The fit between a sponsor and object (i.e., sponsored organization, cause, event, or individual) has been shown to be an important construct in predicting sponsorship effects, but little research has been done to understand the basis for fit perceptions. The current research uses three studies to find and test the underlying dimensions used to judge the degree of overall fit between a sponsor and object. Starting with an exploratory study that uses qualitative cognitive mapping to uncover seven dimensions that form the basis for overall fit perceptions, a follow-up experiment determines their ability to predict overall fit and sponsorship-related attitude changes. The last study tests whether overall fit perceptions can be manipulated both positively and negatively with fit dimension-related communications about the sponsorship. The research finds that sponsor product relevance, attitude similarity, geographic similarity, audience similarity, and sponsorship duration significantly predict overall fit and/or can be used to manipulate fit perceptions positively.

Since sponsoring is an increasingly important marketing communication medium, it is important for managers to know whether their sponsorships are giving a good financial return relative to other communication alternatives. Although several "rules of thumb" are commonly used in the industry for converting sponsorship exposure time into television advertising equivalent values, this research is the first to empirically test them by means of two experiments employing realistic stimuli and representative samples. Across 6 stimuli brands, study 1 finds that an average of 127 s of sponsor logo exposure achieves the same effects as a 30 s TV ad, but variance around this figure is high and depends on a variety of factors such as communication goal, sponsor fit, type of exposure, and whether the sponsor is a known brand. Study 2 finds that combining sponsoring with television advertising does increase the effects of sponsoring, although effects vary widely depending on the context, but even in the best case the increase is not supportive of the high levels of advertising suggested by many industry experts. Overall, the findings will allow managers to more confidently assess the financial value of their sponsorship investments.

In this article, brand evaluations based on mere exposure to a brand name are compared to evaluations built on varying levels of cognitively processed brand information in a setting where all subjects have low involvement. Results indicate that a small but meaningfully sized group of subjects fully processed the information on brands they were exposed to, and rated those brands significantly higher than other brands where they had only seen the brand name alone. This finding was strongest for a fictional new brand, but also present for a well‐established brand. By contrast, the larger portion of low involvement subjects who did not fully process brand information, also did not rate brands significantly higher than their ratings for brands in which they saw no accompanying information. Implications for sponsors and advertisers are discussed.

No abstract

Research Paper PurposeTo compare the relative performance of TV sponsorships with the industry standard 30-second TV spot advertising on achieving common communication goals. Design/Methodology/ApproachThe two mediums are tested with an experiment using realistic stimuli and target market representative samples and employing 6 brands as both TV sponsors and TV advertisers. FindingsTen seconds of TV sponsoring works almost equally as well as 30-second spots across all measures and brands. While the outright performance differs by type of brand (i.e. high fit versus lower fit, known versus unknown), the relative performance between mediums does not vary. Research LimitationThe stimuli only gave subjects a brief exposure to each medium. The six stimuli brands, four effect measures, and the Norwegian sample may also not be representative for all types of TV sponsoring/advertising contexts. Practical ImplicationsMarketing managers can use the results to better allocate their communication spending between TV spot advertising and TV sponsorships, by determining which medium offers better value in achieving communication goals. ValueTo our knowledge, the comparison is the most realistic and controlled experiment in this area, with high levels of internal and external validity.