Sport Facilities III

117

sPonsorshiPs

Event Personality of the NFL and Its Impact on Sponsorship Objectives

Lawrence W. Judge Ball State University

Don Lee University of Houston

Shannon Powers Ball State University

Michael Cottingham University of Houston

Lani Jones Indiana University School of Medicine

Dagny Zupin Chelsea Krill

Ball State University

Abstract Under the rationalization that events as a marketing communication vehicle have grown

exponentially faster than traditional forms of advertising and promotion (Lee & Cho, 2012), the purpose of this study was to complete an empirical examination of relationships among various event personality traits, sponsorship objectives, and behavioral intentions. Using 324 survey responses from college-aged individuals, the researchers empirically examined relation- ships among the proposed constructs. The analyses revealed tradition, community-driven, and event-sponsor image had a statistically significant impact on individuals’ intention for recom- mendations and sponsored product purchases. Marketing managers can benefit from these re- sults by gaining an increased understanding of event personality constructs that are impactful to consumers.

Keywords: event image; sponsorship fit; brand fit

Lawrence W. Judge is a professor and associate chair, School of Kinesiology, Ball State University. Don Lee is an assistant professor of Sport and Fitness Administration, Department of Health and Human Performance, University of Houston. Shannon Powers is an assistant professor, School of Kinesiology, Ball State University. Michael Cottingham is an assistant professor, Department of Health and Human Performance, University of Houston. Lani Jones is an assistant professor of clinical pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine. Dagny Zupin is a research assistant, School of Kinesiology, Ball State University. Chelsea Krill is a graduate assistant, School of Kinesiology, Ball State University. Please send author correspondence to Lawrence Judge, School of Kinesiology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Facility Planning, Design, and Management

Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 117–130

https://doi.org/10.18666/JFPDM-2016-V4-I2-7359

118 Judge, Lee, Powers, Cottingham, Jones, Zupin, Krill

Sporting events are an effective marketing communication vehicle, growing exponentially faster than traditional forms of advertising and promotion (Lee & Cho, 2012). Even with the wealth of money allocated toward sponsoring sporting events, little is known about the event personality of sporting events and its impact on sponsorship objectives (Carrillat, Harris, & Lafferty, 2010; Henseler, Wilson, & Westberg, 2011). Deane, Smith, and Adams (2003) defined sponsorship as “an investment in cash or in kind activity, in return for access to the exploitable commercial potential associated with that activity” (p. 193). Mohammadian and Rahimipour (2012) stated that sponsorship objectives, which include increasing brand awareness, positive influence on brand loyalty, and increase in purchase intentions, are an organization’s goal when sponsoring a sporting event. Speed and Thompson’s (2000) finding that a more positive response to the sponsorship was found when consumers perceived a more positive event-sponsor image fit shows the need for sponsors and event organizations to make cohesive partnerships. The need to understand such areas of sponsorship for sport managers is growing because of the large potential revenue stream that increases each National Football League (NFL) team’s finan- cial viability. Likewise, sport entities are taking advantage of the competitiveness of sponsorship money by enticing companies to sponsor an NFL sporting event.

The Independent Evaluation Group (IEG, 2013) estimated North American companies spent $13.01 billion on sport sponsorship in 2012. Entertainment was the closest industry seg- ment to sport sponsorship, netting $1.93 billion in 2012. The IEG projected a 6% increase in sport sponsorship in 2013 for an estimated total of $13.79 billion. The 2012 season of the NFL accounted for “31 of the 32 most-watched TV shows among all programming last fall” (Bibel, 2013, para. 2). Bibel stated that CBS, FOX, and NBC’s number of NFL TV viewers has nearly tripled from a decade ago with an average of 19.3 million TV viewers in the 2012 regular season. According to the NFL, the average game captured 17.6 million TV viewers, and 205 million Americans watched at least one televised NFL game in 2014. These numbers represent 70% of the TV viewers in America; this kind of viewership dwarfs any other type of programming.

Fit between the event’s and sponsor’s personalities can be positively related to sponsorship objectives (Dees, Bennett, & Ferreira, 2010). Dees et al. (2010) defined fit as consumers’ percep- tions on the personalities or images between the sponsor and the event to be similar or related. Cho and Kang (2012) found personalities of an event often leverage the images of the sponsor via image transfer. Image transfer may occur when the image of the sponsoring brand and event are analogous to one another in the perceptions of consumers. As a result of successful image transfer, managers can strategize in matching the sponsor image with the event image based on preliminary findings of the event personalities.

