European Journal of MarketingFans’ resistance to naming right sponsorships: Why stadium names remain the same forfansM. Woisetschläger David J. Haselhoff Vanessa Backhaus Christof

Article information:To cite this document:M. Woisetschläger David J. Haselhoff Vanessa Backhaus Christof , (2014),"Fans’ resistance to naming rightsponsorships", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 Iss 7/8 pp. 1487 - 1510Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2012-0140

Downloaded on: 21 August 2014, At: 08:08 (PT)References: this document contains references to 72 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3 times since 2014*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 200910 []

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

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

Fans’ resistance to namingright sponsorships

Why stadium names remain the samefor fans

David M. WoisetschlägerInstitute of Automotive Management and Industrial Production,Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany

Vanessa J. HaselhoffUniversity of Applied Sciences Unna, Unna, Germany, and

Christof BackhausNewcastle University Business School, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

AbstractPurpose – The aim of this article is to contribute to the literature by analyzing potential determinantsof fan resistance to naming right sponsorships. Although sports sponsorships mostly trigger neutral orpositive reactions by fans, the authors find empirical support which provides evidence for fan boycottor resistance.Design/methodology/approach – The authors empirically test a model using a sample of 798 soccerfans and thereby quantify structural relations between determinants and fan resistance. They use alogistic regression to assess potential determinants of fan resistance.Findings – Results indicate that sponsee- and sports-related variables, such as fan/regionalidentification and attitude toward commercialization, contribute to higher fan resistance. Furthermore,fans see themselves as in-group members who discriminate out-group members. As the sponsoringcompany takes over control and imposes a “threat” (the change of a stadium’s name) on the group’sritual place, this results in strong negative emotional reactions. These emotions tend to be repeated andaffirmed in intra-group communications which intensify negative reactions unless the sponsor offers apositive contribution from the fans’ standpoints. Our findings confirm that sponsorship fit andperceived benefits of the sponsorship reduce fan resistance while the sponsor’s regional identification isunrelated to fan resistance.Research limitations/implications – Little attention has been paid on negative reactions tosponsorships in the existing research. Therefore, future research could assess negative effects resultingfrom other sponsorship contexts, such as the sale of a club’s naming right, promotion campaigns duringthe venue and to sponsorship deals in general. Moreover, research should be devoted to findingstrategies that lead to a reduction of fan resistance to sponsorship actions.Practical implications – Results show that sponsorship fit reduces fan resistance. Existingliterature suggests that sponsorship fit can be improved by emphasis or creation of fit between sponsorand sponsee. Additionally, sponsors should try to build a bridge between sponsor and fans to gainacceptance of the in-group by raising awareness on the benefits that the sponsee receives from theirpartnership. Moreover, sponsors should actively strive to understand negative reactions of the fans and

The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of the associate editor Dr. Nicholas J. Ashill and thetwo anonymous reviewers for their comments and insights.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

Fans’ resistanceto naming right

sponsorships

1487

Received 14 March 2012Revised 23 July 2013

Accepted 23 August 2013

European Journal of MarketingVol. 48 No. 7/8, 2014

pp. 1487-1510© Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0309-0566DOI 10.1108/EJM-03-2012-0140

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

adapt their communication strategy to avoid resistance, e.g. due to fans’ feelings of overtcommercialism.Originality/value – Although naming right sponsorships are generally considered a powerfulinstrument for companies to gain high profile and market share, they seem not to be entirely free of risk.This article contributes to the literature by conceptualizing the phenomenon of fan resistance andassessing the determinants that contribute to fan resistance when naming rights are sold. Our findingsextend the understanding of negative sponsorship effects in addition to the mechanisms and theoreticalframeworks that are documented in the literature (Cornwell et al., 2005).

Keywords Sport, Consumer Behaviour, Communication, Sponsorship, Consumer resistance,Naming rights

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionWhen San Francisco’s “Candlestick Park”, home to the National Football League (NFL)San Francisco “49ers, changed its name to “3Com Park” after the “49ers licensed itsnaming rights to 3Com Corporation in 1995, fans, residents and media vigorouslyprotested and continued to refer to the park by its old name. In 2004, the rights wereresold to Monster Cable, and the stadium was renamed “Monster Park”. Because of theenormous public opposition, San Francisco voters passed an initiative in an election in2004 that stipulated that the facility’s name reverted to its traditional name “CandlestickPark” in 2008.

Quite often, naming right deals seem to cause negative reactions or even resistanceamong sports fans all over the world. The embedment of brand names in clubs’ namesor renaming of stadiums often upsets fans (Thomas, 2003). Several examples of negativefan reaction can be observed in the sports context: fans protest against the selling of thenaming right; they exhibit aggression or hostility toward the source of threat (mostly thesponsoring company) or refuse to use the new stadiums’ name (Table I).

The selling of a stadium’s naming right is a particular type of sponsorship, and morethan half of all major professional sport facilities [NFL, National Hockey League (NHL),National Basketball Association (NBA), Major League Baseball (MLB)] now bear thename of a corporation (DeSchriver and Jensen, 2003). In 2013, 24 out of 31 NFL stadiumsand 27 out of 30 NHL stadiums in North America have naming right agreements.Naming right sponsorship has spread rapidly into other markets, for instance, 14 out of18 German Bundesliga soccer stadiums are named after a corporate sponsor (2013).

Companies purchase naming rights for several reasons. These include the pursuit ofcommunity citizenship and goodwill as local residents approve of the corporation’sfinancial effort to provide a state-of-the-art facility in their region as well as pursuit ofincreases in sales or market share (McCarthy and Irwin, 2000). In addition, firms try toraise their brand awareness and enhance their brand image by associating themselveswith well-known sports teams (DeSchriver and Jensen, 2003). Naming rightsponsorships have been found to contribute positively to brand awareness (Quester,1997) and stock prices of the sponsor (Clark et al., 2002). Although highly profitable fora club, the fan reactions described above indicate that “companies cannot stamp theirname on a club without upsetting fans” (Thomas, 2003).

To date, there has been little evidence in academic research pointing at potentialnegative consequences of sponsorship. While Clark, Cornwell and Pruitt mention “highcontroversy surrounding naming right sponsorship deals”, in general (Clark et al., 2002,

EJM48,7/8

1488

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

Table I.Examples for typical fan

reactions to naming rightsponsorships

Fan

com

men

tFa

n(a

lias)

Sour

ce

[...

]nob

ody

will

ever

acce

ptin

gly

refe

rto

itas

“Em

irat

esSt

adiu

m”.

Goa

lsFr

om50

Out

The

selli

ngof

the

nam

ing

righ

tofA

rsen

alLo

ndon

’sst

adiu

mA

fter

the

debt

isgo

neth

roug

h,th

enA

rsen

alsh

ould

rena

me

the

grou

ndto

Ash

burt

onG

rove

.R

oona

ldo!

Big

Foot

y.co

m(2

008)

I’msi

ckof

corp

orat

ena

min

g.cl

ucas

91[.

..]a

tEm

irat

esSt

adiu

mth

ebe

erw

illbe

Hol

sten

,the

elec

tric

aleq

uipm

ent

Shar

pan

dth

eco

mpu

ters

Hew

lett

Pack

ard.

Itw

illal

way

sbe

Hig

hbur

y[th

eol

dst

adiu

m’s

nam

e].

Goa

lsFr

om50

Out

Cand

lest

ick

Park

fore

ver!!

!No

mat

ter

wha

tnam

eit

gets

,itw

illal

way

sbe

cand

lest

ick

park

.Unl

ess

you

are

driv

ing

byit

allt

hetim

ean

dre

adth

esi

gns

you

wou

ldne

ver

know

itw

as“3

Com

”or

“Mon

ster

.”

Bill

yNai

rW

ikip

edia

disc

ussi

onon

“Can

dles

tick

Park

”

We

are

nots

tupi

d,w

eun

ders

tand

the

com

mer

cial

aspe

cts

offo

otba

llsi

nce

itha

sbe

com

ea

busi

ness

,but

som

eth

ings

are

wor

thm

ore

than

mon

eyM

ike

Ash

ley.

You

can

take

our

mon

ey,y

ouca

nta

keaw

ayou

rPr

emie

rshi

pfo

otba

ll,yo

uca

ntr

yto

take

away

our

mem

orie

sof

form

erle

gend

s,yo

uca

nev

entr

yto

take

alit

tlebi

tofo

urpr

ide

beca

use

we’

rest

ubbo

rnly

pass

iona

tean

dha

vesu

ffer

edfo

rit.

But

totr

yan

dta

keaw

ay“S

tJam

es’P

ark”

,int

egra

llypa

rtof

the

esse

nce

ofw

hatt

his

club

isan

dw

hatw

eha

vegr

own

upw

ithan

dle

arne

dto

love

,to

take

away

the

soul

ofou

rfo

otba

llcl

ub?

[...

]

bow

burn

mag

New

cast

leU

nite

dF.

C.B

log

(ww

w.n

ufcb

log.

org)

We

shou

ldn’

tbe

forc

edto

wat

chsp

orts

agai

nsta

back

drop

ofun

avoi

dabl

ead

sfr

omth

egl

obal

corp

orat

eth

ugs,

man

yof

who

mar

epo

llute

rs,t

axch

eats

,to

rtfe

asor

san

dco

rpor

ate

wel

fare

reci

pien

ts.

Ral

phN

ader

,Fou

nder

of“L

eagu

eof

Fans

”Le

ague

ofFa

ns(2

004)

The

publ

icha

sne

ver

supp

orte

dth

epr

actic

eof

selli

ngst

adiu

man

dar

ena

nam

ing

righ

tsan

ywhe

re.

Iwou

ldn’

tnam

em

yho

use

afte

ra

corp

orat

ion

sow

hysh

ould

Iref

erto

wha

twill

undo

ubte

dly

beco

me

my

seco

ndho

me

bya

corp

orat

eha

ndle

?It

’sba

den

ough

that

anai

rlin

e’s

logo

ispl

aste

red

larg

eal

love

rth

eex

teri

orof

wha

tis

fast

beco

min

gou

rst

agge

ring

lyde

sira

ble

new

venu

e.T

om

ym

ind

how

ever

nece

ssar

yit

may

bede

emed

finan

cial

lyth

isis

esse

ntia

llyan

othe

rac

tof

corp

orat

eva

ndal

ism

that

desp

oils

wha

twe

are.

Cath

edra

lsdo

n’th

ave

spon

sors

nam

esso

why

shou

ldm

ypl

ace

ofw

orsh

ip?

Bri

anD

awes

Art

icle

“The

“E”

Wor

d”on

UK

socc

erne

twor

kFo

otym

ad.n

et 1489

Fans’ resistanceto naming right

sponsorships

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

p. 17), Crompton and Howard (2003), Greenberg and Gray (1996) as well as Welch andCalabro (1997) refer to some examples of public opposition to stadiums’ name selling, inparticular. However, few studies have investigated negative effects of sponsorships(Bergkvist, 2012; Dalakas and Levin, 2005; Davies et al., 2006; Ruth and Simonin, 2003).

Currently, little research or knowledge exists to guide the management of potentialsponsors that face possible negative reactions or even resistance of fans as a result oftheir sponsorship. Consequently, there is a need to understand why some fansdisapprove some sponsorship deals, why some fans boycott sponsors’ name deals andstadiums’ names often remain the same for fans, [1] and which factors determine theextent of fan resistance to naming right deals.

In accordance with these research objectives, the paper is organized as follows. First,we discuss the theoretical background of this study and introduce the research context.Second, a set of hypotheses is developed, including antecedents related to an individualfan’s personality characteristics and to the perception of the naming right sponsorship.Subsequently, the results of the conceptual model are presented. The paper concludeswith a discussion of the key findings, the theoretical and managerial implications andthe limitations of our study.

Theoretical backgroundBefore a conceptual model is developed which covers antecedents and consequences offan resistance to naming right sponsorship, we briefly define and review literature onconsumer resistance in general and specifically the literature in the fields of advertisingand sponsorship dealing with consumer resistance. The last section provides atheoretical basis, why naming right sponsorship may lead to fan resistance.

Consumer resistanceResistance refers to “a motivational state leading to variable manifestations of oppositionand which is triggered by certain factors linked to corporate behaviors and marketplacepractices” (Roux, 2007, p. 69). It is a complex concept (Fournier, 1998), which has beenstudied in different disciplines, i.e. historiography, political science, cultural studies,sociology, management and marketing. In the marketing literature, the phenomenon ofconsumer resistance has been discussed by several consumer behavior researchers. Foras long as there has been marketing activities, consumers have been rebelling against it(Friedman, 1985). Peñaloza and Price (1993) were among the first who proposed aconceptual framework of consumer resistance against marketing tactics. They used amore general definition by Poster (1992), who describes resistance as “the way in whichindividuals or groups practice a strategy of appropriation in response to structures ofdomination” (Poster, 1992, p. 1). Three conditions have to be present to form resistance:

(1) some force has to be exerted on a subject;(2) the subject has to perceive the force; and(3) the subject seeks to cancel the effect (Roux, 2007).

Thus, resistance originates in both perception and conflict.Looking at behavioral manifestations of resistance, different forms ranging from

avoidance and minimization behaviors to active rebellion can be observed (Fournier,1998). The most extreme mode of consumer resistance is exhibited when an individualor a group actively engages in rebellion (Gabriel and Lang, 1995). These collective

EJM48,7/8

1490

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

(organized) actions have been explored quite well, primarily focusing on consumerboycotts (Friedman, 1985). Individual actions have been less commonly discussed andare rarely linked to the concept of resistance (Peñaloza and Price, 1993). They aregenerally labelled complaining behavior, negative word-of-mouth, or exit (Hirschman,1970). But because of the “reactive and adverse nature of these behaviors”, these acts canalso be summed up under the general term “resistance” (Roux, 2007, p. 59).

Most studies so far have analyzed resistance behavior like rebellion (Dobscha, 1998),anti-consumption (Zavestoski, 2002) and escaping from the market (Kozinets, 2002).Some studies have considered influencing factors of resistance, the most obvious ofwhich seems to be general dissatisfaction with the marketplace (Fournier, 1998). Anindividual’s propensity to oppose is furthermore influenced by consumer experiences(Close and Zinkhan, 2007) and personality traits such as scepticism, cynicism orself-expression (Fournier, 1998; Roux, 2007). In a set of experiments, Sagarin andcolleagues found out that “people develop resistance if they perceive that failing to do sowill leave them open to being unfairly manipulated” (Sagarin et al., 2002, p. 538). The nextsection briefly reviews the literature in advertising and sponsorship research studyingconsumer resistance.

Consumer resistance in advertising and sponsorship researchIn advertising research, studies on consumer resistance have been focused onunderstanding cognitive resistance to advertising stimuli (Wright, 1975) and onconsumer resistance to unduly manipulations (Sagarin et al., 2002). In addition, Cowleyand Barron (2008) find that prominent product placements can negatively impact brandattitudes of viewers who report high levels of program liking. They reason this bystating that people with high levels of program liking may interpret the placement to bean attempt to influence the viewer, which could interrupt the viewing experience andthus result in a negative shift in brand attitude (Cowley and Barron, 2008).

However, just as few studies in the field of advertising research provide evidence ofconsumer resistance, there is limited evidence of consumer resistance in sponsorshipresearch. One variable that may be related to consumer resistance is sponsorship fit,which is frequently mentioned and empirically examined as a success factor ofsponsorship (Becker-Olsen and Hill, 2006; Simmons and Becker-Olsen, 2006; Speed andThompson, 2000). Sponsorship fit can be defined as perceived match of attributesbetween sponsoring firms and sponsored objects (Becker-Olsen and Hill, 2006).Sponsors that are perceived as congruent with the sponsored object have been found tobenefit more from their sponsorship engagements in terms of increasing brand equity(Becker-Olsen and Hill, 2006; Gwinner and Eaton, 1999; Simmons and Becker-Olsen,2006) and purchase intentions (Speed and Thompson, 2000) than incongruent sponsors.Existing studies have conceptualized sponsorship fit as either functionally orimage-based similarity (Gwinner and Eaton, 1999) or overall similarity (Simmons andBecker-Olsen, 2006). The criticality of sponsorship fit for the effectiveness ofsponsorships is commonly explained by individuals’ striving for cognitive balance(Festinger, 1957; Heider, 1946, 1958; Osgood and Tannenbaum, 1955). Thereby, a poorsponsorship fit reflects incongruence between sponsor and sponsored object. Hence, aperceived misfit is often related to a negative evaluation of the sponsor.

