Tourist Perceptions of Event-Sponsor Brand Fit and Sponsor Brand Attitude
62
Tourist Perceptions of Event-Sponsor Brand Fit and Sponsor Brand Attitude Abstract Sponsorships play an increasing role in the viability of events, including those targeted at tourists and sponsors typically seek to build a rapport between their brands and the event attendees. The extent to which the event related imagery benefit the sponsor brand will depend on alignment between the sponsor brand and the event. In addressing this issue this study examines the mediating role of event-sponsor fit between visitor event liking, self-sponsor congruity and sponsor brand favorability. Interviews were conducted with 1,215 attendees at the Taipei International Flora Exhibition and formed a basis for hypothesis testing. An examination of three sponsor brands over nine surveys concluded that event-sponsor fit consistently mediates the effect of event liking and self- 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Transcript of Tourist Perceptions of Event-Sponsor Brand Fit and Sponsor Brand Attitude
Tourist Perceptions of Event-Sponsor Brand Fit and Sponsor
Brand Attitude
Abstract
Sponsorships play an increasing role in the viability of
events, including those targeted at tourists and sponsors
typically seek to build a rapport between their brands and the
event attendees. The extent to which the event related imagery
benefit the sponsor brand will depend on alignment between the
sponsor brand and the event. In addressing this issue this
study examines the mediating role of event-sponsor fit between
visitor event liking, self-sponsor congruity and sponsor brand
favorability.
Interviews were conducted with 1,215 attendees at the Taipei
International Flora Exhibition and formed a basis for
hypothesis testing. An examination of three sponsor brands
over nine surveys concluded that event-sponsor fit
consistently mediates the effect of event liking and self-
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
sponsor congruity on brand favorability. Results confirmed
that event organizers and sponsors can benefit from the use of
perceived fit as a means of shaping brand attitudes when they
sponsor art and/or social-related events.
Keywords: event liking, event-sponsor fit, self-sponsor
congruity, sponsorship
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. Introduction
Those who engage in commercial sponsorships often aim
totransfer event related images to a sponsor, and
influenceparticipant attitudes towardsthe sponsor brand
(Gwinner, 1997; Gwinner& Eaton, 1998; Roy & Cornwell, 2003).
The extent to which the transferring of imagesis effective
depends on the degree to which there is a fit between the
sponsor brand and the event being sponsored.Most previous
research has focused on the prevalence of congruent
relationships between sponsor brands and sport related events
(Gwinner, 1997; Gwinner& Eaton, 1999; Johar& Pham, 1999;
McDaniel, 1999; Speed & Thompson, 2000; Cornwell, Humphreys,
Maguire, Weeks &Tellegen, 2006; Koo, Quarterman& Flynn, 2006).
Previous investigations (Gwinner, 1997; Gwinner& Eaton, 1999)
reported thatsponsor brand equity is influenced by consumer
perceptions of the congruence between the sponsor and the
event. More highly congruent sponsorships generally lead to a
more favorable attitude towards the sponsor. Such congruence
may be either functional or image-related.Perceptions3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ofthesimilaritiesplay a key role in determining the
effectiveness of image transfer from the event to the brand
(Gwinner& Eaton, 1999). Cornwell et al. (2006) found that a
congruent event-sponsor relationship helps the sponsoring
brand to form and then develop associations from the event.
This event-brand fit has been shown to affect not only
consumer cognitive and affective responses, but also their
purchasing intentions (Koo et al., 2006).
Using applicable self-concept theories (e.g., behavioral
theory and cognitive theory), researchers have examined the
relationship between an audience’s identification with an
event and its attitude to a sponsor brand (Madrigal, 2001;
Sirgy, Lee, Johar, & Tidwell, 2007; Gwinner, Larson, &
Swanson, 2009).Sirgy et al. (2007) showed that self-congruity
with a sponsored event increasesperceptions of image transfer
and has a positiveeffect on attitudes toward sponsor brands.
Such identifications help to create favorable attitudes
towards the event and nurture positive feelingswhich can have
a spillover effect for sponsors. Gwinner et al. (2009) found
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
that when an audience has strong and positive perceptions of
an event, there will be more effective transference of the
sponsor brand than is the case where the image is weak. It is
evident that an event image must be sufficiently prominent in
the memory of the audience before it will be associated with
the sponsor.
Although many investigations (Speed & Thompson, 2000;
Gwinner&Bennet, 2008) have examined the effects of perceived
event-sponsor fit on consumer attitudes toward a sponsor
brand, they have provided only limited insights into the
mediating role of event-sponsor fitbetween event
identification, self-event congruity, and brand attitudes.
Gwinner and Bennet (2008)used self-congruity theory to show
that event-sponsor fit mediates the relationship between brand
cohesiveness and event identification, and brand attitude.
Speed and Thompson (2000) on the other hand drew upon the
perspective of classical conditioning theory to show that
event-sponsor fit moderates the relationship between personal
liking (i.e., attitudes towards an event) and sponsor brand
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
favorability. On this basis there is an urgentneed to clarify
the integrating role of event-sponsor fit. Sponsorship is
increasingly important as a marketing communications tool and
sponsor organizations should benefit from a clarification of
this relationshipwhen selecting suitable events, and designing
supporting marketing programs. It should also assist event
organizations to identify prospective event sponsors.
To date the literature on different types of sponsorship has
been imbalanced. Sport has attractedgreatest interest, perhaps
because of its importance in global culture and the tendency
towards globalization of sporting events, teams and
personalities (Verity, 2002). Most of the relevant studies
within the relevant literature have focused on sport related
sponsorships (Speed & Thompson, 2000; Sirgy et al., 2007;
Gwinner& Bennett, 2008; Gwinner et al., 2009). It is now
timely to investigate the perceived fit with event-sponsor or
event-self congruityin the case of non-sporting events,
including those with an art and/or social orientation. This
investigationwill help to explain whether the applicability of
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
the process is confined to sporting events.
International Event Group (2012) reported that global event
sponsorship expenditures increased between 2007 and 2011 from
US$37.9 billion to US$46.3 billion (IEG Sponsorship Report,
2012). Asia was the most rapidly growingregion and
expendituresgrew from US$3.8 billion in 2000 to US$ 10.6
billion in 2010. The present study extends the applicable
consumer theories about commercial sponsorships that attempt
to explain the respective effects of liking an event, self-
sponsor congruity and event-sponsor fit on sponsor brand
favorability in the context of an Asian mega-event. The study
has two main objectives: (1) to examine the mediating role of
perceived event-sponsor fit between tourist identification
with sponsor brands, liking of the event and attitudes towards
sponsor brands in the case of a social mega-event such as
International Flora Expositions or World Expositions since
these events provide an altruistic image to be leveraged by
sponsors (Becker-Olsen & Carolyn, 2002); (2) to provide
managerial insights for both sponsorship mangers and event
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
institutions.
2. Conceptual development, model, and hypotheses
2.1 Event liking, perceived event-sponsor fit and attitude to
sponsor brands
Sponsors generally anticipate that the image of the
sponsored activity or event will be transferred to the sponsor
brand because the event linkage evokesattributes amongst
consumers (Gwinner, 1997; McDaniel, 1999). The effectiveness
of transferring an event image to a sponsor brandwill dependon
the extent to which the brand image and supporting marketing
activitiesare incorporated within the sponsorship arrangement
(Gwinner& Eaton, 1999). The event is likely to be theprimary
concern for attendees.The extent to which they like or are
knowledgeablewill influence their ability to map attributes
from the event to the sponsor brands (Roy & Cornwell, 2004).
