Journal of Sport Management, 2016, 30, 615-628

http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2015-0358
© 2016 Human Kinetics, Inc. ARTICLE

FromAssessment to Purchase: AThree-Stage Model of

the Marketing Funnel in Sponsorship Activities
Marco Visentin, Daniele Scarpi, and Gabriele Pizzi
University of Bologna

In this research we develop a comprehensive model of sponsorship effects accounting for behavioral outcomes
such as actual purchase, purchase intentions, and word-of-mouth referral intention. We recombine constructs that
have been traditionally considered separately into three stages—assessment, elaboration, and behavior.We collect
data on actual customers of Nike and Adidas flagship stores during the FIFAWorld Cup sponsorship. Basing on our
results, we provide a consumer-oriented perspective on the role of attitude toward the brand, fit, and involvement
with the event in determining customer reaction to sponsorship activities.

Keywords: sponsorship, marketing communication, structural equation modeling

Sponsorships are intended to trigger individual
consumers’ reactions that transcend monetary return and
that encompass the development of individuals’ positive
attitudes toward a brand through involvement in the
sponsored activities. Thus, researchers should take a
comprehensive approach and avoid studying the effects of
sponsorships in terms of measures of return on investment
alone, to understand which features of sponsorships drive
consumer attitudes and reactions, to frame the
sponsorship within the overall communication strategy of
the sponsor brand (Jacobs, Pallav, & Surana,
2014). Accordingly, this research includes a more com-
prehensive viewof sponsorship—andmore specifically of
sport sponsorships—that both accounts for the different
phases throughwhich consumers assess their evaluations
about the sponsorship, translating them into attitudes, and
incorporates individual behaviors in terms of actual
purchases. Such considerations are aligned with recent
acknowledgments by sport management researchers that
studying the effects of sponsorships in terms of return on
investment alone is limitative, as it would overlook the
whole process between consumers’ experience of the
sponsorship and their behavior. Meenaghan (2013), for
instance, observed that “measurement deficit raises
fundamental questions about the strategic management of
sponsorship” (p. 388). Despite the gap between the
impressive investments required by sponsorships and the
(relative) lack of measures of individual-level outcomes
(Thjømøe, Olson, &Brønn, 2002), “sponsors’ decisions
Marco Visentin, Daniele Scarpi, and Gabriele Pizzi are with the
Department of Management, University of Bologna, Bologna,
Italy. Address author correspondence to Gabriele Pizzi at
gabriele.pizzi@unibo.it .
too often seem based upon faith, rather than objective,
measurable results” (Mark Phelps, quoted in Cornwell &
Kwak, 2015, p. 134). Thus, it should come as no sur- prise
that the Journal of Sports Management dedicated a special
issue in 2015 to advancing the understanding of
sponsorship-linked marketing.
In summary, scholars in sport sponsorship perfor-
mance are currently facing two main challenges. First,
sponsorship effectiveness has been addressed inmultiple,
heterogeneous contributions that have adopted either a
stock market perspective (e.g., Bouchet, Doellman, Troilo,
&Walkup, 2015; Martinez & Janney, 2015) or a consumer
perspective related to fans’ engagement with the brand
(Chavanat, Martinent, & Ferrand, 2009), word of mouth
(WOM; Lau &Ng, 2001), memory (Cornwell, Weeks, & Roy,
2005), and social buzz (Delia & Arm- strong, 2015), while
other studies have included elaborate performance metrics
related to cost per reach, long-term brand associations,
and awareness (Jacobs et al., 2014). However, these studies
remain separate, so that—so far—there is a lacking of a
comprehensive framework accounting for how individuals
process sponsorships, assess the fit with the sponsored
event, develop attitudes, and finally enact behaviors
(Cornwell & Kwak, 2015). Second, today there is still
nomethodological consensus on how to investigate
sponsorship effects (from event studies to structural
equation models [SEMs], from best–worst scaling to
experimental designs), which constructs to consider, and
how to collect the data. On one hand, most researchers
investigate the relationships among a very specific and
limited number of constructs (with a prominence of studies
on the determinants and effects of fit, e.g., Johar, Pham, &
Wakefield 2006; Meng-Lewis, Thwaites, &Pillai, 2013), thus
eliminating potential confounds although limiting the
scope of their

615
 616 Visentin, Scarpi, and Pizzi
theoretical perspective and failing to address the com-
plexity of the interaction between the features (Olson,
2010). On the other hand, most of the previous studies rely
on students as respondents andmake use of fictional
contexts, thus threatening the external validity of their
findings. Although the use of students as respondents in
consumer behavior research is largely accepted, it should
be integratedwith validation in the field, especiallywhen the
isolation of single effects is an experimental artifact. For
example, recognizing and addressing these method-
ological issues, Wolfsteiner, Grohs, and Wagner (2015)
corroborated the findings from three experiments on
ambush marketing with a survey study. In a nutshell, the
complexity of the interaction between the many features of
sport sponsorship transcends the sum of the single
constructs. Thus, in the present research we advance a
more comprehensivemodel of sponsorship effects, rooted
in the extant literature, that accounts simultaneously for
the various causal relationships that the literature has
separately provided so far, thus answering calls in recent
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing on 12/27/16, Volume 30, Article Number 6
literature and practice for actual data on the responses to
sponsorship activities (Athanasopoulou & Sarli, 2015;
Biscaia, Correia, Rosado, Ross, &Maroco, 2013), espe- cially
regarding purchasing behaviors and involvement
(Chavanat et al., 2009).
Literature Review and Hypotheses
Extant literature traditionally addresses sponsorships by
identifying numerous different stages of firm participa- tion
(such as described, for instance, by Close, Finney, Lacey,
&Sneath, 2006, and Thjømøe et al., 2002) and by focusing
separately on each stage. However, practitioners have
acknowledged that consumers engage in a decision
journey that comprises different stages (e.g., awareness,
consideration, purchase, as in Jacobs et al., 2014). These
stages, from a theoretical perspective, correspond to dif-
ferent constructswhose interplay ultimately has an impact
on consumers’ actual behavior. We propose that the dif-
ferent stages of participation in sponsorship activities can
be tied to three distinct levels of individual reactions to
sponsorships: (a) assessment, where individuals assess
perceptions of their involvement in the sponsored event
(Olson, 2010; Tsiotsou & Alexandris, 2009) and of the fit of
the sponsor with the event (Alexandris, Tsaousi, & James,
2007; Gwinner & Swanson, 2003; Mazodier & Merunka,
2012); (b) elaboration, where individuals elaborate their
attitude toward the brand (Rodgers, 2003; Speed &
Thompson, 2000) and toward the sponsorship (Veloutsou
&Moutinho, 2009); and (c) behavior, which includes the
intentions and behaviors that individuals display in
response to sponsorship activities, including to purchase
the sponsor’s products (Ko, Kim, Claussen, & TaeHee, 2008;
LiPope &Voges, 2000) and to spread WOMcommunication
about the sponsor, or its products, or both (Tsiotsou
&Alexandris, 2009). In the context of sponsorship
activities,WOM is a very desirable outcome because of its
high persuasiveness (Laczniak, DeCarlo,
JSMVol. 30, No. 6, 2016
& Ramaswami, 2001) and potential for rapidly spread- ing
from one brand enthusiast to the next (Scarpi, 2010).
Accordingly, in this research, we develop a three-stage
model that reshapes the funnel throughwhich individuals
are driven from assessment of the sponsorship to in-store
behavior, passing through brand associations.
The First Stage: Assessment
Although there is a lack of consensus in the extant litera-
ture on the direction and strength of the effects of sponsor-
ship, the fit (or “congruence”) between a sponsor and an
event is considered an antecedent of individual response to
the sponsorship, and—together with individuals’
involvement in the event—it is consistently considered the
key starting point (Meng-Lewis et al., 2013; Rifon, Choi,
Trimble, &Li, 2004; Roy &Cornwell, 2004; Ruth & Simonin,
2003). Involvement has been defined as the level of
relevance of the event (Tyebjee, 1979), leading to greater
attention to the event and therefore increasing the extent
to which event-related stimuli are mentally processed by
individuals (Pham, 1992). In this vein, according to the
resource-matching perspective (Keller & Block, 1997) it is
individuals’ ability and motivation to elaborate (i.e., their
involvement) that determines the amount of resources
dedicated to process incoming infor- mation. For instance,
Deitz, Myers, and Stafford (2012) found that
sponsorship-related features were more likely to be
elaborated for those individuals exhibiting higher
involvement with the event. Consistent results were found
byWolfsteiner et al. (2015), who reported that only those
persons displaying high levels of involvement with the
event were able to correctly identify the brands actually
sponsoring the event, since they were able to embed the
event in a network of associations and to link it more tightly
to its core characteristics. In marketing literature, the set of
brand- or event-related associations has been found to
constitute the basis for the development of atti- tudes
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). Consequently, involve- ment
appears to be the logical basis for understanding whether
individuals will elaborate event-related stimuli, thus
developing attitudes toward the sponsorship.
Therefore, we posit the following:
H1: Involvement in the event has a positive impact on
attitude toward the sponsorship.
The higher the congruence between sponsor and
object, the greater the effects observed (Gwinner, 1997).
Individuals assess fit based on either functional or sym-
bolic dimensions (Gwinner & Bennett, 2008), so that the
greater the fit between the event and the brand, the higher
the likelihood that these dimensions are transferred from
the event to the brand (McDaniel, 1999; Olson & Thjømøe,
2011) and the greater the effects (Olson,
2010). Fit has been related to credibility (Rifon et al.,
2004) and has also been found to develop from image
match (Deitz et al., 2012). In particular, Wolfsteiner et al.
(2015) suggested that the perceived brand–event fit