Research Challenges Many researchers have opened up about the direction of future research in relation to sport

sponsorship and event personality. Henseler, Wilson, Gotz, and Hautvast (2007) found that managers perceived sport sponsorship as contributing significantly to the development of brand equity for the sponsor. Based on these findings, Henseler et al. indicated researchers should con- sider various event personality traits to improve the effectiveness of sponsorship partnerships. This type of research would offer companies useful information relevant to maximizing potential benefits. Braunstein and Ross’ (2010) work contributed to the completion of a thorough mea- suring tool of an event personality scale that is equipped with sound psychometric properties. Their recommendation was based on findings that events may have a “layered” personality to be marketed on multiple levels. Multiple components of a sporting event are involved in the con- struction of a franchise’s brand (i.e., front office personnel, brand extensions, facilities, etc.). Cho and Kang (2012) argued that the applicability of Aaker’s (1997) Brand Personality Scale to other contexts may be limited because whether the scale can be psychometrically compared to two distinctive brand personalities of the event and sponsor is unknown. More specifically, the brand

Event Personality of the NFL 119

attributes of an NFL regular season game do not have brand personalities that would correspond with “sophistication.” Relatedly, Cho and Kang concluded that future research in the realm of event personality theory is additionally needed. These researchers called for an event personality scale designed for sport purposes to enhance the applicability of the theory at a domain level.

Event Personality Sporting events can be treated as brands themselves; therefore, spectators perceive the events

as encompassing human attributes (Lee & Cho, 2012). In the context of sport, event personality can be defined as characteristics that are “related to [fan] attitudes toward the sporting event” (Lee & Cho, 2012, p. 52). Freling and Forbes (2005) stated that people have a natural tendency to embrace an event’s personality positively, especially with brands they encounter more frequently. Lee and Cho (2012) found that sponsors strive to persuade fans’ image associations by using the positive event personalities that are associated with their sport partner. Eliciting different event personalities can generate differences in personal feelings, allowance of self-expression, and fa- cilitated relationships. Lee and Cho found five event personality constructs, including diligence, uninhibitedness, fit, tradition, and amusement, that are composed of 24 personality traits. Lee and Cho indicated that these are varying aspects of descriptions used for events—both sporting and other. A higher rating on event personalities indicates spectators’ more favorable attitude to- ward the event. In turn, with a favorable attitude toward the event comes a positive evaluation of the event sponsorship and, finally, a positive evaluation of the sponsoring brands. Lee and Cho’s purposed constructs were supported with empirical testing of a theoretical model that specified the relationship of the five constructs in association with attitude, brand preference, and brand loyalty. Their findings laid groundwork for event personality and sponsorship to be explored theoretically on spectators’ processing of the sponsorship.

Establishing the event personality into a position of brand identity for consumers is a de- sired outcome for event organizers because of the potential strength the personality traits have in the perspectives of fans at large-scale sporting events (Càslavovà & Petràckovà, 2011). Knowing the event’s identity is critical to distinguish the event with these personalities and elicit posi- tive fan associations. Freling, Crosno, and Henard (2010) studied brand personality’s appeal and identified three attributes of event personality as viewed by college-aged participants: favorabili- ty, originality, and clarity. Freling et al. defined favorability as the extent to which the participants positively evaluate the event’s personality. Originality occurs when the fan perceives the event personality to be distinguishable from other events. Finally, Freling et al. described clarity to be the level of access and recognition by the participants. The researchers advocate the importance of these three attributes for an event because of their influence on fans’ purchase intentions.

Freling and Forbes (2005) indicated that college-aged consumers were more likely to view an event to be more familiar, comfortable, and less risky when it had a strong and positive per- sonality in comparison to one that had a personality with no distinction. They further indicated that the participants frequently applied brand associations to make inferences into the event per- sonality and representative image of the event. Building a relationship with an event is important for the event itself, as well as for the sponsor, because it will become a foundation for sponsors to meet their objectives (Càslavovà & Petràckovà, 2011). They also found that if the personality of a sponsoring brand is viewed with a positive attitude by spectators at large-scale sporting events, the personality will create positive outcomes for the sponsor, such as increased brand awareness, positive influences on brand loyalty, or increased purchase intentions. Lee and Cho (2012) found that a positive sponsorship evaluation of the event and the sponsoring brand occurs when the event personality constructs (diligence, uninhibitedness, fit, tradition, and amusement) are relat- able in the opinion of spectators at sporting events. Sport event managers may create market- ing strategies to elicit the desired event personality to accomplish their objectives. Information related to event personality can also be used to create a communication strategy with the fans

120 Judge, Lee, Powers, Cottingham, Jones, Zupin, Krill

and potential consumers, which can be used to help sports fans understand the event’s value and the event personality.

Measurement of Event Personality Aaker’s (1997) Brand Personality Scale is known as the first work in this context. Aaker’s

assessment yielded what is known as the Big Five of brand personality constructs that consists of sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. Since its introduction, find- ings in Aaker’s research have frequently been used by scholars and practitioners to examine mar- keting practices to effectively match event personalities to endorsers and consumers (Braunstein & Ross, 2010). However, some researchers have argued that Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale may not be generalizable to other disciplines, including the sporting field. For example, Austin, Siguaw, and Mattila (2003) reexamined Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale to determine its effec- tiveness at the individual brand level. They examined the restaurant brand at an individual level using college students’ ratings on nine restaurant brand personalities. Austin et al. argued that the generalizability of a developed framework such as Aaker’s would be highly limited to a context in which brand personality is to be measured because the respondents interpret different meanings of a personality to different brands. To fill this gap in sport-related literature, Braunstein and Ross (2010) developed a scale that includes 84 descriptors under six event-personality constructs (success, sophistication, sincerity, rugged, community-driven, and classic). Braunstein and Ross argued that these results do, however, provide a sound foundation of further development of an event personality scale in sport.

Sponsorship Objectives Common sponsorship objectives for sports organizations include establishing brand aware-

ness, building a positive brand image, and increasing purchase intentions. Ferrand and Pagès (1996) stated that the influence of the sponsorship extends to various market segments when there is a congruency between the images of the sponsor and the sporting event. The market segments include “the people who are physically and emotionally involved in the event, the me- dia covering the event, and the customers of the sponsor” (Ferrand and Pagès, 1996, p. 280). Companies use the fanship for an event to try to create a fanship for their brand as well, by focusing on their shared event personalities. Event personalities that fans perceive as favorable influence the sponsor’s image by causing the sponsor to align its brand with a desired personality in potential advertising campaigns. Freling and Forbes (2005) indicated that participants who viewed the event personality in a negative or offensive context could create negative consequenc- es for the event and the sponsorship objectives.

Brand Recognition Brand recognition refers to the fan’s ability to recognize a brand through brand recall

(Biscaia, Correia, Rosado, Ross, & Maroco, 2013). When a sponsor has a high fit with the spon- soring event and fan involvement, brand awareness is likely to be enhanced (Grohs, Wagner, & Vseteka, 2004). Cho and Kang (2012) argued that event personality plays a crucial role in con- sumer association with brands through establishing brand equity. Aaker (1997) defined brand equity as the set of assets or liabilities associated with a brand’s name that either creates or di- minishes the value perceived by the customers. Similarly, Grohs and Reisinger (2005) discovered that high fan involvement was associated with a higher sponsor recognition. The NFL boasts high viewing records, which indicates high fan involvement and brand recognition potential. Marketers should base a sponsorship selection on event-sponsor fit, event involvement, and ex- posure, which will aid in reaching the goal of an increased sponsor recall by the sport consumers.

Event Personality of the NFL 121

Brand Image Fit Marketers often try to match the image of their brand with a sporting event because close

fit between the entities creates a positive influence on fans’ perceptions and their purchase in- tentions. Assessment of the matchup between the two images considers the objective charac- teristics and value associations implicated with the event (Ferrand & Pagès, 1996). In addition, Mohammadian and Rahimipour (2012) found that soccer fans with a high level of fanship for their respective teams were more likely to possess a positive brand image toward sponsors. Madrigal (2000) focused his study on the social alliances of football fans’ preferred teams and how this inclination influenced purchase intentions to buy the sponsoring products. He reported that team identification is likely to be established when fans have a high level of interest in a team and even view the success or failure of their respective team as their own success or failure (Madrigal, 2000). Based on the overall findings, sponsors should strive to create a relationship with the sponsored team to legitimize their role as a sponsor in the fans’ perceptions.

Purchase Intentions Freling et al. (2010) found a strong positive relationship between event personality (favor-

ability, clarity, and originality) and purchasing behavior. For instance, emotional fulfillment and an increased willingness to purchase a given product occurred with a strong, favorable event personality (Freling & Forbes, 2005). Freling et al. found that the level of perceived appeal of the event personality by the fans is an influencing factor on their purchasing intentions toward the sponsoring brand. Freling et al. further found that if the event is viewed as unfavorable or lacks originality, purchase intentions are subsequently reduced. Events seen by the fans must have distinctive event personalities to have a positive influence on purchase intentions of the sponsor’s products.

