Please do not remove this page

Beyond brand exposure: measuring the

sponsorship halo effect
Vance, Leonard; Raciti, Maria; Lawley, Meredith A
https://research.usc.edu.au/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/Beyond-brand-exposure-measuring-the-sponsorship/99450929302621/filesAndLinks?index
=0

Vance, L., Raciti, M., & Lawley, M. A. (2016). Beyond brand exposure: measuring the sponsorship halo
effect. Measuring Business Excellence, 20(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-07-2015-0037
Document Type: Accepted Version

Link to Published Version: https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-07-2015-0037

UniSC Research Bank: https://research.usc.edu.au

[email protected]
Copyright © 2016 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. This article is © Emerald Group Publishing and
permission has been granted for this version to appear here. Emerald does not grant permission for this
article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Downloaded On 2024/09/17 22:35:34 +1000

Please do not remove this page

 Measuring Business Excellence
Beyond brand exposure: measuring the sponsorship halo effect.
Lenny Vance Maria M. Raciti Meredith Lawley
Article information:
To cite this document:
Lenny Vance Maria M. Raciti Meredith Lawley , (2016),"Beyond brand exposure: measuring the sponsorship halo effect.",
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 20 Iss 3 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MBE-07-2015-0037
Downloaded on: 10 July 2016, At: 19:38 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3 times since 2016*
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:393990 []
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.

 Beyond brand exposure: measuring the sponsorship halo effect

Introduction
Although sponsorship has become an ubiquitous marketing tactic, the lack of credible
methodologies for the measurement and comparison of sponsorship outcomes has been
identified as an important issue for the industry (Meenaghan and O'Sullivan, 2013).
Sponsorship occurs across different types of activities and can be undertaken for multiple
reasons (Dolphin, 2003; Mack, 1999; Quester and Thompson, 2001). For example,
sponsorship of professional sporting activities is primarily undertaken to achieve brand
awareness (Masterman, 2007) while sponsorships of activities such as amateur sport, arts
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

programs or charitable causes are generally undertaken to foster community goodwill and
enhance brand image (Mack, 1999; Quester and Thompson, 2001). This diversity in the
objectives of sponsorships creates challenges for performance comparison, particularly for
companies that develop portfolios of diverse sponsorships.
Halo effects in consumer research are defined as a tendency for a consumer’s beliefs
about one dominant brand association to influence their other beliefs about a brand
(Leuthesser et al., 1995). Sponsorship generates a halo effect through consumer awareness of,
and goodwill for, the sponsor’s support for an activity favoured by those consumers (Fahy et
al., 2002). Levels of consumer exposure to a sponsor’s brand at, for example, a sporting
activity or a charity event is a tangible construct relatively easy to measure (Cornwell et al.,
2005; Meenaghan and O'Sullivan, 2013). In contrast, any resulting halo effect is an intangible
construct and is at the core of the measurement challenges (Meenaghan and O'Sullivan,
2013).
Research shows that many sponsorship managers believe sponsorships deliver long-
term consumer based brand equity through increased awareness and improved perceptions of
their brands (Cornwell et al., 2001). Yet performance evaluation is often limited to measures
of brand exposure, namely audience reach and media coverage, leaving a critical gap between
objectives and performance measurement (Meenaghan, 2013). While there is a need to
measure the short-term tangible brand exposure from sponsorships, the focus of performance
evaluation should include the less obvious outcomes: the halo effect arising from sponsorship
awareness and goodwill.
This paper presents a methodology for measuring and comparing the halo effects of
sponsorships in a portfolio. We use a matrix that combines levels of sponsorship awareness
and goodwill. The goodwill levels are determined by comparing a sponsor’s brand attribute

1
 ratings from consumers who are aware of a sponsorship with those who are not. The potential
of the matrix for industry application is tested through archival analysis of six years of brand-
track data supplied by an Australian company that employs sponsorship as a lead marketing
tactic.