Besides incongruence, additional factors contributing to negative sponsorshipeffects have been documented in the literature, such as negative attitudinal effects

1491

Fans’ resistanceto naming right

sponsorships

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

resulting from sponsorship of rival racing drivers (Dalakas and Levin, 2005), and fromjoint sponsorships of rival teams (Davies et al., 2006), negative effects of stigmatizedproduct categories on sponsors that are associated with those product categories (Ruthand Simonin, 2003) and negative effects of perceived sponsors motives (Szykman et al.,2004). Besides sponsorship congruence, social identification of the targeted audience isoften considered as variable which is related to resistance. The existing literature onnegative sponsorship effects has not covered negative effects of sponsorship on the fanbase of the sponsored entity. Such effects may occur when elements or symbols (e.g., thename of the stadium) are changed by someone (i.e. the sponsor) that is perceived as anoutsider by the in-group (i.e. the fans). The next section provides a theoretical basis, whynaming right sponsorship may lead to fan resistance.

Fan resistance to naming right sponsorshipsThe sale of a naming right could arouse resistance among fans, as this situation mightbe perceived, as oppressive and not congruent with fans’ beliefs. Fans could be forced touse a new name they had no control in choosing. Furthermore, they may have been usedto using the traditional name for years which they hold in high esteem and which iswell-known among rival fans. Thus, they not only could fear that their freedom andcontrol but also their club’s values and identity could be lost.

In accordance with Belk’s (1988) conception of the extended self, people incorporatepossessions into their self-concept. These possessions do not only encompass objectsbut also persons, places, experiences and group possessions (Belk, 1988). Fans’ favoritesports club, the team and the stadium can thus form possessions which become a part ofthe extended self. A loss of place (of worship) can be regarded as a loss or lessening ofself (Belk, 1988). Furthermore, fans invest effort, time and attention in “their” club andits culture. Without fans, the stadium would not be the same, and the club would ceaseto exist. Fans decorate the stadium as it were their own place, hanging up banners andposters.

In addition, fans identify themselves with their sports club and the community offans of that particular club. The club is part of their social identity which is defined as“the perception of belonging to a group with the result that a person identifies with thatgroup” (Bhattacharya et al., 1995). Existing literature has documented well thatsponsors can benefit from associating themselves with the group because of its actions(Madrigal, 2000). Yet, sponsors’ actions can be perceived as a threat. Consequently, athreat may also affect a fans’ social identity in a sense that a threat to the group is alsoperceived as a threat to oneself. Other fans are a reference group for the level of expectedfreedom and also mediate whether negative reactions, once aroused, will be expressed.Negative reactions or even resistance of other fans might enforce or even cause furtherindividual reactions and produce a chain reaction. As discussed in the literature reviewby Redden and Steiner (2000), fans tend to have “total disdain for everything theydisagree with” (p. 328), refuse to listen to arguments and are immune to any alternativeoffers. According to the research presented, fans are described as dogmatic, resistant tochange and are even likely to try to impose their opinions on others.

The social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982) offers a framework to explain such resistantbehavior of a fan community. Fans classify themselves and other fans as being agroup-member (in-group, i.e. fan of a particular club) or not being a group member(out-group, i.e. fan of the rival club or no fan) (Carlson, 2005), with the team being in the

EJM48,7/8

1492

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

focus of their solidarity (King, 1997). Social groups naturally strive for positive groupdistinctiveness which in turn serves to protect, enhance, preserve or achieve a positivesocial identity for members of the group (Tajfel, 1982). Accordingly, groups also attemptto discriminate against out-group members. Hence, the mere existence of a social groupcan entail an intensification of resistance to activities of individuals or organizationsthat are classified as members of the out-group. Acting of out-group members againstthe norms and beliefs of the in-group can result in very strong negative emotionalreactions such as hate and hostility, especially if the in-group members have no controlover changes and decisions of the out-group member. Such negative views of anout-group member (i.e. sponsor) tend to be repeated and affirmed in intra-groupcommunication (Hickman and Ward, 2007). Belk (1988) states that such things aslandmarks, places and sports teams are symbols of group identity.

In the context of stadium name sponsorships, it can be argued that stadiums, alongwith their established names, may function as symbols of group identity. Fans therebymay not only actively use the stadium name when talking to other fans or buying ticketsbut also when practicing rituals such as fan songs in which the stadium name is referredto or when the stadium name is reflected in the name of a specific fan club.

This brief overview of consumer behavior theories that are relevant in the context ofexamining fans’ resistance to sports sponsorships, and of relevant empirical work in thiscontext, illustrates that several antecedents of fan resistance have been identified in theliterature. However, existing research has faded to take a holistic perspective on factorsthat contribute to fan resistance when looking at naming right sponsorships. Inaddition, to the best of our knowledge, sponsor-related consequences of fan resistanceare hardly addressed in existing research. In the next paragraph, a holistic model ofantecedents and outcomes of resistance to naming right sponsorships will therefore bedeveloped.

Hypotheses developmentAs pointed out in the literature review, two groups of related factors seem to have animpact on whether fans show resistance against the selling of a naming right. First,theories focusing on exchange (Heider, 1958) suggest that sponsor-related attitudes suchas perceived sponsorship fit, perceived sponsorship benefits and perceived regionalidentification of the sponsor could affect fan resistance. Second, the arguments of self-and social-identification theorists (Tajfel, 1982; Belk, 1988) point at sponsee- andsport-related attitudes, such as identification with the club, tradition consciousness,regional identification and attitude toward commercialization affecting fans’ resistance(Figure 1).

Effects of sponsorship-related attitudes on resistance to naming right sponsorshipThree sponsorship-related aspects could reduce negative reactions to naming rightsponsorship:

(1) a positive perception of sponsorship fit;(2) perceived benefits of the partnership; and(3) perceived regional identification of the sponsor.

These are outlined below.

1493

Fans’ resistanceto naming right

sponsorships

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

In the existing literature, sponsorship fit is found to be critical for sponsorship outcomes(Gwinner and Eaton, 1999; Simmons and Becker-Olsen, 2006; Speed and Thompson,2000). Sponsorship-induced outcomes that are analyzed in previous studies includebrand image, brand attitude (Simmons and Becker-Olsen, 2006; Dalakas and Levin,2005) and behavioral intentions (Speed and Thompson, 2000). The relevance ofsponsorship fit for sponsorship success is commonly explained by individuals’ strivingfor congruence (Festinger, 1957; Heider, 1946, 1958). Poorly fitting sponsorships areperceived as incongruent and cause psychological tensions in consumer minds.

Consistency theories such as balance and the congruity theory propose that peoplegenerally strive for balanced (congruent) structures between cognitive elements(Festinger, 1957; Heider, 1946, 1958). Consistency theories are often used to explainattitude change caused by sponsorship (Cornwell et al., 2005; Dean, 2002).

If fans perceive the sponsorship as incongruent, they will attempt to reestablishcongruence by lowering their attitudes or expectations and modifying their intentions.In the case of naming right sponsorship, restoration of congruence is achieved byresistance of fans toward the threatening agent (i.e. the sponsor). Fans who disapproveof the naming right agreement will try to resist using the new name. Consequently,sponsorship fit will contribute negatively to fan resistance to naming right sponsorship.

H1. Sponsorship fit leads to lower fan resistance to naming right sponsorship.

With regard to the aforementioned theoretical considerations, it can be suggested thatthe sponsor touches a part of the individual and social identity of fans (Belk, 1988; Tajfel,1982) when signing a naming right agreement with a club. Similarly, to an exchangeprocess, the sponsor takes away a part of the individual and social identity andcompensates this act by providing benefits (i.e. funds) to the club. Hence, the perceptionof benefits to the club that are associated with the naming right deal could reduce fanresistance. From a social exchange perspective, the benefits the club obtains from thesponsor should contribute positively to the evaluation of the sponsorship. Following thesocial exchange theory (SET; Blau, 1964), individuals assess both the social andeconomic rewards of an exchange relationship and their commitment to the relationship.Based on this evaluation, individuals seek to reciprocate the benefits received or leave

Fan resistance

Sponsorship-related attitudes

Sponsorship fit (–)

Benefits (–)

Regional ident. of sponsor (–)

Sponsee- & sport-related attitudes

Fan identification (+)

Tradition consciousness (+)

Regional identification (+)

Att. tw. commercialization (+)

Sponsorship outcomes

Brand Attitude (–)

Pos. word-of-mouth (–)

Figure 1.Conceptual framework

EJM48,7/8

1494

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

the relationship for alternatives (Blau, 1964). In our context, the sponsoring firm mayprovide financial value to the club and, as a consequence, to highly identified fans. Iffans perceive the benefits of the sponsorship (i.e. the financial value) as satisfying, theywill react less negatively to name change of the stadium. A beneficial action by one actor(i.e. the sponsor) results in a corresponding beneficial reaction (Blau, 1964) by therespective counterpart (i.e., the fans naming the stadium by its new name).Consequently, perceived benefits of the sponsor partnership should reduce fanresistance to naming right sponsorship.

