship contract, sponsor input, sponsee input, and – if

applicable – intermediary input) to enable the evaluation. The types of data gath-

ered here could include the specific objectives of the sponsorship, the role of the

sponsorship in the overall marketing plan of the sponsor or the sponsee, image

transfer goals of the association, etc.

The third step focuses on reviewing the data gathered in Step 2 and articu-

lating, summarizing, and listing all objectives for the sponsorship. This step is

known as ‘‘articulate objectives’’ and normally (O’Reilly and Madill 2006)

includes two sets of objectives: (i) those that are explicitly stated, and (ii) those

that are implicitly understood but perhaps not articulated in the contract.

The fourth step is specific to the evaluation of social marketing elements

in sponsorship and involves the identification of those objectives with specific

social marketing elements. It essentially involves reviewing the list generated in

Step 3 and determining which elements are to be evaluated for social marketing

impacts.

Upon completion of Step 4, the ‘‘establish metrics’’ stage (Step 5) takes place.

This involves the assignment of a specific metric (either from the literature, past

practice, or newly developed) for each objective identified in Step 4. Each metric

– whether adopted from past use or newly developed – is then customized to the

sponsorship relationship being evaluated and a research design is planned for

each. Of note here is the consideration of both reach and the specifics of the

behavior change sought, which refer, respectively, to the number of publics

targeted and the challenges stemming directly from the behavior of interest.

For example, a social marketing sponsorship campaign seeking to reduce sexually

transmitted diseases through condom use would have to be evaluated based on

different publics (men=women, age-groups, sexually activity, etc.) and the com-

plexity of achieving behavior change in the face of many external variables should

be considered.

Step 6, or the ‘‘collect and analyze evaluation data’’ stage, follows next. This

involves the implementation of each of the metrics identified in Step 5, including

both data collection and analysis of that data. The researcher gathers evaluation

data and analyzes that data for each of the metrics. Research might include a sur-

vey of consumers or a product, attendees at an event, or employees of a sponsor.

This leads to the final and seventh step, to ‘‘generate and interpret outcomes

and impacts’’ where the results of the analysis are classified as outcomes (short-

term benefits) and impacts (long-lasting achievements) considered cumulatively

and presented for each metric with an overall assessment of effectiveness.

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



Process model illustration

In order to provide evidence of how the model might look, hypothetical examples

of social marketing elements in sponsorship were selected for the social marketing

sponsorship scenarios outlined in Table 1. Note that each of these illustrations is

hypothetical (i.e., ‘‘not real’’), although some may be loosely based on existing

products. Each is outlined in Table 2 and all are intended to illustrate how the

process would be carried out under the various conditions pertinent to each scen-

ario. Those objectives identified in Table 2 as social marketing objectives were

determined to be such when the objective involved behavior change towards some

social good in the target market(s). To illustrate our definition of a social market-

ing objective, we consider the example where a professional golfer has started a

foundation to support AIDS-related issues in Africa, specifically to increase con-

dom use and decrease sexual abuse behavior towards women; and where Trojan

condoms has signed on as the title sponsor and has no SM objectives. In this

case, Trojan condoms is supporting its own commercial objectives and the SM

objectives of the sponsee, but has not identified any of its own SM objectives.

As noted in Table 2, the four different scenarios involving social marketing

objectives are more common than first thought and at least two examples are

presented for each.

Discussion

This article has argued that social marketing elements are becoming a critical

dimension of much sponsorship. The article has also shown that the evaluation

of these social marketing elements is critical from the point of view of both spon-

sors (who want to initiate and develop sponsorships that will provide a strong

return of their sponsorship investment in achieving behavior change in certain

target markets) and sponsees (who want to attract sponsors to support their social

marketing objectives). However, while the literature calls for sponsorship evalu-

ation that will serve these needs, very few researchers and writers have tackled this

problem of sponsorship evaluation and no evidence of the evaluation of social

marketing elements exists in the literature. In this regard, this article represents

an attempt by the authors to develop a process model for the evaluation of social

marketing sponsorships. The process model is based on ‘‘Agency Theory’’ and as

such focuses on the contract (both formal written components and the informal

‘‘understood’’ but not written components).