According to activation theory (Anderson 1983; Collins &
Loftus 1975) mental structures are automatically and
subconsciously activated from long term memory when an
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
individual enters a particular setting. This activation
process stimulates an individual’s perception of a given
setting (Kroeber-Riel, 1979) and prompts the recalling of
appropriate and applicable schemas and scripts from the long
term memory (Bettman, 1979). In cases where visitors have
limited knowledge about the event (or schema) and cannot draw
from their schema to understand the relationship, they may
struggle toform links between the event and the sponsor brand
(Roy & Cornwell, 2004; Moor & Homer, 2008).Participant
attitudes towards the event will play a critical role in
activating the potential transfer of images. Sponsors benefit
from the "gratitude" of fans who have a strong liking for the
event (Crimmins& Horn, 1996; Lee, Sandler &Shani 1997; Speed
and Thompson 2000). Spectators are more likely to develop
favorable responses towards the sponsorwhen they perceive an
event to be attractive, entertaining and interesting
(D'Astous&Bitz, 1995). Such positive dispositions may create
favorable attitudes which may have a spillover effect to the
sponsoring company(Gwinner, 1997; Gwinner& Eaton, 1999).
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
The affect-as-information hypothesis (Clore, Wyen Jr.,
Dienes, Gaper, Gohm, & Isbell, 2001) suggests that affect
provides information about the personal value of whatever is
in mind at the time. Positive affect signals that the object
of judgment is valuable, leading to a positive evaluation, and
viceversa.When visitors like an event, this improves recall
and recognition of the sponsor brand, thereby raising and
increasing preference (Gwinner, 1997; Gwinner&Swanson, 2003).
Speed and Thompson (2000) indicated that customer liking for a
sporting event positively influencesfavorabilityfor the
sponsorbrand. On this basis the researchers propose the
following hypothesis.
H1. A visitor’s likingfor an event impactspositively on
perceptions of the sponsor brand favorability.
Affect may be experienced as feedback about the value of
one’s current thoughts and inclinations (Clore et al., 2001;
Briñol& Petty, 2009). Positive affect tends to reinforce this
tendency, leading to relational (cognitive, interpretive,
category-level and global) processing (Clore et al.,
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2001;Clore&Huntsinger, 2007). The results of research by Yang,
Yang, &Isen, (2013) demonstrated that positive affect,
compared with neutral affect, significantly enhanced working
memory, as measured by the operation span task.
Along similar theoretical lines, the mood-behavior model
(Gendolla, 2000; p. 378) proposes that “moods can have (a) an
informational impact by influencing behavior-related judgments
and appraisals and (b) a directive impact in that they
influence behavioral preferences in compliance with a hedonic
motive.However, the strength of the informational mood impact
depends on mood’s effective informational weight for behavior-
related judgments and on mood-primed associations.” Mood
primes mood-congruent material in memory, which thenforms a
basis for judgment, Positive mood affects brand attitudes
towards an advertised product by facilitating the processing
of ad message information (Howard & Barry, 1994). It is
proposed that positive mood activates substantive processing
(Forgas, 1995) and sematic associations (Kuhl, 2000).
In the events context the sponsor exposes attendees to
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
perceptual, semantic, and/or conceptualstimuli. When attendees
have a stronger liking for the event, the mood-primed effect
will affect the extent to which they notice the messages
delivered by sponsors at the venue, besides any contextual
cues.Thus, the more that attendees like the event as well as
the sponsor brand because of self-sponsor congruity, the
stronger the perceived fit.
On this basis the current researchers argue thatevent
likingformsan antecedent for participant perceptions of the
event-sponsor fit. For instance, sponsoring an international
art event can provide a context for local visitors to maintain
brand awareness of a sponsor that serves their community.
Brand associations that aremood-primed and activated at the
sponsored event may also enhance perceptions of the sponsor as
being socially responsible and commitment-worthy. On this
basis enhancement occurs because event liking increases
perceptions of event-sponsor fit thereby leading to the
following hypothesis:
H2.Liking of an event by visitors will impact positively on
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
perceivedevent-sponsor fit.
2.2 Self-sponsor congruity, event-sponsor fit and sponsor
brand favorability
People are motivated to engage in behaviors that satisfy the
need for social consistency (Sirgy, 1982). Self-congruity
theory contends that consumers frequently purchase products or
brands that they perceiveas resembling both their real and
ideal self (Dolich, 1969; Graeff, 1996). This is the case for
self-expressive reasons as well as for utilitarian benefits
(Park, Jaworski, &MacInnis, 1986). Consumers use products that
possess symbolic meanings to demonstrate who they are and how
they want to be viewed(Sirgy, 1982; Govers&Schoormans, 2005).
Consumers define, maintain and enhance their self-concept by
purchasing and using products(Zinkham& Hong, 1991).
Alexandris, Douka, Bakaloumi, &Tsasousi(2008) have argued that
the effectiveness of image transfer from a sport sponsorship
depends on the extent of participant faith in the sponsors.
Previous research on self-image has confirmed that self-
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
congruity with a product or store can influence consumer
behavior in the realms of: brand attitude, brand preference,
purchase motivation, brand satisfaction, and brand loyalty
(Graeff, 1996; Jamel& Goode, 2001; Sirgy, 1982; Sirgy et al.,
2007). Jamel and Goode (2001) provided support for the view
that self-image congruity is a strong predictor of brand
preference and satisfaction in the precious jewelry market.
Graeff (1996) indicated that the congruence between self-image
and product image is positively related to consumer product
evaluations. Retail selections arealso influenced by consumer
perceptions of self-store congruity. Consumers tend to shop at
stores which are viewed as congruent with their self-concepts,
and avoid those that are not (Samli&Sirgy, 1981). The self-
congruence effect also influences brand personality. Customers
prefer brands with which they share similar personal
characteristics (Aaker, 1999).In the case of event
sponsorships, visitor self-congruence with a sponsoring brand
that arises because of image compatibility or products used in
the event when they are involved in the activities, will shape
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
their attitude towards sponsors. On this basis the researchers
propose the following hypothesis.
H3. A visitor’s self-sponsor congruity impacts positively on
the favorability of the sponsor brand.
Self-sponsor congruity refers to the degree to which
consumers think the imageor personality of the sponsor matches
their own self-image (Sirgy, 1982; Sirgy et al., 2007). It
reflects the degree of congruity between the consumer's self-
image and the brand image of the sponsor. It may result from
stronger sponsor related knowledge because ties to other
information can be clearer (Meenaghan2001; Close,
Krishen&Latour, 2009). This knowledge provides a basis for
evaluating the advertised brand (i.e., event sponsor). When
the event context primes an attribute (e.g., social
responsibility) that has positive implications for the
evaluation of the target brand, overall brand evaluations will
be enhanced (Yi, 1990).