Image Transfer Assessing the image transfer from an event to the sponsor can be beneficial in determining

the effectiveness of the sponsorship (Grohs & Reisinger, 2005). Image transfer is defined as “the transfer of such associations to a brand or company sponsoring this activity” (Grohs & Reisinger, 2005, p. 42). Grohs and Reisinger (2005) believe a successful image transfer between an event and its sponsors will enhance positive attitudes of the sponsor by matching it to an event that fans value as important, causing them to view the brand as similarly important. Gwinner and Eaton (1999) indicated that the transfer process begins when a fan purchases a sponsored prod- uct, and the personalities of the event are transferred to the fan as a consequence of the purchase. Marketers must also be aware of the potential to transfer an image that is inconsistent with exist- ing sponsorship goals. Thus, a clear and concise communication strategy must be created before the brand image and event personality incur an image transfer.

Smith (2004) indicated that the fan interest level of the event plays a role in the image trans- fer. Smith stated that the more knowledge a fan acquires of a sporting event, the stronger the perceived transfer will be. Deane et al. (2003) suggested that the stronger the image fit is between the sponsor and sponsored products, the stronger the image transfer will occur. Smith argued that the link between the two must be viewed as a relevant pairing for the fan to project an im- age transfer. Likewise, Cho and Kang (2010) believe a strong positive fit between the event and sponsor provokes a positive attitude toward the sponsor that often translates to increased sales. To define the fit better, sponsors should strategize in running advertisements concurrently with the sporting event they are sponsoring; this action causes the image transfer to become stronger (Deane et al., 2003).

122 Judge, Lee, Powers, Cottingham, Jones, Zupin, Krill

Purpose of This Study Characteristics in event personality relatable to sport have recently come into question per-

taining to the generalizability of previous findings across other disciplines (Braunstein & Ross, 2010). Kim, Magnusen, and Kim (2012) suggested brand categories need to be specified and conceptualized according to their respective differentiating features. Thus, the purpose of this study was to conduct an empirical examination of relationships among various event personal- ity characteristics, sponsorship objectives, and individual’s behavioral intentions. Findings of this study will assist researchers and practitioners by providing insights into the elements that affect sport consumers’ perceptions and purchasing intentions to buy the sponsored products. This study will also allow researchers and practitioners to understand the symbolic use of event personalities and subsequent consumptive intentions in a sport context.

Method

Sample and Procedure This study was executed in two stages: a pilot study and a main study. The pilot study

was conducted using a convenience sample of 77 undergraduate students enrolled in Physical Fitness, Walking, and Sport Administration courses at a regional Midwestern university in the United States. This pilot sample consisted of 54 men (70.1%) and 23 women (29.9%). The pilot sample predominantly consisted of Caucasians (92.21%), and the respondents ranged from 19 to 47 years old (all but three respondents were under the age of 24).

Participants in the main study were recruited from various Division I athletic events held at a Midwestern university and another Midwestern Division III university in the United States, which allowed for a sample from a more diverse population. These universities varied in geo- graphical location, which helped diversify the sample and improve potential generalizability. A preliminary question was asked when recruiting a participant to ensure he or she had regularly viewed regular season NFL games in the 2013 season. Only 324 out of 350 questionnaires were included in the main data analyses because the other 26 questionnaires were incomplete. The respondents ranged in age from 18 to 77 years old (Mage= 27.62), and the majority of the sample was Caucasian (85.2%) and male (67%).

Instrument The overall items in the questionnaire were designed to measure five aspects including

brand awareness, brand image fit (between the sponsors and the event personality traits of a NFL regular season game), event personality, behaviors (purchase intention and intention for recommendation), and demographic profile of the participants. Questions were randomized to minimize potential respondent bias.

To measure perceived event personalities of NFL games, the researchers modified and used existing items including Braunstein and Ross (2010), Lee and Cho (2012), Aaker (1997), and Kim et al. (2012). Other pertinent personality traits, which were not represented on the previous four scales, were added. All of the scales and their respective constructs were found to be reliable using Cronbach’s alpha; however, Braunstein and Ross only found four out of the six constructs to be internally consistent. Braunstein and Ross, Lee and Cho, and Kim et al. found their scales to have construct validity; Aaker did not report any validity scores for the scale. Several personal- ity items were dropped from the scale by eliminating duplicates. The final instrument included 43 event personality traits (under six event personality constructs including Success, Tradition, Amusement, Community-Driven, Ruggedness, and Athletic), 21 questions measuring sponsor- ship objectives, and four behavioral items measuring purchase intention and recommendation intention. Additionally, questions measuring the respondents’ level of fandom were included.

Event Personality of the NFL 123

The level of fanship construct was measured to determine if it would influence recommendation or purchase intentions for the sponsored products. Wordings for all items reflected NFL sports. The overall items were anchored by a 7-point Likert-scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).

