Sport Facilities III

296 Volume 29 • Number 4 • 2020 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

Exploring the Explicit and Implicit Appeal of Retro Sport Lo gos Brendan Dwyer, Zach Scola, and Joris Drayer

Brendan Dwayer, PhD, is the director of research and distance learning in the Center for Sport Leadership at Virginia Com- monwealth University. His research interests include sport consumer behavior, specifi cally in relation to the media consump- tion habits of fantasy sport participants and behavioral patterns of ticket purchasers. Zach Scola, PhD, is an assistant professor of Sport Management and Leadership at the University of New Hampshire. His research interested include branding and consumer behavior, specifi cally examining the impact and success of retro marketing in sport. Joris Drayer, PhD, is an associate professor in the School of Sport, Tourism, and Hospitality Management at Temple Universi- ty. His research interests include sport pricing and consumer behavior.

Abstract Th e current multi-study examination explored explicit and implicit appeal of a prominent form of retro sport marketing: retro team logos. Study 1 utilized the stimuli-organism-response framework to test preference dif- ferences between those off ered team merchandise with a retro logo and those off ered the same merchandise with the current logo. Statistically signifi cant preference diff erences were not uncovered, yet it was found that previous exposure to the retro logo negatively impacted preference of the retro logo. Based on these results, Study 2 utilized an implicit association test to assess the style appeal of retro and current logos. Th is assessment, once again, found no diff erence in the explicit preference for the retro and current logos, yet an implicit bias of freshness toward the current logo and outdatedness toward the retro logo was found. Together, the results provide preliminary evidence of the ephemeral impact of retro team logos within a professional sports context. Keywords: retro sport marketing, merchandise, nostalgia, implicit association DOI: http://doi.org/10.32731/SMQ.294.122020.05

In a highly competitive market, sport marketers are oft en challenged with blending an organization’s his- tory and heritage with innovation and growth (Grant et al., 2011). For example, marketers are expected to attract and retain new fans and increase revenue while keeping costs down for loyal consumers and honoring past team traditions. Th ese challenges directly impact an organization’s marketing strategy. From sponsor se- lection to community building, these managerial deci- sions will impact several organizational business units (Schade et al., 2014). Th erefore, marketers should seek strategies that accomplish a number of these varying objectives simultaneously.

One such initiative is retro marketing. According to Scola and Gordon (2018), retro marketing campaigns leverage past team success and revitalize prominent fads or trends. Th ey have also been found to energize a fan base, gain positive media attention, and provide new sources for revenue (Scola & Gordon, 2018).

Examples of these strategies include gameday promo- tions to attract consumers and venue-specifi c tactics such as themed food choices and imagery to evoke sensory nostalgia. Th e area within sport marketing that has utilized retro strategies most prominently, how- ever, is team merchandise and logo design. Since the early 1990s, the majority of team sport organizations and leagues have embraced alternate team jerseys and retro team logos as a means to connect with the past, diversify brand inventory, gain positive notoriety, and, ultimately, drive merchandise sales. For instance, the National Football League (NFL) has gone so far as to require each team to utilize a retro uniform at least once per year; similarly, during the 2017–2018 season, the National Basketball Association (NBA) encouraged teams to unveil a new alternate jersey, and seven teams implemented a retro uniform (Burry, 2017).

However, while the creation and/or re-creation of team logos are intended to positively add value to

SSppoorrt Mt Maarkrketineting Qg Quuaarrtteerlyrly, 2020, , 2020, 2929, 296–307, © 2020 West Virginia University

Volume 29 • Number 4 • 2020 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 297

organizations, the effort and creativity are not always well received. For instance, players or managers may dislike the look or feel of the retro uniform (Eilerson, 2016), the logo may be associated with a losing era for the organization, and/or the use of multiple logos at once may create brand confusion among fans (Bala- banis & Craven, 1997). Thus, sport organizations need to be strategic in their implementation of retro mar- keting. The current paper utilized a two-study design to explore the explicit and implicit appeal of using retro team logos within the context of professional sports. Study 1 utilized the stimuli-organism-response (S-O-R) framework to assess perceptions of retro and current team logos through two online purchasing scenarios, and based on findings from Study 1, Study 2 examined the implicit appeal of retro and current sport team logos through the implicit association test (IAT).

The implications of these studies are important as managers and marketers look to blend team tradition with innovation. Sport logos are highly important in cultivating fan identification and team loyalty (Ahn et al., 2012); however, they can also distract from a clear and concise marketing strategy (Spiggle et al., 2012). Therefore, there is an opportunity to learn more about consumers’ perceptions of retro sport marketing in practice, as utilizing retro logos may provide the chance to connect with several fan segments simultaneously.

Retro Marketing When a marketer combines aspects of their past with their new products, they are conducting retro market- ing (Brown, 1999). This strategy, however, illuminates a challenging predicament for many sport organizations. On the one hand, anecdotal evidence suggests that it may be an effective way to drive fan interest and mer- chandise sales. However, on the other hand, it may be unwise to recreate a previously used marketing cam- paign as consumers have expectations that the organi- zation will keep up with current trends and technology. It has also been suggested that retro marketing’s ability to tap into the trust and loyalty consumers may have toward the old brand may offer a sort of competitive advantage (Brown et al., 2003).

Frequently, retro marketing taps into a consumer’s feelings of nostalgia. Brown (2013) detailed how nostal- gia plays an impactful role as a primary feeling evoked from retro marketing practices, but the words should not be used synonymously. Connecting retro market- ing to nostalgia, scholars credited the increase of retro marketing at the turn of the century to the fin de siècle effect, which is the anxiety people feel at the end of an era (Stern, 1992). Even vicarious nostalgia, which is the ability for someone to feel nostalgic about an event that

happened before they were born, has been found to be impactful on consumers exposed to retro marketing practices (Merchant & Rose, 2013). Given the prevalent usage, more and more marketing scholars have begun to understand the effects of retro marketing practices.