According to theories of cognitive consistency, when people
encounter information that is inconsistent with their existing
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
beliefs, the inconsistent information will result in negative
psychological tension (Osgood &Tannenbaum, 1955). To resolve
tensionsarising from inconsistency, the person might ignore
some of the discrepant informationand weight consistent
information more heavily thaninconsistent information
(McGuire, 1972). Therefore, when a sponsor is identified as
linked to an event, visitors may infer that some of the
particular associations, judgments, or feelings that
characterize the event also characterize the sponsor. In
evaluating an event-sponsor fit, visitors may weigh heavily on
the sponsors that have a higher compatible self-image than
those that donot. Such self-sponsor congruity may strengthen
perceptions of event-sponsor fit.In the event sponsorship
context, greater knowledge and more positive evaluations of
consistent information about sponsorsarises because of higher
self-sponsor congruity and allowsvisitors to view event–
sponsor fit from multiple perspectives, thereby increasing
perceptions of a fit between the sponsor and the event. This
leads to the following hypothesis:
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
H4. A visitor’s self-sponsor congruity impacts positively on
perceived event-sponsor fit.
2.3 The mediating role of event-sponsor fit
Memory is not a verbatim account of past experiences, but a
blend of both specific memoriesand general abstractions about
types of people, activities, and objects (Rumelhart&Ortony,
1977). Schemas are a more general cognitive structure which is
held in the long term memory.If an item is congruent with an
existing schema, it will receive the effect linked to that
schema (Fiske, 1982). Drawing upon previous schema related
theory, sponsorship research has identified the importance of
the link, fit, congruency, relatedness or matching between the
sponsor and the applicable event / team (Gwinner& Eaton 1999,
McDaniel 1999, Speed & Thompson 2000, Meenaghan& O'Sullivan,
2001, Roy and Cornwell 2004, Cornwell et al. 2006, Koo,
Quarterman& Flynn 2006). Where there is a fit that is
attributable to a functional dimension (the product used in
the event) or an image based dimension (compatible image
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
between the event and sponsoring brand) there is a significant
influence on variables such as attitudes to sponsors, and
ultimately, purchase intentions (McDonald, 1991; Gwinner&
Eaton, 1999; Speed & Thompson, 2000; Roy & Cornwell, 2003; Koo
et al., 2006; Lee & Cho, 2009).
McDaniel (1999) used a schema-based approach to examine the
effect of brand/sport matchups as a persuasive influence on
attitudes to the sponsor brand. Gwinner and Eaton (1999)
confirmed that strengthening the event/product match enhances
the resulting image transfer. Koo et al. (2006) also found
that respondents who perceive a high level of brand-event fit
may transfer such favorable associations to their evaluation
of the sponsor brand image. On this basis they demonstrate
favorable attitudes towards the sponsor brand. Experimental
research has also indicated that greater congruence between an
event and brand helps to develop positive attitudes towards
the brand and form an effective sponsorship (Crimmins& Horn,
1996; Gwinner& Eaton, 1999; Johar& Pham, 1999). Speed and
Thompson’s CSR research (2000) suggested that congruence
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
between a brand and a sporting event significantly influences
sponsorship outcomes, such as attitudes toward the sponsor
brand and purchasing intentions.
Visitors who have higher levels of sponsor identification
have a greater capacity to appraise the motivations for
sponsoring the sportevent; connect with the sponsor brand
(Gwinner& Bennett, 2008; Gwinner& Eaton, 1999) and produce
favorable attitudes towards the sponsor brand. Speed and
Thompson (2000) reported that the perceived sincerity of the
sponsor brand is regarded as motivating and promoting social
well-being. The higher the fit between the event and the
sponsor brand because of perceived sincerity, the stronger the
connection with altruism (Gwinner& Bennett, 2008). Participant
concerns about the motivations and nature of sponsors shapes
their attitudes towardsthe sponsor brand (Barone, Miyazaki, &
Taylor, 2000). Research into so-called cause marketing has
discovered that the better the fit between cause-related event
and sponsor brands, the easier it is to invoke altruistic
motivations, andleads to sponsor credibility and
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
favorability(Rifon, Choi, Trimble, & Li, 2004). Becker-Olsen
and Simmons (2002) also indicated that the absence of such
congruence can reduce the value of the brand as a signal
because of uncertainty about what the brand represents. Where
the level of such congruence is high, the related attributes
from a CSR relationship will be integrated into participant
cognitive structures that help to enrich the image of the
sponsor brand. Since this image enrichment can enhance
perceptions of overlap between participant self-concept and
the image concept of the sponsor brand, an increase in
spectator self-congruity with the sponsor may be anticipated.
Therefore, the higher the self-congruity with the sponsor that
is developed, the better the anticipated attitude towards the
sponsor brand. On this basis the researchers hypothesize that:
H5.The perceived event-sponsor fit mediates the effects of
event liking and self-sponsor
congruity on sponsor brand favorability.
The development of the above hypotheses suggests that event
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
liking and self-sponsor congruity directly influence attitudes
to the sponsor brand as well as the perceived event-sponsor
fit. This perception of congruity between event and sponsor
mediates the impacts of event identification and self-sponsor
congruity on sponsor brand favorability. The hypothesized
model is illustrated in Figure 1.
--------- Insert Figure 1 here --------
3. Methods
3.1 The selection of an event and sponsors
The 2010 Taipei International Flora Exposition (TIFE) was
chosen as the subject of the present investigation for the
following reasons. Firstly, it is Taiwan’s inaugural
international certified standard exhibition
(http://www.2010taipeiexpo.tw/MP_3.html). The event attracted
approximately 8,960,000 domestic and international visitorsand
involved approximately thirty thousand volunteers over a 6
month period (from November, 2010 until April, 2011).
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Secondly, the 2010 TIFE was conceived and positioned as an art
and CSR event that involved urging the public to reconsider
mankind's relationship with nature and the environment. The
exhibition grounds were designed around three concepts:
horticultural display, technology, and designed grounds,
technology and environmental protection. The exhibition
organizer emphasizes the 3 Rs concept (Reduce, Reuse and
Recycle). The event was characterized as covering culture, art
and a green lifestyle.
Thirdly, Flora Expo was actively trumpeted in Taiwan as an
internationally representative activity. The TIFE organizer
(Taipei City Government) promoted the event widely within the
mass media and developed assorted strategies such as campus
marketing and online group buying to attract participation by
locals. It attracted NT$1.3 billion in financial support from
67 companies. It has greater recognition than most events in
Taiwan. Visitorsformed a clear image of the event and were
expected to appreciatethe fit between the sponsor brands and
the event.
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Three major supporters were selected on the basis of three
criteria from the wider pool of prospective sponsors namely
Starbucks, Taipei Fubon, and Luxgen. It is noteworthy that
Starbucks has actively supported and has had an ongoing
involvement in CSR-related activities within Taiwanand was
awarded a bronze medal from the Council for Cultural Affairs
(in 2010). Starbucks has also been the only company to win
the “Green Procurement Business Reward” in the catering
industry for three consecutive years, and was (in 2010) the
top ranking green brand. As a benchmark in the financial
service industry, Taipei Fubon was ranked top internationally
in corporate civic responsibility.The makers of Luxgen, a new
car brand, has advocated the merits of energy saving and
carbon reduction for its series of newly released cars. On
this basis, Luxgen won the “Corporate Social Responsibility
Awards” held by Global Views Monthly in 2010.All three brands
seem to fit the event image attributes. Secondly, all three
brands are well-known in Taiwan. Starbucks, the largest coffee
chain, won the Emotional Brand Award held by Yahoo (internet
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
service) in 2010. Common Wealth Magazine ranked Taipei Fubonas
Taiwan’s top bank (2010). Luxgenemerged quickly as Taiwan’s
seventh ranked automobile brand (in 2010) following its roll-
out in 2008, despite being a relatively new brand in the
market.Thirdly, the researchers opted to include examples from
several industries (the food service sector in the case of
Starbucks, Taipei Fubon in the case of financial services and
Luxgen in manufacturing) with a view to generalizing the
findings through coverage of a range of sectors in the sponsor
poll.
Natural field settings have been recognized as an emerging
method for examining event sponsorships (e.g., Grohs et al.,
2004; Sirgy et al., 2007). The researchers adopted this method
for the collection of data in the current study. Event
visitors within the event grounds were invited to complete a
questionnaire. Three surveys were conducted at equal intervals
during the 6 months of the event (i.e. during the 1st, 3rd and
6th months of the expo). A total of 1,500 questionnaires were
collected (500 for each survey) at four major exhibition
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
grounds: Yuanshan Park, Fine Arts Park, Xinsheng Park and
Dajia Riverside Park. A judgmental sampling method was adopted
because a random sampling approach was impractical given the
complexities of the event population.
3.2Measurement
The researchers deployed existing scales to measure the
various constructs that were of interest, modifying them to
fit the context of the study. A panel of academics and
industry marketing experts reviewed the survey instruments.
The questionnaire was pilot tested at the 21stSummer 2009
Deaflimpic Taipei Games. The attitudinal measures of event
liking drew upon Speed and Thompson (2000) and a four-item
scale was used ranging as follows: (1) I am a strong supporter
of this event; (2) this event is important to me; (3) I enjoy
following coverage of this event; and (4) I would want to
attend this event. The items were framed as statements about
visitor attitudes towards the event and their degree of
liking.
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Perceived event-sponsor fit has been defined as the degree
to which visitors perceive the sponsor and the event as having
direct or indirect relevance (McDonald, 1991). Consistent with
previous investigations (Gwinner, Bennett, 2008; Speed &
Thompson, 2000), the researchers used the following a five-
itemscale to measure event-sponsor fit: (1) there is a logical
connection between the event and the sponsor; (2) the image of
the event and the image of the sponsor are similar; (3) the
sponsor and the event fit together well; (4) the company and
the event stand for similar things; and (5) it makes sense to
me that this company sponsors this event. Self-sponsor
congruity has been defined as the perceived congruence between
visitor’s self-concept and sponsoring brand image (Sirgy et
al., 2007). This construct was measured as follows using a
four-item semantic scale developed by Robin and Lawrence
(1989): (1) others use it to judge me / others won’t use it to
judge me; (2) part of my self-image / not part of my self-
image; (3) tells others about me / doesn’t tell others about
me, and (4) portrays an image of me to others / doesn’t
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
portray an image of me to others.
For the purposes of the present investigation brand
favorability is defined as the extent to which event visitors
believe an event sponsorship will affect their favorability
towards the sponsor brand. This construct was measured using a
three-item scale adopted from Speed and Thompson (2000) as
follows: (1) this sponsorship makes me feel more favorable
towards the sponsor; (2) this sponsorship would improve my
perception of the sponsor; and (3) this sponsorship would make
me like the sponsor more. Responses to the measuring items of
all constructs were captured on six-point Likert-type scales,
with the exception of the construct of self-sponsor congruity.
4. Data Analysis and Testing
4.1 Respondent profile
A range of demographic informationwas collected about the
respondents includingtheir gender, age, disposable income and
level of education. The percentage of male and female is
almost evenly distributed in the first survey (Male = 43.3%,
Female = 56.7%). Respondents were clustered in the age group
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21 to 30 (44.3%), and their highestlevel of education was
predominantly at college degree level (69.2%). Monthly
disposable incomes tended to be less than NT$25,000 (56.1%).
In the second survey, the percentage of females exceeds their
male equivalents by 1.5 times (Male = 36.7%, Female = 63.3%).
The largest grouping of respondents was in the age category 21
to 30 (40.3%), and their education was mainly at college
degree level (78.1%). Monthly disposable incomes were
generally under NT$25,000 (78.8%). In the third survey, the
percentage of females was 1.5 times higher than males (Male =
37.3%, Female =62.7%). Respondents were predominantly aged 21
to 30 (52.5%), and their highest level of education was
college degree (64.2%). The monthly disposable income was
largely under NT$25,000 (72.2%). Chi-square tests indicate
significant differences between the respective gender
distributions.
A substantial majority of the respondents in each of the
three surveys paid frequent attention to arts related news
(all above 76.2%). On this basis the Taipei Flora Expo may be
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
considered as an influential event in the life of the research
subjects.
4.2Sponsor Variation
Past research has indicated that a sponsor’s brand equity
influences perceptions of event-sponsor fit (e.g., Cornwell,
Weeks and Roy, 2005; Roy & Cornwell, 2004) while more
expertise about the sponsor affects self-congruity with the
sponsor (Close et al. 2009). The researchers analyzed
differences amongst the three sponsors on the basis of self-
sponsor congruity and event-sponsor fit. The results of one-
way ANOVAs from the pooled data indicate that tourists’ self-
sponsor congruence with Starbucks (mean=3.41, S.D.=1.15) and
Luxgen (mean=3.09, S.D.=1.10) is significantly larger thanfor
Fuban (mean=3.20, S.D.=1.31) at p<0.05. A significant
difference (at p<.01) in mean scores among the three sponsors
(Fuban, mean=3.39, S.D.=.93;Luxgen, mean=3.51, S.D.=.99;
Fuban, mean=3.80, S.D.=.94) outlined above was also found for
event-sponsor fit measure. Thus, the analyses of variation
suggested that the findings are robust across the three
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
sponsors. On this basis, the full data set was used to
maximize test power.
4.3 Hypothesis testing
Structural equation modeling was used to validate the
framework and hypotheses using the Partial Least Square (PLS)
procedure with Smart-PLS2.0 (Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005).The
variance-based PLS procedure was used because this
distribution-free regression analysis technique is robust for
deviations from normality (Henseler et al., 2009). PLS is an
appropriate structural equation modeling technique for
mediation effect analysis and model examination since it was
originally based on the concept of regression and path
analysis (Hair,Ringle, &Sarstedt, 2011). The measurement and
structural models were assessed simultaneously. First the
validity and reliability of the measurement model was assessed
and the structure model was then tested using the value of
path coefficient (β value) and R2 value (Anderson &Gerbing,
1988). The researchers adhered to the recommended conditions
for this approach, namely to derive hypotheses from a model
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
including constructs that have been proposed in the marketing
literature and that accommodate predictive causal analysis
(Wendlandt& Schrader, 2007).