Such a framework also involves viewing the sponsor as the principal who is

engaging an agent, the sponsee, to accomplish some objective(s). For example,

taking an agency perspective on government entities adopting sponsorship to

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



TABLE 2

Scenario Illustrations (Selected Scenariosfrom Table 1)

Scenario 1: No Social Marketing (SM) Objectives

Description In these types of sponsorship, there are no SM elements.

Example N=A

Process

Implementation

N=A because it is not a social marketing sponsorship in any way

Scenario 2: Only Sponsee has SM Objectives

Description In these types of sponsorship, the sponsee (typically an event) has

SM marketing objectives (one or more) that it is seeking. No

other entity involved in the sponsorship has SM interests. It is

rare to find an event where only SM objectives are sought and

typically multiple marketing objectives in addition to SM

objectives are sought by the sponsee.

Example Pampers Canada is sponsoring Health Canada’s Sudden Infant

Death Syndrome (SIDS) ‘‘Back to Sleep’’ Campaign, where Health

Canada has identified 3 SM-related objectives of (i) increasing

awareness and knowledge of the risks of SIDS in Canada,

(ii) increasing awareness and knowledge of the things you can do

to reduce the risk of SIDS, and (iii) reduce the risk of SIDS by 10%

in Canada. In all three cases, Health Canada has set a deadline of

5 years to achieve these goals. Pampers Canada supports Health

Canada by, itself, does not have SM objectives.

Process

Implementation

1. Sponsorship is assessed and found to meet definition of a

sponsorship and includes SM objectives, parties support

evaluation, and ‘‘GO’’ design made.

2. Contract is reviewed, Health Canada social marketing SIDS team

interviewed, Pampers Canada senior management interviewed,

all intermediaries interviewed.

3. All objectives are articulated from the data obtained in #2 above.

(Continued)

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



TABLE 2

Continued4. Objectives specifically related to SM are identified. In this case,

three are noted: (i) increase awareness and knowledge of the

risks of SIDS in Canada over the next 5 years, (ii) increase

awareness and knowledge of the things you can do to reduce

the risk of SIDS over the next 5 years, and (iii) reduce the risk

of SIDS by 10% in Canada over the next 5 years.

5. Metrics are established to measure each objective. Two

examples include longitudinal comparisons of (i) parent and

(ii) caregiver levels of awareness and knowledge of things you

can do to reduce the risk of SIDS pre- and post-campaign.

6. Data colleted and analyzed.

7. Outcomes (short-term) and impacts (long-term) generated.

Example of

Metric

A questionnaire is designed and distributed to parents of children

under 2 years of age asking them (a) knowledge of what

behaviors can be undertaken to reduce the risks of SIDS,

(compare pre- and post-campaign measures), (b) whether they

can recall seeing messaging re: SIDS and where.

Additional

Example 1

A professional golfer has started a foundation to support

AIDS-related issues in Africa, specifically to increase condom

use and decrease sexual abuse behaviors towards women.

Trojan condoms has signed on as the title sponsor and has

identified no SM-related objectives beyond supporting the

work of the foundation.

Additional

Example 2

A regional human rights association implements a year-long

program to reduce the stigma against homosexuality in its

region. The program seeks to change various homophobic

behaviors expressed in the region. Pepsi signs on as the title

sponsor of the event but has no SM objectives to achieve,

other than its desire to support the SM objectives of

the association.

(Continued)

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



TABLE 2

ContinuedScenario 3: Only Sponsor has SM Objectives

Description In these types of sponsorships, the sponsor (typically a

government, foundation, or not-for-profit organization) has SM

marketing objectives (one or more). No other entity involved in

the sponsorship has SM interests.

Example Health Canada’s Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) ‘‘Back to

Sleep’’ Campaign has decided to act as a sponsor of the Canadian

Youth Cycling Championships in order to promote its program.

Here, Health Canada has identified 3 SM-related objectives of

(i) increasing awareness and knowledge of the risks of SIDS in

Canada, (ii) increasing awareness and knowledge of the things

you can do to reduce the risk of SIDS, and (iii) reduce the risk of

SIDS by 10% in Canada. In all three cases, Health Canada has

set a deadline of 5 years to achieve these goals. The Canadian

Youth Cycling Championships has not identified its

own SM objectives.

Process

Implementation


sponsorship and includes SM, parties support evaluation,

and ‘‘GO’’ design made.