For instance, team association scales developed by sport marketing researchers Bauer et al. (2008) and Gladden and Funk (2002) included dimensions of team history and nostalgia. Beyond examining retro aspects of a team as a brand association, nostalgia has been ex- plored as an important aspect of sport heritage regard- ing sport tourism and stadium design (Ramshaw & Gammon, 2005; Stride et al., 2013). Although nostalgia has been examined in the sport marketing literature, there has been much less attention given to actual retro marketing practices.

Scola and Gordon (2018) categorized retro marketing practices in sport and created the five practical areas of retro marketing in sport, which include imagery, mer- chandise, venue, gameday promotion, and advertising. This categorization was one of the first in-depth exam- inations of the retro marketing in sport practices but did not shed light on why these practices may be effective. Thus, understanding retro sport marketing through this examination has theoretical and practical importance. As Chalip (2006) insisted, sport management is its own academic discipline, and thus it is important that retro marketing is examined theoretically through sport man- agement and marketing. In all, there is an opportunity to explore the appeal of team-based retro sport marketing from an imagery and merchandise perspective.

Study 1 Despite Scola and Gordon’s (2018) categorization, there remains a gap in the literature regarding how retro sport marketing impacts the consumer. The current study extended this growing area of research by investi- gating the consumer response differences to current and retro logo offerings. Specifically, Study 1 utilized the S-O-R framework to explore consumer responses to different logos within a professional sport merchan- dising scenario.

Theoretical Framework In its simplest form, the S-O-R framework was cre- ated to explain how sensory cues impact an individ- ual’s response while accounting for unique personal characteristics (Vieira, 2013). Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974) seminal work suggested that the S-O-R frame- work could explain the process and rationale behind a consumer’s behavioral responses to the environment to which they were exposed. The stimulus is the aspect a marketer can manipulate and is the message or product they are sending to the consumer (Chang et al., 2011).

298 Volume 29 • Number 4 • 2020 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

The organism component represents characteristics of the consumers that impact how they evaluate the stim- ulus (Bagozzi, 1986). The final response is the emo- tional and physical reaction of the consumer, which includes attitudes and behaviors.

The S-O-R model has been utilized as a theoretical framework to examine consumer behavior in a mul- titude of settings. Most frequently, it has been used to examine how a retail environment may impact the consumer specifically within nostalgic settings (Chang et al., 2011). In the sporting context, this framework has been used to examine the atmosphere of a major sporting event (Uhrich & Koenigstorfer, 2009) and as a way to investigate retro marketing practices in sport (Scola & Gordon, 2018). Both of these studies de- scribed how sporting events, as well as sport marketers, could influence the stimuli in a matter that may impact consumers’ feelings and response to the stimuli.

Given the S-O-R framework’s previous usage with nostalgic products and services, it was chosen for the current study as a theoretically-sound means to better understand consumer sentiment toward products with logos of differing time periods. Specifically, the stimulus for a retro marketing offering was examined through different forms of merchandise. Following the design of Sierra and McQuitty (2007), the current sample was given the option to purchase the exact same piece of merchandise with one of two logos (retro or current).

From an organism perspective, previous work sug- gests controlling for personal factors that may bias the response to merchandise (Sierra & McQuitty, 2007). First, the current study was conducted in a team sport setting; thus, a fan’s attachment to the team could impact the relationship between the stimulus and the response variables. Therefore, attachment to the team was measured. Second, the current study utilized mer- chandise as a stimulus, and the concept and construct of a consumer’s need for uniqueness (CNFU) was de- veloped by Tian et al. (2001) as a means to understand a consumer’s drive to utilize material possessions for the purpose of feeling different from others. Thus, CNFU was assessed as a potential factor impacting merchan- dise purchasing decisions. Third, nostalgia, as measured by the past perspective of Zimbardo and Boyd’s (1999) time perspective inventory, was used. Given the focus of the study on retro logos, controlling for one’s feelings toward the past was deemed an important organism factor, as the construct likely impacts the relationship between the stimulus and response variables.

From a response standpoint, previous S-O-R work suggests understanding both attitudinal and behavior- al responses to stimuli (Chang et al., 2011). Thus, the

current study explored the consumer evaluation of the merchandise offering by measuring product liking, and as actual behaviors were difficult to obtain from this pur- chasing scenario, behavioral intentions were examined.

Based on the theoretical and practical work above, the following research questions were developed to explore preference differences between retro and current logos:

RQ1: Controlling for organism factors, are there differ- ences between sport fans offered retro team merchandise and those offered current team merchandise as it relates to product liking (attitude-based response factor)?

RQ2: Controlling for a number of organism factors, are there differences between sport fans offered retro team merchandise and those offered current team merchandise as it relates to purchase intentions (behav- ior-based response factor)?

RQ3: To what extent do the factors of positive and negative time perspective, attachment to team, need for uniqueness, product liking, age, and the type of previous offer impact a sport fan’s preference of retro or current team merchandise?

Method Sample. Given the scope and purpose of the current study, the target population was middle-aged to older sport fans who had the ability to experience team sport fandom at the time of the retro logo. For instance, one of the retro marks used in this study was utilized by a team from 1980 to 1991; thus, the current sampling frame targeted individuals with fan experiences at this time. In addition, to avoid a specific team bias, two different teams from the same geographical area were utilized as the team merchandise under examination. Given these objectives and through a partnership with the Philadel- phia Inquirer, newspaper subscribers from the Philadel- phia area who previously opted-in to receive sport-relat- ed research questionnaires were sampled.

Email solicitation was utilized, as potential respon- dents were sent an email with a link to the survey hosted by Qualtrics. A total of 1,700 subscribers were invited to take the survey, which was open for two weeks in June of 2018. Potential respondents were of- fered a chance to receive one of five $100 Amazon gift cards for their participation. Two hundred and nine- ty-three emails bounced back or were undeliverable. Three hundred and eighty-four participants began the survey, with 292 fully completing it. This resulted in a 27% response rate and 21% completion rate. Sample demographics are available in Table 1.

