Beyond purchase intention in sports sponsorship: an alternative approach to measuring brand equity using best-worst scaling

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to study the effects of sports sponsorship on brand equity using two managerially related outcomes: price premium and market share. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a best–worst discrete choice experiment (BWDCE) and compares the outcome with that of the purchase intention scale, an established probabilistic measure of purchase intention. The total sample consists of 409 fans of three soccer teams sponsored by three different competing brands: Nike, Adidas and Puma. Findings With sports sponsorship, fans were willing to pay more for the sponsor’s product, with the sponsoring brand obtaining the highest market share. Prominent brands generally performed better than less prominent brands. The best–worst scaling method was also 35% more accurate in predicting brand choice than a purchase intention scale. Research limitations/implications Future research could use the same method to study other types of sponsors, such as title sponsors or other product categories. Practical implications Sponsorship managers can use this methodology to assess the return on investment in sponsorship engagement. Originality/value Prior sponsorship studies on brand equity tend to ignore market share or fans’ willingness to pay a price premium for a sponsor’s goods and services. However, these two measures are crucial in assessing the effectiveness of sponsorship. This study demonstrates how to conduct such an assessment using the BWDCE method. It provides a clearer picture of sponsorship in terms of its economic value, which is more managerially useful.

Marketing Strategy of Sponsorship Events and Celebrity Endorsement to Increase Consumer Brand Awareness of Kapal Api Products

“…Loyal supporters of a particular sport are even willing to spend more money to obtain products sponsored by their favorite sports activities (Wakefield et al, 2020, cited in Almaiman et al, 2023. Research by Almaiman et al (2023) indicates that consumers are willing to pay more to obtain merchandise related to their favorite sports. For example, even though Adidas, Nike, and Reebok release similar shirts, if the product is associated with the consumer's favorite sports club, even at a higher price, consumers will still buy the product without hesitation.…”

“…For example, even though Adidas, Nike, and Reebok release similar shirts, if the product is associated with the consumer's favorite sports club, even at a higher price, consumers will still buy the product without hesitation. Almaiman et al (2023) also state that sponsorship activities, such as placing a brand on shirts worn by athletes, make consumers more aware of the brand's existence. This creates curiosity among consumers about the sponsoring brand, as the brand continues to appear in front of them.…”

“…Sponsorship strategy, especially in various sports events, is one of the most frequently employed approaches and has proven to bring positive impacts to companies, such as increased consumer attention towards the offered products (WARC, 2020, cited in Almaiman et al, 2023). However, this sponsorship strategy can also be a high-risk approach, as not all events are necessarily attended by a large audience.…”

“…Therefore, there is a need for a measurement that can assess the extent of the return on investment for the sponsorship. This measurement can be done by comparing whether brand equity has increased after the sponsorship effort (Almaiman et al, 2023). Furthermore, this measurement will assess changes in brand knowledge (brand awareness) and brand associations.…”

“…Meanwhile, according to Keller (1993, cited in Almaiman et al, 2023, brand equity comprises only two components, namely brand knowledge and brand associations. Almaiman et al, (2023) reveal that brand knowledge can be utilized to measure the success level of the marketing strategies implemented by a company, including sponsorship strategies.…”