H2. Perceived benefits lead to lower fan resistance to naming right sponsorship.

Besides financial benefits, we propose that regional identification of the sponsor canreduce negative reactions to naming right sponsorships. The sponsor is seen as anin-group member if it is seen as credible and its engagement is believed to be sincere andfor the right reasons (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001). An active regional engagement couldcontribute to the likelihood of being accepted as an in-group member. The consequenceof self-categorization of a sponsor to that particular fan community (in this case, a soccerclub) is a positive distinction of the community’s values, norms and behaviors towardother communities and thereby an increase of group members’ self-esteem (Turner,1987). Consequently, fans that perceive the sponsor as ambassador of the region, andtherefore as a member of the in-group, will exhibit greater liking of the sponsorpartnership and lower degrees of resistance.

H3. The perceived regional identification of the sponsor leads to lower fan resistanceto naming right sponsorship.

Effects of fan attitudes toward the sponsee and sport on resistanceBesides the crucial roles of sponsorship-related attitudes, it is important to deepen theunderstanding of potential effects of fan attitudes toward the sponsee and the sport ingeneral. Consequently, we develop theoretical explanations for possible influences offour individual fan facets, namely, identification with the club, tradition consciousness,regional identification and attitude toward commercialization on fan resistance tonaming right sponsorship.

First, the degree to which fans identify themselves with the soccer club could lead tohigher resistance to naming right sponsorship. Social identity primarily comprises thefeeling of belonging to a group (Bhattacharya et al., 1995). This is closely connected toone of the most important elements of communities: consciousness of kind. It has beendefined as “the intrinsic connection that members feel towards one another and collectivesense of difference from others not in the community” (Muniz and O‘Guinn, 2001, p. 413).Depending on their identification, fans will classify themselves and the sponsor as beinga group member (in-group) or as not being a group member (out-group) (Carlson, 2005).Fans that identify themselves strongly with their soccer club are more likely to treat asponsor as an intruder, i.e. as being out-group (Hewstone et al., 2002). As a consequenceof the intrusion of the sponsor into the in-group, highly identified fans may refuseaccepting naming right sponsorships comparatively stronger. This is in line with ageneral concern of highly identified football fans about the “interference of businesspeople” and the subsequent loss of the “true spirit of football” (van Uden, 2005).Respectively, it is suggested that fans with stronger identification levels may perceivethe act of threatening their identity by the sponsoring company as more severe than

1495

Fans’ resistanceto naming right

sponsorships

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

others. Therefore, fan identification should be positively related with fan resistance tonaming right sponsorship.

H4. Fan identification leads to higher fan resistance to naming right sponsorship.

Because tradition is a relevant dimension in the perception of sports teams (Guschwan,2012), we suggest that tradition consciousness may influence fan resistance to namingright sponsorship. First, tradition conscious fans by definition have a strongerpreference for a steady state. In addition, it seems reasonable to assume that traditionconsciousness plays an important role in fencing in-group from out-group members:fans who value a long and rich tradition of their club and the respective culturalheritage define their in-group more narrowly. Respectively, the threat of “culturalappropriation” – defined as the “entire range of ways in which the cultural knowledge,traditions and identities of minority peoples can appear to be exploited by outsiders”(Harrison, 1999, p. 10) is perceived as more severe by such fans than by fans who havea less clearly articulated sense of tradition.

The change of a stadium name can be interpreted as a hostile and oppressive act byfans, especially when the stadium’s name is part of the fans’ rituals and traditions (e.g.,the inclusion of the stadiums name in fan-songs). Rituals and traditions maintain the fancommunity’s shared history, culture and consciousness (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001).Giving up the old stadium name therefore could pose a threat to tradition-consciousfans. Consequently, their evaluation of the partnership will be more closely related totheir brand attitude and behavioral intention. Therefore, resistance will be higher fortradition-conscious fans as a result of the greater importance of the loss of identity.

H5. Tradition consciousness leads to higher fan resistance to naming rightsponsorship.

Similarly to tradition consciousness, regional identification of fans could also lead toresistance to a naming right sponsorship. Acknowledging that localness has beenidentified as an important variable in fandom research (Crawford, 2004), it is suggestedthat fans who live in the region and identify themselves with the region are likely toexhibit greater resistance toward threats imposed by out-group members. Thereby,there is strong support for the notion that “place” and place identity can be seen as anintegral part of one’s self and community identification (Pretty et al., 2003; Puddifoot,1995).

From a social identity perspective, it has been acknowledged that consumer’sattitudes and behaviors are driven by their identities (Forehand, 2002). The level ofregional identification thus may influence the way in which fans respond to namingright sponsorships. In particular, one could assume that renaming an existing stadiumthat originally was named after the region, imposes a threat to self- and communityidentity. Therefore, a fan’s regional identification may increase the likelihood that thesponsor is not accepted as an in-group member.

H6. Regional identification of fans leads to higher fan resistance to naming rightsponsorship.

Besides the hypotheses derived above that deal with the role of individuals as socialbeings, we propose that a more general negative attitude toward commercialization alsocontributes to fan resistance. The relation of a fan toward the soccer club is generally

EJM48,7/8

1496

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

perceived as being of emotional, not of transactional, character. Fans with negativeattitudes toward commercialization may think that sponsors associate themselves witha sponsee for the wrong motives. In this context, it has also been shown that football fansresist movements toward over-commercialization (Crawford, 2004). Following the socialidentity theory, it can be assumed that fans with a comparatively more negative attitudeto commercialization are likely to perceive naming-right sponsors as out-groupmembers. Thus, it is suggested that the more negative fans perceive commercializationin sport in general, the more they will tend to resist to the sponsorship (van Uden, 2005).Therefore:

H7. A negative attitude toward commercialization leads to higher fan resistance tonaming right sponsorship.

Consequences of fan resistanceFan resistance to sponsorship reflects a state of psychological tension in the fans’ minds.Restoration of cognitive balance is achieved by negative reactions of fans toward thethreatening agent (i.e. the sponsor). Fans who disapprove of the naming right agreementwill lower their attitudes toward the sponsoring brand and will not recommend thesponsor. In addition, the theory of psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966) offers anexplanation for “negative psychological and contrary behavioral responses of consumerswhen their freedom to make a decision is restricted or removed” (Moore and Fitzsimons,2007, p. 224). In general, psychological reactance refers to the negative feelingsexperienced by individuals who perceive that someone is trying to constrain theirpersonal freedoms (Donnell et al., 2001).

While naming right sponsorships are not directly related to a constraint of personalfreedom, it has been shown intrusive advertisings and similar communication messagessimilarly limit consumer’s degrees of freedom in terms of potential actions they can taketo reach their personal goals (Edwards et al., 2002). Consequences of such reactance,thereby, include mental effects and behavioral effects.

The mental effects help to restore a sense of freedom, but only indirectly, as they areexhibited in such responses as developing a greater liking for the threatening choice,showing aggression toward the threatening agent or denying the existence of the threat.Behavioral effects include a direct restoration of the freedom, namely, showingoppositional behavior as well as protesting or engaging in protest-related behavior suchas negative word-of-mouth (Wendlandt and Schrader, 2007).

Therefore, we suggest that fan resistance should result in negative mental effects, i.e.a more negative attitude toward the naming right sponsor’s brand. In terms of effects onbehavioral intentions, respectively, a negative effect stemming from fan resistance onword-of-mouth is suggested.

H8a,b. Fan resistance is negatively related to (a) brand attitude and (b)word-of-mouth.

Empirical studyResearch contextTo analyze fans’ reactions to the selling of stadiums’ naming rights, the German soccerclub “Borussia Dortmund” presented itself as the most appropriate research object, as ithad sold its stadium’s name in December 2005. Several sponsors saved the club from

1497

Fans’ resistanceto naming right

sponsorships

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

bankruptcy when it underwent a financial crisis in 2004. The selling of the naming rightcontributed in a major way to saving the club, generating an estimated sum of 20 millioneuro which allowed the club to buy the stadium back. Although the naming rightsponsorship of Signal Iduna (“Signal Iduna” being the name of a German insurancecompany) can be considered a milestone in restoring the club’s financial health andsecurity, the name change from “Westfalenstadion” (“Stadium of Westphalia”, theregion around the city of Dortmund) to “Signal Iduna-Park” annoyed many fans andsympathizers to a great extent. Dortmund is one of the two headquarters of SignalIduna. Interestingly, their brand logo is blue, which is also the color of BorussiaDortmund’s regional rival Schalke 04. The color of the brand logo itself was not alteredto fit the club, although the background was changed to yellow on the club and stadiumWeb sites. The naming right contract between the club and the Signal Iduna insurancegroup was recently extended until the year 2016.