Materials and procedures. The online questionnaire consisted of 45 items, including scaled instruments to demographic questions. A number of control items and randomized assignment were also utilized. After providing their informed consent, participants first

Volume 29 • Number 4 • 2020 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 299

answered the organism-related instruments before being offered the stimulus and the response questions.

Stimuli. To test the retro logos within a consumer context, baseball caps were utilized as the team mer- chandise under examination. Baseball caps were cho- sen because they have the least variability in consumer preference as opposed to t-shirts, sweatshirts, jackets, or jerseys (Galilee, 2002). They do, however, come in a few different styles; thus, a control question was asked whereby participants could indicate their preference for a flat-billed cap, curved-bill cap, or neither. If a par- ticipant selected neither, they were removed from the survey. Depending on whether one selected the flat-bill or the curved-bill cap, the remaining consumer ques- tions were tailored to this preference. Participants were then randomly placed into one of four cap scenarios: (1) retro Eagles, (2) current Eagles, (3) retro Phillies, or (4) current Phillies (see Figure 1 for logos). The sce- nario included a large image of the cap and the follow- ing statement: “Price for this cap on Amazon.com is $25.00. That does NOT include shipping or sales tax.” This price point was chosen based the average price for

these hats that was found on Amazon at the time of the study. Based on this statement, participants were then asked the remaining questions on product liking and purchase intention.

A number of potential logos were available to the research team. To determine which retro and current logos to use, a pilot study of Philadelphia area sport fans was conducted. These individuals were recruited through snowball sampling, and a total of 11 individ- uals quantitatively and qualitatively assessed 31 logos over two phases until a clear designation of retro and current logos for both teams were determined. Par- ticipants in this phase assessed logos on the follow- ing items: perceived popularity among the fan base, aesthetic quality, and personal likeability. Each item was measured on 5-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Participants also utilized open item responses to explain rationale for their quantitative choices. For the Philadelphia Phillies, 15 retro logos from 1927 to 1998 and six current logos were includ- ed in the first phase. For the Philadelphia Eagles, four retro logos from 1948 to 1995 and four current logos

Table 1. Sample Demographics for Study 1 (N = 292), Study 2 (N = 93), and Pilot (N = 42)

Study 1 Study 2 Pilot Age Mean 51.8 52.2 46.2

St. Dev. 14.4 13.4 14.2 Range 25–78 26–70 27–61

Years fan of team Mean 42.6 37.2 St. Dev. 17.6 15.2

N % N % N % Gender Male 226 77.4% 74 79.6% 34 80.9% Income Under $50,000 31 10.6% 10 10.8% 6 14.3%

$50,000–$99,999 79 27.1% 17 18.3% 5 11.9% $100,000–$149,999 62 21.2% 23 24.7% 10 23.8% $150,000–$199,999 39 13.4% 20 21.5% 9 21.4% $200,000 or over 46 15.8% 15 16.1% 7 16.7% Prefer not to say 35 12.0% 8 8.6% 5 11.9%

Education High school or GED 19 6.5% 6 6.5% 3 7.1% Some college 39 13.4% 15 16.1% 6 14.3% Associates degree 19 6.5% 6 6.5% 0 0.0% Bachelor’s degree 128 43.8% 32 34.4% 21 50.0% Master’s degree 56 19.2% 19 20.4% 9 21.4% Doctoral/Prof. degree 31 10.6% 16 17.2% 3 7.1%

Ethnicity Asian/Pacific Islander 4 1.4% 0 0.0% 1 2.4% African American 10 3.4% 4 4.3% 4 9.5% Hispanic 3 1.0% 2 2.2% 1 2.4% Multiracial 3 1.0% 3 3.2% 3 7.1%

  White/Caucasian 272 93.2% 84 90.3% 33 78.6%

300 Volume 29 • Number 4 • 2020 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

were examined. Following phase one of the pilot, four retro Phillies logos, three retro Eagles logos, and two current logos for each team were retained (see Figure 1). During the second phase, participants were asked to rank order the remaining logos.

Organism. The organism-related instruments (i.e., time perspective, creative choice, and attachment to team) were provided first so as not to be impacted by the stimulus of current or retro team logos. Time per- spective was measured utilizing the past-positive and past-negative dimensions from Zimbardo and Boyd’s (1999) time perspective inventory (ZTPI). Košťál et al. (2016) constructed the short-form version of the much longer ZTPI and found scale scores that were both valid and reliable (α > .70) across a number of different sam- ples. All scaled items with means, standard deviations, and factor loadings are available in the Appendix.

Creative choice was measured through the four-item subscale from the Tian et al. (2001) CNFU instrument. The short-form version of the subscale was constructed and validated by Ruvio et al. (2008) across a number of different cultures and samples. Attachment to team was assessed via Robinson and Trail’s (2005) three-item subscale from their points of attachment index.

Response. Product liking was measured by Cox and Cox’s (2002) consumer evaluations of the prod- uct designs’ visual appeal instrument. This scale is a 7-point semantic differential anchored by the following

adjectives: bad-good, pleasant-unpleasant, likable-not likable, flattering-unflattering, unattractive-attractive, and stylish-not stylish. Next, while actual purchase behavior would have been ideal to investigate, there are substantial limitations to spending recall and/or direct observation (e.g., bias, over-estimation, and lack of generalizability); therefore, purchase intention was examined. Kwon et al.’s (2007) three-item measure for purchase intention was utilized.