Data Analyses Internal consistency of the overall items was checked with Cronbach’s alpha. Discriminant

validity of the overall constructs was examined with factor correlations. Two multiple regres- sions were conducted to determine the extent to which chosen independent variables had signif- icant impact on the participants’ intention to purchase sponsored products as well as intention for recommending sponsored products to others. Alpha level was adjusted from conventional .05 to .025 to minimize type I error when running several multiple regressions on the same independent variable.

Results

Psychometric Properties of Scales In the pilot study, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for all variables. The internal consistency

for the overall constructs ranged from .77 to .91, with one exception for which the combined sponsor-event image fit had an alpha of .59. Discriminant validity among the overall constructs was secured in that factor correlations ranged from .29 to .61.

In the main study, Cronbach’s alphas for the event personality constructs were as follows: Success (α = .78), Tradition (α = .77), Amusement (α = .84), Community-Driven (α = .79), Ruggedness (α = .85), and Athletic (α = .81). Cronbach’s alphas of the remaining constructs were as follows: fandom (α = .90), sponsor recognition (α = .55), event-sponsor image fit of General Motors (α = .78), event-sponsor image fit of Verizon (α = .81), event-sponsor image fit of Papa Johns (α = .85), purchase intention (α = .70), and recommendation to others (α = .79). Additionally, all but the sponsor recognition construct met Cronbach’s .707 cutoff for internal consistency.

Discriminant validity among the overall constructs was established in that all factor cor- relations, with the exception of recommendation to others and purchase intention (r = .87), were lower than Kline’s (2010) criterion of .85. In sum, the reliability and validity tests generally indi- cated that the scales had established reliability and validity. Refer to Table 1 for complete values.

Descriptive Statistics Participants’ behaviors were examined for the pilot sample: money spent annually on NFL

merchandise (M = $48.30), hours spent weekly watching televised NFL games (M = 5.75), NFL games attended per season (M = 0.74), and hours spent weekly on social media regarding NFL news (M = 7.52). In the main study, the overall results were as follows: money spent annually on NFL merchandise (M = $79.88), hours spent weekly watching televised NFL games (M = 6.34), NFL games attended per season (M = 1.23), and hours spent weekly on social media regarding NFL news (M = 7.09). See Table 2.

12 4

Ju dg

e, L

ee , P

ow er

s, C

ot tin

gh am

, J on

es , Z

up in

, K ri

ll

Table 1 Factor Correlations

FS GMIF PJIF VIF Recog Recom PI Success Trad Amuse Rugged CD Athletic FS 1 GMIF .321** 1 PJIF .204** .334** 1 VIF .273** .663** .422** 1 Recog .325** .653** .593** .701** 1 Recom .272** .602** .418** .618** .581** 1 PI .237** .565** .425** .620** .571** .872** 1 Success .358** .331** .230** .383** .316** .315** .289** 1 Trad .256** .302** .140* .282** .280** .343** .270** .723** 1 Amuse .365** .297** .227** .311** .302** .309** .243** .734** .653** 1 Rugged .224** .306** .217** .344** .301** .292** .233** .757** .693** .764** 1 CD .286** .439** .206** .383** .349** .456** .402** .620** .662** .636** .586** 1 Athletic .225** .185** .161** .178** .223** .170** .125* .679** .504** .623** .702** .391** 1

Note. FS = fanship; GMIF = General Motors’ event-sponsor image fit; PJIF = Papa John’s event-sponsor image fit; VIF = Verizon’s event-sponsor image fit; Recog = recognition; Recom = recommendation; PI = purchase intentions; Trad = tradition; Amuse = amusement; Rugged = rugged- ness; CD = community-driven.

*Significant at the .025 level (two-tailed). **Marginally significant at the .025 level (two-tailed).

Event Personality of the NFL 125

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics

Construct M SD Skewness Kurtosis α Fanship 5.492 1.430 -1.240 1.186 .90 GM Event-Sponsor Image

3.666 1.196 .146 -.139 .78

Papa John’s Event- Sponsor Image

4.691 1.375 -.504 -.136 .85

Verizon Event-Sponsor Image

3.531 1.271 .155 -.271 .81

Recognition 4.126 1.139 -.393 .440 .55 Recommendation 2.656 1.375 .742 -.015 .79 Purchase Intention 2.772 1.338 .548 -.336 .70 Success 5.444 .764 -.545 .408 .78 Tradition 4.933 .938 -.017 -.374 .77 Amusement 5.257 .812 -.201 -.329 .84 Ruggedness 5.351 .822 -.408 -.273 .79 Community-Driven 4.501 1.073 -.200 -.097 .85 Athletic 6.067 .745 -1.206 1.991 .81

Multiple Regression Analyses In the main study, two multiple regressions were conducted to determine the extent to

which independent variables had statistically significant influence on the two dependent vari- ables. The first regression analysis was conducted to examine the influence of the independent variables (event personality, fandom, sponsor recognition, and event-sponsor image fit) on the fans’ intention for recommendation of sponsoring products under the NFL. The analysis re- vealed statistically significant findings, F(11, 323) = 30.149, p < .000, and revealed that the com- bined set of independent variables collectively explained approximately 52% of the variance (R2 = .515). At the univariate level, statistical significance was found in the following variables: tradi- tion (p = .029), community-driven (p = .001), Verizon’s event-sponsor image fit (p =.000), Papa John’s event-sponsor image fit (p = .003), and General Motors event-sponsor image fit (p = .000). Refer to Table 3 for complete values.