The context of soccer was chosen because soccer is the most popular sport inGermany, with the highest number of fans, the highest level of media presence andbecause it is a context in which naming right sponsorship contracts are very common.Borussia Dortmund is one of the most popular German first division soccer clubs, with�3 million fans in Germany (Sport � Markt, 2008).

The stadium was erected in 1974, modified several times and held the old name“Westfalenstadion” since then. Currently, it can accommodate 80.645 spectators and isthe biggest soccer stadium in Germany.

SampleTo test the hypotheses, data were collected via an online survey, primarily because ofthe convenient accessibility of the respondents. A number of prizes were drawn in asmall lottery to ensure a high response rate. The questionnaire was posted in a numberof news platforms and Internet communities that are frequently visited by fans ofBorussia Dortmund. The representativeness of the sample was established byexamining specific demographic statistics (age, gender), levels of involvement in soccerand identification with the club. Between 9 and 20 November, 2007, a total of 798respondents participated in the online survey. The average age of the respondents was24.39 years (SD � 7.58), 90.2 (9.8) per cent were male (female). On average, the fans arehighly involved with soccer in general (mean value � 6.47; SD � 0.89) and highlyidentified with the club (MV � 5.89; SD � 1.47). Following Armstrong and Overton(1977), we compared items from early and late respondents, and these displayed no signsof non-response bias. In addition, and to ensure comparability of our data, the samplewas compared with a larger sample of fans of Borussia Dortmund (n � 10,531). Thislarge sample is a representative sample of customers of the club’s merchandising store.Results indicate that the two samples do not differ in terms of fan identification (namingright data set: MV � 5.89; SD � 1.47; merchandising data set: MV � 6.17; SD � 0.95)and gender (naming right data set: 90.2 per cent male; merchandising data set: 86.1 percent male). Therefore, one can conclude that the vast majority of the club’s fan base ishighly identified and predominantly male. The sample of this study is a bit youngerthan the representative sample (naming right data set: MV � 24.39; SD � 7.58;merchandising data set: MV � 31.33; SD � 12.12).

EJM48,7/8

1498

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

MeasuresFan resistance can be directly observed by fans writing on blogs (as in Table I), coveringup logos on fan materials or changing companies. In this study, resistance to namingright sponsorship is operationalized as a state in which fans are well aware of thesponsorship (i.e. displaying correct recall), but refuse to use the sponsor’s name for thestadium. Consequently, fans that successfully recall the sponsor and refer to the stadiumby its new name (i.e., the sponsor’s name) are coded as non-resistant. Fans that recall thesponsor, but refuse to use the new name are coded as resistant. Respondents that did notrecall the sponsor were eliminated from the analysis of determinants of fan resistance.

We refrained from operationalizing fan resistance as psychometric construct becausean explicit measure of resistance in this context could have further amplified negativefan reactions, as they may have been perceived as leading questions. This could have ledto limited variance in our measure of fan resistance.

We developed the items for measuring the remaining constructs of the study bydrawing on prior research. All independent constructs are measured with multi-itemscales. The items were measured on 7-point-Likert-type scales, with anchors of 1 �strongly disagree and 7 � strongly agree and semantic differentials.

Three items are used to measure brand attitude. Word-of-mouth intention ismeasured by four items adopted from existing literature (Algesheimer et al., 2005). Theevaluation of the sponsorship fit is measured with a scale from Simmons andBecker-Olsen (2006). Because the sponsor and the club are different in certain attributes(e.g. color, image), but also similar on others (e.g. they are from the same region), wedecided against using a multidimensional measurement of similarity (Gwinner andEaton, 1999). Attitude toward commercialization (Lee et al., 1997) and fan identification(Algesheimer et al., 2005) were adopted from existing literature.

The fans’ sense of tradition (e.g., “Traditions in sports should be upheld”) and theirregional identification (e.g., “I feel strongly connected to the region of Dortmund andWestphalia”) and the sponsor’s regional identification (e.g., “Signal Iduna identifies withthe region of Dortmund”) as well as the perceived benefit of the sponsorship for thesoccer club (e.g., “The partnership with Signal Iduna is very beneficial for BorussiaDortmund”) were measured by multi-items scales developed by the authors andpre-tested on a sample of 102 undergraduate students (see Appendix for full list ofitems). The measurement reliability of the reflective constructs was examined through aconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results of the CFA and the list of items are depictedin Table II.

It can be noted that composite reliabilities for the eleven reflective constructs exceed0.6, the generally recommended threshold (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Moreover,discriminant validity between the constructs is given (Table III) because none of thesquared correlation coefficients between any of the constructs exceeds the averagevariance extracted for a construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

ResultsBefore testing our hypotheses, we start with descriptive results of the constructs used inthis study. Table IV shows means and standard deviations separately for each constructin our study, with each construct being measured on a 7-point scale and high valuesdocumenting high (positive) agreement. Sponsorship fit is rated on a modest level.

1499

Fans’ resistanceto naming right

sponsorships

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

Table II.Results of confirmatoryfactor analysis

Construct and itemsFactorloading

Compositereliability

Averagevarianceextracted

Word-of-mouth intention 0.973 0.899I never miss an opportunity to recommend [brand] to others 0.947I actively encourage friends and colleagues to inform themselvesabout [brand] 0.987I express myself positively about [brand] 0.890I actively recommend products of [brand] to friends and colleagues 0.965

Brand attitude 0.952 0.868Positive/negative 0.865Favourable/unfavourable 0.953Good/bad 0.974

Regional identification of the sponsor 0.957 0.789[Brand] is strongly connected to the region of Dortmund 0.894[Brand] is a part of Dortmund 0.895[Brand] is a typical company from Dortmund 0.891[Brand] actively cares for public needs in the region of Dortmund 0.877[Brand] identifies with the region of Dortmund 0.897[Brand]’s home is in Dortmund. 0.875

Regional identification 0.956 0.783I feel strongly connected to the region of Dortmund andWestphalia. 0.892I am a part of Dortmund and Westphalia. 0.942To be a part of Dortmund and Westphalia means a lot to me. 0.920I can identify with the region of Dortmund and Westphalia. 0.873I feel that as a Westphalian, I belong to the region. 0.860The area around Dortmund is my home. 0.815

Fan identification 0.930 0.769I am very attached to [club]. 0.754I see myself as a part of the [club] community. 0.940To be part of the [club] community means a lot to me. 0.952[Club] plays an important role in my life. 0.847

Sponsorship fit 0.955 0.751Similar/dissimilar 0.875Consistent/inconsistent 0.839Typical/atypical 0.831Representative/unrepresentative 0.873Complementary/not complementary 0.889High fit/low fit 0.904Makes sense/does not make sense 0.854

Attitude toward commercialization 0.872 0.695Companies that sponsor [club] should not try to commercialize theclub. 0.828The logo of [club] should not be used for commercial purposes. 0.782I feel that [club] is too commercialized. 0.887

(continued)

EJM48,7/8

1500

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

Moreover, the sponsor’s brand image and the word-of-mouth intention are evaluatedpoorly.

Because fan resistance is conceptualized as dichotomous variable, the analysis issplit in two parts. First, the consequences of fan resistance are assessed using aMANOVA[2]. Second, the determinants of fan resistance are analyzed using logisticregression analysis.

Respondents were asked to recall the insurance company that sponsors the club. Atotal of 72.2 per cent of the respondents correctly named “Signal Iduna” as sponsor. More

Table II.