4.4 Measurement model
As is indicated in Table 1 (which is a pooled sample of the
three surveys), convergent validity was far above the
threshold with criterions. The average variance extracted
(AVE) for each construct exceeded 0.50 (Fornell&Larcker,
1981). All values of composite reliabilities (CR) and
Cronbach’s α are significantly above .70 (Nunnally, 1978). In
addition, an examination of correlation coefficients reveals
that all variables of event liking, perceived event-sponsor
fit, self-sponsor congruity and sponsor brand favorability are
significantly correlated, except in the case of the
relationship between event liking and self-sponsor congruity.
The coefficients range between .18 and .41 for the Starbucks
sample, -.02 to .41 for the Taipei Fubon sample, and .05
and .47 for the Luxgen sample (see Table 2). Furthermore and
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
as shown in Table 2the squared root AVE of the constructs in
the three pooled sample are all higher than the inter-
construct correlations. On this basis, the discriminant
validity was also acceptable (Fornell&Larcker, 1981).The
results of the measurement models for each surveywerenot
reported here, since all achieved the applicable validity and
reliabilitytests.
--------- Insert Table 1 and Table 2 here ---------
4.5 Structural Model
To test the hypothesized relationships, the researchers
generated t-values by using bootstrapping with two
timessubject sub-samples (Chin, 1998). Tables 4, 5 and 6 show
the path coefficients for the hypothesized relationships in
the case of each of the three brands- Starbucks, Taipei Fubon,
and Luxgen. To assess the mediating effects in cultivation,
the researchers adopted the SEM procedure. PLS Mediation was
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
deemed to exist where the following three conditions were met:
(1) the exogenous variable affects the mediating variable, (2)
the mediator affects the endogenous variable, and (3) the
effect between exogenous and endogenous variables is reduced
when the mediator is controlled. The strongest mediation
exists if there is no effect when the mediator is included
(Baron and Kenny, 1986).
The case of Starbucks
As is shown in Table 3 for the Starbucks brand, the H1 and
H2 tests indicate that liking anevent has a significanteffect
on event-sponsor fit (β1st=.22, p<.01; β2nd=.20, p<.01; β3rd=.10,
p<.05) and sponsor brand favorability (β1st=.22, p<.01; β2nd=.16,
p<.05; β3rd=.29, p<.01) over the three surveys. On this basis H1
and H2 are supported. The path coefficients between self-
sponsor congruity and perceived event-sponsor fit (β1st=.21,
p<.05; β2nd=.20, p<.05; β3rd=.32, p<.05) are significant for all
three surveys. The testing of H4 demonstrated that the path
coefficients between self-sponsor congruity and sponsor brand
favorability (β1st=.27, p<.01; β2nd=-.09, p>.10; β3rd=.16, p<.05)
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
are significant except in the case of the second survey. On
this basis H3 is supported, though this is only partially the
case for H4.
On testing the mediation effects of perceived event-sponsor
fit on the relationships between event liking, event-sponsor
congruity and sponsor brand favorability, the researchers
first identified that the path coefficients between event-
sponsor fit and brand favorability are significant and
positive. Secondly, when the mediator - event-sponsor fit is
inserted, the R2is enhanced (from .19 to .23 with f2=.05;
from.10 to .30 with f2=.20; from .21 to .27 withf2=.08) in the
three survey samples. The effect sizes of the mediator for the
three samples are all above the threshold value of .02 (Hair,
Ringle, &Sarstedt, 2011). The direct effects of event liking
on sponsor brand favorability (from β1st=.28 to β1st=.22; from
β2nd=.53 toβ2nd=.50; from β3rd=.39 to β3rd=.27) as well as self-
sponsor congruity on sponsor brand favorability (from β1st=.32
to β1st=.27; from β2nd=-.18 to β2nd=-.09; from β3rd=.25 toβ3rd=.16)
are reduced in all cases except in the second survey. The
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
results of the analysis indicated that event-sponsor fit
partially mediates the effects of both liking an event and
self-sponsor congruity on sponsor brand favorability. On this
basis the researchers concluded that H5 is partially
supported.
--------- Insert Table 3 here ---------
The case of Taipei Fubon
Table 4 presents the estimated path coefficients of the
hypothesized model and the respective significance for the
Taipei Fubon brand. It shows a medium explanatory power for
sponsor brand favorability (R2=.19 for 1st survey, R2=.37 for 2nd
survey and R2=.36 for 3rd survey), and event-sponsor fit (R2=.12
for 1st survey, R2=.08 for 2nd survey and R2=.13 for 3rd survey).
There is a significantly positive and direct impact of event
liking on perceived event-sponsor fit (β1st=.20, p<.01; β2nd=.24,
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
p<.01; β3rd=.36, p<.01), and brand favorability (β1st=.38, p<.01;
β2nd=.47, p<.01; β3rd=.54, p<.01), thereby lending support for H1
and H2. In the three surveyed samples, self-sponsor congruity
has significant direct and positive impacts on event-sponsor
fit (β1st=.29, p<.01; β2nd=.20, p<.01; β3rd=.18, p<.05), but its
direct effect on brand favorability (β1st=.13, p>.1; β2nd=.17,
p<.05; β3rd=.09, p>.1) is only significant in the second sample.
Thus, the results indicate that H4 is supported while H3 is
partially supported.
-------- Insert Table 4 here --------
To test the mediation effect of perceived event-sponsor fit
on the relationships between event liking, event-sponsor
congruity and sponsor brand favorability for the Taipei Fubon
brand, the researchers firstly examined if the path
coefficients between event-sponsor fit and brand favorability
are significant and positive. As illustrated in Table 4 all
path coefficients in the three samples are positively
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
significant, except in the case of the first sample where the
standardized coefficient is insignificant (β2nd=.13, p>.10).
Secondly, when the mediator - event-sponsor fit is inserted,
the R2 is enhanced in each of the three surveys (from .18
to .19 with f2=.01; from .28 to .37 with f2=.29; from .33 to .36
with f2=.05). The direct effects of event liking on sponsor
brand favorability (from β1st=.38 to β1st=.35; from β2nd=.47 to
β2nd=.39; from β3rd=.54 to β3rd=.47) as well as self-sponsor
congruity on sponsor brand favorability (from β1st=.21 to
β1st=.16; from β2nd=.24 to β2nd=.17; from β3rd=.13 toβ3rd=.09) are
all reduced. The effect sizes of the three surveyed samples
are above the threshold value of .02, except in the case of
the first survey (f2=.01). Of the three samples involved in the
test, the results of two samples provide support for H5. Thus,
we conclude that H5 is partially supported for the Taipei
Fubon brand.
The case of Luxgen
Table 5 presents the estimated path coefficients of the
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
hypothesized model and respective significance for the Luxgen
brand. It shows a medium and explanatory power for sponsor
brand favorability (R2=.19 for 1st survey, R2=.28 for 2nd survey
and R2=.42 for 3rd survey), and event-sponsor fit (R2=.19 for 1st
survey, R2=.12 for 2nd survey and R2=.22 for 3rd survey). A
significantly positive and direct impact of event liking is
evident on perceived event-sponsor fit (β1st=.22, p<.01;
β2nd=.14, p<.01; β3rd=.37, p<.01), and sponsor brand favorability
(β1st=.35, p<.01; β2nd=.46, p<.01; β3rd=.51, p<.01) in the three
surveys, thereby lending support for H1 and H2. Similarly,
self-sponsor congruity has significant direct and positive
impacts on brand favorability (β1st=.26, p<.01; β2nd=.20, p<.05;
β3rd=.26, p<.01) and event-sponsor fit (β1st=.40, p<.01;
β2nd=.32,p<.01; β3rd=.23, p<.01), thus confirming H3 and H4.