A separate regression analysis was conducted to examine the influence of the independent variables on the purchase intentions of the NFL’s sponsoring products. The analysis revealed sig- nificant findings, F(11, 323) = 26.399, p < .000. The R2 value indicated that the combined set of independent variables collectively explained approximately 48% of the variance in the purchase intention of the sponsors’ products (R2 = .482). At the univariate level, statistically significant results were found in the following variables: community-driven (p = .003), Verizon’s event- sponsor image fit (p = .000), Papa John’s event-sponsor image fit (p =.002), and General Motor’s event-sponsor image fit (p = .004). Refer to Table 4 for complete values.

126 Judge, Lee, Powers, Cottingham, Jones, Zupin, Krill

Table 3 Regression Analysis Examining Influence on the Recommendation Intention

Model

Standardized coefficients

t Sig.Beta Success -.121 -1.577 .116 Tradition** .144 2.198 .029 Amusement .003 .042 .966 Ruggedness -.073 -.954 .341 Community-Driven* .193 3.224 .001 Athletic .011 .189 .850 Verizon Event-Sponsor Image

Fit* .299 4.790 .000 Papa John’s Event-Sponsor

Image Fit* .146 2.944 .003 GM Event-Sponsor Image Fit* .228 3.869 .000 Fanship .027 .602 .548 Recognition .076 1.124 .262 R = .718 R2= .515

Note. Dependent Variable: Recommendation. *Significant at the .025 level (two-tailed). **Marginally significant at the .025 level (two-tailed).

Table 4 Regression Analysis Examining Influence on the Purchase Intentions

Model

Standardized coefficients

t Sig.Beta Success .000 .004 .997 Tradition .061 .896 .371 Amusement -.049 -.672 .502 Ruggedness -.102 -1.287 .199 Community-Driven* .188 3.024 .003 Athletic -.015 -.243 .808 Verizon Event-Sponsor Image

Fit* .333 5.165 .000

Papa John’s Event-Sponsor Image Fit*

.158 3.077 .002

GM Event-Sponsor Image Fit*

.178 2.927 .004

Fanship .001 .019 .985 Recognition .094 1.340 .181 R = .694 R2 = .482

Note. Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention. *Significant at the .025 level (two-tailed).

Event Personality of the NFL 127

Discussion The purpose of this study was to conduct an empirical examination of relationships among

various event personality traits, sponsorship objectives, and individual’s behavioral intentions in association with NFL regular season games. A series of testing psychometric properties of the scales indicated that the scales had adequate discriminant validity and internal consistency.

In the first regression analysis, which included the six event personality traits, brand recog- nition, fandom level, and event-sponsor image fit, statistically significant results supporting the substantial impact on NFL spectators’ recommendation for the sponsored products were found. Based on the examination of the univariate test results, two event personalities (i.e., Tradition, Community-Driven) and event-sponsor image fit for all three current NFL sponsors had statis- tically significant impact on the spectators’ recommendation intentions of the sponsored prod- ucts. This finding is comparable to Speed and Thompson’s (2000) findings, mentioned above, that a more positive response to the sponsorship was found when consumers perceived a more positive event-sponsor image fit. These findings are consistent with the current study’s findings in that an event-sponsor image fit had a significant influence on recommendation intentions among NFL spectators. Deane et al. (2003) also found comparable results in that the event per- sonality of sincerity was significantly associated with recommendation intentions. His findings were somewhat consistent with the current study in that the event personalities of Tradition and Community-Driven in both studies were found to be significantly associated with participants’ recommendation intentions for the sponsored products.

In a separate regression analysis toward purchase intention, the current researchers found significant impact of the chosen independent variables on the current NFL spectators’ purchase intentions toward the sponsored products. Based on the examination of the univariate test re- sults, the event personality of Community-Driven and event-sponsor image fit for the three current sponsors had statistically significant influence on the participants’ purchase intentions on the sponsored products.

