Bauer 2005

European Journal of Marketing
Customer‐based brand equity in the team sport industry: Operationalization and impact
on the economic success of sport teams
Hans H. Bauer Nicola E. Sauer Philipp Schmitt
Article information:
To cite this document:
Hans H. Bauer Nicola E. Sauer Philipp Schmitt, (2005),"Customer#based brand equity in the team sport
industry", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Iss 5/6 pp. 496 - 513
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560510590683
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 13:50 15 October 2014 (PT)
Downloaded on: 15 October 2014, At: 13:50 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 43 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5320 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Vanessa Ratten, Rodoula Tsiotsou, Guillaume Bodet, Nicolas Chanavat, (2010),"Building global football
brand equity: Lessons from the Chinese market", Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 22
Iss 1 pp. 55-66
Daniel S. Mason, (1999),"What is the sports product and who buys it? The marketing of professional sports
leagues", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 Iss 3/4 pp. 402-419
Ibrahim Abosag, Stuart Roper, Daniel Hind, (2012),"Examining the relationship between brand emotion and
brand extension among supporters of professional football clubs", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46
Iss 9 pp. 1233-1251
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 173534 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
EJM
39,5/6 Customer-based brand equity in
the team sport industry
Operationalization and impact on the economic
496 success of sport teams
Received May 2004 Hans H. Bauer and Nicola E. Sauer
Revised August 2004 Department of Business Administration and Marketing II, University of
Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany, and
Philipp Schmitt
University of Mannheim, Hirschberg, Germany
Abstract
Purpose – The paper aims to refine existing customer-based brand equity models for the team sport
industry and examine the importance of brand equity in the professional German soccer league
Bundesliga.
Design/methodology/approach – After assessing brand equity on the basis of actual consumer
responses, we relate the brand equity measure on an aggregate level to objective means of economic
success. Online sampling with a total database of 1,594 usable questionnaires is utilized for analysis.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (including multi-group analysis) as well as structural
equation modeling and regression analysis are applied.
Findings – Results highlight the adequacy of a parsimonious brand equity model in team sport
(BETS) model and the importance of the brand in team sport for economic success.
Research limitations/implications – The main limitations of this research are sample constraints;
test persons are highly involved in and knowledgeable about the product category under research.
Future research should address a more diverse population.
Practical implications – Teams and their management have to realize the relevance of their brand
in economic success. They have to recognize the significance of the stadium visit and the individual
spectators in the stadium.
Originality/value – First, a parsimonious BETS model is presented. Second, it was found that
special attention should be devoted to the brand equity-component “brand awareness” when
researching brand equity. Third, this is one of the few studies that uses actual economic data to show
the impact of brand equity based on direct consumer responses on company success.
Keywords Brands, Germany, Sports, Brand equity, Customers
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Sport is becoming increasingly commercialized and sport entities have become more
professional over the years. While North American sport organizations have led this
development the European ones are catching up. The transfer of soccer star David
European Journal of Marketing Beckham to Real Madrid, which was mainly explained by brand considerations, serves
Vol. 39 No. 5/6, 2005
pp. 496-513 as an example for the growing importance of marketing aspects in the management of
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited professional sport teams (Ashelm, 2003). Sport companies have to be progressive
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/03090560510590683 service sellers in order to successfully compete with other leisure offers. To give an
example, they have to establish relationship management activities with their fans Customer-based
(e.g. supporting fan clubs, offering fans the opportunity to communicate with the team) brand equity
and other stakeholder groups such as their corporate sponsors. One element of major
importance within this development is the brand, which is often considered the most
important asset of sport clubs.
In team sport athletic success is, but one important determinant of the strength of a
brand. A professional and customer-oriented brand management is imperative for the 497
long-term success of a brand. “While (athletic) success may be fleeting, a focus on
commitment to customers is not” (Gladden et al., 2001, p. 301). Gladden and Milne
(1999), in their study of brand equity in the National Hockey League (NHL), National
Basketball Association (NBA) and Major League Baseball (MLB), for instance, viewed
success and brand equity as separate constructs and analyzed their impact on
merchandise revenues. They found that both athletic success and brand equity had
significant positive effects on merchandise revenues. The brand, thus, allows economic
performance figures to exist somewhat independently of athletic success. But it should
not be denied that the strongest team sport brands in Europe are still those that are the
most successful on the field. Manchester United ($259 millions brand value), Real
Madrid ($155 millions) and Bayern Munich ($150 millions) all won numerous national
and international championships in the past years (FutureBrand, 2001).
Success and brands, however, can also be disjoined, as Boone et al. (1995) reported in
their study of MLB teams. They compared the company equity of MLB teams with that
of two expansion teams, which were considered unbranded due to their former
non-existence. Only seven out of 28 teams were found to have a positive brand equity
(defined as the difference between company equity and the price paid for the expansion
teams). Interestingly, only one out of these seven MLB teams was able to reach the World
Series in the previous 5 years. A detaching of the economic measure “company equity”
from athletic success seems to be possible. This finding was confirmed by FutureBrand
(2001), who found the brand value of the Dallas Cowboys ($274 Millions brand value),
Washington Redskins ($211 millions), New York Yankees ($180 millions) and New York
Knicks ($171 millions) to be the highest. Of these four teams, only the Yankees had been
able to reach the championship series within the three preceding years, while the other
teams in the two preceding seasons were not even able to make it to the playoffs.
Although marketing and branding aspects are becoming increasingly important in
the sport industry, research lags behind this development, at least in Europe and
Germany (Ferrand and Pages, 1999). It is the goal of this study to present a
customer-based brand equity model for the European team sport industry. To do so,
we draw on Gladden and Funk (2001) model of brand associations in team sport and on
Keller’s (1993) brand equity model. In our attempt to develop a parsimonious
customer-based brand equity model in team sport (BETS), we will further show that a
model less complex than Gladden and Funk’s appraoch (2001) represents an adequate
measurement instrument; furthermore, it seems that Keller’s (1993) brand
equity-component “brand awareness” only adds to the understanding of brand
equity in product categories with consumers highly diverse in terms of their product
category expertise. A second goal is to verify the importance of the brand equity
concept to the economic success of companies. This seems to be the first study to use
actual economic data to show the impact of brand equity based on direct consumer
responses on company success. The analysis was performed on an aggregate level.
EJM Thus, this part of the study uses brands, rather than individuals, as the final units of
39,5/6 observation. The advantage of this approach which aggregates consumers to produce
scores for brands lies in its prevention of the “pitfalls of experimental manipulations
that examine only two or a few cases across people (thereby giving rise to alternative
hypotheses)” (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001, p. 85). While Chaudhuri and Holbrook
(2001) found such relationships between consumer-oriented measures of brands and
498 economic measures for 41 product categories, the analysis of the impact of
customer-based brand equity on economic measures is novel. Important implications
for both the management of sport teams and other industries can be derived.
Team sport and the concept of brand equity