To examine the mediation effects of perceived event-sponsor
fit on the relationships between event liking, event-sponsor
congruity and sponsor brand favorability for the Luxgen brand,
the researchers ascertained whether the path coefficients
between event-sponsor fit and brand favorability are
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
significant and positive. All path coefficients in the three
surveys werepositively significant, (β1st=.26; β2nd=.20; β3rd=.24)
at the level of p<.01. Secondly, when event-sponsor fit is
inserted as a mediator, the R2 is increased in the three
surveys (from .15 to .19; from .25 to .28; from .38 to .42).
The effect sizes are all above the threshold level of .02.
Third, the direct effects of event liking on brand
favorability (from β1st=.35 to β1st=.29; from β2nd=.46 to β2nd=.43;
from β3rd=.51 to β3rd=.42) as well as self-sponsor congruity on
sponsor brand favorability (from β1st=.16 to β1st=.01; from
β2nd=.19 to β2nd=.12; fromβ3rd=.26 to β3rd=.21) are all reduced.
Thus, the mediation test results for the three surveys lend
support for H5.
--------- Insert Table 5 here ---------
Using the pooled samples of each brand, the researchers
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
proceeded to conduct the same SEM procedure with PLS to test
the mediation hypothesis. As expected, the effect sizes of
mediator - event-sponsor fit are .13 (Starbucks in Table
3), .06 (Taipei Fubon in Table 4) and .07 (Luxgen in Table 5).
These are all above the threshold value of 0.02 (Hair et al.,
2011), indicating the significance of the mediation effect.
All path coefficients in the structured model are significant
at the p<.05 level. Although the results did not show a medium
or high mediation effect, the overall pattern of the data in
the three pooled samples is reliable, thus further supporting
the mediation role of the perceived event-sponsor fit in the
relationships between event linking, self-sponsor congruity
and sponsor brand favorability.
5. Conclusions
5.1 Discussion
Researchers have given increasing and substantial attention
toevent related corporate sponsorships. However, there is an
absence of underlying theoretical foundations about how event
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
visitors perceive the congruent relationship between events,
sponsor influence andsponsor brand favorability. The present
study has examined the mediation effect of event-sponsor fit
on the relationship between self-sponsor congruity, event
liking and sponsor brand favorability in the context of Taipei
International Flora Exposition.
The empirical results confirm that self-sponsor congruity
and event liking have both direct and indirect effects on
sponsor brand favorability (Speed & Thompson, 2000; Gwinner&
Bennett, 2008). The indirect effect of event liking through
event-sponsor fit provides an explanation of when event
visitors support this event, enjoy its coverage and have
knowledge of the sponsor brands, they are more capable of
priming the messages that are conveyed of sponsor brands
within the event grounds. This results in stronger perceptions
of a fit between the event and the sponsor brands. The present
study has found that the stronger the fit between this
social/art event and the sponsor brands, the easier it
mayevoke altruistic motives, and transfer positive visitor
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
affections from the event to the brand, thereby leading to
higher brand favorability. The indirect effect of self-sponsor
congruity on sponsor brand favorability through perceived
event-sponsor fit confirms that high brand identification
visitors who modify their thinking about an event-brand tend
to be more favorably disposed to preserving positive self-
identify, resulting in higher brand favorability. The results
indicate that this indirect effect on the sponsor brands is
relatively higher than for event liking. This is further
confirmation of the importance of visitor’s sponsor
identification.
This study has advanced and has found support for the
argument that visitors who like an event and who identify with
the brand can more easily prime and consider the event-brand
fit. The better the alignment between perceptions of this
social/art event and sponsor brands, the stronger their
favorabilitytowards the sponsors will be. The paper has
supplemented existing sponsor related research by confirming
the mediating role of event-brand fit between event liking,
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
self-brand congruity, and sponsor brand favorability.
5.2 Managerial implications
The study findings suggest that sponsorship and event
managers should understand the sponsor brand favorability and
event liking of their visitors in order to leverage the value
of sponsorship. This particularly concerns theselection of an
event and designing the parallel communications program. In
making sponsorship related decisions, they should firstly not
confine their concernsto exposure (e.g.,number of attendees in
the target market and audience size), but also understand the
image fit between the brand and the event. Secondly, the
sponsor brand manager should select images with which
customers identify. One option is to make use of the internal
customer database to identify those customers who are most
interested in attending the event and make them aware that the
company is sponsoring the event throughfor example advertising
or e-messaging. Furthermore by drawing attention to the bases
that are used of comparison, it has been found that the
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
communication activities most likely to enhance positive
customer attitudes towards the brand are those relating to the
event-sponsor fit.
Sponsoring brand managers should allocate additional
resources to opportunities within the event venue that can
heighten customer awareness. In order to yield desirable
effects they should establish a match between the event and
their brand image. In cases where the congruence is relatively
low, managers may wish to adapt their communicationcampaigns
to align with event related activities. Sponsoring firms may
for example enhance event related links throughthe use of
websites,online ads, social media or videos.For sponsoring
organisations seeking to identify suitable sponsors, the
importance of understanding visitor attitudes is evident.
Given that sponsors are aiming to transfer the event image to
their brands, their marketing communications should enhance
visitor self-congruity with the event, Mutual benefits will
arise as a result of choosing sponsors with an image which
resembles and complementsthe event. Event managers who are
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
seeking to retain or acquire sponsors may emphasize why and
how the image of the event matches their brand. The notion of
a logical connection or fit can be used to develop a potential
sponsor list when soliciting potential sponsors. Brand
managers and event organizers should invest adequate resources
in developing marketing communication campaigns to enhance
visitor involvement with the sponsoring activities. At the
Flora Expo, art activities such as on-site painting
competitions and flower arranging provide a means of involving
visitors at an emotional level. As a result, an effective
image transfer from the event to the sponsor brands could be
achieved and fulfill the sponsorship related objective.
5.3Limitations and opportunities for further research
This study has a number of limitations. Firstly, the
investigation has only incorporated three out of the thirty-
one sponsor organizations involved in the Flora Expo. It is
suggested that future investigations should extend the scope
of the industry samples. Secondly, the specific context of
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
this art/social related event restricts the generalizability
of the reported findings. Future studies may investigate
different types of CSR-related sponsorship to validate the
proposed conceptual framework since customer concerns about
motivations and the nature of CSR sponsorship may lead to
positive attitudestowards thesponsor brand (Barone et al.,
2000). Thirdly, the distribution of respondents was focused
around the 21 to 30 age group. Additional research will be
needed involving subjects emanating from different age/social
groups with a view to providing additional validation for the
research claims. Fourthly, the limited explanatory power of
the structured models in samples exposes the weakness in any
meaningful structural relationships. The reason may be a
neglect of key mediatingvariables (e.g., sponsor credibility
and sincerity) or moderators(e.g., self-motive socialness,
degree of self-enhancement sought) in the conceptual model. On
this basis the model should be subjected to further
validation. Finally, the researchers examined the event-
sponsor congruence after exposure to event stimuli. On this
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
basis the researchers assumedthe direction of the image
transfer. It is possible that the image transfer occurs from
the brand to the event rather than from the event to the
brand. Examining the conditions under which the image transfer
from the brand to event represents an interest topic for event
organisers.