determines the extent to which individuals are able to
correctly identify the sponsoring brand, thus triggering in
the mind of consumers the establishment of a network of
brand associations (Cornwell, Humphreys, Maguire, Weeks,
&Tellegen, 2006), which in turn are the basis for developing
attitudes (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). Thus, it appears
consistent that fit can influence individual atti- tudes
toward the sponsor brand and the sponsorship: A strong
match between event and brand should positively affect
individual attitudes both toward the brand sponsor- ing the
event and toward the sponsoring activity itself, reinforcing
the associative link (Mazodier & Merunka, 2012; Till &
Nowak, 2000; Wolfsteiner et al., 2015):
H2: The degree of fit between the sponsored event
and the sponsoring brand has a positive impact on
(H2a) attitude toward the sponsorship and on (H2b)
attitude toward the brand.
The Second Stage: Elaboration
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing on 12/27/16, Volume 30, Article Number 6
When previous scholars have investigated the relationship
between attitude toward the sponsor and attitude toward
the sponsorship, some have found evidence for a causal
directionality stemming from the sponsor (e.g., Gwinner,
1997; Mazodier & Merunka, 2012), while others have found
the opposite directionality (e.g., Olson, 2010).
In this vein, individual–brand interactions generated
through the experience of sponsorship have been found to
exert a twofold effect on individual evaluations of the
sponsorship and of the brand (Lee & Cho, 2009; Lobo,
Meyer, &Chester, 2014).While the sponsor shares in the
desirability of the sponsored event (Prendergast, Poon, &
West, 2010), the desirability of the sponsored event, in turn,
could be affected by the credibility of the sponsor brand,
which acts as the source of the communication activity
(Wang & Muehling, 2012). Source credibility has been
shown to positively affect individual attitudes
(Skard&Thorbjørnsen, 2013). In this vein, Olson (2010)
found that attitude toward the sponsor has an impact on
attitude toward the sponsorship.
As noted by Johar et al. (2006), most previous researchers have
considered time-bounded and fictional events as objects of a
sponsorship; as a consequence, the image transfer from brand to event
is limited. Further- more, in many nonfictional cases, it is plausible that
event organizers look for a strong brand to sponsor the event not merely
for financial support purposes but especially to bask in the brand’s
positive image. With regard to our model, we posit that attitudes toward
the sponsored event stem from individuals’ involvement with the event
itself, from the event’s perceived fit with the sponsor, and from indi-
viduals’ attitudes toward the sponsor itself. To empirically assess such
relationships would allowus to understand, for instance, what happens if
a brand with a tainted reputation sponsors an event that individuals are
involved in.
Recently the concept of image transfer (Keller, 2003)
has been translated into the domain of sport management
(Delia &Armstrong, 2015), and sport sponsorships have
JSMVol. 30, No. 6, 2016
Three-Stage Model Sponsorship 617
been identified as the primary avenue for such transfer, as
they glue together the images of the sponsoring brand and
of the event (or player, or team, or in general of the sport
entity). On the other hand, evidence in nonsponsor- ship
settings has shown that attitudes toward a brand can have
an impact on attitudes toward its alliances (Simonin & Ruth,
1998) and participation in larger scale projects (Park, Jun, &
Shocker, 1996). Subsequent extensions of those
considerations into the domain of sport manage- ment
(Ruth & Simonin, 2003) have suggested that atti- tudes
toward sponsor brands could influence consumer
evaluations of the sponsored event. Accordingly, we expect
that individuals—once they have assessed their
involvement with the event (H1) and its fit with the brand
(H2)—elaborate the image transfer from the sponsor to the
event. Therefore, we posit the following:
H3:Attitudes toward the sponsor brand have a posi-
tive impact on attitudes toward the sponsorship.
The Third Stage: Behavior
The third stage of the model considers customer evalu-
ations of both the brand and the event, to include atti-
tudes and to investigate how these translate into actions.
Although heterogeneous, the evidence from previous
studies can be homogeneously summarized and reshaped
into the following consideration: The response of indi-
viduals to sponsorships is a function of their attitude
toward the unconditioned (the sponsored event) and the
conditioned (the sponsoring brand) stimuli and toward the
perception of congruence (fit) between them (see Mad-
rigal, 2001; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006; Speed &
Thompson, 2000), where intention to purchase a product
from the sponsoring brand unfolds as a function of the
beliefs and attitudes that individuals developwith respect to
the sponsor (Lee & Cho, 2009; Lobo et al., 2014). In this
vein, various contributions have focused on how attitudes
toward the sponsorship relate to customers’ responses
(Bennett, Cunningham, & Dees, 2006; Sim- mons &
Becker-Olsen, 2006; Tsiotsou & Alexandris,
2009). In summary, attitudes translate into behaviors,
includingWOM and purchase behaviors (Delia &Arm-
strong, 2015).Accordingly, we include in the three-stage
model that attitudes toward the sponsorship have a posi-
tive impact on sponsorship-related behavioral intentions,
namely, purchase intentions and WOM:
H4: Attitude toward the sponsorship has a positive
impact on (H4a) intention to purchase the brand
and on (H4b) intention to engage in positiveWOM.
Positive brand attitude is central to a successful and
profitable brand and, noticeably, can influence custom- ers’
behavioral intentions toward the brand (Veloutsou &
Moutinho, 2009). The relationship between brand attitude
and purchase intentions has been widely assessed (see,
e.g., Keh & Xie, 2009; O’Reilly, Lyberger, McCarthy,
Seguin, & Nadeau, 2008), and brand attitude transcends
 618 Visentin, Scarpi, and Pizzi
any single specific, contingent activity and rather accounts
for the salient characteristics of the company, involving
various audiences to evaluating the brand (Fombrun &
Rindova, 2000) and encompassing the set of brand-related
images that individuals build over time (Argenti &Druck-
enmiller, 2004). Intention to purchase the sponsor brand is
not determined exclusively by sponsorship-related fac- tors
(such as individual attitudes toward the sponsorship); it is
also influenced by sponsor-related factors (such as
individual attitudes toward the sponsor, as in Biscaia et al.,
2013). Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:
H5a: Attitudes toward the sponsor brand have a
positive impact on intention to purchase the brand.
Hong and Yang (2009), in the broader context of organizational
reputation, found attitude toward the brand to be a predictor of
customers’ intentions to engage in posi- tiveWOM. Magnusen, Hong,
andMondello (2011) found a similar relationship in the context of
corporate social responsibility strategies of National
BasketballAssociation teams. Park and Lee (2009) found evidence of a
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing on 12/27/16, Volume 30, Article Number 6
similar relationship in the online context. In summary, there is a general
consensus on a relationship between attitude toward the brand and
intention to spread positiveWOM, although in contexts other than
sponsorships (see Harrison-Walker,
2001, for a review). Furthermore, recent studies have built on the
concept of fit in sport management as a bolster of (positive) image
transfer between brand and event (Gwinner &Eaton, 1999; Johar&Pham,
1999), investigating it also in the context of social media and finding
evidence that func- tional fit could influence brand image
and—ultimately— conversation (Delia & Armstrong, 2015). Nevertheless,
the literature lacks empirical contributions on the WOM sender side, with
some notable exceptions (e.g., Holmqvist &Grönroos, 2012).Accordingly,
we propose thatWOMis a possible outcome of sponsorships in addition
to purchase intentions that could stem fromattitude toward the sponsor
brand. More formally, we hypothesize as follows:
H5b: Attitudes toward the sponsor brand have a
positive impact on the intention to engage in posi-
tive WOM.
In previous research fit has been extensively used as a
direct driver of individual response (see Cornwell, Weeks,
&Roy, 2005, andDeitz et al., 2012, for a review). Further
developments of sport management have revis- ited
established constructs and renewed the interest in fit
(Cornwell & Kwak, 2015), suggesting that fit and
involvement facilitate a correct identification (Delia &
Armstrong, 2015) andmemorization (Cornwell &Hum-
phreys, 2013) of the sponsor brand, which in turn places
the sponsor brand in a network of associations (Wolfs-
teiner et al., 2015) whence attitudes take form (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1977), finally leading to actions.Adopting a dif-
ferent methodological approach, Mazodier andMerunka
(2012) in a before–after test as part of an experimental
study found no direct impact of fit on individual future
intentions but rather a relationship related to attitudinal
JSMVol. 30, No. 6, 2016
constructs. Comprising these previous findings and sug-
gestions, in the present research perceived fit is not
treated as a direct driver of individual response and
suggests an indirect impact, mediated by individual
attitudes toward the brand and toward the sponsorship.
Method
Themethodological limitations in the extant literature on
sponsorships can be summarized as follows: (a) the lack of
a simultaneous analysis of the different constructs and
steps within the purchasing funnel (43%of cases), (b) the
use of student respondents (54%of cases), and (c) the use
of fictional sponsorships (50% of cases). Approximately 90%
of previous analyses display at least one of these
limitations (Olson, 2010).
The present analysis was designed to overcome each
of these limitations. To address the first, we estimated the
model in Figure 1 with LISREL 8.80, as SEMs allow
simultaneous analysis of the relationships between the
distinct constructs across the different steps in the
purchasing funnel originated by sponsorship activities.
Therefore, on one hand, the SEM framework grants a
one-to-one correspondence between the set of structural
equations and the graphical representation of causations;
on the other hand, the model as a whole is different from
the joint specification of any submodel, that is, from any
subset of equations. To address the second limitation, we
administered a questionnaire to actual consumers
patronizing the stores of two world-leading brands that
were engaging in sponsorship activities at the time of data
collection. To this purpose, flagship stores were chosen as
an empirical natural setting because they typically serve
both as a communication tool to reinforce the sponsor-
ship activities (Dolbec & Chebat, 2013; Kozinets et al.,
2002) and as a distribution channel to sell products. For
instance, the stores managed by the sponsors considered
in the analyses (Nike andAdidas) use symbolic collages of
visual art, such as placingmonitors next to their merchan-
dise that show videos related to the sponsored events and
3-D cardboard cutouts of the athletes they are sponsoring.
Finally, to address the third limitation (the use of
fictional sponsorships), we collected data during a period
spanning two major soccer events: the UEFA (Union of
European Football Associations) Champions League and
the Italian Premier League. Data were collected between
May and December 2011. During this period Nike was
sponsoring the Inter, Juventus, Barcelona, and Manchester
United teams, andAdidas was sponsoring the Milan, Real
Madrid, and Chelsea (among other) teams. The
2010–2011UEFAChampions League ended onMay
28, 2011, when Barcelona, sponsored by Nike, won the
competition, and the 2011–2012 League began on June
28, 2011 (Chelsea, sponsored by Adidas, won the com-
petition in May 2012). The 2010–2011 Italian Premier
League ended on May 22, 2011, when Milan, sponsored
by Adidas, won the competition, and the 2011–2012
League began on August 28, 2011 (Juventus, sponsored
by Nike, won the competition in May 2012).

Figure 1 — Summary of the overall proposed model depicting the three stages. WOM = word of mouth.
Sample
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing on 12/27/16, Volume 30, Article Number 6
A total of 600 individuals patronizing a large European
outlet center were approached and invited to participate in
the survey. The outlet included a Nike and an Adidas
flagship store (the two brands compete in the same
product categories and have similar price levels), whose
selling surface (store area dedicated to product display),
location within the outlet, and logistic conditions (store size
and number of SKUs) were almost identical. Of the 600
respondents approached, 300 were stopped on the Nike
premises and 300 on the Adidas premises.
A total of 534 respondents completed the first part of
the questionnaire (behavioral intentions): 261 shopped at
the Nike store, and 273 shopped at the Adidas store. Of
these 534 individuals, 240 returned to complete the second
part of the questionnaire by reporting their actual
behavior: 130 of the returnees had shopped at Nike, of
whom 39 had made a purchase; 110 had shopped at
Adidas, of whom37 hadmade a purchase. The mean age of
the respondents was 34.8 years; 55% were male. The two
subgroups (e.g., Nike vs. Adidas shoppers) do not
significantly differ in terms of age and gender.
Measurements and Data
Data were collected through a questionnaire, pretested on
a pilot sample of 100 respondents to ensure that the
questions were easy to understand and not ambiguous.
Questionnaires were administered on different days and at
different times over a 3-month period. During this time, no
extraordinary events took place (e.g., new openings,
mergers and acquisitions among the com- petitors, or
significant changes in their market shares). The
questionnaire had two parts. The first comprised the
measurement scales for each construct of the study (fit,
involvement, attitudes, behavioral intentions). Respondents
were asked to complete the first part of the questionnaire
before entering the stores, were assigned a number, and
were asked to return to complete the
JSMVol. 30, No. 6, 2016
Three-Stage Model Sponsorship 619
second part when exiting the store. The second part
measured respondents’ effective buying behaviors (if any):
Returnees reported whether they had purchased items of
the sponsor brand. To ensure correspondence between the
scales part of the questionnaire and in-store behavior, we
only accepted feedback from individuals holding the
number assigned.
In preparing and administering the questionnaire, we
took particular care to avoid method biases as described in
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003). To
reduce evaluation apprehension and social desirability
biases, we reassured respondents that there were no right
or wrong answers and explicitly asked them to answer
questions honestly. Furthermore, the order of questions
was randomized, and the data were collected on different
days and at different times.
Based on the exploratory factor analysis (varimax
rotation, p > 0, 72% of variance explained with five fac-
tors), items with factor loadings above .5 were retained. In
detail, WOM (adapted from Harrison-Walker, 2001) resulted
in a three-item construct, α = . 79, interitem cor- relation =
.5–.6; attitude toward the sponsor brand (Speed &
Thompson, 2000) resulted in a three-item construct,
α = . 80, interitem correlation = .7; involvement in the event (adapted
from Lings & Owen, 2007) resulted in a four-itemconstruct, α= . 96,
interitemcorrelation = .8–.9; attitude toward the sponsorship
resulted in a three-item construct, α = . 85, interitem correlation =
.5–.9; and sponsor–event fit (adapted from Olson, 2010) resulted in
a three-item construct, α = . 85, interitem correlation = .7. Finally,
confirmatory factor analysis yielded an excellent fit: normed fit
index (NFI) = .94; nonnormed fit index (NNFI), comparative fit index
(CFI), incremental fit index (IFI) ≥ .97; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) =
.86; adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = .78; standard- ized root
mean square residual (SRMR) = .066; and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) =
. 071, p = . 1.
The final measures for the constructs are summarized in
Table 1.
 620 Visentin, Scarpi, and Pizzi

Table 1 Measurements
Interitem
correlation Cronbach’s
Construct (source) Items (min − max) alpha

Word of mouth (Harrison- I will mention brand X to others frequently. . 5–.6 . 79

Walker, 2001)
I will tell more people about brand X than I’ll tell about
other brands.

I will not miss an opportunity to tell others about brand X.

Attitude toward the sponsor
brand (Speed & Thompson,
2000)
Involvement in the event (Allen
&Meyer, 1990; Lings & Owen,
2007)
Attitude toward the sponsorship
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing on 12/27/16, Volume 30, Article Number 6
Attitude toward the company: good–bad. .7 . 80
Attitude toward the company: favorable–unfavorable.
Brand X makes honest claims.
This event has a great deal of personal meaning for me. . 8–.9 . 96
I feel a part of a group when watching a soccer match of
XXX.
I feel strong sense of belonging to XXX. I
feel emotionally involved in XXX.
This sponsorship makes me feel more favorable toward the . 5–.9 . 85

(Speed & Thompson, 2000) sponsor.

This sponsorship would improve my perception of the

sponsor.

This sponsorship would make me like the sponsor more.

Fit (Olson, 2010) There is a logical connection between the event XXX and .7 . 85
the sponsor.

Brand X and Event XXX stand for similar things. It

makes sense to me that Brand X sponsors XXX.

Model Estimation
The model in Figure 1 was estimated with LISREL 8.80, as
SEMs allow researchers to analyze all the relevant links simultaneously
( Iacobucci, 2010; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2003) and to better
identify and quantify the interconnections that emerge
between the different stages of individual reactions to
sponsorships advanced in the theoretical model presented
here. The estimation of the SEM model is based on the 534
respondents who com- pleted the first part of the
questionnaire, where behavioral intentions were stated.
Furthermore, we compared Nike with Adidas through
the LISREL stacked procedure to assess potential
brand-specific differences, as no significant differences
emerged between the two brands with regard to the pro-
portion of those who participated in the survey (49% for
Nike vs. 51% for Adidas; χ 2 = 1.648, df = 1, p = . 199), the
percentage of those who actually made a purchase (39%
for Nike vs. 37% forAdidas; χ 2 = 0.2154, df = 1, p
= .642), the number of respondents who returned to report
their actual behavior (130 for Nike vs. 110 for Adidas;
χ 2 = 0.2154, df = 1, p = . 642), the ratio of buyers to total
visitors (39:261 for Nike vs. 37:273 for Adidas; χ 2 =
0.2154, df = 1, p = . 642), age (mean age = 34.3 for Nike vs.
35.2 for Adidas, t = − 0.9082, df = 526, p = . 364), or
gender (54%male shoppers for Nike vs. 57% forAdidas,
χ 2 = 1.0039 df = 1, p = . 316).
Logistic Analysis
Virtually all previous work on sponsorships has consid-
ered intention rather than actual behavior (e.g., intention
to buy in the future rather than actual purchases), whereas
with this study we also observed actual purchases by
customers in a natural retail setting. Consequently, after
estimating the SEMmodel for the 534 respondents who
completed the first part of the questionnaire (behavioral
intentions), we performed a logistic analysis on the 240
respondents who also completed the second part of the
questionnaire (actual behavior).As purchasing is a binary
yes–no behavior, a binomial logit model was selected.
Accordingly, the dependent variable is dichotomous (1
= purchase; 0 = no purchase). The independent vari- ables
correspond to the latent exogenous variables used in the
SEM.
With the logistic analysis we estimated and com-
pared four models: the null model, the full model, the
intention model, and the without-intention model, as
described below. The differences between models were
measured using the chi-squared test on the difference of
likelihoods (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 2000).

JSMVol. 30, No. 6, 2016

 Three-Stage Model Sponsorship 621

In line with the procedures of model selection for
likelihood-based models, the null model (i.e., the inter- cept
model; Hosmer & Lemeshow, 2000) was estimated first to
provide the benchmarkmodel. Next, amodel with intention
to purchase as the only independent variablewas
estimated. The full model is a complete model obtained by
using all the latent factors of the SEManalysis as var- iables.
Finally, as a further benchmark, themodel without intention
to purchase was estimated to verify the extent to which the
other variables explain the dependent variable.
Results
Full Model Estimation
Model estimation on the whole sample gives a more
than satisfactory fit: NFI, NNFI, CFI, IFI = .98; GFI = .93;
AGFI = .90; SRMR = .050; and RMSEA = .066. The
significance of the paths was tested by LISREL based on
their t values, where t values greater than the absolute
value of 1.96 are significant (Jöreskog&Sörbom, 2003).
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing on 12/27/16, Volume 30, Article Number 6
direct impact on purchase intention andWOM, but their
impact is mediated by attitude toward the sponsorship and
attitude toward the brand, the mediated paths being
significant and the direct path being not significant (Iaco-
bucci, 2008). At the same time, the results extend recent
studies on the efficacy and role of flagship stores (Dolbec
&Chebat, 2013) by highlighting that flagship stores can
effectively integrate the stimuli from the sponsorshipwith
the stimuli from the brand.
The stacked model yields no significant differences
in the path estimates between the two brands ( p Δ χ 2 > . 4)
or between men and women ( p Δ χ 2 > . 3), thus ruling out the
possibility that the observed effects can be ascribed
to idiosyncratic characteristics of the brands or of the
stores or to gender.
Logistic Analysis
As detailed in the Method section, four models were
estimated and compared: the null model, the intention

model, the full model, and the without-intention model.

The parameter estimates are reported in Table 2.
This evidence supports H1 through H5. In particular,
themodel documents that attitude toward the sponsorship
and—to a lesser extent—attitude toward the brand have a
positive impact on intention to purchase (.47 and .20,
respectively, p < . 05).Attitude toward the sponsorship, in
turn, is positively determined by attitude toward the brand,
by fit, and by the individual’s involvement in the sponsored
event, with involvement exerting an effect similar to atti-
tude toward the brand (.48 and .31, respectively, p > . 05)
but stronger than fit (.48 and .27, respectively, p < . 05),
while attitude toward the brand is positively determined by
the perceived fit between the event and the sponsor (.41).
Furthermore, the results highlight that individual attitude
toward the sponsorship is a more effective driver of
behavioral intentions than even attitude toward the brand
(.47 vs. .20, p < . 05, for purchase intention and .38 vs. .22, p
< . 05, for WOM).
Overall, we find support for the three-step structure of
the theoretical model, as fit and involvement have no
This approach ensures the relevance of the model selec-
tion procedures based on statistical assessment of the dif-
ference between models. Results of the logistic analysis
and numerical details of the models are reported in Table
3. The comparison of models is based on the estima- tion of
a null model (i.e., a pure intercept model) as the benchmark
model.
The results reported in Table 3 show that the best
explanation of actual purchasing behavior is provided by a
simple model assuming intention to purchase as the only
independent variable (intention model). The inten- tion
model is significantly different from the null model ( df = 1, p
< . 001) and explains 77.02% of the variance in purchasing
behavior. The full model is significantly different from the
null model ( df = 6, p < . 001) but not from the intention
model ( df = 5, p = . 08). Consistently, the parameters of the
other variables are not significant.
Finally, the model that considers all variables but
intention as dependent (without-intention model) was
estimated. The model without intention is significantly

Table 2 Structural Model Results

Hypothesis Path Estimate ( SE)
H1 Involvement in the event → Attitude toward the sponsorship . 48 (.04)
H2 a. Fit → Attitude toward the sponsorship . 27 (.04)

b. Fit → Attitude toward the brand . 41 (.05)

H3 Attitude toward the brand → Attitude toward the sponsorship . 31 (.04)
H4 a. Attitude toward the sponsorship → Intention to purchase . 47 (.05)

b. Attitude toward the sponsorship → Word of mouth . 38 (.05)

H5 a. Attitude toward the brand → Intention to purchase . 20 (.05)

b. Attitude toward the brand → Word of mouth . 22 (.05)

Note. Fit: df = . 94; χ 2 = 326.99; RMSEA = .066; p( RMSEA < .05) = 7e-4; NFI, NNFI, CFI = .98; SRMR = .05; GFI = .93; andAGFI = .9.

JSMVol. 30, No. 6, 2016

 622 Visentin, Scarpi, and Pizzi

Table 3 Logistic Analysis of Purchasing Behavior

Model

Without
Coefficient Null a Intention b Full c intention d

Intercept − 0.77*** − 13.47*** − 13.14*** − 0.62*

Intention to purchase 3.08*** 3.03***
Word of mouth 0.27* 0.44**
Fit brand–event 0.06* − 0.10*
Involvement in the event − 0.06* 0.25*
Attitude toward the brand − 0.06* 0.06*
Attitude toward sponsorship 0.02* 0.40**
Model Akaike information criterion 301.68 73.85 82.81 234.85
Log likelihood − 149.84 − 34.93 − 34.40 − 112.43
df 1 2 7 6
a Intention versus null, χ 2( df = 1) = 3.3e–52, significant; intention explains 76.69% of the variance.
b Full versus null, χ 2( df = 5) = 3.4e–27, significant; model explains 77.04% of the variance.
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing on 12/27/16, Volume 30, Article Number 6

c Full versus intention, χ 2( df = 5) = 0.08, nonsignificant (or 10% significance).

d Without intention versus null, χ 2( df = 5) = 4.9e–15, significant; model explains 24.96% of the variance; without intention versus
full, χ 2( df = 1) = 0, significant.
*p > . 05. ** p > . 01. *** p > . 001.

different from the null model ( df = 5, p < . 001) and explains
25.63% of the variance in purchasing behavior. As can be
seen from Table 3, the logit model does not support the
relationship between fit and behavior.
Overall, the logistic regression analysis of the actual
purchases by individuals in the natural setting provides
converging evidence of the effect of sponsorships on actual
purchases, rather than limiting the scope of the
investigation to statements of intention to buy in the
future. The results of the logistic analysis enrich our
knowledge of sponsorships because they confirm that the
sponsor–event fit affects attitudes and evaluations but fails
to directly predict purchases. In summary, the results from
the binomial logit model support the results from the
stacked model, provide converging evidence for the
robustness of the analysis and support the direction of
causality of the theoretical model, as shown in Figure 1.
General Discussion
Previous researchers have traditionally considered and analyzed
separately sponsorship-related effects and have linked fit,
involvement, and attitudes with intentions and other constructs
(often one at a time) (e.g., Close et al., 2006; Thjømøe et al., 2002).
As a consequence, the body of previous studies yielded mixed
results, and the knowledge of how sponsorships operate and which
effects they exert, and how, is fairly sparse. To fill this gap and to
account for the level of complexity in sponsorships unfolded by
recent literature (Cornwell &Kwak, 2015), we have implemented a
comprehensive model accounting for the entirety of the funnel
leading
consumers fromexperiencing and assessing a sponsored
event to developing attitudes and finally to purchasing and
spreadingWOM. In detail, we offer a SEMcompris- ing a
three-stage process to account for the consumers’
purchasing funnel: In the first stage, individuals assess the
perception of their involvement in the sponsored event and
judge the fit between the sponsor and the event; in the
second stage, individuals develop their attitudes— toward
the brand and toward the sponsorships; and in the third
stage, individuals display their intentions and behaviors in
terms of purchases andWOM. In testing the model, we
address methodological gaps highlighted in previous
literature (Meenaghan, 2013; Olson, 2010) by considering
real rather than fictional sponsors and events, and actual
rather than simulated purchases, and collect- ing the data
in a natural setting. As a consequence, our model
comprises as submodels major relationships that previous
research has considered in isolation. Far from simply
summing up the results of previous research, our model
allows us to examine whether and to what extent the
various sparse relationships hold together and relate to
one another in explaining consumers’ reactions to
sponsorships. If we may use a metaphor, having many
sparse architectural parts does not guarantee that, when
put together, they will build a house that stands. Over- all,
our results do not contradict previous findings but instead
integrate them, allowing us to understand the relative
strength of the various constructswhen addressed
simultaneously. With respect to previous literature, the
combined set of relationships highlighted in our study
provides several insights that could contribute to theory
and practice.

JSMVol. 30, No. 6, 2016


First, when we consider involvement, fit, and atti-
tudes together, we find that fit between sponsor and event
contributes more to building attitudes toward the brand
than to building attitudes toward the sponsorship. This
finding is alignedwith previous literature that has usually
considered fit as the base construct for understanding the
effects of sponsorships (Johar & Pham, 1999; Meng- Lewis
et al., 2013; Rifon et al., 2004; Roy & Cornwell, 2004; Ruth &
Simonin, 2003).
However, when fit is addressed jointly with involve-
ment in the event, it emerges that attitudes toward the
sponsorship are driven by both fit and involvement, but
that involvement exerts a stronger impact than fit.Again,
this finding is in line with previous studies that found
higher levels of mental elaboration of sponsorship-related
features for those more involved with the event (e.g., Deitz
et al., 2012). Wolfsteiner et al. (2015) considered both fit
and involvement, although in relation to individu- als’
ability to correctly identify the sponsor brand, and found
that fit works better for the brand than involvement (in
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing on 12/27/16, Volume 30, Article Number 6
their case, protecting against ambushers’ moves). Our
model builds on these findings by extending them to the
effects of attitudes toward the brand and toward the
sponsorship.
Much of the prior literature looked at the direct impact
(or correlation) between fit and/or involvement with
behavioral intentions, sometimes reporting ambigu- ous
findings. Involvement is usually considered as a potentially
relevant antecedent of sponsorship effective- ness (e.g.,
Gwinner & Swanson, 2003) but sometimes dismissed later
in the data analysis, as it displays no cor- relationwith
intentions (as, for instance, in Prendergast et al., 2010). Our
model, by conceptualizing a funnel, allows us to account
also for indirect relationships and suggests that
involvement is rightfully considered key in the extant
literature, although its effect is indirect and mediated by
attitudes. While our findings confirm previous results on fit
(Prendergast et al., 2010), they also suggest that fit needs
to be addressed together with involvement: Both are
relevant, but they work differently. Involvement and
fit—although not directly impacting sales—contribute most
to building attitudes toward—respectively—the
sponsorship and the brand. This distinction is not trivial, in
that previous literature mostly (if not exclu- sively) focused
on attitude either toward the brand (e.g., Speed &
Thompson, 2000) or toward the sponsorship (e.g.,
Mazodier & Merunka, 2012). Noticeably, when attitudes
toward the sponsorship and toward the brand are
addressed together, we find that the former exert a
stronger effect on both behavioral intentions and actual
behaviors (purchases andWOM) than the latter. In turn,
some previous studies focused on either purchases or
WOM as dependent constructs. For instance, Delia and
Armstrong (2015) considered the effect of sponsor–event
fit on generatedWOM(buzz), but not on purchases. Thus, by
considering a funnel rather than restricting the scope to
the mere considerations of direct effects, our model better
captures the dynamics of sponsorship relation- ships and
explains—at least in part—why constructs that
JSMVol. 30, No. 6, 2016
Three-Stage Model Sponsorship 623
appear theoretically relevant have sometimes found no
empirical confirmation.
Furthermore, by considering a funnel, we elicit a richer
picture, as the simultaneous consideration of fit,
involvement, attitudes toward the brand, and attitudes
toward the sponsorship allows brands to reach the point
(sales andWOMgeneration) through two different routes.
On one hand, a fit-based route, whereby the brand selects
a particularly congruent event, gets a boost in brand atti-
tudes and thus increases sales andWOMgeneration (e.g.,
Nike sponsoring the FIFAWorldCup). On the other hand, an
involvement-based route, whereby the brand selects an
event that is particularly involving for consumers (though
not necessarily fitting), builds positive attitudes toward the
sponsorship activity rather than toward the brand, and in
this way increases sales andWOM(e.g., BNP Paribas’s
sponsoring the French Open, as in Delia & Armstrong,
2015). Finally, our findings show that—although both
routes are possible and efficient—developing positive
attitudes toward the sponsorships dominates over positive
attitudes toward the brand when the sponsorship activity is
aimed at increasing sales and WOM. In line with this
perspective, Delia and Armstrong (2015) emphasized the
relevance of social media and onlineWOM as a tool for
directly observing consumers’ reactions to sponsor- ships.
Our findings contribute to this proposal by showing that
sponsorship-related WOM is driven by a combina- tion of
attitudes toward the sponsorship and the brand, and not
driven directly by fit. Such evidence provides further
insights about why Delia and Armstrong found only a weak
(or marginal) impact of fit on sentiment and buzz. Thus,
while providing further support to the already established
relevance of fit in sponsorships, our findings suggest that
its importance has perhaps been overemphasized in
previous studies, as involvement operates alongside fit,
with a probably less direct or less flamboyant presence, yet
with a stronger final impact. We believe this evidence gives
new hope and renewed energy for successfully investing in
sponsorships also for those brands that—because of the
industry they patronize—would hardly find a fitting event.
In this vein, sponsorship activities such as Kodak’s
sponsoring the Olympic Games, as witnessed by practice,
make sense also from a theoretical perspective.
Managerial Implications
Marketers have shifted their sponsorship focus toward
long-term impact on brand image and loyal customers
(Cornwell & Relyea, 2000), as focusing only on short-
termoutcomes might be myopic. To help practitioners to
recognize the value of an overall assessment of sponsor-
ships that goes beyond short-termoutcomes (e.g., sales or
stock-market value indicators; Martinez& Janney, 2015;
Cornwell, Pruitt, & Clark, 2005) and that encompasses
long-term outcomes (e.g., the development of positive
attitudes), we provide a model reflecting the funnel that
leads from brand–customer interactions to behavioral
consequences (intention to purchase, WOM, and actual
 624 Visentin, Scarpi, and Pizzi
purchases). In fact, the constructs in our theoretical model
and the findings from the analysis can be read from a
temporal perspective, in terms of short- versus long-term
elements. A well-established brand, with a good brand
reputation, enjoying highly involved consumers, can
capitalize on those factors that usually require a long time
to build, and collect positive results from a sponsorship
despite a low fit with the sponsored event. This could, for
instance, explain the success of Procter & Gamble when it
sponsored the London 2012 Olympic Games, even though
P&G is not in the business of selling athletic gear or sport
drinks.
We corroborate the relevance of fit (or “congruence”)
between sponsor and event, as extensively examined by
previous literature, but place it in a broader context of
relationships, considering how it relates to consumers’
perceptions and behaviors. Our findings suggest for prac-
titioners that high-fit perceptions and highly appealing events
do not directly translate into sales but rather are instrumental
to enhancing attitudes. In particular, manag- ers should be
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing on 12/27/16, Volume 30, Article Number 6
aware that consumers’ involvement with the event builds
attitudes toward the sponsorship, whereas fit between sponsor
and event contributes more to building attitudes toward the
brand. On the basis of our evidence, brands that do not enjoy
positive consumer attitudes might rely on sponsorship
activities to improve them if they can generate high levels of fit
with the event. On the other hand, brands should be
discouraged from engaging in low-fit sponsorship activities to
increase sales unless they can already rely on strong positive
consumer attitudes toward the brand. Thus, a competitor with
a tainted reputation could focus on the fit between the brand
and the event to be sponsored and invest in creating positive
attitudes toward the sponsorship and the brand. Positive
attitudes toward the brand typically build more slowly over
time (Visentin & Scarpi, 2012) and usually span amuch longer
time horizon than the event being sponsored, whereas
attitudes toward the sponsorship might be shaped in less time
and exert a larger effect than reputation, and might
compensate for a somewhat tainted reputation. Thus, when
individuals have low attitudes toward the sponsor brand,
practitioners are best advised to engage in sponsorship
activities for events that fit highly with the brand. For instance,
the Repsol oil company successfully sponsored aMotoGPHonda
Team, taking advantage of the high fit between oil refinement
and motorbike races, despite a decrease in individual attitudes
due to potential environmental issues.Accordingly, a care- ful
selection of the events to be sponsored is relevant, as it
contributes to creating a distinctive image of the brand, to
position it in the mind of customers and thus to reinforce the
brand’s reputation.
In addition, social media and online WOM have
been proposed as tools to directly observe consumers’
reactions to sponsorships (Delia & Armstrong, 2015).
Our findings contribute to this proposal by showing
that sponsorship-related WOM is driven by a combina-
tion of attitudes toward the sponsorship and the brand,
not directly by fit. Thus, if the goal of the sponsorship
activity is (also) to generate WOM for the brand, then
JSMVol. 30, No. 6, 2016
managers should invest in enhancing attitudes and brand
reputation rather than in maximizing the fit between their
brand image and the event they are sponsoring. The
combined evidence fromDelia andArmstrong (2015) and
our findings should warn practitioners against the risk of
self-selection biases if relying exclusively on social media
data, as customers with highly positive attitudes are more
likely to engage in sponsorship-relatedWOM.
Finally, our three-stage model challenges practitio-
ners to envision sponsorship within the broader frame-
work of integrated marketing-communication activities.
Such activities should include more facets (e.g., brand
building, in-store experience) and constitute the funnel
throughwhich consumers are driven from the experiential
and evaluative assessment of the sponsorship to the in-
store behavior, passing through brand associations. The
hinge between interacting with the brand and purchasing
the brand is often embodied by flagship stores that are
specifically designed to deliver a multisensory brand
experience and to fit a specific brand identity (Dolbec &
Chebat, 2013) through a range of activities and events
(Kozinets et al., 2002). Indeed, as noted above, bothNike
and Adidas flagship stores make use of symbolic col- lages
of visual art, such as putting monitors next to their
merchandise that show videos related to the sponsored
events and 3-D cardboard cutouts of the athletes they are
sponsoring.
Accordingly, our findings recommend an effective
integration of the stimuli from the sponsorship with the
stimuli from the brand also at the store level. Flagship
stores would appear to be an appropriate showcase for
these purposes.
In summary, both intention to purchase and inten-
tion to engage inWOMstem frombackground-related or
brand-related elements such as fit and involvement and
from a clever management of sponsorship and sponsor-
ship-related attitudes. This is to say that deeply rooted
elements, evolved from a series of past interactions and
managerial decisions, play alongside short-termelements
related to the specific sponsorship activity. One can think of
sponsorships as software, and of brand reputation and
product involvement as hardware. Our model shows that
sponsorship effects are maximized when software and
hardware work together. In sum, besides focusing on and
emphasizing details that pertain to the sponsorship and to
the event, managers should maintain a keen focus on their
long-term brand reputation and on consumer involvement
in the event.
Limitations and Future Research
Althoughwe have discussed the potential implications of
this research, several issues may limit its application, and
these also suggest useful directions for future analyses. We
purposely avoided simulations, laboratory settings, and
sponsorship experiments, but we pay the price of using
nonfictional sponsorships and actual purchases with a
number of limitations stemming from the greater difficulty
in controlling the environment, although we

made every effort to select comparable sponsorships
and settings.
First, most previous studies have focused on fictional
brands/events and concentrated on a single event,
whereas we use two actual competing sponsors and
analyze data from overlapping events. On one hand, this
offers the advantage of comparing brands; on the other
hand, it leaves room for the potential presence of time- and
brand-related biases. Although time- and brand-related
biases can be reasonably assumed to be homogeneous
between the considered sponsorships in the natural setting
we identified, we cannot formally test this assumption.
Second, although comparing two brands can poten-
tially provide more useful insights than considering a single
brand, the brands we consider are very similar in terms of
fit and involvement. Deeper insights could be obtained
from the consideration also of brands with significantly
different levels of fit and involvement. Fur- thermore, the
consideration of stores in the same outlet increases the
comparability of the Nike andAdidas sub- samples, but it
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing on 12/27/16, Volume 30, Article Number 6
might also lead to a less heterogeneous sample and
eliminate sources of heterogeneity that would add value to
the model estimation.
Third is the expected inertia of behavioral changes
due to sponsorships. Previous studies overcame this issue
by using longitudinal data for the same event in multiple
years (Martinez & Janney, 2015; Nadeau, O’Reilly, & Heslop,
2013; O’Reilly et al., 2008); our data collection is limited to a
3-month period.
In addition, there might be a self-selection bias
introduced by the natural setting for data collections, as
consumers who visited store premises may be more likely
to exhibit already well-developed and “mature” attitudes
and intentions toward the brand.Moreover, since flagship
stores often use a plethora of tools—in general, symbolic
collages of visual art—to emphasize the vivid- ness of the
link between sponsor brand and sponsored event, the
intentions and actual behaviorsmeasured in the current
study might be influenced by a more favorable attitude
toward the sponsor brands and/or by the relevance
assigned to the sponsorship within the flagship stores.
Furthermore, during the investigation period the two
competing brands were also sponsoring individual star
players. Although this potential source of bias is homo-
geneous between the considered brands (as witnessed by
www.90min.com that pitted against each other virtual
teams composed of Nike- andAdidas-sponsored players), it
could be relevant to address how individuals exhibit
multiple levels of involvement (with a whole event, a team
in particular, or a single player; Martinez & Janney,
2015). In fact, fan identification with the team, and team
performance, have also been found to affect sponsor- ship
effectiveness (Ngan, Prendergast, & Tsang, 2011). Thus,
further research is needed to fully understand at which
level (event, team, single player) identification and
performance exert the strongest effects on intentions and
behaviors.
Finally, some of the sponsored teams had Nike or
Adidas as a technical sponsor but also had a commercial
JSMVol. 30, No. 6, 2016
Three-Stage Model Sponsorship 625
shirt sponsor (e.g., Jeep for Juventus). This issue comes as a
consequence of considering actual brands and spon-
sorships and is therefore absent in previous literature that
focused on fictional brands/events. Based on the results
ofWolfsteiner et al. (2015), one might expect that the
sponsor with the highest fit activates more mental
associations and thus enjoys greater benefits from the
sponsorship. Although our study does not allow us to
measure the interplay between the two sponsors, future
research could try to disentangle the effects of technical
and commercial sponsors.
While our study has adopted ameasurement of actual
purchasing behavior, WOM has been measured as an
intention. In line with recent studies in sport management
that have suggested the use of social media to trackWOM
generated by sponsorships (Delia & Armstrong, 2015),
more research is required to understand whether the
actual levels of WOM captured in the online context are
driven more by attitudes toward the brand or by attitudes
toward the sponsorship.
References
Ajzen, I., &Fishbein, M. (1977).Attitude-behavior relations:A
theoretical analysis and reviewof empirical research. Psychological
Bulletin, 84( 5), 888–918. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.84.5.888
Alexandris, K., Tsaousi, E., & James, J. (2007). Predicting
sponsorship outcomes from attitudinal constructs: The
case of a professional basketball event. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 16( 3), 130–139.
Argenti, P.A., & Druckenmiller, B. (2004). Reputation and
the corporate brand. Corporate Reputation Review, 6( 4),
368–374. doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540005
Athanasopoulou, P., &Sarli, E. (2015). The development of new
sponsorship deals as new business-to-business services.
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 30( 5),
552–561. doi:10.1108/JBIM-08-2012-0127
Bennett, G., Cunningham, G., & Dees, W. (2006). Measuring
the marketing communication activations of a
professional tennis tournament. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 15( 2), 91–101.
Biscaia, R., Correia, A., Rosado, A.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( 4), 288–302. doi:10.1123/jsm.27.4.288
Bouchet, A., Doellman, T.W., Troilo, M., & Walkup, B.R.
(2015). The impact of international football matches on
primary sponsors and shareholder wealth. Journal of
Sport Management, 29( 2), 200–210. doi:10.1123/
JSM.2013-0285
Chavanat, N., Martinent, G., & Ferrand, A. (2009). Sponsor
and sponsees interactions: Effects on consumers’ perceptions of brand
image, brand attachment, and purchasing intention. Journal of Sport
Management, 23( 5), 644–670.
doi:10.1123/jsm.23.5.644
Close, A., Finney, R.Z., Lacey, R.Z., & Sneath, J.Z. (2006).
Engaging the consumer through event marketing: Linking
 626 Visentin, Scarpi, and Pizzi
attendees with the sponsor, community, and brand. Journal of
Advertising Research, 46( 4), 420–433. doi:10.2501/
S0021849906060430
Cornwell, T.B., & Humphreys, M.S. (2013). Memory for
sponsorship relationships: A critical juncture in thinking.
Psychology andMarketing, 30( 5), 394–407. doi:10.1002/
mar.20614
Cornwell, T.B., Humphreys, M.S., Maguire,A.M.,Weeks, C.S.,
& Tellegen, C.L. (2006). Sponsorship-linked marketing: The
role of articulation in memory. The Journal of Consumer
Research, 33( 3), 312–321. doi:10.1086/508436
Cornwell, T.B., & Kwak, D.H. (2015). Sponsorship-linked
marketing: Introduction to topics. Journal of Sport
Management, 29( 2), 133–136. doi:10.1123/JSM.2015-0055
Cornwell, T.B., Pruitt, S.W., &Clark, J.M. (2005). The relation-
ship between major-league sports’ official sponsorship
announcements and the stock prices of sponsoring firms.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33( 4),
401–412. doi:10.1177/0092070305277385
Cornwell, T.B., & Relyea, G.E. (2000). Understanding long-
term effects of sports sponsorship: Role of experience,
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing on 12/27/16, Volume 30, Article Number 6
involvement, enthusiasm and clutter. International Journal
of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 2( 2), 39–55.
doi:10.1108/IJSMS-02-02-2000-B005
Cornwell, T.B.,Weeks, C.S., &Roy, D.P. (2005). Sponsorship-
linked marketing: Opening the black box. Journal of
Advertising, 34( 2), 23–45. doi:10.1080/00913367.2005
. 10639194
Deitz, G.D.,Myers, S.W., &Stafford,M.R. (2012). Understand-
ing consumer response to sponsorship information: A
resource-matching approach. Psychology and Marketing,
29( 4), 226–239. doi:10.1002/mar.20517
Delia, E.B., & Armstrong, C.G. (2015). #Sponsoring the
# FrenchOpen: An examination of social media buzz and
sentiment. Journal of Sport Management, 29( 2), 184–199.
doi:10.1123/JSM.2013-0257
Dolbec, P.Y., & Chebat, J.C. (2013). The impact of a flagship
vs. a brand store on brand attitude, brand attachment and
brand equity. Journal of Retailing, 89( 4), 460–466.
doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2013.06.003
Fombrun, C., & Rindova, V. (2000). The road to transpar-
ency: Reputation management at Royal/Dutch Shell. In
M. Schultz, M.J. Hatch, & M. Holten Larsen (Eds.), The
expressive organization: Linking identity, reputation and
the corporate brand ( pp. 77–96). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Gwinner, K. (1997). A model of image creation and image
transfer in event sponsorship. International Marketing
Review, 14( 3), 145–158. doi:10.1108/02651339710170221
Gwinner, K., & Bennett, G. (2008). The impact of brand
cohesiveness and sport identification on brand fit in a
sponsorship context. Journal of Sport Management, 22( 4),
410–426. doi:10.1123/jsm.22.4.410
Gwinner, K., & Swanson, S.R. (2003). A model of fan
identification: Antecedents and sponsorship outcomes. Journal
of Services Marketing, 17( 3), 275–294.
doi:10.1108/08876040310474828
Gwinner, K.P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image
through event sponsorship: The role of image transfer.
JSMVol. 30, No. 6, 2016
Journal of Advertising, 28( 4), 47–57. doi:10.1080/0091
3367.1999.10673595
Harrison-Walker, L.J. (2001). The measurement of word-
of-mouth communication and an investigation of
service quality and customer commitment as potential
antecedents. Journal of Service Research, 4( 1), 60–75.
doi:10.1177/109467050141006
Holmqvist, J., & Grönroos, C. (2012). How does language
matter for services? Challenges and propositions for
service research. Journal of Service Research, 15( 4),
430–442. doi:10.1177/1094670512441997
Hong, S.Y., & Yang, S.-U. (2009). Effects of reputation,
relational satisfaction, and customer–company
identification on positive word-of-mouth intentions. Journal
of Public Relations Research, 21( 4), 381–403.
doi:10.1080/10627260902966433
Hosmer, D., &Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression
(2nd ed.). NewYork, NY:Wiley. doi:10.1002/0471722146 .
Iacobucci, D. (2008). Mediation analysis. London, UK: Sage.
doi:10.4135/9781412984966
Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit
indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 20( 1), 90–98. doi:10.1016/j.
jcps.2009.09.003
Jacobs, J., Pallav, J., &Surana, K. (2014). Is sports sponsorship
worth it? McKinsey.
Johar, G.V., &Pham,M.T. (1999). Relatedness, prominence, and
constructive sponsor identification. JMR, Journal of
Marketing Research, 36( 3), 299–312. doi:10.2307/3152078
Johar, G.V., Pham, M.T., & Wakefield, K.L. (2006). How
event sponsors are really identified: A (baseball) field
analysis. Journal of Advertising Research, 46( 2), 183–198.
doi:10.2501/S002184990606020X
Jöreskog, K.G., &Sörbom, D. (2003). LISREL 8.54: Structural
equation modeling with the Simplis command language.
Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Keh, H.T., &Xie,Y. (2009). Corporate reputation and customer
behavioral intentions: The roles of trust, identification and
commitment. Industrial Marketing Management, 38( 7),
732–742. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.02.005
Keller, K.L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality
of brand knowledge. The Journal of Consumer Research,
29( 4), 595–600. doi:10.1086/346254
Keller, P.A., & Block, L.G. (1997). Vividness effects: A
resource-matching perspective. The Journal of Consumer
Research, 24( 3), 295–304. doi:10.1086/209511
Ko,Y.J., Kim, K.T., Claussen, C.L., &TaeHee, K. (2008). The
effects of sport involvement, sponsor awareness and
corporate image on intention to purchase sponsors’ products.
International Journal of SportsMarketing&Sponsorship, 9( 2),
6–21. doi:10.1108/IJSMS-09-02-2008-B004
Kozinets, R.V., Sherry, J.F., DeBerry-Spence, B., Duhachek,
A., Nuttavuthisit, K., & Storm, D. (2002). Themed flagship
brand stores in the newmillennium: Theory, practice,
prospects. Journal of Retailing, 78( 1), 17–29. doi:10.1016/
S0022-4359(01)00063-X
Laczniak, R.N., DeCarlo, T.E., & Ramaswami, S.N. (2001).
Consumers’ responses to negative word-of-mouth
communication: An attribution theory perspective. Journal

of Consumer Psychology, 11( 1), 57–73. doi:10.1207/
S15327663JCP1101_5
Lau, G.T., & Ng, S. (2001). Individual and situational factors
influencing negative word‐of‐mouth behaviour. Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des
Sciences de l’Administration, 18( 3), 163–178.
Lee, H.S., & Cho, C.H. (2009). The matching effect of brand
and sporting event personality: Sponsorship implications.
Journal of Sport Management, 23( 1), 41–64. doi:10.1123/
jsm.23.1.41
Lings, I.N., & Owen, K.M. (2007). Buying a sponsor’s brand:
The role of affective commitment to the sponsored team.
Journal of Marketing Management, 23( 5–6), 483–496.
doi:10.1362/026725707X212784
LiPope, N.K., & Voges, K.E. (2000). The impact of sport
sponsorship activities, corporate image, and prior use on
consumer purchase intention. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9( 2),
96–102.
Lobo,A., Meyer, D., &Chester,Y. (2014). Evaluating consumer
response associated with sponsorship of major sporting
events inAustralia. Sport, Business and Management: An
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing on 12/27/16, Volume 30, Article Number 6
International Journal (Toronto, Ont.), 4( 1), 52–70.
Madrigal, R. (2001). Social identity effects in a belief–atti-
tude–intentions hierarchy: Implications for corporate
sponsorship. Psychology and Marketing, 18( 2), 145–
165. doi:10.1002/1520-6793(200102)18:2<145::AID-
MAR1003>3.0.CO;2-T
Magnusen, M.J., Hong, S., & Mondello, M. (2011). Social
effectiveness and sport personnel: The impact of athlete
political skill and influence tactics on sport organization
CSR reputation and consumer advocacy intentions. International
Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 10( 1/2),
61–82. doi:10.1504/IJSMM.2011.043619
Martinez, R.J., &Janney, J.J. (2015). Market reactions to corpo-
rate sponsorships of European football kits: The
moderating effects of firm congruence. Journal of Sport
Management, 29( 2), 211–222. doi:10.1123/JSM.2014-0123
Mazodier, M., &Merunka, D. (2012).Achieving brand loyalty
through sponsorship: The role of fit and self-congruity.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40( 6),
807–820. doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0285-y Rodgers, S. (2003). The effects of sponsor relevance on
McDaniel, S. (1999). An investigation of match-up effects
in sport sponsorship advertising: The implications of
consumer advertising schemas. Psychology and
Marketing, 16( 2), 163–184. doi:10.1002/(SICI)15206793(199903)16:2<163::AID-MAR6>3.0.CO;2-Y
Roy, D.P., & Cornwell, T.B. (2004). The effects of consumer
Meenaghan, T. (2013). Measuring sponsorship performance:
Challenge and direction. Psychology andMarketing, 30( 5),
385–393. doi:10.1002/mar.20613
Meng-Lewis, Y., Thwaites, D., & Pillai, K.G. (2013). Con-
sumers’ responses to sponsorship by foreign companies.
European Journal of Marketing, 47( 11/12), 1910–1930.
doi:10.1108/EJM-06-2010-0347
Nadeau, J., O’Reilly, N., & Heslop, L.A. (2013). Linking
place, mega-event and sponsorship evaluations. Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 22( 2), 129–141.
doi:10.1108/10610421311321004
Ngan, H.M., Prendergast, G.P., & Tsang, A.S. (2011). Link-
ing sports sponsorship with purchase intentions: Team
JSMVol. 30, No. 6, 2016
Three-Stage Model Sponsorship 627
performance, stars, and themoderating role of team
identification. European Journal of Marketing, 45( 4), 551–566.
doi:10.1108/03090561111111334
Olson,E.L. (2010).Does sponsorshipwork in thesameway indif-
ferent sponsorship contexts? European Journal of
Marketing, 44( 1/2), 180–199. doi:10.1108/03090561011008664
Olson, E.L., &Thjømøe, H.M. (2011). Explaining and articulat-
ing the fit construct in sponsorship. Journal of Advertising,
40( 1), 57–70. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367400104
O’Reilly, N., Lyberger, M., McCarthy, L., Seguin, B., &
Nadeau, J. (2008). Mega-special-event promotions and
intent to purchase: A longitudinal analysis of the Super
Bowl. Journal of Sport Management, 22( 4), 392–409.
doi:10.1123/jsm.22.4.392
Park, C., & Lee, T.M. (2009). Information direction, website
reputation and eWOM effect: A moderating role of
product type. Journal of Business Research, 62( 1), 61–67.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.11.017
Park, C.W., Jun, S.Y., & Shocker, A.D. (1996). Composite
branding alliances: An investigation of extension and
feedback effects. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 33( 4),
453–466. doi:10.2307/3152216
Pham, M.T. (1992). Effects of involvement, arousal, and plea-
sure on the recognition of sponsorship stimuli. Advances in
Consumer Research. Association for Consumer Research (U.
S.), 19( 1), 85–93.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., &Podsakoff, N.P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review
of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88( 5), 879–903.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Prendergast, G.P., Poon, D., &West, D.C. (2010). Match game:
Linking sponsorship congruencewith communication
outcomes. Journal of Advertising Research, 50( 2), 214–226.
doi:10.2501/S0021849910091361
Rifon, N.J., Choi, S.M., Trimble, C.S., &Li, H. (2004). Congru-
ence effects in sponsorship: Themediating role of sponsor
credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive.
Journal of Advertising, 33( 1), 29–42. doi:10.1080/00913
367.2004.10639151
consumer reactions to Internet sponsorships. Journal of
Advertising, 32( 4), 67–76. doi:10.1080/00913367.2003
. 10639141
knowledge on responses to event sponsorships. Psychology
and Marketing, 21( 3), 185–207. doi:10.1002/mar.20001
Ruth, J.A., & Simonin, B.L. (2003). “Brought to you by Brand
A and Brand B”: Investigating multiple sponsors’ influence
on consumers’ attitudes toward sponsored events.
Journal of Advertising, 32( 3), 19–30. doi:10.1080/0091
3367.2003.10639139
Scarpi, D. (2010). Does size matter? An examination of
small and large Web-based brand communities. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 24( 1), 14–21. doi:10.1016/j.
intmar.2009.10.002
Simmons, C.J., & Becker-Olsen, K.L. (2006). Achieving mar-
keting objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of
Marketing, 70( 4), 154–169. doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.4.154
 628 Visentin, Scarpi, and Pizzi
Simonin, B.L., & Ruth, J.A. (1998). Is a company known
by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand
alliances on consumer brand attitudes.
JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 35( 1), 30–42.
doi:10.2307/3151928
Skard, S., &Thorbjørnsen, H. (2013). Is publicity always better
than advertising?The role of brand reputation in
communicating corporate social responsibility. Journal of
Business Ethics, 124( 1), 149–160. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1863-3
Speed, R., &Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sports spon-
sorship response. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28( 2), 226–238. doi:10.1177/0092070300282004
Thjømøe, H., Olson, E., & Brønn, P. (2002). Decision-making
processes surrounding sponsorship activities. Journal of
AdvertisingResearch, 42( 6), 6–15. doi:10.2501/JAR.42.6.6
Till, B.D., & Nowak, L.I. (2000). Toward effective use
of cause-related marketing alliances. Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 9( 7), 472–484.
doi:10.1108/10610420010351394
Tsiotsou, R., & Alexandris, K. (2009). Delineating the
outcomes of sponsorship: Sponsor image, word of
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing on 12/27/16, Volume 30, Article Number 6
JSMVol. 30, No. 6, 2016
mouth, and purchase intentions. International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, 37( 4), 358–369.
doi:10.1108/09590550910948583
Tyebjee, T.T. (1979). Response time, conflict and involvement
in brand choice. The Journal of Consumer Research, 6( 3),
295–304. doi:10.1086/208770
Veloutsou, C., & Moutinho, L. (2009). Brand relationships
through brand reputation and brand tribalism. Journal of
Business Research, 62( 3), 314–322. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2008.05.010
Visentin, M., &Scarpi, D. (2012). Determinants andmediators
of the intention to upgrade the contract in buyer–seller
relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 41( 7),
1133–1141. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.05.001
Wang, A., & Muehling, D.D. (2012). The moderating influence
of brand status and source confirmation on third-party
endorsement effects in advertising. International Journal of
Advertising, 31( 3), 605–622. doi:10.2501/IJA-31-3-605-622
Wolfsteiner, E., Grohs, R., &Wagner, U. (2015). What drives
ambushmarketer misidentification? Journal of Sport
Management, 29( 2), 137–154. doi:10.1123/JSM.2014-0122
Copyright of Journal of Sport Management is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, 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.