Literature review
Sponsorship overview
Sponsorship is defined as the purchase of exploitable rights associated with an activity
to achieve various marketing related objectives (IEG, 2000; Masterman, 2007). Those rights,
such as use of intellectual property and excusive access to brand ambassadors, allow the
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

sponsor to link its brand to the sponsored activity in order to conduct sponsorship-linked
marketing; this is a wide-ranging practice that incorporates other communications tactics to
achieve broader awareness of sponsor messages (Cornwell et al., 2005).
While consumer awareness of a sponsorship is an initial objective the impact of that
awareness is critical to ultimately determining a sponsorship’s success (Meenaghan, 2013).
This is because it is the purported goodwill and positive image transfer, resulting from the
perceived altruistic intentions of the support provided, that gives sponsorship an advantage
over more traditional forms of marketing communications (Dolphin, 2003; Meenaghan,
1999). In contrast, sponsorships that are perceived by consumers to be overtly commercial or
have a less than credible association can have a negative impact on the sponsor’s brand
(Fleck and Quester, 2007; Rifon et al., 2004). A misaligned sponsorship that conflicts with
social norms, or the unpredicted anti-social behaviour of a key participant (such as a
sponsored celebrity) can cause brand damage to the associated sponsors (Wilson et al., 2008).
This is particularly relevant for companies operating in mass-market situations where it is
critical to assess the halo effect (potentially negative or positive) (Polonsky and Speed, 2001).
Increased awareness of brands and an enhanced corporate image have been the
sponsorship objectives most commonly identified in academic studies (Walliser, 2003).
Sponsorships of professional sports are seen to be best suited to delivering awareness and
commercially oriented objectives as a result of higher volumes of audience and media
exposure. In contrast, sponsorship of arts or cause-related activities are more likely to be
associated with community relations objectives (Cornwell et al., 2005; Quester and
Thompson, 2001). Sponsorships for community relations are perceived by consumers to be
altruistic and, therefore, more likely to result in enhanced brand image (Mack, 1999; Quester
and Thompson, 2001). In contrast, commercially driven sponsorships are often perceived to

2
 be overtly exploitative or egotistical (Garry et al., 2008; Rowley and Williams, 2008).
However these two objectives are not mutually exclusive and it is common for companies to
establish a portfolio of sponsorships targeting multiple objectives and broader brand related
outcomes (Cornwell et al., 2001).
The literature shows there is a hierarchy of effects that may influence consumer
responses to sponsorship exposure. These include: perceptions of congruence or ‘fit’ between
the sponsor and the sponsored activity; a consumer’s relationship with both parties: and
market and management factors (Cornwell et al., 2005; Meenaghan, 2001). This study is
concerned with developing a methodology for measuring the actual outcomes of sponsorship
rather than the level of influence that such variables may have and the two variables that are
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

researched are sponsorship awareness and goodwill.

Measuring the sponsorship halo effect

Progress in sponsorship is hindered by reliance on audience and media exposure as
key performance measures, and cost per impression formulae borrowed from advertising to
determine financial values (Meenaghan, 2013; Newton, 2013). Such measurement techniques
do not consider the complex halo effect outcomes of sponsor awareness and goodwill (Ryan
and Fahy, 2012). Sponsor awareness is fundamental to generating goodwill and is commonly
regarded as a primary indicator of the sponsorship halo effect (Meenaghan, 2001). Sponsor
awareness can be measured using standard recall and recognition tests (Meenaghan, 2013).

Sponsorship goodwill arises from consumer belief that the sponsor’s investment
benefits the activity (Meenaghan, 2001) and can be expressed in consideration and purchase
of the sponsor’s products or services (Bibby, 2009; Polonsky and Speed, 2001). Therefore, it
is as important to focus on the goodwill outcomes as it is on the levels of awareness achieved
(Cahill and Meenaghan, 2013).

Consumer ratings of a brand based on a set of attributes are used in consumer research
to determine the effect that various marketing tactics have on consumer beliefs and attitudes
(Keller, 2003). Brand attributes that are reflective of a company’s image and reputation can
be impacted by sponsorship as the sponsorship may increase the consumers’ levels of
familiarity and liking for a company (Polonsky and Speed, 2001; Rifon et al., 2004).
Familiarity and liking for a brand are considered to be drivers of positive halo effect (Wilkie
et al., 1974) whereby a consumer’s preference for a brand based on one association
influences their higher ratings of that brand on other attributes (Beckwith et al., 1978).