2. Contract is reviewed, foundation senior management

interviewed, World Cup condoms senior management

interviewed, all intermediaries interviewed.

3. All objectives uncovered in the data are articulated.

4. Objectives specifically related to SM are identified. In this case,

three are noted: (i) increase awareness and knowledge of the

risks of SIDS in Canada over the next 5 years, (ii) increase

awareness and knowledge of the things you can do to reduce

the risk of SIDS over the next 5 years, and (iii) reduce the risk

of SIDS by 10% in Canada over the next 5 years.

5. Metrics are established to measure each objective.

Two examples include longitudinal comparisons of (i) parent and

(ii) caregiver changes in behavior pre- and post-campaign.



(Continued)

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



TABLE 2

ContinuedExample of

Metric

A questionnaire is designed and randomly distributed to daycare

workers who work directly with children under 2 years of age

asking them about their behavior related to putting babies to

sleep (compare pre-) and post-campaign behaviors).

Additional

Example 1

The foundation (noted above in Additional Example 2 of Scenario 2)

that supports AIDS-related issues in Africa has decided to

sponsor the 2010 World Cup to be held in South Africa as a

means to promote its activities and pursue its two SM objectives:

(i) increase condom use and (ii) decrease sexual harassment=

rape. The 2010 World Cup organizing committee, other sponsors,

and intermediaries also do not have SM-related goals.

Additional

Example 2

As part of its social marketing campaign to reduce ‘‘road-rage’’

behavior in drivers, the City of Montreal has sponsored the

Montreal Formula One event with an accompanying plan of

media on the subject. The car race, co-sponsors, and

intermediaries do not have SM objectives.

Scenario 4: Both Sponsor and Sponsee have SM Objectives

Description In these types of sponsorships, both the sponsor (typically a

government, foundation, or not-for-profit organization) and the

sponsee (typically an event) have SM marketing objectives

(one or more) that they are seeking. No other entity involved in

the sponsorship has SM interests.

Example Health Canada has decided to sponsor a drug-free summer

youth camp for youth addicted to drugs.

Process

Implementation




2. Contract is reviewed, Health Canada senior management

interviewed, Youth Camp senior management interviewed,


3. All objectives articulated from data recovered above.

(Continued)

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



TABLE 2

Continued4. Objectives specifically related to SM identified. In this case, there

are two sets . . . the sponsor who is seeking to (i) increase

awareness of the harmful effects of illegal drug use on youth

among Canadians, (ii) encourage drug-free lifestyle behaviors,

and (iii) demonstrate to Canadians its proactive role in the fight

against drugs. The sponsee also has a SM objective: to reduce

drug-use in camp attendees.

5. Metrics are established to measure each. . .including

(i) pre- and post-camp surveys of Canadian’s views of Health

Canada and awareness generated by the sponsorship,

(ii) opinion polls, pre- and post-, of Canadians’ views of

Health Canada’s role and impact on the fight against drugs and

(iii) longitudinal studies of camp graduates and their

future behaviours.



Example of

Metric

A phone survey of 1000 randomly selected Canadians is carried

out twice (pre-camp and post-camp) to determine the effect of

this sponsorship on awareness. Specific questions include aided

and unaided recall of the sponsorship, of Health Canada as

sponsor and drug use as the behavior of interest.

Additional

Example

An example of this would be the sponsorship of a program by the

Trois-Rivieres Health Region developed and implemented by the

Trois-Rivieres mental health association which both are seeking

to reduce negative behaviors towards those with mental

health disturbances.

Scenario 5: Co-Sponsor with SM Objectives

Description In these types of sponsorships, one of the secondary parties

(co-sponsor, agent, other intermediaries) have social marketing

objectives around the sponsorship.

(Continued)

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



TABLE 2

ContinuedExample Environment Canada (secondary sponsor) and the City of Ottawa

(main sponsor) are jointly sponsoring a not-for-profit foundation

that is running ‘‘Bike to Work Week’’

Process

Implementation




2. Contract is reviewed, Environment Canada senior

management interviewed, City of Ottawa senior management

interviewed, Foundation management is interviewed,


3. All objectives articulated from data recovered above.

4. Objectives specifically related to SM identified. In this case,

there are three sets. . .the first (main) sponsor (City of Ottawa)

is trying to (i) reduce traffic congestion, (ii) reduce pollution,

(iii) promote healthy behaviour in its citizens). . .the second

sponsor (Environment Canada) who is seeking to (i) promote

awareness of the beneficial environmental effects of biking vs

driving, ii) encourage pollution-free commuting behaviours and

(iii) demonstrate to Canadians its proactive role in the fight

against pollution. The sponsee (foundation) also has a

SM objective: to increase the number of people biking to work.