In this study, congruence was defined on the basis of a
global image scale. However, operationalization of congruence,
fit, or compatibility has been varied and its
multidimensionality may have been ignored. Future researchers
may investigate the facets of perceived congruence and how
theydisparately affect visitor attitudes toward sponsor
brands. Another area for further study would be to expand this
event-sponsor fit model by examining the influence of
sponsorship on brand attitude change as compared to other
types of event marketing (e.g., sport and charity).
Furthermore, it would be valuable to investigate the effect on
brand attitude when an eventis sponsoredby brands that are in
competition.An additional consideration for future research
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
can be explored by distinguishingbetween on-site and off-site
visitors. Some visitors may perceive event-sponsor fit
differently thus impactingon their brand favorability via
divergent media channel. Further research on this issue offers
the prospect of enhancing knowledge about the influence of
different visitors on event and sponsor attitudes.
ReferencesAaker, J.L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 45-57.
Alexandris, K., Douka, S., Bakaloumi, S.,&Tsasousi, E. (2008).The influence of spectators' attitudes on sponsorshipawareness: A study in three different leisure events. ManagingLeisure, 13(1), 1-12.
Barone, M., Miyazaki, A.,& Taylor, K. (2000). The influence ofcause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turndeserve another?.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 248-262.
Baron, R. M.,&Kenny D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediatorvariable distinction in social psychological research:Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Becker-Olsen, K. L.,& Carolyn, J. S. (2002). When do socialsponsorships enhance or dilute equity? fit, message source,and the persistence of effects. Advances in Consumer Research,29(1), 287–89.
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
Briñol, P., & Petty, R.E. (2009).Persuasion: insights from theself‐validation hypothesis. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,41(1), 69-118.
Chin, W.W. (1998).Issues and opinion on structural equationmodeling.MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7-16.
Close, A.G., Krishen, A.S., &Latour, M.S. (2009). The event isme! How consumer event self-congruity leverages sponsorship.Journal of Advertising Research, 49(3), 271-284.
Clore, G.L.; Wyen Jr., R.S.; Dienes, B.; Gaper, K.; Gohm, C.;& Isbell, L. (2001). Affective feelings as feedback: Somecognitive consequences. InMartin, L. L., &Clore, G. L.(Eds).Theories of mood and cognition: A user's guidebook.(pp27-62),Lawrence Erlbaum Associates:Mahwah, New Jersey.
Clore, G.L., &Huntsinger, J.R. (2007). How emotions informjudgment and regulate thought. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(9),393-399.
Close, A.G.; Krishen, A.S.; Latour, M.S. (2009). This event isme!.Journal of Advertising Research.49(3), 271-284.
Cornwell, T., Humphreys, M., Maguire, A., Weeks, C.,&Tellegen,C. (2006). Sponsorship-linked marketing: The role ofarticulation in memory.Journal of Consumer Research, 33(3), 312-321.
Crimmins, J.,& Horn, M. (1996). Sponsorship: From managementego trip to marketing success. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(4),11-21.
D'Astous, A.,&Bitz, P. (1995).Consumer evaluations ofsponsorship programmes.European Journal of Marketing, 29(12), 6-22.
Dolich, I. J. (1969).Congruence relationship between self-49
12345678910111213
14
15
16
17
18
19202122232425262728293031323334353637
images and product brands. Journal of Marketing Research, 6(1),80-84.
Fiske, S. T. (1982). Schema-triggered affect: Applications tosocial perception. In Clarkand,M. S., &Fiske,S.T. (Ed.)Affect andCognition: The Seventeenth Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition(pp.55-76).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Forgas, J.P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The Affect InfusionModel (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 39-66.
Gendolla, G.H. (2000). On the impact of moon on behavior: Anintegrative theory and a review. Review of General Psychology, 4(4),378-408.
Govers, P.,&Schoormans, J. (2005).Product personality and itsinfluence on consumer preference.Journal of Consumer Marketing,22(4), 189-197.
Graeff, T. R. (1996).Using promotional messages to manage theeffects of brand and self-image on brand evaluations. Journal ofConsumer Marketing, 13(3), 4-18.
Gwinner, K., & Bennett, G. (2008). The impact of brandcohesiveness and sport identification on brand fit inasponsorship context. Journal of Sport Management, 22(4), 410-426.
Gwinner, K.,& Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image throughevent sponsorship: The role of image transfer. Journal ofAdvertising, 28(4), 47-57.
Gwinner, K.,& Swanson, S. (2003). A model of fanidentification: Antecedents and sponsorship outcomes. Journal ofServices Marketing, 17(3), 275-294.
Gwinner, K. (1997).A model of image creation and imagetransfer in event sponsorship.International Marketing Review, 14(3),145-158.
50
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738
Gwinner, K., Larson, V.,& R. Swanson. (2009). Image transferin corporate event sponsorship: Assessing the impact of teamidentification and event-sponsor fit. International Journal ofManagement and Marketing Research, 2(1), 1-15.
Hair, J. E., Ringle, C.M., &Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Asilver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice.19(2), 139-151.
Howard, D.J. & Barry, T.E. (1994).The role of thematiccongruence between a mood-inducing event and an advertisedproduct in determining the effects of mood on brandattitudes.Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(1), 1-27.
I. E. G. Sponsorship Report. (January 03, 2012). IEG SponsorshipReport.Retrieved from http://www.sponsorship.com.
Johar, G.,& Pham, M. (1999).Relatedness, prominence, andconstructive sponsor identification.Journal of Marketing Research,36(3), 299-312.
Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional-design approach to motivation
and self-regulation: The dynamics of personality systems
interactions. In Boekaerts,M.; Pintrich,P.R.& Zeidner,M.,
Handbook of Self-Regulation, (pp. 111-169). San Diego: Academic
Press.
Koo, G., Quarterman, J.,& Flynn, L. (2006). Effect ofperceived sport event and sponsor image fit on consumers'cognition, affect, and behavioral intentions. Sport MarketingQuarterly, 15(2), 80-90.
Lee, H.,& Cho, C. (2009). The matching effect of brand andsporting event personality: Sponsorship implications. Journal ofSport Management, 23(1), 41-64.
51
12345678910111213
141516171819202122
23
24
25
26
272829303132333435
Lee, M.S., Sandler, D.,&Shani D. (1997). Attitudinalconstructs towards sponsorship: Scale development using threeglobal sporting events. International Marketing Review, 14(3), 159-169.
McDaniel, S. (1999). An investigation of match-up effects insport sponsorship advertising: The implications of consumeradvertising schemas. Psychology and Marketing, 16(2), 163-184.
McDonald, C. (1991).Sponsorship and the image of thesponsor.European Journal of Marketing, 25(11), 31-38.
MCGuire, W.J. (1972). The culture status of cognitiveconsistency theories.In Cohen, J. (Ed.), Behavioral sciencefoundations of consumer behavior (pp. 253-274). New York: Free Press.
Meenaghan, T.,& O'Sullivan, P. (2001).The passionate embrace-consumer response to sponsorship.Psychology and Marketing, 18(2),87-94.