Existing brand equity research
To measure the added value a brand contributes to a product or service several
conceptual frameworks have been developed and referred to as “brand equity” (Aaker,
1991; Keller, 1993). Aaker (1991) was the first to focus on customers when evaluating a
brand. He views brand equity as a synopsis of advantages and disadvantages that a
customer relates to a brand or symbol and that drive the value of a product or service.
One of the most widespread conceptual frameworks was proposed by Keller (1993)
who drew on Aaker’s conceptual framework and proposed a customer-based brand
equity model with customer knowledge as the central driver of brand equity. Keller
(1993, p. 1) notes: “Customer-based brand equity is defined as the differential effect of
brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand. A brand is said
to have positive (negative) customer-based brand equity when consumers react more
(less) favorably to an element of the marketing mix for the brand than they do to the
same marketing mix element when it is attributed to a fictitiously named or unnamed
version of the product or service”. Brand knowledge as the brand equity’s central
factor consists of the two dimensions: brand awareness and brand image.
Brand awareness can be differentiated into active (brand recall) and passive (brand
recognition) brand awareness. Brand image is defined “as perceptions about a brand as
reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory” (Keller, 1993, p. 3).
Conceptually, Keller (1993) distinguishes between
(1) attributes, which are certain product and non-product-related characteristics
that are noticeable during purchase or use;
(2) benefits are the functional, emotional or experiential values consumers attach to
the product or service attributes; and
(3) attitudes are the overall evaluations of a brand and are dependent on the
attributes and benefits of the brand.
Brand associations are further differentiated by their strength, favorability and
uniqueness. For brand equity to be high, all three kinds of brand associations should be
present.
Customer-based brand equity in team sport

The team sport industry. The constitutive characteristic of team sport is its multi-level
production structure. The first level is categorized by the input of other team members.
On a second level of “team sport production” another team, a competitor, is necessary.
Neale (1964) calls this an inverted joint production. A third level further characterizes
contemporary team sport, the championships that connect the matches of the single Customer-based
teams to a larger competition. This gives team sport events an additional brand equity
entertainment dimension (Franck, 1995).
Leagues organize the “championship race”. The teams compete within a certain
time frame (season) and by fixed rules for best possible ranks. The German soccer
league (Deutsche Fussball Liga, DFL) was founded by the teams of the first and the
second major soccer league in 2000 (Swieter, 2002). In North America, the four major 499
leagues – NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL – form a kind of cooperation through
collaboration of the club owners (Franck, 1995). The club owners decide about the rules
of the leagues, the share of revenues and the admission of new clubs.
Leagues are essential because they deliver the organizational infrastructure for
team sport; however, only teams (or clubs) are the ones that are involved in strategic
decision making, either by themselves or in agreement with other teams. The league,
for instance, solely acts as a broker for the 36 clubs in the negotiations for the TV
rights. Thus the focus of this research is on the teams. From an economic standpoint,
they qualify as large-scale enterprises today. The entire revenues of all 36 teams of the
professional German soccer leagues reached a record high of 1.31 billion Euros in the
2001/2002-season.
The primary offering of the teams is the sporting event. Secondary products of the
team sport industry result from the variety of commercialization activities of these
games. One can identify four major groups of products: stadium visits (share of
revenue in the major German soccer league in 1999/2000: 25.4 percent), media rights
(31.5 percent), sponsorships (24.2 percent) and merchandising (7 percent). On the cost
side, personnel accounts for the largest cost bulk. In the major German soccer league,
about 67 percent of the entire revenues were spent on athletes’ salaries and on transfer
fees (Swieter, 2002). In an attempt to clarify the sport product in greater detail, Mason
(1999) differentiates between four distinct groups of customers of professional sport
teams:
(1) fans;
(2) television and other media;
(3) communities which build facilities and support local clubs; and
(4) corporations which support leagues and clubs by increasing gate moneys or
providing revenues through sponsorships.
In this paper, only the first group of customers, the fans, are considered. Furthermore,
only this group’s attendance at games, but not their habits of watching games on
television, consulting other media or purchasing of team-related merchandise is taken
into consideration. In line with Mason (1999), who states that the sport teams’ product
was initially solely intended to provide entertainment for spectators, the latter three are
regarded as brand extensions and are discussed in a later section of this paper in
greater detail.
Keller’s modified customer-based brand equity model. Its theoretical consistency,
intuitive comprehension and customer-oriented perspective have positioned Keller’s
customer-based brand equity-model as one of the most outstanding conceptualizations
of brand equity (n.n., 2003). We, therefore, utilize his model as a basis for our empirical
study. As we will discuss later, to operationalize the brand image component of the
customer-based brand equity-model, we follow the structure of Gladden and Funk’s
EJM (2001) proposed brand associations model in the team sport industry. Our first task,
39,5/6 however, is to operationalize the brand awareness dimension. In the context of this
study, brands in German soccer, the use of brand awareness as a component of brand
equity is somewhat problematic since the brands of the major German soccer league
are known to the majority of the German population. We believe that this difficulty is
not unique in the soccer context, but always existent when brand equity is measured in
500 product categories in which consumers are highly knowledgeable (posses high
consumer expertise) and involved, or where only a small number of suppliers exist,
such as for example in the automotive sector. Due to the small variance that can be
obtained, we think that, here, brand awareness does not provide a sound basis for
explaining brand equity. To test this proposition in the empirical section of this paper,
we will split our sample according to the amount of expertise the test persons exhibit in
the product category and analyze the brand equity model using multi-group analysis.
We measure brand awareness through an enumeration of known brands in