3
 Measurement of consumer attitudes and beliefs is usually undertaken using brand-
tracking studies (Zikmund et al., 2011). These are longitudinal quantitative studies that
involve the collection of information from consumers at regular intervals. These studies
provide baseline information by which managers can monitor the strength of their brand’s
attributes and draw conclusions about the effects of marketing activities on consumer
knowledge and attitudes for their brand (Keller, 2003).
Because of the diversity of sponsorship types and objectives, there is no single
measure of sponsorship success. We propose that the halo effect, measured by combining
sponsor awareness and its goodwill impact on brand attributes, is a relevant construct for
measuring sponsorship performance. As this method involves two dimensions of
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

measurement the use of a matrix framework is an applicable method of data presentation to

facilitate comparisons of the performance of sponsorships within a company portfolio.

Sponsorship portfolio performance matrix

Marketers have used an assortment of statistical mechanisms to analyse product,
brand or business portfolios (Zikmund et al., 2011). Portfolio techniques are popular in that
they allow programs involving products or brands to be analysed in a methodical manner.
Boston Consulting Group (BCG), McKinsey & Company and others have developed
portfolio matrices to characterise and compare the performance of market alternatives (Abell
and Hammond, 1979). The approach has been to construct matrix or ‘maps’ based on two
axes that depict relevant dimensions to determine and compare positioning for subjects within
a portfolio (Kotler et al., 2013). Subjects are depicted as circles in the matrix with the area of
the circles representing their relative importance.
One of the main challenges for the use of matrix techniques is the selection of
dimensions on which to compare subjects. Perceptual maps that analyse brand positions
measure the way subjects are perceived by consumers (Kardes et al., 2008). BCG developed
the business portfolio matrix based on measures of relative market share and potential market
growth to determine the comparative performance of business units (Henderson, 1970).
Similarly, McKinsey’s GE matrix is based on the dimensions of industry attractiveness and
business unit strength (Collis et al., 1999). This paper proposes a performance evaluation
matrix for the sponsorship halo effect based on sponsorship awareness and its goodwill
impact on brand attributes (measured by comparing brand attribute ratings from consumers
who are aware of the sponsorship with those who are not).

4
 There are concerns regarding the use of sponsorship awareness as an evaluation
measure based on misrepresentation and interpretation of the influence of prompted in
comparison to unprompted awareness in survey techniques (Walshe, 2000). Nonetheless,
sponsorship awareness is a crucial antecedent for attitudes and beliefs about a sponsor to
occur. Therefore, awareness needs to be used as the primary dimension for sponsorship
evaluation. Our study is an archival analysis of existing data where prompted awareness was
used consistently across all six years of the brand tracking surveys.

Gap analysis
Measurement of sponsorship performance has been acknowledged as a deficiency in
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

the sponsorship industry (Meenaghan and O'Sullivan, 2013). The diversity of sponsorship,
the simultaneous use of other communication instruments, the influence of external factors
and the lack of agreement with regard to credible metrics are given as reasons for the
deficiency in measurement (Meenaghan and O'Sullivan, 2013; Walliser, 2003).
In conducting a comprehensive review of sponsorship studies, Walliser (2003)
identified that the largest proportion of studies concerned with the measurement of
sponsorship impact focused on awareness with only a limited number related to brand image
effects. An emphasis in recent research has been the psychological processing of sponsorship
by consumers - although awareness remains the predominant variable (Johnston and Spais,
2014). This reflects how the use of media exposure analysis as a performance measure is the
norm in sponsorship management practice (Meenaghan and O'Sullivan, 2013).
In contrast, limited research has been applied to measurement methods for
sponsorship impact on consumer perceptions related to the generation of goodwill. Bibby
(2009) was able to demonstrate positive image enhancement for the Adidas brand resulting
from sponsorship of the All Blacks rugby team during the 2003 rugby world cup. Similarly,
the effect cause-related sponsorships (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006) and arts sponsorships
(Quester and Thompson, 2001) have on a sponsor’s brand image have been examined.
Typically, these previous studies are of individual sponsorships and the examination
of sponsorship in a portfolio context has received little attention (Cornwell, 2008). The
development of a measurement matrix that accounts for both sponsorship awareness and
goodwill and compares the effects of diverse sponsorships in a portfolio will address this gap
in the literature. The objective of our study is to use historical brand track data collected by a
sponsoring organisation to develop and test such a matrix.