Construct and itemsFactorloading

Compositereliability

Averagevarianceextracted

Tradition consciousness 0.918 0.693It is important to uphold traditions in sports. 0.871Particularly in sports, it is nice to remember old times. 0.766A sense of tradition is very important in sports. 0.925Not all changes in sports are positive. 0.710Traditions in sports should be upheld. 0.871

Perceived benefits 0.935 0.672The partnership with [brand] is very beneficial for [club]. 0.862[Club] can commit better players due to their partnership with[brand]. 0.754[Club] can comply more easily with their financial obligationsbecause of the partnership with [brand]. 0.813[Club] can improve its international competitiveness due to theirpartnership with [brand]. 0.759[Club]’s needs are met by the partnership with [brand]. 0.816The partnership with [brand] helps [club]. 0.903The effects of [club]’s partnership with [brand] are mostlypositive. 0.820Goodness-of-fit statistics: CFI (0.936); TLI (0.930); RMSEA(0.059); SRMR (0.045)

Table III.Correlations between

constructs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Identification 1Regional identification 0.306 1Tradition consciousness 0.607 0.344 1Attitude toward commercialization 0.454 0.303 0.633 1Perceived benefits �0.194 �0.187 �0.327 �0.547 1Regional identification of thesponsor �0.144 �0.143 �0.290 �0.412 0.641 1Sponsorship fit �0.206 �0.238 �0.333 �0.497 0.741 0.679 1Brand attitude �0.162 �0.196 �0.291 �0.436 0.656 0.704 0.683 1Word-of-mouth intention �0.127 �0.089 �0.178 �0.303 0.345 0.400 0.405 0.418 1AVE 0.769 0.783 0.693 0.695 0.672 0.789 0.751 0.868 0.899

Note: All correlations significant at p � 0.01

1501

Fans’ resistanceto naming right

sponsorships

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

interestingly, only 26.4 per cent of the respondents referred to the stadium as “SignalIduna Park” when they were asked to recall the actual stadium name. The vast majorityof 73.6 per cent uses the old stadium name even two years after the name change. AMANOVA was conducted to test if differences in the evaluation of the two dependentvariables, brand attitude and word-of-mouth, result from sponsorship recall and namingof the stadium. Both main effects (sponsorship recall: F � 13.553; p � 0.000; namingof stadium: F � 42.406; p � 0.000) and the interaction effect (F � 4.550; p � 0.011)are significant. Results of post hoc analyses are depicted in Table VI. H8a and H8bcan be confirmed because resistant fans evaluate brand attitude and word-of-mouth

Table IV.Mean values and standarddeviations of exogenousand endogenousconstructs

Construct Mean valuea Standard deviation

Fan identification 5.89 1.47Regional identification 5.29 1.73Tradition consciousness 6.28 1.04Attitude toward commercialization 5.62 1.57Perceived benefits 3.84 1.51Regional identification of the sponsor 3.35 1.47Sponsorship fit 4.69 1.37Brand attitude 3.36 1.39Word-of-mouth intention 1.80 1.32

Note: a higher values indicate a higher agreement

Table V.MANOVA results

F-value Significance

Sponsorship recall 13.553 0.000Naming of the stadium 42.406 0.000Sponsorship recall * Naming of the stadium 4.550 0.011

Note: n � 785

Table VI.Means of brand attitudeand word-of-mouth

Naming of stadiumSignificanceSponsor’s name Old name

Brand attitude (MV, SD)a

Sponsorship recallYes 4.21 (0.95), n � 169 3.45 (1.30), n � 360 F � 45.969 (p � 0.000)No 3.90 (1.00), n � 38 2.45 (1.37), n � 218 F � 38.946 (p � 0.000)

Significance F � 3.171 (p � 0.076) F � 76.851 (p � 0.000)

Word-of-mouth (MV, SD)Sponsorship recall

Yes 2.43 (1.48), n � 169 1.74 (1.28), n � 360 F � 30.122 (p � 0.000)No 2.26 (1.52), n � 38 1.35 (0.97), n � 218 F � 23.550 (p � 0.000)

Significance F � 0.392 (p � 0.532) F � 15.148 (p � 0.000)

Notes: a Mean values (MV) and standard deviations (SD); N (total) � 785; results in bold lettersindicate differences between resistant and non-resistant fans

EJM48,7/8

1502

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

intention significantly lower than non-resistant fans (results emphasized in boldletters, Tables V to VII).In accordance with existing literature (Javalgi et al., 1994), both dependent variables areevaluated more favorably when the sponsor is recalled correctly. More interestingly,brand attitude and word-of-mouth intention are significantly lower when fans are ableto recall the sponsor correctly, but refuse to use the new name (i.e. the sponsor’s name)for the stadium.

Next, potential determinants of naming right resistance are assessed. All fanssuccessfully recalling the sponsor are included in the analysis, with fans refusing to usethe new stadium name coded as 1 (resisting fans) and fans calling the stadium by thesponsor’s name coded as 0. A logistic regression was chosen as statistical technique, asthe dependent variable is categorical and the independent variables are metric (Hairet al., 2010).

Results in Table VI indicate that two out of three sponsorship-related attitudes showsignificant effects on fan resistance to naming right sponsorship. More specifically,sponsorship fit and benefits of the sponsorship lead to lower fan resistance to namingright sponsorship. Hence, H1 and H2 cannot be rejected. By contrast to H3, regionalidentification of the sponsor is not significantly related to fan resistance. The strongestantecedents of fan resistance resulting from fan characteristics are fan identification andattitude toward commercialization. Both factors are positively related to fan resistanceto naming right sponsorship, confirming H4 and H7. Similarly, regional identification offans is found to affect fan resistance positively as proposed in H6. Unlike proposed inH5, the effect of tradition consciousness on fan resistance is not significant. Moreover,female fans are found to be less resistant to naming right sponsorship, while nosignificant relationship between age and fan resistance is observed. The Hosmer andLemeshow test shows insignificance for the model (p � 0.348), indicating that thedifferences between actual and expected values are insignificant (Hair et al., 2010).Moreover, the overall hit ratio is 81.1 per cent; the hit ratio for resistant fans is 89.7 per

Table VII.Factors influencing

resistance to naming rightsponsorship

Influencing factor B Wald Significance

Sponsorship-related attitudesSponsorship fit �0.267 4.208 0.040Benefits �0.269 3.870 0.049Regional identification of sponsor �0.085 0.427 0.513

Fan characteristicsFan identification 0.637 24.692 0.000Regional identification 0.197 5.485 0.019Regional identification * benefitsa 0.134 4.408 0.036Tradition consciousness �0.050 0.071 0.790Tradition consciousness * regional identification of sponsora 0.249 4.726 0.030Attitude toward commercialization 0.527 28.502 0.000Gender �1.078 5.640 0.018Age �0.022 1.459 0.227

Notes: Results of a logistic regression; n � 529; Nagelkerke’s R2 � 0.48; * only interactions significantat p � 0.05 are reported

1503

Fans’ resistanceto naming right

sponsorships

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

cent; and the hit ratio for non-resistant fans is 63.2 per cent. The predictive accuracy ofboth groups is above the proportional chance criterion of 56.2 per cent.

In addition to the assessment of direct relationships between sponsorship-relatedattitudes, fan characteristics and fan resistance to naming right sponsorship,moderating effects involving sponsorship-related attitudes and fan characteristics weretested. Out of 12 tested interactions, only 2 significant moderating effects are revealed:First, the effect of benefits lowering fan resistance is weakened by fans’ regionalidentification. Fans who identify themselves strongly with the region find thesponsorship benefits – which go along with giving up the old stadium name – lessacceptable. Second, the interaction of tradition consciousness and regional identificationof the sponsor contributes to greater fan resistance, while both variables do not affectfan resistance directly. Supposedly, tradition-conscious fans find the sponsor’s regionalidentification less credible and therefore respond with greater resistance. The modelaccounts for a total of 48 per cent of fan resistance to naming right sponsorship.

General discussionAlthough naming right sponsorships are generally considered a powerful instrumentfor companies to gain high profile and market share, they seem not to be entirely free ofrisk. Anecdotal evidence from different sports in different parts of the world indicatesthat sports fans are quite sensitive to sports facilities’ name changes. This articlecontributes to the literature by conceptualizing the phenomenon of fan resistance andassessing the determinants that contribute to fan resistance when naming rights aresold. Our findings extend the understanding of negative sponsorship effects in additionto the mechanisms and theoretical frameworks that are documented in the literature(Cornwell et al., 2005).

Results indicate that sponsee- and sports-related variables such as fan/regionalidentification and attitude toward commercialization contribute to higher fan resistance.These results, being interpreted from a social identity perspective, show that fans tendto see themselves as in-group members who discriminate against out-group members.As the sponsoring company takes control of the name and imposes a “threat” (thechange of a stadium’s name) on the group’s ritual place, this results in strong negativeemotional reactions. These emotions tend to be repeated and affirmed in intra-groupcommunications which intensify negative reactions unless the sponsor offers a positivecontribution from the fans’ standpoints. “Cultural appropriation” (Harrison, 1999) thusis an issue relevant also in the context of soccer fans, whereby fans with a comparativelyhigher identification with the club and higher regional identification perceive the threatof losing a part of their identity as more intense than other fans. These findingscorrespond to a study investigating price determinants for sport facility naming rightsin which it is suggested that the likelihood of renaming a facility is negatively affectedby the number of years the facility uses its original name (DeSchriver and Jensen, 2003).In turn, in the case of a totally new facility, naming right agreements are suggested to beless problematic because there is no tradition or heritage related to the facility itself thatcan be threatened.

Looking at our findings concerning the sponsor-related attitudes sponsorship fit andperceived benefits of the sponsorship, it can be noted that these two variables areeffective means to reduce fan resistance. These results mirror findings from studiesinvestigating determinants of sponsoring success in general (Simmons and

EJM48,7/8

1504

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

Becker-Olsen, 2006). The reducing effect of perceived benefits on fan resistance is lowerfor fans that identify themselves strongly with the region.

Despite theoretical conclusions drawn from social identity theory, the perceivedregional identification of the sponsor is not significantly related to fan resistance.Potentially, this counterintuitive effect can be traced back to the context of our study,which is limited to the analysis of one particular naming right agreement in whichresistance occurred despite a regional connectedness between naming right sponsor andthe city of the soccer club. However, the result shows that being regionally connecteddoes not imply a sufficient condition for naming right sponsorship success. Indirectly,the interaction of regional identification of the sponsor and tradition consciousnesscontributes to greater fan resistance. Supposedly, tradition-conscious fans find thesponsor’s regional identification less credible and therefore respond with greaterresistance.

These findings discussed above provide the basis for several managerialimplications that are outlined in the following paragraph.

Managerial implicationsThe results offer important implications for firms who engage themselves in namingright sponsorship.

From the perspective of the sponsor, the results of our study demonstrate thatnegative effects of sponsorships are especially relevant for the sponsoring companybecause both brand image and word-of-mouth-intention can be affected negatively.With a large fan base, such negative effects can have an economically relevant impact onthe sponsor. Given that creating a favorable brand attitude is among the most importantobjectives of sponsors, the importance of analyzing fan’s attitudes toward a sponsor’sbrand prior to engaging as a naming right sponsor, cannot be overestimated. Besidesassessing estimated fan reactions in terms of resistance, e.g., by means of ascenario-based experimental design using different naming right sponsors, an analysisof general fit and perceived benefits may provide a first guidance, in how far a specificnaming right sponsorship will work as desired. In case of several opportunities whichmight be available for naming right sponsorships, a sponsor similarly could assessrespective metrics for all of these potential engagements, and then identify the optimalpartnership. Thus, knowing that fit and perceived benefits are important to minimizefan resistance helps in selecting optimal sponsorship partners.

Once having decided to engage as a naming right sponsor, the results of this studyprovide guidance in terms of an optimal implementation. In particular, measures shouldbe taken that further improve perceived sponsorship fit as well as the perceptions of thebenefits for the club by its fans. Respectively, sponsors should try to build a bridgebetween sponsor and fans to improve acceptance of the in-group. Operatively, eventsaccompanied by respective communication activities and public relation initiatives canbe used to enhance recall of a new stadium name and perceived between sponsor andsponsee. In this sense, establishing a visible and satisfactory relationship for bothsponsoring parties and fans is regarded as useful to raise awareness on the benefits thatsponsees receive from sponsorship deals. Moreover, sponsors should actively strive tounderstand negative reactions of the fans and adapt their communication strategy toavoid resistance, e.g., due to fans’ feelings of overt commercialism.

1505

Fans’ resistanceto naming right

sponsorships

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

Finally, it has to be acknowledged that fan attitudes such as attitude towardcommercialization and regional identification seem to be difficult to influence. Hence, itcould be tricky for a sponsor to engage in a sensitive deal such as a naming rightsponsorship without causing resistance of fans. However, also in case of fans that arehighly sensitive toward commercialization activities, measures aiming at enhancingsincerity are suggested to effectively improve resistance in such groups of fans.

Limitations and future researchLittle attention has been paid on negative reactions to sponsorships in existing research.Therefore, future research could assess negative effects resulting from othersponsorship contexts, such as the sale of a clubs naming right, promotion campaignsduring the venue and to sponsorship deals in general to improve generalizability of thisstudy’s findings. For instance, when MLB initiated a pilot program to test fanreceptivity and permitted small advertising patches on players’ shirt sleeves, fans andcolumnists protested vigorously so that the idea was abandoned (Bonham, 1999).

Further studies could examine how fan resistance to sponsorships develops when thename of sponsors keeps changing. It might be assumed that fans ultimately becomeinured to such changes and resistance lessens. Similarly, fan’s reactions to naming rightagreements in case of newly build facilities could be assessed and compared withfindings from settings in which an established facilitie’s name was changed. Moreover,research should be devoted to finding strategies that lead to a reduction of fan resistanceto sponsorship actions. Individuals that identify themselves with a specific entity (e.g.,a soccer club, a region) perceive a threat from outside as more severe and threat theintruder (i.e. the sponsor) as a member of the out-group. In social psychology literature(Hewstone et al., 2002), several strategies to reduce intergroup bias are recommendedthat deserve to be studied in the context of negative fan reactions to sponsorship andpromotion campaigns. Future research could examine what strategies seem mostpromising in trying to react to negative fan reactions, once aroused. Additionally, alongitudinal study and analysis would be suitable for testing the effects of prior brandattitudes on fan resistance. Furthermore, psychometric scales could be deployed formeasuring consumer resistance. Finally, future studies could assess the net effect ofnaming right sponsorships, i.e. if fans’ negative reactions are overcompensated bypositive sponsorship effects for non-fans.

Notes1. “The name remains the same for fans” is the original title of a Marketing Week article about

the risky game of sponsoring a sporting venue by Daniel Thomas, July 31, 2003.

2. We use a MANOVA to show the differences in mean values of the outcome variables as aresult of fan resistance. The assessment of the consequences of fan resistance in a structuralequation model using MPLUS 7 shows similar results. Fan resistance is negatively related tobrand attitude (ß � �0.263; p � 0.000) and word-of-mouth intention (ß � �0.230; p � 0.000).

ReferencesAlgesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M. and Herrmann, A. (2005), “The social influence of brand

community: evidence from European car clubs”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3,pp. 19-34.

EJM48,7/8

1506

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journalof Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.

Becker-Olsen, K.L. and Hill, R.P. (2006), “The impact of sponsor fit on brand equity - the case ofnonprofit service providers”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 73-83.

Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15No. 3, pp. 139-168.

Bergkvist, L. (2012), “The flipside of the sponsorship coin – do you still buy the beer when thebrewer underwrites a rival team?”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 65-73.

Bhattacharya, C.B., Rao, H. and Glynn, M.A. (1995), “Understanding the bond of identification: aninvestigation of its correlates among art museum members”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59No. 4, pp. 46-57.

BigFooty.com (2008), “Ashburton Grove has a name”, www.bigfooty.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-136717.html (accessed 14 May 2008).

Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.Bonham, D. (1999), “Forget purists […] ad patches won’t despoil baseball”, Rocky Mountain News

(Denver, CO), 13 June, available at: www.bonham.com/press/1999/613.htmlBrehm, J.W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance, Academic Press, New York, NY.Carlson, B.D. (2005), Brand-based Community: The Role of Identification in Developing a Sense of

Community Among Brand Users, Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma.Clark, J.M., Cornwell, T.B. and Pruitt, S.W. (2002), “Corporate stadium sponsorships, signaling

theory, agency conflicts, and shareholder wealth”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 42No. 6, pp. 16-32.

Close, A.G. and Zinkhan, G.M. (2007), “Consumer experiences and market resistance: an extensionof resistance theories”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 34, pp. 256-262.

Cornwell, T.B., Weeks, C.S. and Roy, D.P. (2005), “Sponsorship-linked marketing: Opening theBlack Box”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 21-42.

Cowley, E. and Barron, C. (2008), “When product placement goes wrong: the effects of programliking and placement prominence”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 89-98.

Crawford, G. (2004), Consuming Sport: Fans, Sport, and Culture, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon.Crompton, J.L. and Howard, D.R. (2003), “The American experience with facility naming rights:

opportunities for English professional football teams”, Managing Leisure, Vol. 8 No. 4,pp. 212-226.

DeSchriver, T.D. and Jensen, P.E. (2003), “What’s in a name? price variation in sport facilitynaming rights”, Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 359-376.

Dalakas, V. and Levin, A.M. (2005), “The balance theory domino: how sponsorships may elicitnegative consumer attitudes”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 32, pp. 91-97.