professional German soccer (brand recall) and through the recognition of brand
names and the familiarity with these brands (brand recognition). Specifically, we
measure active brand awareness by recall of the brand name under investigation
(by having the test person enumerate professional German soccer teams). We
acknowledge that this process is not free of flaws; however, in a context where
factors are measured directly this procedure is acceptable (Churchill, 1979; Jacoby,
1978). Passive brand awareness or brand recognition is operationalized through
two indicators: recognition of a certain professional German soccer team name and
familiarity with this soccer team.
In operationalizing the second dimension of brand equity, brand image, we follow
the suggestions by Gladden and Funk (2001). We also concur with these authors in
their decision not to integrate attitudes in their model of brand associations, since it is
assumed that the other two integral parts of brand image, attributes and benefits,
determine attitudes. This is an aspect that Keller (1993) also recognized. We do not
distinguish between Keller’s (1993) proposed three-fold benefits-functional, symbolic,
and experiential benefits-since in a sport consumption context such a distinction is not
clearly possible (Gladden and Funk, 2002). On the other hand, we follow Keller’s (1993)
suggestions to measure each brand association by a three-factor design including
strength, favorability and uniqueness. First, the strength of an association depends on
the quantity and quality of a consumer’s information reception and processing; that is,
the more a fan engages in information handling about a team, the stronger his or her
associations will be. Second, an association is believed to be favorable if a consumer
thinks positively about the matter under consideration. Applied to the sport context, a
fan has favorable brand associations if he or she, in short, likes the team. Finally, the
third component of associations is the perceived uniqueness of a brand. If a team is
perceived to be distinct from its competitors, a fan will associate the team brand as
unique. We believe that only if brand associations are operationalized by the
mentioned components all necessary facets of the construct are captured. Thus, we
follow Keller’s three-factor design.
With regard to the content of the associations, we start with the brand image model
of Gladden and Funk (2001) and modify their suggested factors to fit the German team
sport context where necessary. They identified 13 product-related attributes,
non-product-related attributes and benefits as the relevant factors in the North
American team sport setting. Product-related attributes are associated with aspects Customer-based
that are directly related to the athletic dimension of the competition, while brand equity
non-product-related attributes are concerned with further non-athletic characteristics
of the brand, such as the logo. According to Gladden and Funk’s (2001) factor
framework, we use the following indicators to model the product-related attributes in
our study: perceived current athletic success, star player(s), head coach, and
management. The latter is classified as product-related attribute because management 501
is believed to have a direct influence on the primary product, the sport competition. For
operationalizing non-product-related attributes, we use the indicators logo design,
stadium, stadium atmosphere and tradition. Here, we modified Gladden and Funk’s
(2002) factor “product delivery” to stadium atmosphere, since in the German team sport
setting the entertainment value is mainly determined by the stadium atmosphere.
To measure the benefit dimension, we largely followed Gladden and Funk’s (2002)
suggestions. We draw on the three indicators “fan identification”, “nostalgia”, and

“escape” (from daily routine) and slightly modified two indicators. Instead of using
“pride in place” we integrated “regional importance” since the relevance of a club for a
certain region seems to be of greater importance in Germany. As a substitute for “peer
group acceptance” we used “interest from family and friends” because the factor did
not produce good results in the original study. As said, all indicators are measured
with three items (favorability, strength and uniqueness), and their mean value was
used for further indicator analysis. To sum up, the conceptualization of BETS consists
of two dimensions, five factors and 16 indicators.
Empirical study and findings

Sampling and methodology. The hypothesized BETS model in German team sports was
empirically tested using survey design and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) as well as structural equation modeling. The
generated questionnaire was pre-tested by a small sample (n ¼ 14). Test persons were
given instructions to peruse the written questionnaire and indicate potential problems
in terms of clarity and understanding. This process resulted in some minor changes in
wording. The majority of items were measured on a seven-point Likert-scale with the
endpoints “totally agree” and “do not agree at all”. Data was then collected online, as
online sampling is cost effective when attempting to reach large-scale sample sizes in a
wide geographic region. Distribution of the questionnaire was supported by the
internet portal “sport1.de”, one of Germany’s most popular sport websites, which
presented a banner advertisement for and a direct link to the survey for a three-week
period. Data collection was carried out from July 2003 until the first day of the new
season in August. The summer break of the soccer league was consciously chosen to
avoid potential short-term biases of responses influenced by the respective “last
games”.
Rather than having the respondents answer the questionnaire with respect to their
favorite team, which in our view results in major biases, respondents were assigned
teams. The software used for online sampling was programmed to randomly assign
each respondent a soccer team from the 18 major German league teams of the
2003/2004 season. It was further programmed to meet our requirement of a nearly
equal distribution of respondents over teams. During the survey’s internet run,
3,392 users accessed the questionnaire and attempted to complete it. Questionnaires
EJM were screened for formal and content consistency. After these screening procedures, a
39,5/6 total database of 1,594 usable questionnaires was utilized for further analysis.
As was to be expected, the sample was dominated by male respondents, who made
up 91.6 percent of the respondents. This is hardly surprising considering soccer is a
sport predominantly favored by male fans. The average age of the sample is 28.4 years.
The sample is not entirely representative since estimates by Sportfive (2002) show that
502 27.2 percent of all stadium visitors are female and 15.7 percent are over 50 years of age.
It should be kept in mind, however, that these numbers are estimates as well. We
believe that our database serves the purpose of our study.
Multivariate analyses were performed to test the hypothesized framework of BETS.
Complex constructs are typically evaluated through a number of reliability and
validity criteria, which can be divided into those of first and second generation.
Whereas criteria of the first generation follow early methods derived from
psychometrics (Campbell, 1960; Churchill, 1979), marketing research has produced