5
 Methodology
By utilising the two variables of sponsor awareness and goodwill, our matrix captures
the two core outcomes of sponsorships and provides a visual tool for the analysis and
comparison of sponsorships within a company portfolio. This study builds on the BCG
framework to combine the two dimensions of awareness and goodwill to quantify the
sponsorship halo effect (represented in the matrix by size of circle) and provide a holistic
measurement for sponsorship evaluation.
To test the matrix concept our study, undertaken in 2013, used historical analysis of
secondary data provided by a large Australian company that employed sponsorship as a lead
marketing tactic. Use of secondary data is a cost effective method for the initial evaluation of
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

a model that can later be tested through primary research (Aaker et al., 2004). The data
provided for our study were drawn from a longitudinal brand tracking survey conducted over
a six-year period to monitor the company’s marketing programs.

Data Collection
The subject company of our study is a government owned non-competitive supplier of
electricity to approximately 700,000 consumers spread over a large area of regional Australia.
For the purposes of this study the company supplied brand-tracking data it had collected from
2005–2010. During this period the company employed sponsorship for both commercially
oriented and community relations objectives. Six major sponsorships undertaken by the
company during the period 2005-2010 are included in our study and provide a cross-section
of sponsorship types. The sponsorships cannot be identified due to commercial
confidentiality but the study group comprised two commercially oriented sponsorships of
professional sports and four community relations oriented sponsorships (Table 1).

Table 1: Coding of sponsorships observed in the study data

Sponsorship Orientation Sponsorship Type Code
Commercially oriented Professional sport PS1

Commercially oriented Professional sport PS2

Community relations oriented Community based sport CBS1

Community relations oriented Community based sport CBS2

Community relations oriented Cause-related activity (Environment) CRA1

6
 Community relations oriented Cause-related activity (Community health) CRA2

The company commissioned a research organisation to undertake the brand-tracking

program. The principal aim of the program was to monitor the performance of the company’s
marketing and communications campaigns and to gain insights into community beliefs and
attitudes towards the company brand. The program was a quantitative study consisting of 60
weekly telephone interviews conducted across the company’s market region. Over 15,500
telephone surveys were conducted from 2005–2010, each of approximately 15 minutes in
duration. Respondents were sourced from the company’s customer base and had to be >18
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

years of age and be solely or jointly responsible for payment of their household’s utility bills
(i.e. electricity, telephone, gas, water).
During the interviews aided awareness levels of the company’s advertising,
sponsorship and other marketing and communications activity were ascertained along with
respondents’ perceptions of brand attributes. Those perceptions were measured using scales
based from 0 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree). Using this research, comparisons
could be made between the responses of those who were aware and those who were not
aware of the company’s sponsorships. The difference in the ratings was assumed to indicate
the level of goodwill generated by a sponsorship.
Being a historical analysis the researchers were only able to access data gathered
using the existing variables employed in the company’s brand track. Five of these variables
(Table 2) were selected from the data for use in our study because they were reported on
consistently throughout the data collection period, thereby providing an acceptably functional
data set. The variables were originally developed by the company’s marketing management
team and research organisation to specifically reflect the company’s five-component
corporate strategy: Customer, Safety, Network, People and Community. Each variable was
designed to measure consumer focused brand attributes that the company considered to be
strategic priorities based on qualitative research they had conducted into their customers’
expectations.