Davies, F., Veloutsou, C. and Costa, A. (2006), “Investigating the influence of a joint sponsorship ofrival teams on supporter attitudes and brand preferences”, Journal of MarketingCommunications, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 31-48.

Dean, D.H. (2002), “Associating the corporation with a charitable event through sponsorship:measuring the effects on corporate community relations”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 31No. 4, pp. 77-87.

Dobscha, S. (1998), “The lived experience of consumer rebellion against marketing”, Advances inConsumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 91-97.

1507

Fans’ resistanceto naming right

sponsorships

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

Donnell, A.J., Thomas, A. and Buboltz, W.C. Jr. (2001), “Psychological reactance: factor structureand internal consistency of the questionnaire for the management of psychologicalreactance”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 141 No. 5, pp. 679-687.

Edwards, S.M., Li, H. and Lee, J.H. (2002), “Forced exposure and psychological reactance:antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads”, Journal ofAdvertising, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 83-95.

Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford.Forehand, M.R., Deshpandé, R. and Reed, A. II. (2002), “Identity salience and the influence of

differential activation of the social self-schema on advertising response”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 87 No. 6, pp. 1086-1099.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumer resistance: societal motivations, consumer manifestations, andimplications in the marketing domain”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1,pp. 88-90.

Friedman, M. (1985), “Consumer boycotts in the United States, 1970-1980: contemporary events inhistorical perspective”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 96-117.

Gabriel, Y. and Lang, T. (1995), “The Unmanageable Consumer: Contemporary Consumption andits Fragmentations”, Sage Publications, London.

Greenberg, M.J. and Gray, J.T. (1996), The Stadium Game, Marquette University Law School,National Sports Law Institute, Milwaukee.

Guschwan, M. (2012), “Fandom brandom and the limits of participatory culture”, Journal ofConsumer Culture, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 19-40.

Gwinner, K.P. and Eaton, J. (1999), “Building brand image through event sponsorship: the role ofimage transfer”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 47-57.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, N.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Harrison, S. (1999), “Cultural boundaries”, Anthropology Today, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 10-13.Heider, F. (1946), “Attitudes and cognitive organization”, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 1,

pp. 107-112.Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley, New York, NY.Hewstone, M., Rubin, M. and Willis, H. (2002), “Intergroup Bias”, Annual Review of Psychology,

Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 575-604.Hickman, T. and Ward, J. (2007), “The dark side of brand community: inter-group stereotyping,

trash talk, and Schadenfreude”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 34, pp. 314-319.Hirschman, A.O. (1970), Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and

States, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Javalgi, R.G., Traylor, M.B., Gross, A.C. and Lampman, E. (1994), “Awareness of sponsorship and

corporate image: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 47-58.King, A. (1997), “The lads: masculinity and the new consumption of football”, Sociology, Vol. 31

No. 2, pp. 329-346.Kozinets, R.V. (2002), “Can consumers escape the market? emancipatory illuminations from

burning man”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 20-37.League of Fans (2004), “League of fans supports commercial alert’s campaign to protect

candlestick park and to stop a corporate “Monster” naming rights deal”, available at:www.leagueoffans.org/candlestickrelease.html (accessed 8 October 2008).

EJM48,7/8

1508

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

Lee, M.-S., Sandler, D.M. and Shani, D. (1997), “Attitudinal constructs towards sponsorship: scaledevelopment using three global sporting events”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 14No. 3, pp. 159-169.

McCarthy, L.M., and Irwin, R. (2000), “An examination of the rationale and motives for corporatepurchase of stadia and arena naming rights”, The Cyber-Journal of Sport Marketing, Vol. 4No. 3.

Madrigal, R. (2000), “The influence of social alliances with sports teams on intentions to purchasecorporate sponsors’ Products”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 13-24.

Moore, S. and Fitzsimons, G.J. (2007), “What’s yours is mine: self-construal and reactance on behalfof others”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 223-225.

Muniz, A.M. and O’ Guinn, T. (2001), “Brand community”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27No. 4, pp. 412-431.

Osgood, C.E. and Tannenbaum, P.H. (1955), “The principle of congruity in the prediction ofattitude change”, Psychological Review, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 42-55.

Peñaloza, L. and Price, L. (1993), “Consumer resistance: a conceptual overview”, Advances inConsumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 123-128.

Poster, M. (1992), “The question of agency: decerteau and the history of consumption”, Diacritics,Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 94-107.

Pretty, G.H., Chipuer, H.M. and Bramston, P. (2003), “Sense of place amongst adolescents andadults in two rural Australian towns: the discriminating features of place attachment, senseof community and place dependence in relation to place identity”, Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 273-287.

Puddifoot, J.E. (1995), “Dimension of community identity”, Journal of Community and AppliedSocial Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 357-370.

Quester, P.G. (1997), “Awareness as a measure of sponsorship effectiveness: the adelaide formulaone grand prix and evidence of incidental ambush effects”, Journal of MarketingCommunications, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-20.

Redden, J. and Steiner, C.J. (2000), “Fanatical consumers: towards a framework for research”,Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 322-337.

Roux, D. (2007), “Consumer resistance: proposal for an integrative framework”, Recherche etApplications en Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 59-79.

Ruth, J.A. and Simonin, B.L. (2003), “Brought to you by Brand A and Brand B”, Journal ofAdvertising, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 19-30.

Sagarin, B.J., Cialdini, R.B., Rice, W.E. and Serna, S.B. (2002), “Dispelling the illusion ofinvulnerability: the motivations and mechanisms of resistance to persuasion”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 526-541.

Simmons, C.J. and Becker-Olsen, K.L. (2006), “Achieving marketing objectives through socialsponsorships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 154-169.

Speed, R. and Thompson, P. (2000), “Determinants of sports sponsorship response”, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 226-238.

Sport � Markt (2008), Football Top 20 2007/2008, Cologne.

Szykman, L.R., Bloom, P.N. and Blazing, J. (2004), “Does corporate sponsorship of asocially-oriented message make a difference? an investigation of the effects of sponsorshipidentity on responses to an anti-drinking and driving message”, Journal of ConsumerPsychology, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 13-20.

1509

Fans’ resistanceto naming right

sponsorships

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)

Tajfel, H. (1982), “Social psychology of intergroup relations”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 33No. 1, pp. 1-30.

Thomas, D. (2003), “The name remains the same for fans”, Marketing Week, 31 July, pp. 14-15.Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. and Wetherell, M.S. (1987), Rediscovering the

Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory, Basil Blackwell.van Uden, J. (2005), “Transforming a football club into a “total experience” entertainment

company: Implications for management”, Managing Leisure, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 184-198.Welch, R. and Calabro, L. (1997), “The name game”, CFO, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 46-51.Wendlandt, M. and Ulf, S. (2007), “Consumer reactance against loyalty programs”, Journal of

Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 293-304.Wright, P. (1975), “Factors affecting cognitive resistance to advertising”, Journal of Consumer

Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-9.Zavestoski, S. (2002), “The social-psychological bases of anticonsumption attitudes”, Psychology

and Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 149-165.

About the authorsDavid M. Woisetschläger is Director of the Institute of Automotive Management andIndustrial Production and Professor of Services Management at Technische UniversitätBraunschweig, Germany. He received his PhD in Marketing from the Marketing CenterMünster, University of Münster. His research interests are services management, customerrelationship management and marketing communications. His papers have appeared inleading journals, including the European Journal of Marketing, International MarketingReview, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Business Research andJournal of Retailing. David M. Woisetschläger is the corresponding author and can be contactedat: d.woisetschlaeger@tu-braunschweig.de

Vanessa J. Haselhoff is Professor of Business Administration in particular Marketing at theFaculty of Business Administration of the University of Applied Sciences Unna, Germany, andManaging Partner of the Institut für Marketingberatung, Dortmund, Germany. She received aPhD degree in Marketing from the TU Dortmund University, Germany. Her research interestsinclude consumer behavior, relationship marketing, strategic marketing and qualitative researchmethods. Her papers have appeared in Advances in Consumer Research, der markt – InternationalJournal of Marketing and Journal of Sponsorship.

Christof Backhaus is Professor of Marketing at the Newcastle University Business School.Having received a PhD degree in Marketing at the Marketing Center Münster, University ofMünster, he worked as Assistant Professor of Services Management at Technische UniversitätBraunschweig. His research areas include services management, customer relationshipmanagement and marketing communications. His work has been published in journals such asInternational Marketing Review, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal ofRetailing, and Psychology & Marketing.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

EJM48,7/8

1510

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity A

t 08:

08 2

1 A

ugus

t 201

4 (P

T)