5. Metrics are established to measure each. . .including (i) pre-

and post- surveys of Canadian’s views of Environment Canada

and awareness generated by the sponsorship, (ii) national data

(pre and post) on commuting, driving, biking, etc. (census,

bike sales, etc.), (iii) pre- and post-opinion polls of Ottawa

citizens’ views of their city and its role and impact on traffic

congestion and pollution, and (iv) longitudinal studies of the

behaviours of commuters.



(Continued)

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



increase and leverage their limited resources to implement social marketing

programs enables a framework for evaluation. Such a model would label (1) the

government entity as a sponsee seeking and receiving resources, and (2) the com-

mercial organization giving resources (cash and=or in-kind product) in return for

promotional value as the sponsor. The resulting sponsor-sponsee relationship

would be articulated in a sponsorship contract, may involve intermediaries, and

would see the sponsor faced with the dilemma of trusting the sponsee or investing

resources to monitor the sponsee. For example, in the case of Pampers, Canada’s

sponsorship of Health Canada’s Sudden Infant Death Syndrome ‘‘Back to Sleep’’

Campaign, Pampers is the sponsor who has invested resources in Health Canada’s

campaign to engage Health Canada as a sponsee in order to promote its product

(diapers). The resulting Process Model consists of seven steps outlined in Figure 2.

The strengths of the model include this appropriate use of Agency Theory to

view the sponsor-sponsee relationship representing an important and needed con-

tribution. Viewing the organization or a relationship as a ‘‘nexus of contracts’’

(Jensen and Meckling 1976) has impacted many fields including finance,

economics, and management, and clearly requires consideration in sponsorship

theory. As outlined, both practitioners and researchers have been calling for

improved evaluation and the proposed process model attempts to fill that niche.

Given the newness of their implementation, it is unlikely that a model specific to

social marketing elements exists in practice.

The weaknesses of the model include the need to access considerable data in

using the model. Access to organizations and information is difficult and restric-

tive to empirical study. Full understanding of the complex sponsor-sponsee

relationship in the context of a behavior change is a very challenging proposition.

The cost in time, human resources, and money is a serious weakness of both

TABLE 2

ContinuedExample of

Metric

A phone survey of 250 randomly selected Ottawa residents is

carried out twice (pre-and post-event) to determine the effect of

this sponsorship on awareness. Specific questions include

consumer opinion on traffic congestion.

Additional

Example

The 2007 Super Bowl has many major sponsors; however in 2007,

one of its co-sponsors was the United States Health Commission

on Safe Sex (USHCSS) who was seeking to encourage condom

use in people of all ages.

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



evaluation and social marketing research. In many cases, data collection needs to

be done over a long period of time and to start presponsorship. In others, data

needs to be collected from the mass market or tough-to-reach market segments.

Further, clarifying and understanding the behavior of interest and operationaliz-

ing the measurement of behavior change are also daunting.

At this point, the model has not been tested on a social marketing sponsor-

ship; however, the testing of the model is an important area for future research

that the authors intend to pursue and invite others to investigate. This article

provides the needed process model or framework to initiate and develop social

marketing evaluations. Even though this model is conceptual at this stage and

not empirically tested, the authors have attempted to outline the process so that

other social marketing researchers and practitioners will take up the challenge of

testing the social marketing elements in their sponsorships with the suggested

process model. The most promising avenues for this future research include

interviewing social marketing sponsorship experts in order to learn more about

how evaluation is currently being carried out in the practitioner world. Getting

‘‘expert practitioner’’ input is critical as the model might then be revised in light

of the expertise of such a group. Following that stage of research, the authors rec-

ommend that the model be tested on a number of social marketing sponsorships

to determine its efficacy in real-world situations.