The current finding that event-sponsor image fit has significant influences on purchase in- tentions is also comparable to that in Dees et al.’s (2010) study. They found an increased purchase intention of the NASCAR-sponsored products when participants perceived greater event-spon- sor image fit. Likewise, event-sponsor image fit of all three of the sponsors in the current study were also a significant influential factor in purchase intentions for sponsored products. Lee and Cho (2012) reported that a significant amount of variance in purchase intentions of licensed team merchandise was explained by perceived brand image fit. Perceived brand image fit in Lee and Cho’s research can be related to the construct of event-sponsor image fit of the current study because both are significant influences on purchase intentions.

The researchers predicted that the results would indicate sponsor recognition and fanship levels to have significant impact; however, this was not the case in this study. Based on the results found in previous literature, the researchers proposed that greater recognition of the sponsors of the NFL would have statistically significant influence on purchase intentions and recommenda- tion intentions. Laroche, Kim, and Zhou (1996) found a relationship between recognition of a sponsor and purchase intentions for the sponsor’s product. Laroche et al. found that when the consumer recognizes the sponsoring brand, that consumer will have confidence in the product. In turn, the confidence in the product results in purchase intentions for the sponsor’s products. More recently, Farrelly, Quester, and Greyser (2005) argued that without sponsor recognition, subsequent sponsor objectives could not be accomplished. In other words, recognition of spon- soring brands should influence sponsorship objectives (i.e., purchase intentions and recom- mendation intentions). Based on the aforementioned literature, the researchers hypothesized this study would also show that sponsor recognition and fanship constructs significantly influ- ence recommendation and purchase intentions. However, these results were not founded in this study, and further research is warranted for these results to be generalizable.

128 Judge, Lee, Powers, Cottingham, Jones, Zupin, Krill

Marketing Implications The results found in this research may be beneficial for sport marketers and sponsoring

brand managers. The event personality scale used in this study provides a theoretical foundation for future researchers in sport event personality research, specifically in the NFL. It also provides a foundation for researchers to investigate the implications that sporting event personalities have on sponsorship objectives. These event personality aspects allow researchers to measure the de- gree of similarity between the event personality traits and the sponsoring brand’s personality traits accurately (Lee & Cho, 2012).

The results of this study show event-sponsor image fit significantly influences spectators’ recommendation and purchase intentions for the sponsored products. Sponsors with similar event personalities of the NFL should look to align themselves with the event to see the most benefits from the sponsorship. When there are shared personalities, sponsorship objectives are likely to be accomplished. In contrast, if a sports fan perceives a different personality of the sporting event than what is desired by the manager, the manager can create a marketing strategy to elicit that event personality in the minds of the spectators at an NFL regular season game (Càslavovà & Petràckovà, 2011). Finally, this study aids marketing/event managers to under- stand which event personality traits should be the focal point when they align themselves with a mainstream sport such as football.

Research Limitations and Recommendations Three limitations were realized during this study. First, this study has a limitation of lack

of generalizability within the sample. Although the researchers used a nonstudent sample, the sample consisted of a population within a region in a Midwestern state. This could raise concerns about casting this study’s findings to the general population. Researchers should investigate a diversified sample to make the results of event personality constructs and its sponsorship objec- tives more generalizable.

The correlations between the recommendation and purchase intention constructs were higher than Kline’s (2010) criterion of .85. However, conceptually this made sense; if an NFL spectator recommended a sponsor’s product, the spectator would likely have purchase intentions for that product as well. Another limitation of this study was the results of a variable with poor reliability. The recognition construct was the only construct that did not meet the standard for internal consistency. However, the researchers believe this occurred because the questions were for each separate sponsor’s recognition. For example, an NFL fan may recognize Papa John’s as being an official sponsor but not recognize General Motors as a sponsor. The recognition re- sults would conceivably be skewed because of the different recognition levels between the three sponsors. To reduce the potential of this occurring again, researchers could develop separate recognition constructs for each of the respective sponsors. By adding two more questions mea- suring each sponsor’s recognition levels, the researchers could run reliability tests for each spon- sor separately.

Conclusion The purpose of this study was to conduct an empirical examination of relationships among

various event personality traits, sponsorship objectives, and individuals’ behavioral intentions in association with NFL regular season games. Findings from this study will assist researchers and practitioners by providing insights into the elements that affect sport consumers’ perceptions and purchasing intentions to buy the sponsored products. The findings in this study were con- sistent and inconsistent with previous literature. Sport marketers can use these findings to better align their events with sponsors that are viewed by the fans to have an event-sponsor image fit. Additionally, sponsoring organizations can use the findings to justify sponsoring sporting events with the potential to meet sponsorship objectives.