Analyses. Prior to running the analyses to test the hypotheses, descriptive statistics and reliability analy- ses were run to ensure data were fit for advanced anal- yses (Brown, 2015). Cronbach alpha coefficients were assessed for the scaled instruments using the omnibus sample. Once again, see the Appendix for the results. To test RQ1 and RQ2, a MANCOVA was run where product liking and purchase intentions were the de- pendent variables and the two groups receiving differ- ent stimuli were the independent variables. The control variables included the factor scores from the organism constructs of. To answer RQ3, a backward stepwise re- gression was conducted on the combined sample where the outcome variable was the preference for one logo over the other. This variable was measured on a 5-point semantic differential where both hats with the differing logos were the anchors (1 = current; 5 = retro). The following question was provided prior to the semantic differential: “If provided the exact same offer, which hat

Figure 1. Current and retro logos used for Study 1

Volume 29 • Number 4 • 2020 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 301

would you prefer to purchase?” The potential predictor variables for this regression were positive and negative time perspective, attachment to team, creative choice, product liking, age, and type of previous offer. The pre- vious offer variable was a dummy variable where the retro offer equaled 1 and the current offer was 0.

Results A sample of 292 Philadelphia area sports fans fully completed the online questionnaire. On average, the sample was late-middle aged (M = 51.8; SD = 14.4) Caucasian (93.2%) men (77.4%). The sample was mostly upper middle class (57% = $100K household income or above) and highly educated (75% = Bache- lor’s degree or above), and as targeted, the sample had on average over 40 years of experience as a fan of either the Phillies or Eagles.

Prior to running the advanced analyses to answer the research questions, descriptive statistics and construct reliabilities analyses were run to ensure the data met both regression and MANCOVA-related assumptions. The data were sound from an assumption perspective. The reliabilities were assessed via Cronbach’s alphas, and each met the advised threshold of greater than .70 (Nun- nally, 1978). The alpha coefficient score for each instru- ment and subdimension is available in the Appendix.

The MANCOVA results for RQ1 and RQ2 did not uncover any statistically significant differences as related to the product liking and purchase intentions for those offered retro or current logoed merchandise. That is, while controlling for factors theoretically tied to nostalgic products such as positive and negative time perspective and also factors unique to sport and merchandise (i.e., attachment to team and need for uniqueness), the two independent and randomly selected groups of fans indicated statistically similar scores for the outcome variables.

For RQ3, the backward stepwise regression resulted in a statistically significant model (F = 9.85, p < .001, R2 = .23). Of the original seven predictor variables, only three remained in the final model as statistically significant predictors of logo preference (age, product liking, and the type of previous offer). Product liking of the previous offer positively impacted a fan’s prefer- ence for the retro logo over the current logo (β = .12). Age negatively impacted a fan’s preference for the retro logo (β = -.26), and if the participant was offered the retro logo previously, it also negatively impacted their preference for the retro logo (β = -.13). See Table 2 for the complete regression results.

Discussion The purpose of this study was to explore the S-O-R differences between sport fans who were provided a

retro logo merchandise purchasing scenario and a cur- rent logo merchandise pricing scenario. In general, the results of the current study suggest more similarities than differences from an S-O-R perspective. Fans view the two logos similarly when it comes to the attitudinal and behavioral response perspective while controlling for individual characteristics (organism factors). The study also explored a number of potential explanatory variables in the prediction of logo preference. These results suggest, once again, most variables did not im- pact logo preference; however, two variables negatively impacted the preference for a retro logo, including the exposure to the retro logo pricing scenario.

The negative impact of previously receiving the retro logo offer on the preference of retro logo is an import- ant finding. First, it could signify the improvement of logo development over time. Generally, new or current marks are carefully crafted to align with overall brand elements such as product differentiation or local cul- ture (Farhana, 2012). In sport, they are also designed or redesigned to include elements of previous marks but may include more attractive or trendy features such as new colors, fonts, or shading (Grohmann et al., 2013). Second, and perhaps more importantly, this result may signify the ephemeral nature of retro mar- keting in sport. Providing fewer offerings or less access to the retro logo may result in a stronger return, as consumers may perceive usage more special or unique. The team marks have evolved for a reason, whether to align with new ownership of the organization or to simply freshen up the logo to a new fashion period; thus, when compared with a retro logo, it should not be completely surprising that one would prefer the cur- rent mark. However, for the difference to be a result of repeated exposure to the logo should signify to market- ers and managers that retro logos may have a shelf life.

The results related to age also provide potentially im- portant implications for academics and practitioners. Given the more advanced age of the sample and the negative relationship between age and preference for the retro logo, there appears to be an opportunity to

Table 2. Backward Stepwise Regression (Outcome = Preference for Current [1] or Retro [5] Merchandise)

Predictor Variable Unstandardized Standardized

B Std. Error β t Sig. (Constant) 3.909 .563 <.001 Age -.032 .007 -.262 -4.640 <.001 Product Liking .171 .081 .119 2.112 .036 Retro offer -.466 .198 -.127 -2.254 .025 Note. Excluded variables were positive time perspective, nega- tive time perspective, nostalgia proneness, attachment to team, and creative choice.

302 Volume 29 • Number 4 • 2020 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

engage younger fans with retro logos. This could un- dermine the general nostalgia implications, as younger fans are less likely to have direct experience with the mark in the past, but does align with previous work on vicarious nostalgia that implies an individual may feel nostalgic about a previous event before they were born (Merchant & Rose, 2013). However, from a differen- tiation perspective, access to a unique logo could be attractive to younger consumers. This result is unlikely, though, as the current study controlled for creative choice (as a means for measuring need for uniqueness). Previous research on age and retro logo offerings is mixed, as some products have seen significant differ- ences by age (Lamberti, 2007) and others found no difference (Cattaneo & Guerini, 2012). It is possible that retro sport logos could impact or engage young sport fans differently than older fans. More research in this area is advised.

Study 2 Generally, the findings from Study 1 indicated more similarities between perceptions of retro and current logos than differences. However, perhaps the most intriguing finding was related to the combined sample regression results where those presented with the retro offer were statistically less likely to prefer the retro logo to the current logo. Keep in mind, the sample was split randomly between the retro and current offer scenario, and demographic differences were not found between the groups. Thus, something was occurring between the exposure of retro and current logos that may sug- gest the current sample ultimately preferred the current logo to the retro logo. This is of particular interest given previous work suggesting consumers prefer retro logos and/or logos with nostalgic association (Cattaneo & Guerini, 2012; Sierra & McQuitty, 2007).