Meenaghan, T. (2001).Understanding SponsorshipEffects.Psychology and Marketing, 18(2), 95-122.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978).Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGrew-Hill.
Osgood, C.E., &Tannenbaum, P.H. (1955).The principle ofcongruity in the prediction of attitude change.PsychologicalReview, 62(1), 42-45.
Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., &MachInnis, D. J.(1986).Strategic brand concept-image management.Journal ofMarketing, 50(4), 135-145.
Rifon, N., Choi, S., Trimble, C., & Li, H. (2004). Congruenceeffects in sponsorship: The mediating role of sponsorcredibility and consumer Attributions of sponsor motive.Journal
52
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738
of Advertising, 33(1), 30-42.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005).Smart-PLS 2.0.Hamburg: University of Hamburg.
Robin, A. H., &Lawrence F. F. (1989). Enduring involvement:Conceptual and measurement issues.Advances in Consumer Research,16(1), 690-696.
Roy, D., & Cornwell, T. (2003).Brand equity's influence onresponses to event sponsorships.Journal of Product and BrandManagement, 12(6), 377-393.
Roy, D.,& Cornwell, T. (2004).The effects of consumerknowledge on responses to event sponsorships.Psychology andMarketing, 21(3), 185-207.
Rumelhart, D. E., &Ortony, A. (1977). Schooling and the acquisition ofknowledge. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Samli, A. C., &Sirgy, M. J. (1981). A multi-dimensionalapproach to analyzing store loyalty: A predictive model. InBernhardt, K.,& Kehoe, B. (Ed.)The changing marketing environment: Newtheories and applications (pp. 113-116). Chicago: American MarketingAssociation,
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: Acritical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287-300.
Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D., Johar, J.,& Tidwell, J. (2007).Effectof self-congruity with sponsorship on brand loyalty.Journal ofBusiness Research, 61(10), 1091-1097.
Speed, R.,& Thompson, P. (2000).Determinants of sportssponsorship response.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2),226-238.
Yang, H., Yang, S.,Isen, A.M. (2013). Positive affect improves53
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738
working memory: Implications for controlled cognitiveprocessing.Cognition & Emotion, 27(3), 474-482.
Yi, Y. (1990).Cognitive and affective priming effects of thecontext for print advertisements.Journal of Advertising, 19(2), 40-18.
Zinkham, G.M.,& Hong, J.W. (1991).Self-concept and advertisingeffectiveness: A conceptual model of congruency,conspicuousness, and response mode, In Holman, R.H.,& Solomon,M.R., (Ed.)Advances in Consumer Research, 18(1), (pp.348-54). Provo,UT.: Association for Consumer Research,
Figure 1.Hypothesized Model
54
SponsorBrand
Favorability
H5H1
H3
Event Liking
Self-SponsorCongr
uity
Event-SponsorFit
H4
H2
12345678910111213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
55
1
Table 1The measurement model validity and reliability ofpooled data
Average VarianceExtracted (AVE)
Composite Reliability (CR)
Starbucks
TaipeiFubon
Luxgen Starbucks TaipeiFubon
Luxgen
EL .62 .71 .68 .89 .91 .89ES .64 .65 .73 .89 .90 .93SS .74 .72 .74 .92 .91 .92BF .82 .85 .88 .93 .94 .96
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Table 2Inter-construct correlations and discriminant validity of pooled dataStarbucks (n=467) Taipei Fubon (n=429) Luxgen (n=429)EL ES SS BF EL ES SS BF EL ES SS BF.83 .80 .86 .92 .84 .85 .81 .92 .82 .86 .86 .94
EL 1 EL 1 EL 1
ES .18* 1 ES .34** 1 ES.33*
*1
SS .27** .10*1
SS -.02 .28**1
SS .05.39*
*1
BF .29*.41*
*.22*
*1 BF .22** .41**
.25**1 BF
.21**
.47**
.29**
1
N o t e s : E L : E v e n t L i k i n g ; E S : P e r c e i v e d E v e n t - S p o n s o r F i t ; S S : S e l f - S p o n s o r C o n g r u i t y ; BF: S p o n s o r b r a n dfavorability; *p<.05, **p<.01
57
1
2
Table 3 The results of mediation tests fortheStarbucks
SurveyVariabl
esES BF BFa f2
1st
(n=148)
EL.22*
*.22*
*.28*
*.06
ES.22*
*.05
SS .21*.27*
*.32*
*.09
TotalR2 .10 .23 .19
2nd
(n=152)
EL.20*
*.16*
.24**
.03
ES.50*
*.20
SS .20* .09 .18 .00Total
R2 .08 .30 .10
3rd
(n=167)
EL .10*.29*
*.32*
*.03
ES.27*
*.10
SS.32*
*.16*
.25**
.02
TotalR2 .13 .27 .21
Pooleddata(n=467
)
EL .16*.23*
*.28*
*.07
ES.33*
*.13
SS .26* .11* .20* .0158
1
* *Total
R2 .10 .23 .13
Notes: EL: Event Liking; ES: Event-Sponsor Fit; SS: Self-SponsorCongruity; BF: Sponsor brand favorability; *p<.05, **p<.01; a:after controlling mediator variable; all numbers betweenvariables are standardized beta coefficients; f2= effect size.
Table 4 The results of mediation tests for theTaipei Fubon
SurveyVariabl
esES BF BFa f2
1st
(n=141)
EL.20*
*.35*
*.38** .15
ES .13* .01
SS.29*
*.16* .21** .02
TotalR2 .12 .19 .18
2nd
(n=131EL .24*
*.39*
*.47** .22
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
)
ES.32*
*.14
SS.20*
*.17* .24** .04
TotalR2 .10 .37 .28
3rd
(n=157)
EL.36*
*.47*
*.54** .31
ES .18* .04SS .18* .09 .13* .01
TotalR2 .20 .36 .33
Pooleddata(n=429
)
EL.21*
*.37*
*.42** .18
ES.22*
*.06
SS.25*
*.16* .22* .02
TotalR2 .11 .26 .13
Notes: EL: Event Liking; ES: Event-Sponsor Fit; SS: Self-SponsorCongruity; BF: Sponsor brand favorability;*p<.05, **p<.01; a:after controlling mediator variable, f2= effect size.
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Table 5 The results of mediation tests for theLuxgen
SurveyVariabl
esES BF BFa f2
1st
(n=141)
EL.22*
*.29*
*.35** .10
ES.26*
*.05
SS.40*
*.01 .16* .00
TotalR2 .19 .19 .15
2nd
(n=131)
EL.14*
*.43*
*.46** .26
ES.20*
*.04
SS.32*
*.12 .19* .00
TotalR2 .12 .28 .25
3rd
(n=157)
EL.37*
*.42*
*.51** .26
ES.24*
*.07
SS.23*
*.21*
*.26** .06
TotalR2 .22 .42 .38
Pooleddata(n=429
)
EL.27*
*.40*
*.45** .02
ES .24**
.06
61
1
SS.32*
*.11*
*.26** .01
TotalR2 .18 .31 .26
Notes: EL: Event Liking; ES: Perceived Event-Sponsor Fit; SS:Self-Sponsor Congruity; BF: Sponsor brand favorability; *p<.05,**p<.01; a: after controlling mediator variable. f2= effect size.
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