its own method to analyze constructs more efficiently: CFA (Fornell, 1982; Homburg
and Giering, 1996). Criteria belonging to the first generation used in our study are EFA,
item-to-total-correlation (ITTC) and Cronbach’s alpha (a). These well-known criteria
cannot, however, be discussed in detail within the scope of this paper.
Model parameters are estimated with the help of CFA using LISREL (Jöreskog and
Sörbom, 1993). The reliability and validity of the measurement model is assessed
through goodness of fit (Bagozzi and Baumgartner, 1994). While global fit criteria are
used to evaluate the consistency of the measurement model as a whole, local fit criteria
test the fit of single indicators and factors (Homburg and Baumgartner, 1995; Sharma,
1996). Global fit criteria used in our study are: x2 value divided by degrees of freedom
(x 2/df ), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), Goodness-of-Fit Index
(GFI), and Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI). Additionally, we employed the
following local fit measures: indicator reliability (IR), factor loading (FL), t-value of
factor loading (t-value), factor and construct reliability (CR), as well as average
variance explained (AVE).
Team sport customer-based brand equity model. The hypothesized BETS model
consists of two dimensions, five factors and a total of 16 indicators. First, the brand
awareness dimension is analyzed through a multi-level investigation including
reliability analysis as well as EFA and CFA. EFA shows that a two-factor structure of
brand awareness is not adequate since the three items load on one factor explaining
merely 50 percent of variance, with active brand awareness being the item with the
lowest factor loading (0.59). The low reliability of the active brand awareness-indicator
is further demonstrated by its low ITTC (0.27) and low CFA factor loading (0.28) which
leads us to eliminate this indicator. The factor now achieves an acceptable reliability of
a 0.45 a-value. Two indicators of brand recognition and familiarity now measure brand
awareness.
Multivariate analyses including reliability analysis, EFA and CFA of the brand
image factors, produce very good to satisfying results. Analyses show that the regional
importance indicator cannot be assigned to the benefits factor as hypothesized, but
matches up with the indicators of the non-product-related brand attributes.
Respondents, thus, do not view regional affiliation as a benefit derived from the
consumption of team sports, but as an attribute of sport teams. Another modification of
the hypothesized structure of brand equity stems from the indicator “tradition”, which
cannot be assigned to any of the factors under investigation. We decide to eliminate Customer-based
this indicator also because tradition is highly correlated with the indicator “nostalgia”. brand equity
As reported in Table I, BETS is a construct with four factors and 14 indicators and
satisfactory goodness of fit-measures. It has to be kept in mind that goodness of fit
measures based on the sample’s normal distribution (e.g. x 2/df) have to be evaluated
with care since our data does not show normal distribution. Besides “nostalgia” with
only skewed distribution all other indicators show moderate non-normality with 503
respect to both skewness and kurtosis. LISREL offers the opportunity of using an
estimation technique appropriate for non-normally distributed data, such as the least
squares estimators. This is a procedure accepted in the literature (Homburg and
Baumgartner, 1995; Kelloway, 1998). The model results are very satisfactory using
ULS. Additionally, we tested the robustness of the proposed model in two ways. First,
bootstrapping was performed by having 100 bootstrap samples with a 50 percent
fraction of the original sample extracted. Results show that the model is stable. Second,
a solution to non-normality of the data is to normalize the variables before analysis.
Normal scores offer an effective way of normalizing a non-normally distributed
variable. Normal scores were calculated for our data using LISREL. The model was
factor analyzed using the ML-estimator. Although AGFI (¼ 0.893) now falls slightly
short of the required level of 0.9, the rest of the results verify our model. This leads us
to accept the proposed model.
The small amount of variance explained by the awareness-dimension (as
demonstrated in the fourth column of Table I) supports our notion that awareness
might not be a factor that adds a lot of value to the understanding of brand equity
when confronted with a product category that is quite well known by consumers, such
as major league soccer by German consumers. In our study, we measured consumer
expertise with the help of an index of two items (“I know a lot about the major German
soccer league”. and “My friends regard me as a soccer expert”.). An a-value of 0.90 and
the results of a x 2-test of the relationship between expertise and the number of games
the test persons had visited within the last two seasons show that the measure is
highly reliably. To further test the importance of the awareness component of BETS
we split our sample into those with low (M# 4.0 as 4 represents the median category on
a 7-point Likert scale) and high expertise (M . 4.0). As reported in Table II, we
analyzed six different CFA-models. The table lists the models in vertical order and the
factor loadings (FL) – the second-order FL of equity on awareness as well as the first
order FL of awareness on recognition and on familiarity – in horizontal order.
As the table shows, the whole sample model (M1) and the low-expertise sample
model (M2) produce good results. It has to be noted, however, that awareness
(consistent with EFA results) is the dimension of least importance as demonstrated by
a second-order FL of 0.63 compared to a FL of 0.81 to 0.85 for the other three factors in
M1. Model M3 shows CFA-results for the high expertise-group and indicates that the
model cannot be accepted due to implausible numbers according to a negative error
variance of the second-order FL. Models M4 to M6 represent multi-group analyses
(for information on multi-group analysis please refer to Steenkamp and Baumgartner,
1998) with M4 being the model without equality constraints. Here, the model also
shows illogical results with high factor loadings and small (i.e. insignificant) t-values.
The model cannot be interpreted. The total invariance model (M5) shows plausible
results; yet the model fit deteriorates dramatically due to the strict equality constraints.
EJM
504
39,5/6
Table I.
of the final
EFA and CFA-results
brand equity-structure
ITTC Alpha Factor loading AVE (EFA) CR (CFA) Indicator reliability t-value of factor loading AVE (CFA)
Factor/Item ($0.40) ($0.70) (EFA) ($ 0.50) ($0.50) ($ 0.60) (CFA) ($ 0.40) (CFA) ($1.645) ($ 0.50)
Awareness 0.45 9.56 percent 0.63 0.49

Recognition 0.37 0.91 0.16 42.80
Familiarity 0.37 0.60 0.83 9.24
Product related brand
attributes 0.82 19.58 percent 0.82 0.54
Athletic success 0.64 0.72 0.53 130.25
Star player(s) 0.69 0.75 0.57 118.42
Coach 0.68 0.79 0.55 121.00
Management 0.59 0.68 0.51 114.83
Non-product-related
brand attributes 0.82 18.38 percent 0.82 0.54
Logo 0.53 0.57 0.45 149.76
Stadium 0.72 0.85 0.58 124.31
Stadium
atmosphere 0.72 0.82 0.63 122.19
Regional
importance 0.60 0.67 0.50 118.75
Brand benefits 0.85 20.90 percent 0.85 0.59
Fan identification 0.76 0.81 0.67 91.53
Interest of family
and friends 0.67 0.79 0.48 104.52
Nostalgia 0.67 0.72 0.64 114.33
Escape 0.68 0.75 0.57 104.88
Global measures
GFI ¼ 0.990 AGFI ¼ 0.986 SRMR ¼ 0.047 x 2/df¼886.11/73
Notes: AGFI: adjusted goodness of fit index, AVE: average variance explained, CFA: confirmatory factor analysis, CR: construct reliability, EFA:
exploratory factor analysis, GFI: goodness of fit index, ITTC: item-to-total-correlation, SRMR: standardized root mean square residual
Model 1 (M1): Model 2 (M2): Model 3 (M3): Model 4 (M4): Model 5 (M5):
Whole sample Low-expertise High-expertise Multi-group: Multi-group: Model 6 (M6): Multi-group:
model sample model sample model Unconstrained model Total invariance Partially constrained
(n¼ 1,594) (n¼ 397) (n¼1,197) (low vs. high) model model DM5-M4
Second-order factor loading (awareness)