Event Personality of the NFL 129

References Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347–356.

https://doi.org/10.2307/3151897 Austin, J., Siguaw, J., & Mattila, A. S. (2003). An assessment of the Aaker brand personality

framework: Method, measurement and conceptual issues. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11, 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254032000104469

Bibel, S. (2013, January 3). NFL 2012 TV recap: NFL game TV’s most watched show all 17 weeks [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/01/03/nfl-2012-tv- recap-nfl-game-tvs-most-watched-show-all-17-weeks/163772/

Biscaia, R., Correia, A., Rosado, F., Ross, S. D., & Maroco, J. (2013). Sport sponsorship: The relationship between team loyalty, sponsorship awareness, attitude toward the sponsor, and purchase intentions. Journal of Sport Management, 27, 298–302. https://doi.org/10.1123/ jsm.27.4.288

Braunstein, J. R., & Ross, S. D. (2010). Brand personality in sport: Dimension analysis and general scale development. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19(1), 8–16.

Carrillat, F. A., Harris, E. G., & Lafferty, B. A. (2010). Fortuitous brand image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 39, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367390208

Càslavovà, E., & Petràckovà, J. (2011). The brand personality of large sport events. Kinesiology, 43, 91–106.

Cho, S., & Kang, J.-H. (2012). Psychometric comparability of Brand Personality Scale: Assessing brand personality matching between sports and corporate sponsors by using the congenerity test. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 13, 295–312. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJSMS-13-04-2012-B006

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555

Deane, J., Smith, G., & Adams, A. (2003). Sports sponsorship and brand personality: The Ryder Cup team and IBM. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 5, 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-05-03-2003-B003

Dees, W., Bennett, G., & Ferreira, M. (2010). Personality fit in NASCAR: An evaluation of driver–sponsor congruence and its impact on sponsorship effectiveness outcomes. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19(1), 25–35.

Farrelly, F., Quester, P., & Greyser, S. A. (2005). Defending the co-branding benefits of sponsorship b2b partnerships: The case of ambush marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 45, 339– 348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021849905050348

Ferrand, A., & Pagès, M. (1996). Image sponsorsing: A methodology to match event and sponsor. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.10.3.278

Freling, T. H., Crosno, J. L., & Henard, D. H. (2010). Brand personality appeal: Conceptualization and empirical validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing, 39, 392–406.

Freling, T. H., & Forbes, L. P. (2005). An examination of brand personality through methodological triangulation. Brand Management, 3(2), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0208- 3

Grohs, R., & Reisinger, H. (2005, October). Image transfer in sports sponsorships: An assessment of moderating effects. International Journal of Spors Marketing & Sponsorship, 7, 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-07-01-2005-B007

Grohs, R., Wagner, U., & Vseteka, S. (2004). Assessing the effectiveness of sport sponsorships: An empirical examinations. Schmalenback Business Review, 56, 119–138.

Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship: The role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.199 9.10673595

130 Judge, Lee, Powers, Cottingham, Jones, Zupin, Krill

Henseler, J., Wilson, B., Gotz, O., & Hautvast, C. (2007). Investingating the moderating role of fit on sports sponsorship and brand equity. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 8(4), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-08-04-2007-B005

Henseler, J., Wilson, B., & Westberg, K. (2011). Managers’ perceptions of the impact of sport sponsorship on brand equity: Which aspects of the sponsorship matter most? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 20(1), 7–21.

IEG. (2013). IEG sponsorship briefing. Retrieved from https://www.sponsorship.com/IEG/ files/6b/6bca0a93-47cc-4eb8-b514-c4cc3debc7d4.pdf

Kim, Y. D., Magnusen, M., & Kim, Y. (2012). Revisiting sport brand personality: Scale development and validation. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 4(3), 65–80.

Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

Laroche, M., Kim, C., & Zhou, L. (1996). Brand familiarity and confidence as determinants of purchase intention: An empirical test in a multiple brand context. Journal of Business Research, 37, 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(96)00056-2

Lee, H.-S., & Cho, C.-H. (2012). Sporting event personality: Scale development and sponsorship implications. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 14, 51–67. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-14-01-2012-B005

Madrigal, R. (2000). The influence of social alliances with sports teams on intentions to purchase corporate sponsors’ products. Journal of Advertising, 29(4), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1080 /00913367.2000.10673621

Mohammadian, M., & Rahimipour, N. (2012). Influential factors in customer’s brand image of the sponsor. International Business and Management, 5(1), 43–51.

Speed, R., & Thomspon, P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300282004

Smith, G. (2004). Brand image transfer through sponsorship: A consumer learn- ing perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 20, 457–474. https://doi. org/10.1362/026725704323080498

Copyright of Journal of Facility Planning, Design & Management is the property of Sagamore Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.