The overall contribution of the work is twofold. First, the need for evaluation

tools specific to the social marketing elements of a sponsorship is highlighted. Given

that this research argues that sponsorships are becoming a critical dimension of many

social marketing programs, it is argued here that evaluation of the social marketing

elements in sponsorship are critical from the point of view of both sponsors (who

want to initiate and develop sponsorships that will provide a strong return of their

sponsorship investment in achieving behavior change in certain target markets)

and sponsees (who want to attract sponsors to support their programs, events, and

organizations). The providing of a scenario concept for social marketing elements

and a resulting process model for the evaluation of said elements, as well as the

inclusion of a hypothetical test of that is an important contribution in the area.

About the Authors

Norman J. O’Reilly is associate professor of School of Sports Administration at

Laurentian University.

Judith J. Madill holds the Paul Desmarais Professor of Marketing at the Telfer

School of Management, University of Ottawa.

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



ReferencesABRATT, R., and P. S. GROBLER. 1989. The evaluation of sports sponsorships. International

Journal of Advertising 8: 351–62.

ARMSTRONG, C. 1988. Sports sponsorship: A case study approach to measuring its effective-

ness. European Bulletin of Himalayan Research 16: 97–103.

BAHLI, B., and S. RIVARD. 2003. The information technology outsourcing risk: a transaction

cost and agency theory-based perspective. Journal of Information Technology 18: 211–21.

BERGEN, M., S. DUTTA, and O. C. WALKER. 1992. Agency relationships in marketing: A

review of the implications and applications of agency and related theories. Journal of Marketing 56:

1–24.

BERRETT, T. 1993. The sponsorship of amateur sport–government, national sport organization,

and the corporate perspectives. Leisure and Society 16: 323–46.

BERRETT, T., and T. SLACK. 1995. Approaches to corporate sponsorship in Canada’s national sport

organizations. A report submitted to Sport Canada. Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation,

University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.

BOWEY, S. 1998. Editorial. European Research 16: 85.

BOYLE, R., and R. HAYNES. 2000. Power game: Why sport matters to television. In

Power play: Sport, media and popular culture, eds. R. Boyle and R. Haynes, 67–88. London:

Longman.

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH. 2006. About Us. www.cich.ca/about/html

(accessed February 15, 2006).

COPELAND, R., W. FRISBY, and R. MCCARVILLE. 1996. Understanding the sport

sponsorship process from a corporate perspective. Journal of Sport Management 10: 32–48.

CORNWELL, T. B., S. W. PRUITT, and J. M. CLARK. 2005. The relationship between

major-league sports’ official sponsorship announcements and the stock prices of sponsoring firms.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33: 401–12.

CORNWELL, T. B. 1995. Sponsorship-linked marketing development. Sport Marketing

Quarterly 4: 13–24.

CORNWELL, T. B. 1997. The use of sponsorship-linked marketing by tobacco firms:

International public policy issues. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 31: 238–54.

CORNWELL, T. B., and I. MAIGNAN. 1998. An international review of sponsorship research.

Journal of Advertising 27(1): 1–21.

CORNWELL, T. B., I. MAIGNAN, and R. IRWIN. 1997. Long-term recall of sponsorship

sources. An empirical investigation of stadium and sport cafe audiences. Asia-Australia Marketing

Journal 5: 45–57.

EISENHARDT, K. M. 1989. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management

Review 14: 57–74.

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



FARRELLY F., P. QUESTER, and R. BURTON. 1997. Integrating sports sponsorship into the

corporate marketing function: An international comparative study. International Marketing Review

14: 170–82.

FELDMAN, J. M., and J. G. LYNCH. 1988. Self-generated validity and other effects of

measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology 73: 421–35.

GARDNER, M., and P. SHUMAN. 1988. Sponsorships and small businesses. Journal of Small

Business Management 26: 44–50.

HARVEY, B. 2001. Measuring the effects of sponsorships. Journal of Advertising Research 41:

59–65.

HEALTH CANADA. 2006. Health Canada Social Marketing Campaigns. http://www.hc-sc.

gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/camp/index_e.html (accessed January 14, 2006).

HOEK, J., and P. GENDALL. 2002. When do ex-sponsors become ambush marketers?

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 3: 383–402.

IEG SPONSORSHIP REPORT. 2004. 2004 sponsorship spending. IEG Sponsorship Report 23:

1–3.