ls
(SMC) 0.63 (40) 0.68 (0.46) 1.03 (1.06)* 0.74 (0.55) 0.99 (0.99) 0.94 (0.89) 0.93 (0.87) 0.93 (0.87)
t-value 80.13 47.93 123.53 0.69 0.90 73.52 91.38 91.38
First-order factor loading (recognition)
l1
(SMC) 0.40 (0.16) 0.44 (.19) 0.50 (0.25) 0.38 (0.15) 0.52 (0.27) 0.49 (0.24) 0.32 (0.10) 0.55 (0.30)
t-value 42.79 39.46 67.05 0.69 0.90 62.63 29.27 71.79
First-order factor loading (familiarity)
l2
(SMC) 0.91 (0.83) 0.91 (0.84) 0.67 (0.44) 0.82 (0.67) 0.69 (0.48) 0.70 (0.49) 0.75 (0.56) 0.69 (0.47)
t-value 9.54 14.37 2.11 0.69 0.90 68.08 69.54 74.52
Global good-ness of fit
x2 886.11 308.89 1450.24 1411.44 1851.20 1825.99 439.76
df 73 73 73 156 174 172 18
RMSEA 0.084 0.090 0.126 0.101 0.109 0.111 ) significant
SRMR 0.0474 0.0519 0.0642 0.157 0.0746 0.0727 at ,1
GFI 0.990 0.990 0.980 0.987 0.975 0.976 percent
Note: *indicates negative error variance
Customer-based
BETS-component
Multi-group analysis
brand equity
of awareness as a
505
Table II.
EJM If only partial constraints are executed (i.e. only the second-order FL of equity on
39,5/6 awareness is constrained, M6), the model fit slightly improves; the model is still not
acceptable though. However, it can be shown that in the low-expertise group the
familiarity indicator is relatively more important than the recognition indicator
as compared to the high expertise-group (D¼ 0.43 vs. D ¼ 0.14). This finding is
consistent with the results of models M2 and M3. To sum up, in the present case of
506 German team sport, the generated BETS model consists of four factors with fourteen
indicators. Yet special care should be devoted to the awareness dimension when
researching product categories in which consumers possess a high degree of
knowledge.
This is also demonstrated in our quantitative tests for content validity. Following
the lead of Homburg and Giering (1996), we performed SEM integrating BETS and a
direct measure of brand equity. Concerning the latter, we asked respondents for their
direct opinion on the brand equity of the team under investigation. More precisely,
tests persons had to evaluate the item “(the team under investigation) is a strong
brand” on a seven-point Likert scale. Our analysis (of the whole sample model,
n¼ 1594) results in an excellent fit of both the BETS model and the model without the
awareness dimension. Path coefficients show an outstanding 0.72 (0.73) value with a
t-value of 82.40 (76.88) and an explained variance of 51.50 percent (53.00 percent). This
analysis supports both models.
A second to last step in the analysis of the quality of the brand equity model
concerns the analysis of discriminant validity. By using the Fornell/Larcker-criterion,
which call for smaller associations between indicators that are assigned to different
factors than between those that belong to the same factor, a sufficient discriminant
validity of the one-dimensional model is shown (Bagozzi et al., 1991).
Consequences of brand equity. Finally, nomological validity has to be evaluated by
integrating the brand equity construct into a superordinate theoretical framework
(Peter and Churchill, 1986). Of major interest is the relationship of brand equity to
measures of subjective company success. In our survey, we integrated measures of
purchase intention, price premiums and brand loyalty and hypothesized positive
relations with the brand equity construct. CFA confirm our hypotheses: BETS has
positive and significant effects on purchase intention (g ¼ 0.77; t-value ¼ 101.64;
SMC ¼ 0.59), price insensitivity (g ¼ 0.65; t-value ¼ 79.46; SMC ¼ 0.42) and loyalty
(g ¼ 0.75; t-value ¼ 94.94; SMC ¼ 0.56). Brand equity is, thus, a positive determinant
of such subjectively measured success criteria. Brand equity is also believed to be
positively correlated with success measures of objective means, so-called “hard facts”,
and is analyzed in the following section.
Customer-based brand equity and its impact on the economic success of

sport teams
Existing research
The small number of studies analyzing the impact of brands on the economic success
of sport teams can be categorized into those of qualitative and those of quantitative
nature. In qualitative studies authors try to describe the economic consequences of the
brand. Robinson and Miller (2003), for example, analyzed the impact of a new head
coach (Bobby Knight) of Texas Tech University’s basketball team on the team’s brand
equity and on the change of merchandise revenues, revenues from sponsorships and
attendance numbers. Mohr and Bohl (2001) identified the relevant success factors of the Customer-based
brand in an analysis of 245 sport clubs from different countries and demonstrated their brand equity
influence on revenues and profit margins. Gladden and Milne (1999), in their attempt to
quantitatively measure the consequences of brand equity, overcame the disadvantage
of qualitative studies (i.e. not showing universally valid relationships between the
variables under investigation). These authors measured the brand equity of the MLB,
NBA and NHL teams through the multiplication of stadium utilization by company 507
value (and in an alternative model by average price paid for tickets). They then divided
this value by the success in their respective leagues over a 25-year period because it is
hypothesized that a less successful team with a certain stadium utilization has a higher
brand equity than a more successful team with the same stadium utilization. Gladden
and Milne (1999) were able to show the positive impact of brand equity and of athletic
success in the leagues (measured by the percentage of games won in the last season) on
merchandise revenues.
All studies take a first step into measuring the consequences of brand equity. They
all, however, do not measure brand equity from a customer view, but according to
external data or author assessments. This seems to be problematic in a team sport
setting (Gladden et al., 1998). The operationalization of economic success, on the other
hand, appears to be valid with the exception of unadjusted revenue and profit margin
numbers. Here, TV revenues have to be subtracted since they are distributed by the
league with a key that is largely dependent on the teams’ successes.
Research design
Research units of our analysis of the impact of brand equity on objective economic
success are the same 18 professional German soccer teams whose brand equity was
identified by the aforementioned survey. Accordingly, we used the primary data
described above to assess the brand equity of the single teams, while using secondary
data for the economic and athletic success variables. Published revenue and earning
data of the single soccer teams are very rare, and the DFL only publishes aggregated
numbers on a league basis that seem to be not reliable. Economic success can therefore
not be operationalized by means of revenues, profit margins, merchandise-revenues or
revenues from sponsorships. The single indicator that seems to be of value is the
number of spectators. The use of this number also makes sense since the stadium visit
is considered the core product of the team and supposed to influence all other products
offered. It is in fact believed to be the main driver behind a brand.
We must also consider that the brand equity measure is advanced to the relevant
economic measures (i.e. a high current brand equity affects prospective economic
success) (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 2003). We, therefore, decided to delay the proposed
analysis until the end of the 2003/2004 season in order to be able to integrate the actual
numbers of spectators instead of an estimate by the team management or sport media.
With these numbers the impact of customer-based brand equity on attendance of the
major German soccer teams can be examined.
We formulate the first hypothesis to be tested as follows:
H1. Brand equity of a team positively influences the economic success of the team
measured through attendance.Athletic success is believed to influence the
economic success on a short-and long-term basis. On the one hand, success
EJM affects future sponsorship revenues, and on the other hand, it affects current
39,5/6 merchandise revenues and attendance numbers. To analyze the impact of
athletic success on economic numbers, we used the final league ranks of the
major German soccer league at the end of the 2002/2003 season. Since this
year’s league ranks are quite unexpected and surprising, we decided to use a
second figure, an expert estimate of league rank that was developed at the end
508 of the last season and published in a major German soccer journal in order to
ensure capturing the athletic potential of the teams (Kicker, 2003). We
hypothesize the following relationship:
H2. The athletic success of a team, measured by last years and expected league
rank, respectively, positively influences the economic success of the team
measured through attendance.To test the hypothesized relationships shown
below we apply linear regression analysis:

y ¼ a þ b1 * x1 þ b2 * x2
with: y¼ attendance; x1¼ customer-based brand equity; x2¼ (expected) league
rank.
Findings
To begin with, due to high multicollinerarity of the independent variables, brand
equity and athletic success, we cannot perform multivariate regression analysis.
Therefore, bivariate regression analyses must be carried out. Hypothesis H1 is
confirmed. As shown in Table III, brand equity has a high and significant effect on
attendance. More than 50 percent of variance can be explained, which is extremely
satisfying when one considers the multitude of variables that influence attendance, for
instance, stadium capacity and weather. According to the factors of the
customer-based brand equity model, it can be shown that all four – awareness,
product-related attributes, non-product-related attributes and benefits – positively
affect expected attendance. Due to multicollinearity problems, the effect has to be
analyzed separately; results are listed in Table III. It becomes clear that in German
team sport, the largest impact stems from brand awareness (b¼ 0.75, p # 0.01); the
non-product-related attributes have the second largest effect on the economic success
variable (b ¼ 0.68, p # 0.01); the product related attributes are third most important
(b ¼ 0.56, p # 0.01), however, are closely followed by the brand benefits (b ¼ 0.52,
p # 0.05). Additionally, both the league rank of the previous season and the expected
league rank show the predicted impact on fan attendance (b ¼ 2 0.70, p # 0.01 and
b ¼ 2 0.76, p # 0.01). Thus, the better the team ranking (lower rank) the higher the
team’s fan attendance is. The hypothesized influence of athletic success on attendance
and thus, hypothesis H2, can be confirmed.
Summary and implications

The present study investigated Keller’s (1993) customer-based brand equity model in
the German team sport industry – BETS. Parts of the construct’s structure followed
Gladden and Funk’s (2001) framework of brand associations in the team sport setting.
It was shown through multi-group analyses that customer-based brand equity has to
be used carefully in product categories with high overall consumer knowledge; here,
Independent variables Standardized parameter estimate t-value R2
Customer-based
brand equity
Brand equity 0.794** 5.222 0.607
Awareness 0.754** 4.590 0.541
Product-related brand attributes 0.564** 2.733 0.276
Non-product-related brand attributes 0.683** 3.744 0.434
Brand benefits 0.519* 2.431 0.224 509
League rank of previous season 20.695** – 3.486 0.443
Expected league rank 20.759** – 4.667 0.550 Table III.
Notes: Dependent variable: attendance 2003/2004. All independent variables are based on year Impact of brand equity
2003-numbers except for expected league rank, which is based on the 2003/2004 season. R 2 is adjusted and success on
for degrees of freedom; * p , 0:05; * * p , 0:01 attendance
the brand awareness dimension seems only to be a good indicator of brand equity
when consumers display variance in their knowledge. Although we performed our
analysis in the specific sport context, this is an important result for other industries
and products as well. We believe that brand awareness is a vital component of brand
equity in product categories of normally distributed consumers with respect to their
expertise and involvement. If consumers are extremely highly involved and
knowledgeable they are believed to both recall and recognize the majority of
available brands. Thus, the brand awareness dimension cannot contribute to a better
understanding of brand equity. When investigating customer-based brand equity in
such product categories we would suggest to integrate a measure of expertise into the
study in order to be able to better judge the results derived from the analysis of the
equity construct. Keller (1993) conceptualization and operationalization of the brand
image dimension, on the other hand, could mainly be confirmed.
In addition to the examination of the structure of the customer-based brand equity
model in the German team sport setting, we were able to analyze the impact of brand
equity on the economic success of sport teams. This analysis was performed twofold.
Within the customer view context we showed by causal modeling that brand equity
has a positive effect on purchase intention, price premiums and brand loyalty. To
verify these results, we turned our perspective to objective measures. For each of 18
professional German soccer teams we calculated a brand equity value (by aggregating
the individual responses over teams) and related it to economic success measured by
attendance numbers. We were able to demonstrate that brand equity rather than
athletic success has a high and significant effect on economic success. This result
illustrates the major significance of brands in the team sport setting. We, thus, confirm
Gladden and Milne (1999) results of three major North American leagues: the brand is
an important success factor for professional sport clubs. We believe that this result
holds true over leagues and countries and would welcome additional research in this
area.
Another interesting result became apparent when analyzing the single impact of the
four BETS factors as opposed to the impact of BETS as a whole. Whereas the
awareness dimension was the one explaining the least amount of variance in the BETS
measurement model, it is the one with the highest influence on the used economic
measure. For the economic success of companies, awareness thus seems to be of major
importance. Additionally, in highly symbolic and experiential product categories such
EJM as sport consumption, the non-product-related brand attributes exert a larger effect on
39,5/6 economic measures than the product-related brand attributes. This result will have to
be verified for other product categories.
Concerning the practical implications of our study for sport teams, it can be said
that teams and their management have to realize the relevance of their brand in
economic success. Consequences for other industries apply; however, they have to be
510 derived with extreme caution. For professional sport teams it can be said, that a
professional brand management is of central importance. Teams have to further
recognize the significance of the stadium visit and the individual spectators in the
stadium. Fans in the stadium are the most important group to target marketing
activities to. Brand management has to focus increasing awareness of their brands as
well as on developing strong, favorable and unique associations in the heads of their
customers. While strong brands like Bayern München or Schalke 04 have without a
doubt realized the impact of such associations, most clubs have yet to learn this lesson.
Limitations and suggestions for future research

