Sports Marketing & Sponsorship - FIFA/CIES International University ...

Team attributes, identification and sponsor imageassertion, several researchers recognise familiarity notas a variable antecedent to but independent ofattractiveness. For example, Trail et al (2000) andHeere (2005) respectively identified acquisition ofknowledge and awareness and knowledge as factorsleading to team identification. Also, according to Keller(1993), customer-based brand equity occurs when theconsumer is familiar with the brand and holds somefavourable, strong and unique brand associations inthe memory, implying that familiarity andattractiveness are two separate concepts.Thus, the following hypotheses were made:H1: Team attractiveness positively affects teamidentificationH2: Team similarity positively affects teamidentificationH3: Team familiarity positively affects teamidentificationTeam identification and sponsor identificationDean (2002) reported that it is not necessarily theliking of a property that influences the propertysponsorassociation, but rather the intensity of theliking that heightens awareness of the propertysponsorassociation. In agreement with this,Meenaghan (2001) showed that awareness of thesponsor was highest among those most involved withthe sponsored activity, and mentioned that the resultwas “in line with evidence presented by Bennett(1999), Clark (1991), Diakopoulou (1990), Eilander& Koenders (1991) and Parker (1990, 1991)”(p.110). This relationship between team identificationand sponsor identification can also be approachedfrom the perspective that highly involved fans continueto watch sports events (Colleen & Kahle, 2006) andthat repeat attendance allows fans to become moreaware of long-term sponsors. This is supported byPitts & Slattery (2004), who showed that recognition(i.e. awareness and identification) of sponsorsimproved over an extended period of time. Thus, thefollowing hypothesis was made:H4: Team identification positively affects sponsoridentification (i.e. awareness)Team identification, sponsorship identification andsponsor imageMeanwhile, Pope & Voges (2000) asserted thatcorporate image is positively influenced bysponsorship awareness, and Meenaghan (2001)asserted that “highly involved fans/consumers, beingmost aware of the sponsor’s investment and thebenefits arising, were most favourably disposedtowards that sponsor” (p.110). These two studiessuggest that there is a possible relationship betweenteam identification and sponsor image.As for the relationship between sponsorship andimage building, Gwinner (1997) attempted to explainit through his Model of Image Creation and ImageTransfer (AMICIT). Here, Gwinner (1997) definedevent image as a representation of the overallsubjective meanings assigned by a particular market.He then proposed that event type, eventcharacteristics and individual factors affect eventimage, and that sponsorship activities bring about atransfer of the event image to the sponsors’ brandimage. This transfer of event image to the sponsorbecame evident in empirical studies (Ferrand & Pages,1996; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999), and moreexplanations were given about the process. Chien et al(2005), for example, asserted that sponsorship’sassociation of a brand with a specific event allowedthe brand to gain additional meaning and value, whileMeenaghan (2001) asserted that highly involved fansare best able to comprehend these meanings, and aretherefore also most capable of transferring thesevalues to the sponsor through association. Therefore,when one recognises the presence of a highlyidentified team or the level of team identification as apossible event characteristic or individual factor,respectively, the role of team identification in buildingan event image that is transferred to the sponsorRESEARCH PAPER● APRIL 2009 ●International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship219