This article was downloaded by: [UTSA Libraries]

On: 06 October 2014, At: 03:16

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Advertising
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujoa20

THE EFFECTS OF SPONSOR RELEVANCE ON CONSUMER

REACTIONS TO INTERNET SPONSORSHIPS
a
Shelly Rodgers
a
Department of Advertising at the Missouri School of Journalism
Published online: 04 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Shelly Rodgers (2003) THE EFFECTS OF SPONSOR RELEVANCE ON CONSUMER REACTIONS TO INTERNET
SPONSORSHIPS, Journal of Advertising, 32:4, 67-76, DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2003.10639141

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2003.10639141

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 THE EFFECTS OF SPONSOR RELEVANCE ON CONSUMER
REACTIONS TO INTERNET SPONSORSHIPS
Shelly Rodgers

ABSTRACT: This study reports the results of two experiments that were conducted to examine the effects of Internet
sponsorships and the role of sponsor relevance in these effects. Experiment 1 used a group of college students and Experiment
2 replicated the first experiment using a group of nonstudent adults. Both experiments examined sponsorship linkage as
a means of structuring Internet sponsorships that impacts sponsor recall, attitude toward the sponsor, and purchase
intentions. Findings revealed that relevant Internet sponsors were more persuasive than irrelevant Internet sponsors for
the three dependent variables. Two context variables, Web site credibility and intent to return to the site, moderated the
linkage factor on sponsor evaluations in that higher levels of the context variables translated to more positive evaluations
for relevant sponsors.
Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 03:16 06 October 2014

Sponsorship has been acknowledged as one of the newest and
most popular forms of Internet advertising. Internet sponsor-
ships generated $1.87 billion in 2001, accounting for one-
third of all Internet advertising revenue for that year (Internet
Advertising Bureau, 2002). Despite the growing interest in
sponsorships, past research has primarily focused on event
sponsorships, and corporate sponsorships to some degree. This
focus may be due in part to a lack of understanding about the
nature of Internet sponsorships. Like event sponsorships,
Internet sponsorships are typically brief text ads (e.g., “Today’s
sponsor is”) that identify the sponsor’s brand and product (e.g.,
“Samsonite luggage”) (Rodgers and Thorson 2001). These
similarities suggest that extending sponsorship research to
nontraditional contexts such as the Internet is a logical and
appropriate line of inquiry.
Although sponsorship is viewed as a unique form of adver-
tising (Gardner and Shuman 1987), there has been no general
clarification about how to make sponsorship accountable—
either on- or off-line. Scholars and practitioners assume that
sponsorships have advantages over other forms of promotion
(Meenaghan 1991) because they are small, flexible, and can
improve the image of companies that use them (Hastings
1984). One question that remains unanswered is exactly how
to structure sponsorships for maximum persuasive impact.
The idea of sponsorship linking has been suggested as a
way of structuring sponsorships, but only recently has the
concept of linking been empirically examined. Sponsorship
linking broadly refers to the nature of the link between a com-
pany and its brand (i.e., the sponsor) and the thing being
Shelly Rodgers (Ph.D., University of Missouri–Columbia) is an
assistant professor in the Department of Advertising at the Mis-
souri School of Journalism.
sponsored (i.e., the sponsee) (Otker and Hayes 1987). Much
of the empirical research on sponsorship assumes that con-
gruent sponsorship links are more effective than incongruent
sponsorship links, but sponsorship research that has tested
the congruity effect has yielded inconsistent findings. The
“newness” of the Internet as a potential outlet for sponsor-
ships further complicates this issue. What is the nature of
an Internet sponsorship link and to what extent does this
link influence consumer reactions to this new form of on-
line advertising?
The primary goal of this research is to examine the effects
of sponsorship linkage in a new context—an Internet Web
site—and the role of sponsor relevance in these effects. The
moderating effects of two variables, site credibility and in-
tent to return to the site, are examined in relation to sponsor
relevance. This was accomplished by conducting two experi-
ments using relevant and irrelevant Internet sponsorship links
embedded in a newspaper Web site. Experiment 1 utilized a
group of undergraduate students and Experiment 2 replicated
the first experiment using a sample of nonstudent adults.
INTERNET SPONSORSHIPS
AND ASSOCIATIVE LINKS
Associative links provide the theoretical framework for un-
derstanding Internet sponsorship effects. An associative link
refers to the perceived strength of the sponsor–sponsee
matchup. Research in this area assumes that strong associa-
tive links are more persuasive than weak associative links.
Theories on associative learning suggest that stronger spon-
The author thanks Pulitzer Technologies for generously funding this
research.

Journal of Advertising, vol. 32, no. 4 (Winter 2003–4), pp. 67–76.

© 2004 American Academy of Advertising. All rights reserved.
ISSN 0091-3367 / 2004 $9.50 + 0.00.
 68 The Journal of Advertising
sorship alignments help to establish explanatory links that
aid consumers in determining the sponsor–sponsee connec-
tion. This process is presumed to occur through spreading
activation, one of the dominant models of semantic process-
ing in cognitive psychology. Spreading activation is believed
to work within a semantic memory network that consists of a
set of interconnected nodes, with each node representing a
concept (Anderson 1983). In the context of sponsorship, both
the sponsor and sponsee represent individual nodes (or con-
cepts) within memory. When a strong sponsor–sponsee link
is presented to the memory system, the individual nodes be-
come interconnected and activation spreads throughout the
network. This spread of activation serves to make the related
areas of the memory network available for further cognitive
processing of the sponsorship.
Although strong associative links are thought to ignite the
spread of activation, sponsorship studies testing this effect
Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 03:16 06 October 2014
have yielded mixed findings. One example is a survey by
D’Astous and Bitz (1995). They hypothesized that strong
company–event associations would be rated more positively
than weak company–event associations. This hypothesis was
confirmed, but only for commercial (and not philanthropic)
sponsors. McDaniel (1999) has also explored an aspect of spon-
sorship linkage by matching event and brand in terms of in-
volvement. He experimentally paired three sponsors (Taco Bell,
Marlboro, and Toyota) with three sports events (PBA Bowl-
ing, NHL Hockey, and the Summer Olympics). Contrary to
McDaniel’s predictions, the results showed that only one of
the congruent-involving sponsors outperformed the incon-
gruent-involving sponsors in terms of attitude toward the ad.
In fact, attitude toward the ad did not change at all and be-
came more negative for two of the congruent sponsors.
These findings suggest that consumers do attend to the
sponsorship link, although the exact nature of the link re-
mains unclear. What, for example, is the link between Toyota
and the Olympics or Marlboro and PBA Bowling—two spon-
sor match-ups examined in the study just cited? Research on
associative links suggests that the nature of the sponsor–sponsee
link must be made clear so that its meaning becomes associ-
ated in consumers’ minds. According to associative theories,
spreading activation can be strengthened when the sponsor and
sponsee share semantic features (Sperber and Wilson 1995).
Drawing on this notion, the current research defined spon-
sorship linkage as the perceived relevance between the spon-
sor–sponsee link in terms of two related semantic features—the
product’s descriptive element and its alliance. A health com-
pany sponsoring health content in a health section of a Web
site is one example of this sort of sponsorship link. Johar and
Pham (1999) have shown that consumers use the relatedness
of a sponsor and sponsee in sponsor identification. Likewise, a
recent study on sponsorships of the Indianapolis 500 revealed
that sponsors with logical links to the automotive industry
had greater economic gains in their share prices than sponsors
with illogical links (Cornwell, Pruitt, and Van Ness 2001).
Both of these studies demonstrate the critical nature of the
sponsorship link. Thus, defining sponsorship links in terms
of relevant semantic features should help to crystallize the
connection between the sponsor and sponsee by making the
link more apparent to potential consumers. Relevant spon-
sorship links should increase the likelihood that the link will
influence memory, attitudes, and behavioral intentions—the
three dependent variables examined here.
INTERNET SPONSORSHIPS
AND LINKAGE EFFECTS
Sponsor Relevance and Memory Effects
Companies often use sponsorship as a marketing tool to en-
hance brand awareness (Rajaretnam 1994). Theories on asso-
ciative learning suggest that the perceived relevance of the
sponsor and sponsee will influence memory. For example, the
congruity principle assumes that congruent information is
remembered and preferred over incongruent information
(Osgood and Tannenbaum 1955). This assumption is sup-
ported by associative links, which suggest that spreading ac-
tivation within memory will be greatest when sponsors and
sponsees connect on a relevant criterion. Research on event
sponsorships has revealed a positive relationship between spon-
sor recall and the perceived relevance of the sponsorship link.
Stipp and Schiavone (1996) and Stipp (1998) conducted tele-
phone interviews with 479 individuals who had watched the
1992 Summer Olympics and found that consumers who could
recall Olympic sponsors also perceived a strong relationship
between the sponsoring brand and the Olympics. A similar
relationship has been found by other studies on event spon-
sorships. For example, Gwinner and Eaton (1999) found that
sponsor recall was heightened when participants perceived a
relationship between the image of the event and sponsored
brand. Thus, by matching the sponsor and sponsee on a rel-
evant dimension, it is expected that consumers will have
greater recall for sponsorships with relevant linkages. This
leads to the following prediction:
H1: Sponsor recall will be higher for a relevant than an
irrelevant sponsorship linkage.
Sponsor Relevance and Attitudinal Effects
The primary goal of sponsorship is to generate positive atti-
tudes toward companies that sponsor (Cornwell and Maignan
1998). An attitude is an individual’s overall evaluation of an
object, issue, or person. Attitudes generally refer to how fa-
vorably/unfavorably or how positively/negatively an object is

viewed. Attitudes have served as a dependent variable in stud-
ies that have examined the effects of event sponsorships (e.g.,
Lee, Sandler, and Shani 1997). The findings of two separate
studies revealed that the mere presence of a sponsorship in-
fluenced individuals’ perceptions of the sponsoring company
(Dean 2002) and its perceived citizenship (Dean 1999). Al-
though much of this research assumes that evaluative pro-
cessing of sponsorships is natural and automatic to some degree,
this process is likely much more complex. The limited content
of sponsorships implies that some effort in processing will be
necessary for evaluation to take place. In these circumstances,
situational factors such as the perceived relationship between
the sponsor and sponsee can influence the evaluation.
Research on associative links suggests that highly acces-
sible attitudes are more likely to influence brand evaluations
than less accessible attitudes. Accessibility in this context re-
fers to the likelihood that an individual will use a specific
Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 03:16 06 October 2014
piece of information, in this case the sponsorship link, in form-
ing an evaluation. In relation to sponsor relevance, an atti-
tude will be more accessible to the extent that the association
strength between the sponsor and sponsee is relevant. It is
expected that consumer responses to relevant sponsors will be
more accessible and, hence, more positive than responses to
irrelevant sponsors. An experiment by Becker-Olsen (1998)
supports this point. She manipulated prosocial news clippings
as having either logical or illogical sponsorship links. Her
findings revealed that attitudes were more positive toward all
but one of the logical sponsors, presumably due to the per-
ceived relevance of the sponsor–sponsee link. Thus, the fol-
lowing hypothesis is posited:
H2: Attitude toward the sponsor will be higher for a relevant
than an irrelevant sponsorship linkage.
Sponsor Relevance and Intended Behavioral Effects
The concepts of attitude and behavior are inextricably linked
to persuasion. Attitudes are evaluative tendencies regarding
some feature of the environment, and behaviors are the ob-
servable actions relating to those evaluations. Studies in ad-
vertising generally assume that more favorable brand
evaluations can result in increased purchase intentions for the
brand. A number of studies have demonstrated the ability of
sponsorships to influence purchase intentions of female con-
sumers (McDaniel 1999), Olympic viewers (Crimmins and
Horn 1996), and sports fans (Madrigal 2000). However, not
all authors agree that sponsorships can influence purchase
behaviors (Hansen and Scotwin 1995), presumably due to their
limited size and limited ability to persuade (McDonald 1991).
Research on associative links suggests that behavioral in-
tentions for sponsorships can be enhanced with a relevant spon-
sor–sponsee link. It was argued earlier that relevant linkages
Winter 2003–4 69
help the spread of activation in memory by making sponsor-
ship attitudes more accessible. Once the attitude is accessed,
the attitude-to-behavior process is more likely to result. A
relevant sponsorship linkage is postulated to act as a critical
determinant of the attitude-to-behavior transfer. Cornwell,
Pruitt, and Van Ness (2001) examined the value of logical
sponsorship links for Indianapolis sponsors on product sales
and stock prices. They found that Indianapolis 500 winners
sponsored by companies with a direct link to the automotive
industry yielded significantly greater sales and stock price
increases than did sponsors with an indirect link. This dis-
cussion leads to the following hypothesis:
H3: Purchase intent for the sponsored product will be higher
for a relevant than an irrelevant sponsorship linkage.
Sponsor Relevance and Context Effects
Much research in advertising has been devoted to understand-
ing context effects on audience processing of advertisements
appearing in those contexts. Briefly, this research has estab-
lished that the context in which ads appear is at least as im-
portant as the ads themselves. Because the context constitutes
the emotional environment within which advertisements are
evaluated and processed, the context is critical to determin-
ing how ads will be processed by the audience (Schumann
and Thorson 1990).
A Web site serves as the context in the present study. Al-
though consumers have intuitions about relevance that can
help them distinguish relevant from irrelevant information,
the context of a message can make these intuitions difficult
to elicit (Sperber and Wilson 1995). In the context of spon-
sorships, this process is further complicated by the fact that
so little information is conveyed about the meaning of the
sponsorship. Selecting a context that is relevant to the sponsor’s
product or brand can enhance this interpretative process.
Hirschman and Thompson (1997) have suggested that con-
sumers’ relationships to nonadvertising forms of mass media
are essential to the manner in which meaning is derived from
ads. The authors assert that the meaning of an advertisement
depends on the combined interpretation of two sources: an
advertising source and a nonadvertising source. Applied to
sponsorships, consumers who think poorly of a Web site or
believe its content lacks credibility will use these evaluations
when forming attitudes toward companies that sponsor the
Web site. In effect, the evaluations formed about the Web
site will “rub off ” on evaluations made about the sponsor.
Known as image transfer, this effect has been demonstrated in
situations where an event–brand sponsorship link was formed
between a sporting event’s image and the sponsoring brand.
Gwinner and Eaton (1999) conducted an experiment and found
that the image transfer process was enhanced when the event
 70 The Journal of Advertising
and brand were matched on either an image (the event and
brand share a similar image) or functional (the product is used
in the sponsored event) basis.
These findings suggest that companies that sponsor Web
sites that consumers find credible will be able to capitalize
on the sponsorship linkage better than companies that do
not. That is, sites with high perceived credibility will likely
transfer positive evaluations from the site to the sponsor in
cases where the sponsorship linkage is relevant. Sites with
low perceived credibility likely will not do so. Likewise, in-
dividuals who are devoted to a Web site and intend to return
to it will likely hold positive attitudes toward the site as well.
This evaluation should then transfer from the site to the
sponsor in the manner just described. Although not a direct
test of image transfer, Madrigal (2000) found through sur-
vey analysis that fans that were devoted to and identified
with a particular sports team were also more likely to pur-
Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 03:16 06 October 2014
chase products from team sponsors. The findings suggest
that one’s devotion to the context in which sponsors appear
will influence evaluations of sponsors appearing in those
contexts. To test for this context effect, the following hy-
pothesis was proposed:
H4: Web site credibility and intent to return to the site will
moderate sponsorship linkage to influence attitude toward the
sponsor, such that higher credibility and intent to return to the
site will translate to more positive evaluations for relevant
sponsors.
EXPERIMENT 1
Method
Experimental Design
The hypotheses were tested using a 2 (sponsorship linkage)
× 2 (section) within-subjects factorial experiment. Sponsor-
ship linkage has two levels: relevant and irrelevant. While
there are many ways to examine sponsorship linkage, this study
used the linkage between the sponsor’s product and a specific
section in the Web site. A relevant sponsorship link implies a
close and natural connection between the sponsor’s product
and the Web site’s section, such that the link is appropriate or
fitting. An irrelevant sponsorship link implies the opposite.
The second variable, section, is a replication variable with
two levels, health and travel, which were selected because of
their popularity among Internet sponsors (Yung 1998). A rep-
lication variable was selected to increase generalizability be-
yond a single section. Both sponsorship linkage and section
were within-subjects factors, which means that each partici-
pant was exposed to two sponsors: a relevant sponsor and an
irrelevant sponsor in the health and travel sections.
Pretest
The purpose of the pretest was to determine which products
and sponsors to use in the research. This was accomplished
by compiling a list of unfamiliar words to be used as ficti-
tious sponsor names and then pairing these names with a
list of health and travel products. Unknown brand names
were used to minimize prior attitudes and associations that
familiar brand names might evoke. Forty individuals who
were recruited through a mall intercept method evaluated
the sponsor/product pairs in terms of liking, familiarity, and
health or travel orientation. Each participant received five
dollars. The relevant sponsor/product pairs selected for the
health section were Jasil herbal teas and Birele vitamins;
the irrelevant pairs were Zenan cameras and Bisk travel maps.
The relevant sponsor/product pairs for the travel section were
Situs luggage and Dree travel service; the irrelevant pairs
were Jolo weight loss service and Fanon stationary bikes.
Using a variety of low- and high-ticket products and ser-
vices should enhance the ability to generalize across prod-
uct/service type.
Stimulus Materials
One Web site was designed and four versions of the Web site
were created to control for ordering effects. Each Web site
contained four pages: one for the study’s directions, one for
the health section, one for the travel section, and a final screen
instructing participants to fill out the paper-and-pencil sur-
vey. To make the Web site look as authentic as possible, the
site’s logo (i.e., The Daily Times) appeared at the top of both
screens in each section, followed by the section heading and
logo. The sponsorship (“Today’s sponsor is: brand/product”)
appeared just below the section heading, followed by the
reporter’s byline and news story. Each page contained a “click
here” button at the bottom of the screen to advance to the
next page. A professional graphic designer was paid to design
the Web site and logos. The news stories were pretested using
a group of 15 advertising students to control for tone, length,
involvement, credibility, and health/travel-relatedness. The
final Web site was pretested using the same advertising stu-
dents to ensure that all links worked properly. Each student
was paid $20 for his or her time.
Sample
A total of 110 undergraduate students (20% male, 80% fe-
male) from a large Midwestern university participated in the
study. Each participant received $10. Using a relatively ho-
mogenous group of students as the initial sample should re-
duce the effects of factors other than the manipulated
independent variable. A student sample was also deemed ap-

propriate given recent attempts to attract a younger audience
to newspaper Web sites (Albers 2002).
Procedure
The experiment was conducted in a computer laboratory in
several sessions. All computer settings, including the screen’s
resolution, color palettes, font size, and refresh rates, were
standardized for control purposes. Participants were randomly
assigned to one of four versions of the Web site to control for
selection bias. Participants were instructed to read the news
stories carefully, but at their usual pace. To increase the like-
lihood that the stories would be read, participants were told
that they would be asked questions about the stories. Partici-
pants were given nine minutes to read the stories, which was
determined by averaging the reading times of a slow and fast
reader of the four stories prior to the experiment.
Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 03:16 06 October 2014
Independent Variable
The independent variable, sponsorship linkage, was manipu-
lated at two levels: relevant and irrelevant. Two sponsors were
selected for each level so that effects could be attributed to
relevance level rather than idiosyncrasies of an individual spon-
sor. As noted above, pretest results determined the sponsors
and products to be used (see above). Participants were ex-
posed to a relevant and irrelevant sponsor of different brands
in both the travel and health sections.
Dependent and Moderating Variables
There were three dependent variables and two moderating
variables. The dependent variables were sponsor recall, atti-
tude toward the sponsor (Asp), and purchase intent (PI). The
two moderating variables were Web site credibility and in-
tent to return to the Web site. The dependent and moderat-
ing variables were measured in the following order.
Recall. Four memory measures—two unaided and two aided—
were used to assess sponsor recall. Participants were first asked
to list all brands and/or products or services that they could
recall (unaided). The two aided (i.e., closed-ended) items asked
participants to select the sponsor/product they remembered
seeing, followed by a choice of four sponsor’s names, one cor-
rect and three decoys. This process was repeated for the rel-
evant and irrelevant sponsors. All correct answers received +1
for a total recall score that ranged from 0 to 4.
Attitude Toward the Sponsor (Asp). Participants were then asked
to rate their attitude toward the sponsors (Asp) on three, five-
point semantic differential scales: bad/good, disliked/liked,
unfavorable/favorable (α = .92).
Winter 2003–4 71
Purchase Intent (PI). Next, purchase intent (PI) was measured
using three, five-point semantic differential scales, which in-
cluded the sponsor’s name and product followed by the end-
points: I’m likely to make a purchase/I’m unlikely to make a
purchase, I would like to have more information/I would not
like to have more information, and I’m interested in it [the
brand/product]/I’m not interested in it [the brand/product]
(α = .73).
Web Site Credibility. Web site credibility was measured next
with eleven, seven-point semantic differential scales: not quali-
fied/qualified, not believable/believable, not experienced/ex-
perienced, not knowledgeable/knowledgeable, untrustworthy/
trustworthy, unbiased/biased, uncompromising/compromis-
ing, not reputable/reputable, unethical/ethical, not objective/
objective, and not credible/credible (Haley 1996) (α = .89).
Intent to Return to the Site. Last, intent to return to the Web
site was assessed using three Likert scales, which ranged from
(1) unlikely to (5) very likely. The statements included the
following: What is the likelihood that you will return to this
newspaper sometime in the near future? What is the likeli-
hood that you will subscribe to this newspaper? What is the
likelihood that you will return to the health/travel section of
this newspaper? Cronbach’s α for the three items was .84.
Manipulation Check
Although the stimulus materials were pretested to ensure a
strong sponsorship linkage manipulation, participants in the
study also evaluated sponsorship linkage on a five-point scale
by responding to the statement, “How well did this brand’s
product or service fit with the section it sponsored?” The scale
ranged from 1 (not very well at all) to 5 (very well). To assess
sponsorship linkage, a repeated measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted. Results revealed a significantly
closer link for the relevant (M = 3.91, SD = 1.23) than the ir-
relevant (M = 2.77, SD = 1.07) sponsors, thus indicating a suc-
cessful manipulation of sponsorship linkage, F(1, 206) = 45.90,
p < .001.
Results
Statistical Procedures and Subsidiary Analyses
Participants responded to each level of sponsorship linkage
(relevant/irrelevant) on multiple dependent measures. There-
fore, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) is the
logical statistical procedure to use provided the following as-
sumptions are met. First, the assumption of sphericity (i.e.,
homogeneity of variance) must be met. Second, two or more
of the dependent variables must correlate (Lomax 2001). To
 72 The Journal of Advertising
TABLE 1
Correlations Among the Three Dependent andTwo Moderating Variables (Student Sample)
1 2
Sponsor recall (1) 1.00
Attitude toward the sponsor (2)
Purchase intent (3) 1.00
Web site credibility (4)
Intent to return to the Web site (5)
Note: n = 220 except in cases where data were missing.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
determine whether the two provisions were met, two subsid-
Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 03:16 06 October 2014
iary analyses were undertaken. To test for sphericity, a one-
way MANOVA was conducted using sponsorship linkage as
the within-subjects factor and the three dependent measures
and two covariates as the criterion variables. The findings
confirmed that sphericity was met for the student sample
(Box’s M = 20.51, F = 1.33, p = .17). A correlation analysis
of the three dependent and two moderating variables revealed
a significant correlation among four of the variables for the
student sample (see Table 1), thus confirming the second set
of provisions. Confirmation of both subsidiary analyses indi-
cates that a one-way MANOVA is appropriate here.
A third subsidiary analysis was performed to determine
whether to include the replication variable (section) in the
statistical analyses that follow. If no significant differences
occur on the dependent measures, then it is appropriate to
drop the replication variable and, in effect, “collapse” the data
across the two levels of sponsorship linkage. A one-way
MANOVA using section as the within-groups factor and the
three dependent measures as the criterion variables yielded
no significant results, and no interaction effect was found when
entering sponsorship linkage as a second within-subjects fac-
tor in the analysis. In short, the results confirm that neither
the health section nor the travel section influenced consum-
ers’ reactions to the sponsors or Web site, so the replication
variable was dropped from additional analyses. The remain-
ing findings were reported across the two levels of sponsor-
ship linkage.
Hypothesis Tests
Main Effects. Hypothesis 1 predicted that relevant sponsors
would be remembered better than would irrelevant sponsors.
This hypothesis was tested by conducting a one-way
MANOVA using sponsorship linkage as the within-groups
factor, the three dependent variables as the criterion variables,
Correlations
3 4 5
.15* .13 .03 .06
1.00 .32** .19** .14*
–.02 .05
1.00 .09
1.00
and the two moderating variables as covariates. The overall
MANOVA was significant, Wilks’s λ = .70, F(3, 211) = 30.75,
p < .001. Relevant sponsors were remembered better than were
irrelevant sponsors, F(1, 213) = 38.74, p < .001, thus support-
ing H1. Hypothesis 2 predicted that relevant sponsors would
also be liked better than would irrelevant sponsors. This hy-
pothesis was also confirmed, F(1, 213) = 16.59, p < .001 (see
Table 2). The third hypothesis, which predicted that relevant
sponsors would yield higher purchase intentions than would
irrelevant sponsors, was also supported, F(1, 213) = 45.92,
p < .001. All means and standard deviations can be found in
Table 2.
Moderating Effects. Hypothesis 4 predicted that Web site cred-
ibility and intent to return to the Web site would moderate
any main effects resulting from sponsorship linkage. Using
the same MANOVA procedure described above, the results
showed that Web site credibility moderated sponsorship link-
age, Wilks’s λ = .96, F(3, 211) = 2.99, p < .05, on A sp,
F(1, 213) = 7.02, p < .01. Intent to return to the Web site
did not moderate sponsorship linkage ( p = .27), but ap-
proached near significance for Asp ( p = .08) (see Table 2). Thus,
only partial support was found for H4.
Discussion
The results of Experiment 1 suggest that sponsors that closely
align with a relevant section of a newspaper Web site will be
more persuasive than irrelevant sponsors. Recall was higher
for relevant than irrelevant sponsors, as was sponsor liking
and purchase intentions. In addition, Web site credibility (but
not intent to return to the site) had a moderating effect on
sponsor evaluations, where higher credibility scores translated
to more positive evaluations for the relevant sponsors. These
results suggest that companies would do best to select Web
sites that have relevance to their product. The results also
 Winter 2003–4 73

TABLE 2
Means and Standard Deviations for the Dependent Variables and Covariates (Student Sample)

Attitude Intent to
Sponsor toward Purchase Web site return to
recall sponsor intent credibility Web site

MeanSD SD
Mean Mean SD
Mean SD Mean
Mean SDSD Mean Mean
SD SD Mean Mean
SD SD

Irrelevant sponsor a 1.00 1.20 11.89 2.77 6.70 2.66 55.56 9.83 7.07 2.81
Relevant sponsor b 1.99 1.13 13.45 2.74 9.28 2.93 56.50 10.30 7.25 3.35

Note: The sample size may be less than 110 for each level of sponsorship linkage in cases where data were missing.
a
n = 109.
b
n = 108.

demonstrate the importance of selecting credible Web sites an average age of 54 (SD = 15.93). Household income ranged
that have a loyal following of users. When consumers ex- from $25,000 or less to $70,000 or more, with an average
Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 03:16 06 October 2014

press positive attitudes toward a Web site, those attitudes
can apparently transfer to the companies that sponsor rel-
evant content.
Inasmuch as these findings support the predicted hypoth-
eses, the findings might be attributed to the fact that the
sample was comprised of a group of college students whose
attitudes about e-newspapers and Internet sponsorships may
differ from an older, more demographically diverse sample of
nonstudent adults. Younger consumers are more avid readers
of e-newspapers (Albers 2002), and may therefore be more
prone to seeing sponsorships in e-newspapers. If this is true,
then we would expect that students may be more accepting
and perhaps less discriminating of seeing alternative forms of
advertising in e-newspapers than, say, a heterogeneous group
of nonstudents. Given this possibility, it was decided to rep-
licate the first experiment using a more demographically di-
verse group of nonstudent adults.
EXPERIMENT 2
Method
Sample
Experiment 2 used the exact method employed in Experi-
ment 1. The independent and dependent variables were the
same, as were the stimulus materials and experimental proce-
dures. The only difference between the two experiments was
the sample. Experiment 1 used a group of students, whereas
Experiment 2 used a group of nonstudent adults. A total of
86 adults were recruited from professional clubs and organi-
zations (e.g., Audubon Society, Garden Club, African Ameri-
can Institute) of a small Midwestern city. Five surveys were
dropped because of missing data. This left a total of 81 adults
(79% female, 21% male). Ages ranged from 20 to 83, with
household income of $50,000, thus confirming that samples
1 and 2 were demographically different. The host club or or-
ganization was paid $20 for each member that participated in
the experiment.
Manipulation Check
The same statistical procedures used in Experiment 1 were
also used in Experiment 2. Subsidiary analyses were run, as
described above. The results confirmed that a one-way
MANOVA is the appropriate statistic to be used (see Table
3). The replication variable was examined with the same pro-
cedure described above. As in Experiment 1, the results were
not statistically significant and the replication variable was
subsequently dropped from further analysis. Last, the same
statistical procedure was run to determine whether the ma-
nipulation of sponsorship linkage was successful. Findings
revealed that participants perceived a significantly stronger
link for relevant (M = 3.44, SD = 1.32) than irrelevant
(M = 2.84, SD = 1.00) sponsors, F(1, 151) = 11.80, p < .001.
Results
As in Experiment 1, all hypotheses in Experiment 2 were ana-
lyzed using a one-way MANOVA within-groups design. Simi-
lar to Experiment 1, the findings revealed a significant main
effect for sponsorship linkage on all three dependent variables,
thereby supporting the first three hypotheses, Wilks’s λ = .87,
F(3, 147) = 7.14, p < .001. For example, the results showed
that the relevant sponsors were more effective than the irrel-
evant sponsors in terms of sponsor recall, F(1, 149) = 14.14,
p < .001; Asp, F(1, 149) = 3.82, p < .05; and PI, F(1, 149) = 5.65,
p < .05. The means and standard deviations are displayed in
Table 4. Consistent with H4, Web site credibility moderated
sponsorship linkage, Wilks’s λ = .92, F(3, 147) = 4.39,
 74 The Journal of Advertising

TABLE 3
Correlations Among the Three Dependent and Two Moderating Variables (Adult Sample)

Correlations

1 2 3 4 5

Sponsor recall (1) 1.00 .03 .20* –.07 .08

Attitude toward the sponsor (2) 1.00 .04 .34** .38**
Purchase intent (3) 1.00 .04 .12
Web site credibility (4) 1.00 1.00 .27*
Intent to return to the Web site (5) 1.00

Note: n = 162 except in cases where data were missing.

* p < .05.
** p < .01.

TABLE 4
Means and Standard Deviations for the Dependent Variables and Covariates (Adult Sample)
Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 03:16 06 October 2014

Attitude Intent to
Sponsor toward Purchase Web site return to
recall sponsor intent credibility Web site

Mean
Mean SD
SD Mean
Mean SD
SD Mean
Mean SD
SD Mean
Mean SD
SD Mean
Mean SD

Irrelevant sponsor a .94 1.01 12.21 2.49 6.76 2.64 53.79 11.21 6.64 3.41
Relevant sponsor b 1.67 1.35 13.17 2.83 7.93 3.15 54.37 12.41 7.42 3.49

Note: The sample size may be less than 81 for each level of sponsorship linkage in cases where data were missing.
a
n = 77.
b
n = 76.

p < .01, on Asp, F(1, 149) = 11.83, p < .001. Intent to return
to the site also moderated sponsorship linkage, Wilks’s λ = .90,
F(3, 147) = 5.26, p < .01, on Asp, F(1, 149) = 14.87, p < .001
(see Table 4).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
This research examined the effects of sponsor relevance on
consumers’ reactions to Internet sponsorships. Sponsorship
linkage was presented as a means of structuring Internet spon-
sorships. Contrary to past research on event sponsorship, the
findings demonstrated a consistent pattern of findings. Rel-
evant sponsors were more likely than irrelevant sponsors to
elicit stronger recall, brand evaluations, and purchase inten-
tions. It is important to note that these findings were repli-
cated across four product types and two Web site sections.
The findings were also replicated for both student and non-
student adults.
A theoretical implication of the findings is the notion that
associative links are critical to the success of Internet sponsor-
ships. Relevant sponsorship links were apparently more suc-
cessful than irrelevant sponsorship links at creating an
associative link. Although not specifically tested, the find-
ings suggest that the nature of the associative link may be at
least as important as the link itself. In the present study, the
sponsor–sponsee link was defined in terms of the perceived
relevance between the product’s descriptive element (travel
service) and its alliance (travel section in a Web site). By match-
ing sponsors and sponsees in terms of shared semantic fea-
tures, participants were presumably able to connect related
concepts on the basis of their relevance. Exactly how this pro-
cess occurs is not entirely clear from the current study. Theo-
ries on associative learning suggest that relevant sponsors may
ignite the spread of activation to a greater extent than irrel-
evant sponsors do. Future studies will obviously need to ex-
amine this process in greater detail. Nevertheless, the current
research illustrates the importance of matching a sponsor and
sponsee in terms of features that consumers can readily iden-
tify in an effort to help them make sense of the sponsorship.
Practically speaking, these findings suggest that compa-
nies should select Web sites (and content within Web sites)
that are directly related to their products or services. In the
present study, there were no obvious benefits for brands that
sponsored irrelevant Internet content. This finding seems to

challenge past sponsorship research that asserts that there are
benefits to simply having a sponsorship presence at an event.
Indeed, the results of the current research suggest that select-
ing an appropriate sponsee may be more complex than previ-
ously thought. In addition, while the concept of sponsorship
linkage has been applied primarily to event sponsorships, the
findings suggest that Internet sponsorships can also benefit
from being structured in terms of relevance. Despite their
limitations in terms of content, relevantly paired sponsors
and sponsees can prompt greater persuasion than irrelevant
sponsors and sponsees.
This research also examined the moderating effects of two
Web site variables on sponsor relevance. The findings revealed
that the perceived credibility of the site, and in some cases, an
intent to return to the site, moderated sponsor relevance. How
consumers perceived the contexts within which Internet spon-
sorships appeared clearly mattered. Presumably, contexts that
Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 03:16 06 October 2014
lack credibility will hurt a sponsor’s chance of success even if
the sponsorship linkage is relevant. The results found here
suggest that sponsorship links interact with other factors that
can potentially influence the evaluation of Internet sponsor-
ships. These factors will need to be articulated and examined
in future studies. Nevertheless, this study helps to establish
the importance of the context (i.e., sponsee) in which an
Internet sponsorship appears. When consumers felt positively
about the Web site in which the sponsorship was placed, those
positive feelings transferred to more positive evaluations of
the sponsoring brand. This image transfer effect has been dem-
onstrated in other sponsorship studies, but not in the context
of a Web site.
On a practical level, these findings demonstrate the im-
portance of sponsoring content that consumers like and per-
ceive as credible. Although this may seem like an obvious or
logical thing to do, Internet sponsors do not currently appear
to take context into consideration, as indicated by countless
irrelevant Internet sponsorships. As Web pages become more
cramped by Internet ads, it may become increasingly diffi-
cult for on-line advertisers to get users’ attention. Sponsoring
valued content may be a viable option in overcoming these
practical difficulties.
LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Inasmuch as these findings demonstrate the role of relevance
in sponsorship effects, a number of limitations should be noted.
First, the hypothetical associations used in the experiments
were designed to represent an extreme (although not unreal-
istic) manipulation of sponsorship linkage. For that reason,
the sponsorship linkages provided participants with only one
kind of sponsor/product information. Additional studies are
needed to test the effects of other types of sponsor/product
Winter 2003–4 75
information. In addition, only one type of brand association
(i.e., descriptive) was tested here. Future studies will need to
test alternative brand associations (e.g., functional, symbolic,
image) to determine their effects on sponsorship linkages.
In addition, sponsorship linkage was conceptualized in
terms of an alliance between a sponsor’s product and a section
within a Web site. Alternative conceptualizations should be
considered in follow-up studies. What, for example, is the
effect of aligning a brand with a relevant/irrelevant chat room,
virtual scoreboard, or book review? It will also be important
to use actual brands in follow-up studies. The use of hypo-
thetical brands may have provided knowledge structures that
were less stable, and therefore more susceptible to change,
than those of actual brands.
This research has also asserted that Internet sponsorships
are a natural extension of traditional sponsorships since these
two forms of promotion look alike. Whether this is actually
the case is an issue that will need to be examined and tested
in follow-up studies. In addition, although Internet and tra-
ditional sponsorships may look the same, it is unclear whether
they share similar functions. Operationally speaking, Internet
sponsorships differ from traditional sponsorships in terms of
what is being sponsored. With traditional sponsorships, com-
panies primarily sponsor events. Companies that sponsor Web
sites typically sponsor content. The sheer volume of content
found on-line implies that relevant sponsorship linkages may
be easier to achieve in an Internet context. A logical next step
is to test the effects of Internet and traditional sponsorships
to determine which are better for what purposes.
Last, this research tested the effects of sponsorship link-
ages on memory, attitudes, and purchase intentions. Not all
authors agree, however, that these are appropriate measures
of sponsorship effects (see McDonald 1991). Perhaps this is
due in part to the fact that past research on event sponsorships
has yielded inconsistent findings when it comes to awareness
and preference measures. The current research demonstrates that
these measures can provide meaningful evaluations of how well
an Internet sponsorship will perform. Whether this is due to
the nature of sponsorship linkages or some inherent charac-
teristic of Internet sponsorships is an issue that will need fur-
ther development.
CONCLUSION
In short, this study represents the first attempt to examine
the role of relevance in consumer reactions to Internet spon-
sorships. Relevant sponsorship linkages clearly benefited the
brands that used them. The context in which Internet spon-