This disconnect led the research team to inquire about the comparative appeal of retro and current team logos, and Study 2 was therefore designed to test the im- plicit style components of retro logos and current logos. That is, while Study 1 participants were explicitly asked to rate their preference for one logo over the other and differences were predicted by a few explanatory factors, explicit results provide only part of one’s true preference (Walla et al., 2017). Researchers Maison et al. (2004) found that measuring implicit reactions, or an individ- ual automated and unconscious response mechanism, through the IAT was more predictive of behavior than explicit attitudes alone. Given the prominence of retro marketing and the possible conclusions from Study 1 that current logos are potentially more appealing, it was hypothesized that a similar explicit preference would not exist in the current study between the two logos,

but an implicit bias would exist where fans associate the current logo with freshness and the retro logo with outdatedness. Freshness and outdatedness were chosen as targets based on previous work in the fields of retail, merchandising, and consumer psychology (Hamilton & Wagner, 2014; Müller et al., 2013). Fresh as a term for clothing is often defined as not stale, newly made, and/ or highly approved by an individual. Outdated is the opposite; it is defined as obsolete, out of fashion, and/or unapproved. As a means to guide Study 2, the following hypotheses were created:

H1: Sport fans will not explicitly prefer one logo (current or retro) to the other logo.

H2: Sport fans will implicitly associate freshness with current team logos and outdatedness with retro team logos.

Method Implicit Association Test. The IAT measures the strengths of associations between concepts based on response time in computer-administered categoriza- tion tasks (Greenwald et al., 2009). This randomized and experimental procedure tests an individual’s beliefs at the automated processing level as opposed to a tra- ditional self-report process where individuals may fall victim to a number of biases, including social desirabil- ity (Mitchell & Tetlock, 2015). In the current IAT study, images of retro and current logos as well as adjectives associated with theoretically established merchandising and consumer psychology concepts (e.g., freshness and outdatedness) were provided. Participants then cate- gorized the images and adjectives by following the on- screen prompts. Time needed to correctly categorize the image or adjective is the key outcome variable. The difference in average response time between the two combined tasks represents the core of the IAT measure. That is, a quicker response to the congruent pairing than the incongruent pairing indicates a more robust association of current logo with freshness and, vice versa, retro logo with outdatedness. The logic is that this association occurs more automatic (unconscious) and thus faster than associations that are not as natural (intentional), which require more cognitive processing.

Within the sport management literature, Koenigstor- fer and Groeppel-Klein (2012) utilized the IAT to assess the strength of association between official sponsors and ambush sponsors of global sporting event, and Dw- yer et al. (2018) used the IAT to explore the interactivity of fantasy football participation. Chang et al. (2018) examined the emotional evaluation of athlete endorse- ments by using the IAT. The results of these investi- gations highlighted the importance of studying both explicit and implicit measures in consumer psychology research. According to Walla et al. (2017), “implicit

Volume 29 • Number 4 • 2020 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 303

attitudes serve as more direct indicators of the under- lying affective information processing involved, which is due to affective processing being nonconscious by nature” (p. 25). Given the emotionally charged nature of consumption related to spectator sport, it is critical to investigate the automatic psychological processing of sport fans to glean insights that can move our under- standing of this growing field forward.

Sample. This study utilized the same target popula- tion as Study 1; therefore, an email was sent to 700 dif- ferent subscribers to the Philadelphia Inquirer. A total of 148 respondents began the survey (21.1% response rate); 93 individuals completed the IAT over six days in late April of 2018 (13.2% completion rate). Given the time commitment of the IAT, it is not surprising that completion rate was lower than Study 1. It took ap- proximately eight minutes to complete the IAT. Demo- graphically, the Study 2 sample is similar to the Study 1 sample (see Table 1 for specifics).

Materials. In addition to informed consent and the IAT, the online survey questionnaire included 10 items such as basic demographic information and two items related to the individual’s team logo preferences. These questions asked participants to rate their preference for the retro or current logo for both teams on 6-point se- mantic differentials. For both teams, current was 6 and retro was 1. These questions were utilized to answer H1 and assess the explicit preference of the sample.

The current study utilized an image-based IAT where retro and current logos of the Phillies and Eagles where the target pairs and words associated with fresh and outdated were the categories. The logos were selected through a focus group discussion with Philadelphia area sport fans. Eight logos for the Eagles and 11 logos for the Phillies were presented to the focus group. Par- ticipants were initially asked to rank the logos in terms of two categories (current and retro). Once a ranked

list was established, participants were given the oppor- tunity to discuss their selections. After 25 minutes of discussion, four retro logos and four current logos (two from each team per category) were agreed upon by the focus group. See Figure 2 for an example of how the logos were used in the IAT.

For the category dimension, 20 words (ten for each category) were piloted among 42 sport fans to assess fit between the definitions of outdated and fresh (see Table 1 for demographics and the Appendix for the 20 words). Pilot participants were solicited via email. A convenience sample of 100 self-identified sport fans and subscribers of a Mid-Atlantic newspaper were contacted. Forty-two individuals responded without compensation. The words were collected from retail, merchandising, and consumer psychology literature (Hamilton & Wagner, 2014; Müller et al., 2013). The following words were the top four scoring for fresh: new, stylish, trendy, and cool. The following were the top scoring words for outdated: boring, stale, dull, and old-fashioned.

Procedure. The IAT included seven blocks or sets of trials where the stimulus (target) was the image of the team logo (retro or current) and the category was the word dimension associated with outdated or fresh. Participants were required to utilize a device with a keyboard and were asked to sort the stimuli as quickly as possible by pressing the “e” (left) or “i” (right) but- tons on the keyboard. Response speed was measured in milliseconds. Respondents were forced to provide the correct answer before being provided the next stimulus.