IRWIN, R. L., and M. K. ASIMAKOPOULIS. 1992. An approach to the evaluation and

selection of sport sponsorship proposals. Sport Marketing Quarterly 1: 43–51.

JENSEN, M., and W. MECKLING. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency

costs and capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3: 305–60.

KOLAH, A. 2003. Maximizing the value of sponsorship. London: Sport Business Group Limited

Publication, October.

KUZMA, J., and W. SHANKLIN. 1994. Corporate sponsorship: A framework for analysis,

Chapter 9. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.

LEE, N., K. ASCHERMANN, R. EHRMANN, and J. MINTZ. 2005 The challenges and

rewards of partnering with the private sector to achieve social marketing objectives. Social Marketing

Quarterly 11: 51–9.

LEFEBVRE, R. C. 2006. Partnerships for social marketing programs: An example from the

National Bone Health campaign. Social Marketing Quarterly 12: 41–54.

MADILL, J., and F. ABELE. 2004. From public education to social marketing: The evolution of

the heritage Canada anti-racism social marketing program. Social Marketing Advances in Research

and Theory Conference, September 16–18, Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada.

MARSHALL, D., and G. COOK. 1992. The corporate sports sponsor. International Journal

of Advertising 11: 307–24.

McALLISTER, D. T., and L. FERRELL. 2002. The role of strategic philanthropy in marketing

strategy. European Journal of Marketing 36: 689.

MEENAGHAN, T. 1983. Commercial sponsorship. European Journal of Marketing Special Issue:

1–73.

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



MEENAGHAN, T. 2001. Understanding sponsorship effects. Psychology and Marketing 18: 95–122.

MILNE, G. R., and M. A. MCDONALD. 1999. Sport marketing: Managing the exchange process.

Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

MULLIN, B., S. HARDY, and W. SUTTON. 2000. Sport marketing. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL:

Human Kinetics.

OLKKONEN, R. 2001. Case study: The network approach to international sport sponsorship

arrangement. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 16: 309–29.

O’REILLY, N., and J. MADILL. 2006. Sponsorship evaluation. Proc. 5th European Conference on

Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.

POPE, N. K., and K. VOGES. 1994. Sponsorship evaluation: Does it match the motive and the

mechanism? Sport Marketing Quarterly 3: 38–45.

QUESTER, P. G. 1997a. Sponsorship returns: the value of naming rights. Corporate Communica-

tions: An International Journal 2: 101–8.

QUESTER, P. G. 1997b. Awareness as a measure of sponsorship effectiveness: The adelaide for-

mula one grand prix and evidence of incidental ambush effects. Journal of Marketing Communications

3: 1–20.

RIFON, N. J., S. M. CHOI, C. S. TRIMBLE, and H. LI. 2004. Congruence effects in

sponsorship. Journal of Advertising 33: 29–42.

ROSS, S. 1973. The economic theory of agency: The principal’s problem. American Economic

Review 63: 134–39.

ROTHSCHILD, M. 1979. Marketing communications in nonbusiness situations or why it’s so

hard to sell brotherhood like soap. Journal of Marketing 43: 11–20.

ROTHSCHILD, M. L. 1999. Carrots, sticks, and promises: A conceptual framework for the

management of public health and social issue behaviours. Journal of Marketing 63: 24–37.

SAPPINGTON, D. 1991. Incentives in principal-agent relationships. Journal of Economic

Perspectives 3: 45–66.

SCHWARZ, N. 1999. Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist

54: 93–105.

TOOLS OF CHANGE. 2006. About us. www.toolsofchange.com/English/about (accessed

January 28, 2006).

WALLISER, B. 2003. An international review of sponsorship research: extension and update.

International Journal of Advertising 22: 5–40.

WALLISER, B., and P. NANOPOULOS. 2000. Qui a gagne la coupe du monde 1998?

Determinants et importance de lassociation durable des sponsors a l’evenement. In Proc. 16th

Congress of the French Marketing Association (AFM), May, 723–734, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

APPLICATIONS


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FHI

360]

, [M

r M

icha

el W

illia

ms]

at 1

2:13

16

Sept

embe

r 20

11



Evaluating Social Marketing Elements in Sponsorship

Documents

Transcript of Evaluating Social Marketing Elements in Sponsorship