The research reported in this manuscript has several limitations that should be
acknowledged. First of all, sample constraints have to be mentioned. Although we did
not ask test persons about their favorite German soccer team, but assigned them a
team out of the 18 major German soccer league-teams, test persons are still highly
involved in and knowledgeable about the product category under research. This can be
mainly explained through our recruitment procedure; we recruited test persons
through an advertisement banner placed on the homepage of a major German sport
portal. Implications to other industries can thus only be derived with reasonable
caution. As stated above we believe, however, that results can be carefully transferred
to industries with high involvement products and in which a number of consumers
display a large amount of knowledge, such as in the automotive or computer sector or
in service industries (e.g. banking).
Additionally, it has to be noted that the sport teams’ product was defined rather
narrowly in this study; it consisted of the teams’ offer of sport games to provide
entertainment for spectators in the stadium. We neither considered other customer
groups (e.g. corporations purchasing media rights or those sponsoring teams) nor other
demands by fans, such as watching games on television or purchasing team-related
merchandise. As Mullin et al. (2000, p.17) note: “The core game or performance is just
one element of a larger ensemble. All these elements extend the sport product beyond
the contest itself”. The game is just one part of the teams’ products and the brand
extensions should thus be given attention as well. Brand extensions can help in
creating brand equity; yet they can also represent a thread to the existing value of a
brand (Aaker and Keller, 1990). In analyzing the value of a brand extension from the
customer’s point of view, a number of relevant indicators have been identified.
Bottomley and Holden (2001) were able to show in their secondary analysis of eight
studies that the overall quality of the original brand had the highest positive effect on
consumers’ attitude toward the extension brand, followed by the complementarity of
the original and extension product classes in use. The third and fourth most important
coefficients were the transferability (i.e. the usefulness of manufacturing skills and
resources in the original product class for making the extension product) and the fact
that the extension represents a substitute to the core product. These were followed by
the difficulty (i.e. the perceived difficulty in designing and making the extension) and Customer-based
the interaction terms of quality and transferability, complementarity, and brand equity
substitutability, respectively. Similar results were obtained by van Riel et al. (2001)
in a more focused study on service brands. Additionally, they demonstrated that the
complementarity of a service plays a much larger role in a service context than in a
goods context, whereas the perceived difficulty in designing and making the extension
is much less important. 511
Sponsorships and merchandise are the most prominent brand extensions in team
sport; both are complements to the core product and the difficulty in producing the
extension is quite low. We can conclude that potential brand extensions do not
represent a huge thread to the brand equity of the parent brand, but – carrying this
thought one step further – they rather offer large opportunities for strengthening the
brand (e.g. fans wearing the team colours when attending a match facilitate a good
stadium atmosphere). However, these conclusions are rather speculative and should be
tested in future research projects.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. and Keller, K.L. (1990), “Consumer evaluations of brand extensions”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 27-41.
Ashelm, M. (2003), “Zu verkaufen!: Die Marke Beckham ist für Manchester United nicht mehr
profitabel genug (To sell! the brand ‘Beckham’ is not profitable enough any more for
Manchester United)”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, Vol. 15, p. 14.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Baumgartner, H. (1994), “The evaluation of structural equation models and
hypothesis testing”, in Bagozzi, R. (Ed.), Principles of Marketing Research, Blackwell
Business, Oxford, pp. 386-422.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. and Phillips, L.W. (1991), “Assessing construct validity in organizational
research”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-58.
Boone, L.E., Kochunny, C.M. and Wilkins, D. (1995), “Applying the brand equity concept to major
league baseball”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 33-42.
Bottomley, P.A. and Holden, S.J.S. (2001), “Do we really know how consumers evaluate brand
extensions? Empirical generalizations based on secondary analysis of eight studies”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, pp. 494-500.
Campbell, D.T. (1960), “Recommendations for APA test standards regarding construct, trait, or
discriminant validity”, American Psychologist, Vol. 15, pp. 546-53.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect
to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, pp. 81-93.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-73.
Ferrand, A. and Pages, M. (1999), “Image management in sport organisations: the creation of
value”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 Nos. 3/4, pp. 387-401.
Fornell, C. (1982), A Second Generation of Multivariate Analysis, Praeger, New York, NY.
Franck, E. (1995), Die ökonomischen Institutionen der Teamsportindustrie: Eine
Organisationsbetrachtung, (Economic institutions in the team sport industry: An
organizational perspective), Gabler, Wiesbaden.
EJM FutureBrand (2001), Global Sports Teams: Brand Values, FutureBrand, New York, NY.
39,5/6 Gladden, J.M. and Milne, G.R. (1999), “Examining the importance of brand equity in professional
sport”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 21-9.
Gladden, J.M. and Funk, D.C. (2001), “Understanding brand loyalty in professional sport:
examining the link between brand associations and brand loyalty”, International Journal
of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 67-94.
512 Gladden, J.M. and Funk, D.C. (2002), “Developing an understanding of brand associations in team
sport: empirical evidence from consumers of professional sport”, Journal of Sport
Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 54-81.
Gladden, J.M., Milne, G.R. and Sutton, W.A. (1998), “A conceptual framework for assessing brand
equity in division I college athletics”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Gladden, J.M., Irwin, R.L. and Sutton, W.A. (2001), “Managing North American major
professional sport teams in the new millennium: a focus on building brand equity”, Journal
of Sport Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 297-317.