Respondents were randomly placed into one of four IATs that counterbalanced the left and right starting positions. In Figure 2, the block on the left displays the compatible block where it is theoretically presumed that the response will be more congruent with the par- ticipant’s biases (i.e., H1). The block on the right is an

Figure 2. IAT protocol examples: compatible current logo (left) and incompatible retro logo (right)

304 Volume 29 • Number 4 • 2020 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

example of an incompatible block where it is assumed to be incongruent with participant associations. To measure biases, speed differences were calculated in all combined blocks. The IAT procedure was housed within a Qualtrics survey, which was emailed through a survey link to the sample. The IAT procedure devel- oped using iatgen software accessed via https://applibs. shinyapps.io/iatui2/ (Carpenter et al., 2018).

Analyses. To answer H1, two one-sample t-tests were conducted. The preference scores for both the Eagles and Phillies logos were statistically tested against the midpoint of the six-item semantic differential scale (3.5). Statistically significant differences between the preference scale score and the midpoint score would suggest that the sample collectively preferred one logo to the other. It was hypothesized that no such differ- ence should exist.

To answer H2, the results of the IAT experiment were analyzed. As mentioned previously, the four combined blocks were scored (Greenwald et al., 2003). The analysis for the IAT was also run in iatgen. If par- ticipants took too long (over 10,000 ms) or went too fast (less than 300 ms), they were removed from the sample (Greenwald et al., 2003). A D-score was then interpreted. A D-score is calculated by dividing the within-person difference by a pooled standard devi- ation; theoretically, this procedure reduces potential systematic bias by standardizing differences at the individual level (Greenwald et al., 2003). A positive D-score in the current context indicates bias that confirms H1. That is, sport fans associate freshness with current logos and outdatedness with retro logos. A negative D-Score is the opposite bias and would cause the research team to reject hypothesis one. To test bias, a within-person t-test was conducted to see if participants were statistically faster or slower in one condition or the other.

Reliability of the IAT is also assessed. A Spear- man-Brown corrected reliability coefficient following the De Houwer and De Bruycker (2007) technique was produced though iatgen analysis. Satisfactory reliabil- ity scores should fall within .70 and .90 (Hofmann et al., 2005).

Results Prior to running the IAT analysis, the explicit pref- erence results were interpreted to answer H1. On a 6-point semantic differential scale where preference for the retro logo was 1 and preference for the current logo was 6, the participants were mostly mixed, as the average for both logos was 3.44 (SD = 1.60; Eagles = 3.34[2.25]; Phillies = 3.54[2.15]). The t-tests did not result in statistically significant differences (p = .581; p = .789) from the midpoint (3.5). Thus, the findings

suggest that the sample was not explicitly biased to- ward one version of the logos over the other, confirm- ing H1.

As it relates to H2, three of the 93 Philadelphia area sport fans who completed the IAT were removed for excessive speed. The D-Score (.92) of the remaining participants was statistically significant (p < .001), and the reliability coefficient score (.87) was satisfactory. A statistically significant, positive D-score suggests that the hypothesis was confirmed. Sport fans associated freshness with current team logos and outdatedness with the retro team logos, confirming H2.

Discussion Following the results of Study 1, Study 2 explored the explicit preference and implicit appeal of retro sport logos compared to current sport logos. In particu- lar, Study 1 indicated similarities between retro and current logos; however, the regression results indicat- ing a potential bias toward the current logo led to the development of Study 2. The Study 2 results confirmed both hypotheses, as the sample of sports fans showed no explicit preference for one logo over the other yet showed statistically significant implicit bias associating freshness with current logos and outdatedness with retro logos. The following section will discuss the theo- retical practical implications of these results.

Historically, measuring sport fan attitudes has been an easier venture than sport fan behavior, as traditional self-report survey and interview methods provide a systematic means for asking attitudinal questions such as motives, identification, or satisfaction (see Stone et al., 2009). However, the process of deconstructing atti- tudes and beliefs into explicit and implicit, or voluntary and involuntary, reactions provides an additional form of measurement for sport management and market- ing researchers (Dwyer et al., 2018; Koenigstorfer & Groeppel-Klein, 2012). From an academic perspective, it is important to note that sport fans may say one thing and believe another; this was supported by the current study’s results. Therefore, testing and measuring the implicit reactions of sport fans, especially as it relates to team brands (Koenigstorfer & Groeppel-Klein, 2012), has value as our implicit beliefs most often lead to behavior (Maison et al., 2004). The emotional nature of sport combined with the visual appeal of logos provide a unique context for exploring implicit attitudes. First, self-report data is subject to social-desirability bias (Greenwald et al., 2003), and as sport fans are given more time to respond, they may constrain certain emotions or thoughts. Sport fandom is a highly emo- tional experience, and missing such reactions leaves a gap in our understanding of the consumer experience.

Volume 29 • Number 4 • 2020 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 305

Second, researchers Vogel et al. (1986) found that the brain processes images 60,000 times faster than text. Sport logos are constantly evolving as managers and marketers look to blend rich, historical tradition with contemporary innovation. Measuring implicit reac- tions to these changes could provide great value to the field of sport marketing.

From a practitioner’s perspective, the words associ- ated with the logos and the statistically significant dif- ference between the current and retro logo once again may suggest that repeated exposure to the retro mark may be detrimental. Words like boring, stale, and dull are never attributes one wants to have associated with their brand. On the contrary, stylish, cool, and trendy are highly sought-after logo elements, especially as it relates to merchandise (Müller et al., 2013). Thus, sport marketers may need to carefully consider when and for how long retro logos are utilized.

As sport managers and marketers grapple with blending traditional aspects of sport branding with in- novation and contemporary society, the current studies provide evidence of the implicit appeal of current sport logos over retro logos and the impact of nostalgia on retro merchandising. These studies also contribute and extend the work done on retro marketing in sport by assessing sport fan sentiment of differing sport logos through explicit and implicit measures. In general, the overarching result of both studies suggests ephemerali- ty to retro sport marketing campaigns. In other words, it appears the allure and consumption of retro logos may not be sustainable and should be promoted in a limited fashion.