sorships appeared also proved to be an important factor to
consider when selecting appropriate outlets to sponsor. Al-
though more research is needed to better understand the ef-
fects of Internet sponsorships, the concepts presented here may
 76 The Journal of Advertising
be useful for scholars and practitioners interested in better
understanding the boundaries of this unique on-line adver-
tising strategy.
REFERENCES
Albers, Rebecca Ross (2002), “Attracting Younger Readers,”
Presstime (May), available at www.naa.org/Presstime/.
Anderson, John R. (1983), “A Spreading Activation Theory of
Memory,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
22 (3), 261–295.
Becker-Olsen, Karen L. (1998), “Corporate Sponsorship: A
Look at the Moderating Effects of Fit and Reach on Im-
age and Purchase Intentions,” Ph.D. dissertation, Lehigh
University.
Cornwell, T. Bettina, and Isabelle Maignan (1998), “An Interna-
tional Review of Sponsorship Research,” Journal of Advertising,
27 (1), 1–21.
Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 03:16 06 October 2014
———, Stephen W. Pruitt, and Robert Van Ness (2001), “The
Value of Winning in Motorsports: Sponsorship-Linked
Marketing,” Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (1), 17–31.
Crimmins, James, and Martin Horn (1996), “Sponsorship: From
Management Ego Trip to Marketing Success,” Journal of
Advertising Research, 36 (July/August), 11–21.
D’Astous, Alain, and Pierre Bitz (1995), “Consumer Evaluations
of Sponsorship Programmes,” European Journal of Market-
ing, 29 (12), 6–22.
Dean, Dwane Hal (1999), “Brand Endorsement, Popularity, and
Event Sponsorship as Advertising Cues Affecting Consumer
Pre-Purchase Attitudes,” Journal of Advertising, 28 (3), 1–12.
——— (2002), “Associating the Corporation with a Charitable
Event Through Sponsorship: Measuring the Effects on Cor-
porate Community Relations,” Journal of Advertising, 31 (4),
77–87.
Gardner, Meryl P., and Philip Shuman (1987), “Sponsorship: An
Important Component of the Promotion Mix,” Journal of
Advertising, 16 (1), 11–17.
Gwinner, Kevin P., and John Eaton (1999), “Building Brand
Image Through Event Sponsorship: The Role of Image
Transfer,” Journal of Advertising, 28 (4), 47–57.
Haley, Eric (1996), “Exploring the Construct of Organization as
Source: Consumer’s Understandings of Organizational Spon-
sorship of Advocacy Advertising,” Journal of Advertising,
25 (2), 19–35.
Hansen, Flemming, and Lene Scotwin (1995), “An Experimen-
tal Enquiry into Sponsoring: What Effects Can Be Mea-
sured?” Marketing and Research Today, 23 (3), 173–181.
Hastings, Gerard B. (1984), “Sponsorship Works Differently
from Advertising,” International Journal of Advertising, 3,
171–176.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C., and Craig J. Thompson (1997), “Why
Media Matter: Toward a Richer Understanding of Consum-
ers’ Relationships with Advertising and Mass Media,” Jour-
nal of Advertising, 26 (1), 43–60.
Internet Advertising Bureau (2002), “IAB Internet Advertising
Revenue Report,” available at www.iab.net/adrevenue/
IAB_PWC_2001Q4.pdf.
Johar, Gita Venkataramani, and Michael Tuan Pham (1999),
“Relatedness, Prominence, and Constructive Sponsor Iden-
tification,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (3), 299–312.
Lee, Myung-Soo, Dennis M. Sandler, and David Shani (1997),
“Attitudinal Constructs Toward Sponsorship: Scale Devel-
opment Using Three Global Sporting Events,” International
Marketing Review, 14 (3), 159–169.
Lomax, Richard G. (2001), An Introduction to Statistical Concepts
for Educational and Behavioral Sciences, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
McDaniel, Stephen R. (1999), “An Investigation of Match-Up
Effects in Sport Sponsorship Advertising: The Implications
of Consumer Advertising Schemas,” Psychology and Market-
ing, 16 (2), 163–184.
McDonald, Colin (1991), “Sponsorship and the Image of the
Sponsor,” European Journal of Marketing, 25 (11), 31–38.
Madrigal, Robert (2000), “The Influence of Social Alliances with
Sports Teams on Intentions to Purchase Corporate Spon-
sors’ Products,” Journal of Advertising, 29 (4), 13–24.
Meenaghan, Tony (1991), “The Role of Sponsorship in the Mar-
keting Communication Mix,” International Journal of Ad-
vertising, 10 (1), 35–47.
Osgood, Charles K., and Percy H. Tannenbaum (1955), “The
Principle of Congruity in the Prediction of Attitude
Change,” Psychological Review, 62, 42–55.
Otker, Ton, and Peter Hayes (1987), “Judging the Efficiency of
Sponsorship,” European Research, 15 (4), 53–58.
Rajaretnam, Javalgi (1994), “The Long-Term Effects of Sponsor-
ship on Corporate and Product Image: Findings of a Unique
Experiment,” Marketing and Research Today, 22 (1), 62–74.
Rodgers, Shelly, and Esther Thorson (2000), “The Interactive
Advertising Model: How Users Perceive and Process Online
Ads,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 1 (1), available at
jiad.org/v011/n01/rodgers/ (accessed June 2003).
Schumann, David W., and Esther Thorson (1990), “The Influ-
ence of Viewing Context on Commercial Effectiveness: A
Selection-Processing Model,” Current Issues and Research in
Advertising, 12 (1), 1–24.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson (1995), Relevance Communica-
tion and Cognition, 2nd ed., Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Stipp, Horst (1998), “The Impact of Olympic Sponsorship on
Corporate Image,” International Journal of Advertising, 17 (1),
75–87.
———, and Nicholas P. Schiavone (1996), “Modeling the Im-
pact of Olympic Sponsorship on Corporate Image,” Journal
of Advertising Research, 36 (4), 22–28.
Yung, Katherine (1998), “Sponsoring the News Online,” Dallas
Morning News (December 28), 1D, 3D.