Homburg, Ch. and Baumgartner, H. (1995), “Die Kausalanalyse als Instrument der
Marketingforschung: Eine Bestandsaufnahme (Causal modeling as an instrument for
marketing research: State of the art)”, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 65 No. 10,
pp. 1091-108.
Homburg, Ch. and Giering, A. (1996), “Konzeptualisierung und Operationalisierung komplexer
Konstrukte (Conceptualization and operationalization of complex constructs)”, Marketing
ZFP, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5-24.
Jacoby, J. (1978), “Consumer research: a state of the art review”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42,
pp. 87-96.
Jöreskog, K. and Sörbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide, Scientific Software
International, Chicago, IL.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand
Equity, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kelloway, K. (1998), Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling. A Research’s Guide,
Thousand Oaks, London.
Kicker (2003), Bundesliga 2003/2004 Special Edition, Olympia, Nürnberg.
Mason, D.S. (1999), “What is the sports product and who buys it? The marketing of professional
sports leagues”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 Nos 3/4, pp. 402-18.
Mohr, S. and Bohl, M. (2001), New Game, New Rules: The Central Levers in Successfully
Marketing Professional Sports Clubs and Associations, Roland Berger, Munich.
Mullin, B., Hardy, S. and Sutton, W. (2000), Sport Marketing, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.
Neale, W.C. (1964), “The peculiar economics of professional sports”, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
n.n. (2003), “2002 Sheth Foundation/Journal of Marketing Award”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67,
p. III.
Peter, J.P. and Churchill, G.A. (1986), “Relationships among research design choices and
psychometric properties of rating scales: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 23, pp. 1-10.
Robinson, M.J. and Miller, J.J. (2003), “Assessing the impact of Bobby Knight on the brand equity
of the Texas tech basketball program”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 56-9.
Sharma, S. (1996), Applied Multivariate Techniques, Wiley, New York, NY. Customer-based
Sportfive (2002), European Football: Markets, Events, Clubs, Media, Brands, Sportfive, Hamburg. brand equity
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Baumgartner, H. (1998), “Assessing measurement invariance in
cross-national consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25, pp. 78-90.
Swieter, D. (2002), Eine öKonomische Analyse Der Fußball-Bundesliga, (An Economic Analysis of
the Professional German Soccer League), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin.
van Riel, A.C.R., Lemmink, J. and Ouwersloot, H. (2001), “Consumer evaluations of service brand 513
extensions”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 220-31.
Further reading
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2000), Introducing LISREL: A Guide for the Uninitiated,
Sage Publications, London.
Nedungadi, P. (1990), “Recall and consumer consideration sets: influencing choice without
altering brand evaluations”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 263-76.
Sportbild (2003), “Die Bundesliga-Zuschauertabelle (The Bundesliga, professional German
soccer league, spectatorship table)”, Sportbild Statistik, Vol. 34, p. 3.
WGZ-Bank (2002), FC euro AG: Analyse der börsennotierten europäischen Fußballunter-nehmen
– Entwicklung und Chancen des deutschen Fußballmarktes (An analysis of European
soccer teams quoted on the stock markets – Developments and chances of the German
soccer market), WGZ-Bank, Düsseldorf.
This article has been cited by:
1. Dogan Unlucan. 2015. Jersey sponsors in football/soccer: the industry classification of main jersey
sponsors of 1147 football/soccer clubs in top leagues of 79 countries. Soccer & Society 16, 42-62. [CrossRef]
2. Professor Harald Dolles and Professor Sten Söderman, André Richelieu, Stéphanie Lessard. 2014. Long
gone the glory days. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal 4:4, 284-297. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
3. Akiko Arai, Yong Jae Ko, Stephen Ross. 2014. Branding athletes: Exploration and conceptualization of
athlete brand image. Sport Management Review 17, 97-106. [CrossRef]
4. Anna Gerke, Nicolas Chanavat, Maureen Benson-Rea. 2014. How can Country-of-Origin image be
leveraged to create global sporting goods brands?. Sport Management Review 17, 174-189. [CrossRef]
5. Thilo Kunkel, Jason P. Doyle, Daniel C. Funk. 2014. Exploring sport brand development strategies
to strengthen consumer involvement with the product – The case of the Australian A-League. Sport
Management Review . [CrossRef]

6. Hartmut H. Holzmüller, Carsten Cramer, Dennis C. Thom. 2014. Markenführung im Profi-Fußball.
Marketing Review St. Gallen 31, 68-83. [CrossRef]
7. Akiko Arai, Yong Jae Ko, Kyriaki Kaplanidou. 2013. Athlete brand image: scale development and model
test. European Sport Management Quarterly 13, 383-403. [CrossRef]
8. Luke L. Mao, James J. Zhang. 2013. Impact of consumer involvement, emotions, and attitude toward
Beijing Olympic Games on branding effectiveness of event sponsors. Sport, Business and Management: An
International Journal 3:3, 226-245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Mahmood Hajli, Mohammad Hajli. 2013. Organisational development in sport: co‐creation of value
through social capital. Industrial and Commercial Training 45:5, 283-288. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. André Richelieu, Michel Desbordes. 2013. Sports teams and equipment manufacturers going
international. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal 3:1, 63-77. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
11. Jens Blumrodt, Douglas Bryson, John Flanagan. 2012. European football teams' CSR engagement impacts
on customer‐based brand equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing 29:7, 482-493. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
12. Ibrahim Abosag, Stuart Roper, Daniel Hind. 2012. Examining the relationship between brand emotion
and brand extension among supporters of professional football clubs. European Journal of Marketing 46:9,
1233-1251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Vanessa Ratten. 2011. Practical implications and future research directions for international sports
management. Thunderbird International Business Review 53, 763-770. [CrossRef]
14. Vanessa Ratten, Hamish Ratten, Vanessa Ratten, Hamish Ratten. 2011. International sport marketing:
practical and future research implications. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 26:8, 614-620.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Mark P. Pritchard, Daniel C. Funk. 2010. The formation and effect of attitude importance in professional
sport. European Journal of Marketing 44:7/8, 1017-1036. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Pei-Hsuan Lee, Ching-Wen Wang. 2010. Loyalty Based Investment. Review of Pacific Basin Financial
Markets and Policies 13, 309-332. [CrossRef]
17. Vanessa Ratten, Rodoula Tsiotsou, Ilias Kapareliotis, Anastasios Panopoulos, George G. Panigyrakis. 2010.
The influence of the Olympic Games on Beijing consumers' perceptions of their city tourism development.
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 22:1, 90-100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Isabel Buil, Eva Martínez, Leslie de Chernatony. 2009. Brand Extension Effects on Brand Equity: A
Cross-National Study. Journal of Euromarketing 18, 71-88. [CrossRef]
19. Mark P. Pritchard, Daniel C. Funk, Kostas Alexandris. 2009. Barriers to repeat patronage: the impact of
spectator constraints. European Journal of Marketing 43:1/2, 169-187. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Andy Adcroft, Jon Teckman, Michael Goldman, Kate Johns. 2009. Sportainment: changing the pace of
limited‐overs cricket in South Africa. Management Decision 47:1, 124-136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Marina Mattera, Verónica BaenaThe Ball is in Your Court: 74-87. [CrossRef]
22. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Sports Marketing in the Global Marketplace 279-298. [CrossRef]
23. Verónica BaenaGetting Brand Commitment through Internet and Mobile Sports Marketing: 203-218.
[CrossRef]

Bauer 2005

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bauer 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Journal of Marketing

Downloaded on: 15 October 2014, At: 13:50 (PT)

University of Mannheim, Hirschberg, Germany

Team sport and the concept of brand equity

Customer-based brand equity in team sport

We measure brand awareness through an enumeration of known brands in

suggestions. We draw on the three indicators “fan identification”, “nostalgia”, and

Empirical study and findings

psychometrics (Campbell, 1960; Churchill, 1979), marketing research has produced

Awareness 0.45 9.56 percent 0.63 0.49

Second-order factor loading (awareness)

Customer-based brand equity and its impact on the economic success of

below we apply linear regression analysis:

Summary and implications

Limitations and suggestions for future research

of Sport Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 297-317.

Management Review . [CrossRef]

You might also like