Beyond merchandise, there may be other opportuni- ties for retro sport marketing to positively contribute to a sport organization’s marketing mix. In-game promo- tions and athlete endorsements, for instance, are po- tentially areas where the use of retro marketing could attract interest. In addition, as organizations look to balance tradition with innovation, there may be oppor- tunities to utilize aspects of a retro logo in the produc- tion of a brand reconceptualization. In other words, as times change and team brands evolve, colors or themes from previous logos could be reconfigured and infused with new logo features. In general, the current studies found evidence of preference similarity between the logos yet also found instances where retro logos lose appeal with overexposure. These findings contribute to an ever-expanding knowledge base focused on retro logos and retro marketing.

These studies were not without limitations. First, the sampling frame was purposive in that one geograph- ical area was selected and the partner organization (Philadelphia Inquirer) was a newspaper to reach older

respondents. Second, the teams chosen as the brands under examination have unique histories. They were not similar to each other in past or present success. The only connection was locality. Third, the categories (fresh/outdated) and adjectives selected were systemat- ically chosen through a review of literature and a pilot examination; however, it is possible that other catego- ries would better measure consumer sentiment in a merchandise scenario.

References Ahn, T., Suh, Y. I., Lee, J. K., & Pedersen, P. M. (2012). Sport fans

and their teams’ redesigned logos: An examination of the moderating effect of team identification on attitude and pur- chase intention of team-logoed merchandise. Journal of Sport Management, 27, 11–23.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1986). Principles of marketing management. Science Research Associates.

Balabanis, G., & Craven, S. (1997). Consumer confusion from own brand lookalikes: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Mar- keting Management, 13, 299–313.

Bauer, H. H., Stokburger-Sauer, N. E., & Exler, S. (2008). Brand image and fan loyalty in professional team sport: A refined model and empirical assessment. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 205–226.

Brown, S. (1999). Retro-marketing: Yesterday’s tomorrows, today! Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 17, 363–376.

Brown, S. (2013). Retro from the get-go: Reactionary reflections on marketing’s yestermania. Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, 5, 521–536.

Brown, S., Kozinets, R., & Sherry, J. (2003). Teaching old brands new tricks: Retro branding and the revival of brand meaning. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 19–33.

Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied re- search (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Burry, C. (2017). Eight NBA teams to wear classic uniforms next sea- son. SportsLogos. https://news.sportslogos.net/2017/08/05/eight- nba-teams-to-wear-classic-uniforms-next-season/basketball/

Carpenter, T., Pogacar, R., Pullig, C., Kouril, M., LaBouff, J., & Aguilar, S. (2018, February 5). Building and analyzing implicit association tests for online surveys: A tutorial and open-source tool. Retrieved from psyarxiv.com/6xdyj

Cattaneo, E., & Guerini, C. (2012). Assessing the revival potential of brands from the past: How relevant is nostalgia in retro brand- ing strategies? Journal of Brand Management, 19, 680–687.

Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management disci- pline. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 1–21.

Chang, H., Eckman, M., & Yan, R. (2011). Application of the stim- ulus-organism-response model to the retail environment: The role of hedonic motivation in impulse buying behavior. Interna- tional Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research, 21, 233–249.

Chang, Y., Ko, Y. J., & Carlson, B. D. (2018). Implicit and explicit affective evaluations of athlete brands: The associative evalua- tion–emotional appraisal–intention model of athlete endorse- ments. Journal of Sport Management, 32, 497–510.

Cox, D., & Cox, A. D. (2002). Beyond first impressions: The effects of repeated exposure on consumer liking of visually complex and simple product designs. Journal of the Academy of Market- ing Science, 30, 119–130.

De Houwer, J., & De Bruycker, E. (2007). The Implicit Association Test outperforms the extrinsic affective Simon task as an implic- it measure of inter-individual differences in attitudes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 401–421.

306 Volume 29 • Number 4 • 2020 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

Dwyer, B., Larkin, B., & Goebert, C. (2018). Measuring fantasy team and favorite team interactivity through implicit associa- tion. Communication & Sport, 7(6), 811–838.

Eilerson, N. (2016, July 23). Chris Sale cut up all of the White Sox’ throwback jerseys because he didn’t like them. Washing- ton Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/ wp/2016/07/23/chris-sale-cut-up-all-of-the-white-sox-throw- back-jerseys-because-he-didnt-like-wearing-it/

Farhana, M. (2012). Brand elements lead to brand equity: Differ- entiate or die. Information Management and Business Review, 4, 223–233.

Galilee, J. (2002). Class consumption: Understanding middle-class young men and their fashion choices. Men and Masculinities, 5, 32–52.

Gladden, J. M., & Funk, D. C. (2002). Developing an understanding of brand associations in team sport: Empirical evidence from consumers of professional sport. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 54–81.

Grant, N., Heere, B., & Dickson, G. (2011). New sport teams and the development of brand community. European Sport Manage- ment Quarterly, 11, 35–54.

Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Under- standing and using the Implicit Association Test: An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo- gy, 85, 197–216.

Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17–41.

Grohmann, B., Giese, J. L., & Parkman, I. D. (2013). Using type font characteristics to communicate brand personality of new brands. Journal of Brand Management, 20, 389–403.

Hamilton, K., & Wagner, B. (2014). Commercialised nostalgia: Staging consumer experiences in small businesses. European Journal of Marketing, 48, 813–832.

Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self-report measures. Per- sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369–1385.

Koenigstorfer, J., & Groeppel-Klein, A. (2012). Implicit and explicit attitudes to sponsors and ambushers. European Sport Manage- ment Quarterly, 12, 477–499.

Košťál, J., Klicperová-Baker, M., Lukavská, K., & Lukavský, J. (2016). Short version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inven- tory with and without the Future-Negative scale, verified on nationally representative samples. Time & Society, 25, 169–192.

Kwon, H. H., Trail, G., & James, J. D. (2007). The mediating role of perceived value: Team identification and purchase intention of team-licensed apparel. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 540–554.

Lamberti, S. (2007). Relaunching historical brands. [MSc Thesis, Bocconi University].

Maison, D., Greenwald, A. G., & Bruin, R. H. (2004). Predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test in studies of brands, consumer attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychol- ogy, 14, 405–415.

Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmen- tal psychology. MIT Press.

Merchant, A., & Rose, G. M. (2013). Effects of advertising-evoked vicarious nostalgia on brand heritage. Journal of Business Re- search, 66, 2619–2625.

Mitchell, G., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Implicit attitude measures. In R. A. Scott, R. H. Scott, S. M. Kosslyn, & M. C. Buchmann [Eds.], Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. John Wiley & Sons.

Müller, B., Kocher, B., & Crettaz, A. (2013). The effects of visual rejuvenation through brand logos. Journal of Business Re- search, 66, 82–88.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. Ramshaw, G., & Gammon, S. (2005). More than just nostalgia? Ex-

ploring heritage/sport tourism nexus. Journal of Sport Tourism, 10(4), 229–241

Robinson, M. J., & Trail, G. T. (2005). Relationships among specta- tor gender, motives, points of attachment, and sport preference. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 58–80.

Ruvio, A., Shoham, A., & Makovec Brenčič, M. (2008). Consum- ers’ need for uniqueness: Short-form scale development and cross-cultural validation. International Marketing Review, 25, 33–53.

Schade, M., Piehler, R., & Burmann, C. (2014). Sport club brand personality scale (SCBPS): A new brand personality scale for sport clubs. Journal of Brand Management, 21, 650–663.

Scola, Z., & Gordon, B. S. (2018). A conceptual framework for retro marketing in sport. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 27, 197–210.

Sierra, J., & McQuitty, S. (2007). Attitudes and emotions as deter- minants of nostalgia purchases: An application of social identity theory. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 15, 99–112.

Spiggle, S., Nguyen, H. T., & Caravella, M. (2012). More than fit: Brand extension authenticity. Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 967–983.

Stern, B. (1992). Historical and personal nostalgia in advertising text: The fin de siècle effect. Journal of Advertising, 21(4), 11–22.

Stone, A. A., Turkkan, J. S., Bachrach, C. A., Jobe, J. B., Kurtzman, H. S., & Cain, V. S. (2009). The science of self-report: Implications for research and practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stride, C. B., Wilson, J. P., & Thomas, F. (2013). Honouring heroes by bronze: Theorizing the UK’s football statuary. Sport in Soci- ety, 16, 749–771.

Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers’ need for uniqueness: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 50–66.

Uhrich, S., & Koenigstorfer, J. (2009). Effects of atmosphere at ma- jor sports events: A perspective from environmental psychol- ogy. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 10(4), 56–75.

Vieira, V. A. (2013). Stimuli-organism-response framework: A me- ta-analytic review in the store environment. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1420–1426.

Vogel, D. R., Dickson, G. W., & Lehman, J. A. (1986). Persuasion and the role of visual presentation support: The UM/3M study. Management Information Systems Research Center, School of Management, University of Minnesota.

Walla, P., Koller, M., Brenner, G., & Bosshard, S. (2017). Evaluating conditions of established brands: Implicit measure reveal other effects than explicit measures. Journal of Neuroscience, Psycholo- gy, and Economics, 10, 24–41.

Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999) Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personal- ity and Social Psychology, 77, 1271–1288.

Volume 29 • Number 4 • 2020 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 307

Appendix Factor, subdimension, item ABBV M SD

O rg

an is

m

Time Perspective Past-Positive1 (α = .757) It gives me pleasure to think about my past. TPP1 3.99 .78 Happy memories of good times spring readily to mind. TPP2 3.02 1.12 Familiar childhood sights, sounds, and smells often bring back a flood of wonderful memories. TPP3 2.98 1.04 Past-Negative1 (α = .805) I often think of what I should have done differently in my life. TPN1 4.13 .72 I think about the good things that I have missed out on in my life. TPN2 4.24 .74 I think about the bad things that have happened to me in the past. TPN3 3.2 1.05 Need for Uniqueness1 (α = .862) I often combine possessions in such a way that I create a personal image that cannot be duplicated. CC1 2.86 1.12 I often try to find a more interesting version of run-of-the-mill products because I enjoy being original. CC2 3.35 1.08 I actively seek to develop my personal uniqueness by buying special products or brands. CC3 3.02 1.15 Having an eye for products that are interesting and unusual assists me in establishing a distinctive image. CC4 3.30 1.09 Team Attachment1 (α = .894) I consider myself to be a real fan of the [team]. ATT1 4.55 .81 Being a fan of the [team] is very important to me. ATT2 4.21 .95 I would be disappointed if I had to stop being a fan of the [team]. ATT3 4.38 1.00

R es

po ns

e

Product Liking2 (α = .892) To what extent do the following adjectives describe your feelings about the hat above? Bad/good PL1 5.85 1.33 Unpleasant/pleasant PL2 5.76 1.34 Not likable/likable PL3 5.48 1.76 Unflattering/flattering PL4 5.22 1.45 Unattractive/attractive PL5 5.22 1.69 Not stylish/stylish PL6 5.15 1.55 Purchase Intention1 (α = .869) I would purchase the item. PI1 3.57 1.11 I would consider buying the item at the price listed. PI2 3.19 1.23 The probability that I would consider buying is high. PI3 3.09 1.20

1 Measured on a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) 2 Measured on a 7-point semantic differential with the above anchors

Fresh and Outdated Adjectives

Fr es

h

New*

O ut

da te

d

Stale* Stylish* Boring* Trendy* Dull* Cool* Old-fashioned* State-of-the-art Conservative Recent Forgotten Innovative Bygone Contemporary Obsolete Attractive Old-school Modern Traditional

* Selected as study adjectives by the pilot sample

Copyright of Sport Marketing Quarterly is the property of Fitness Information Technology, Inc. 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.