Table 2: Brand attribute variables utilised from the study data

Brand attribute Variable wording

Brand attribute 1 ‘The company is a trustworthy organisation’

7
 Brand attribute 2 ‘The company is an active participant in the local community’

Brand attribute 3 ‘The company is an innovative organisation’

Brand attribute 4 ‘The company places safety first’

Brand attribute 5 ‘The company is committed to customer service’

Analysis methodology
The data was analysed in three stages. The six sponsorships were compared based on:
(i) levels of consumer awareness of each sponsorship (expressed as a percentage of the total
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

sample); (ii) impact of awareness on the five selected brand attribute variables (expressed as
the goodwill difference in ratings from those aware versus those not aware of the
sponsorship); and (iii) a sponsorship halo effect (calculated as awareness
goodwill i.e.
impact of awareness on attributes). The results of stages (i) and (ii) are presented graphically
followed by the development of a four-quadrant matrix for stage (iii). We provide details as
to how the longitudinal data was condensed for practical analysis.
The company data were provided as annual means of both sponsorship awareness and
the impact for each of the sponsorships against each of the five brand attribute variables. To
calculate mean sponsorship awareness (SA) figures for each of the six sponsorships, the
annual awareness levels (provided as a percentage of the total annual sample) were added
together and divided by the number of years (six).
In order to calculate an overall sponsorship goodwill (SG) measure for each of the
sponsorships, the impact results for the five brand attribute variables were added together and
divided by five, thus providing a composite score. Finally, multiplying the individual
sponsorships’ awareness measures and goodwill measures gave a measure of the sponsorship
halo effect achieved by each of the sponsorships. Thus:
Sponsorship Awareness
Sponsorship Goodwill = Sponsorship Halo Effect
(SA)
(SG) = (SHE)

Results
Table 3 presents the results of this analysis for each of the sponsorships in order of
sponsorship halo effect (highest score at top) as well as sponsorship awareness and
sponsorship goodwill. The attribute scores are the mean difference in ratings for each
attribute provided by those aware and those unaware of the sponsorship.

8
 Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

Table 3: Calculation of sponsorship halo effect (SHE) from the study data
IMPACT ON

SPONSORSHIP Brand Brand Brand Brand Brand Brand SA1
SG2 = SHE3
attribute attribute attribute attribute attribute attribute
1 2 3 4 5 Mean

CRA2 0.33 0.65 0.65 0.40 0.53 0.51 29%
0.51 = 0.15

CRA1 0.53 0.93 0.38 0.63 0.60 0.61 23%
0.61 = 0.14

CBS2 0.20 0.60 0.20 0.30 0.37 0.33 23%
0.33 = 0.08

PS1 0.13 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.21 32%
0.21 = 0.07

PS2 0.07 0.53 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.18 32%
0.18 = 0.06

CBS1 0.28 0.88 0.28 0.35 0.35 0.43 5%
0.43 = 0.02

1 = Sponsorship awareness (combined annual % mean); 2 = Sponsorship goodwill (combined annual means of awareness impact on brand attributes); 3 = Sponsorship halo
effect

9
 The differences in performance based on sponsorship awareness (Figure 1) and
sponsorship goodwill (Figure 2) are compared and reveals that commercially oriented
sponsorships produced different outcomes to community relations oriented sponsorships

Figure 1: Sponsorship awareness levels

Commercial
Professional Sport
Sponsorships
32% 32%
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

29%

23% 23%

5%

PS1 PS2 CRA2 CRA1 CBS2 CBS1

Figure 2: Sponsorship goodwill levels

0.61 Commercial
Professional Sport
Sponsorships
0.51

0.43

0.33

0.21
0.18

CRA1 CRA2 CBS1 CBS2 PS1 PS2

10
 Due to the extent of media coverage of professional sport, those commercially
oriented sponsorships achieved significantly higher levels of awareness than the other
sponsorship types with the exception of CRA2 (Figure 1). This exception is attributed to the
company’s promotion of their association with CRA2 by providing consumers the
opportunity to donate to it when paying their electricity bill.
In terms of sponsorship goodwill, the data shows that all of the sponsorships had a
positive effect across all five of the brand attributes thereby providing support for the thesis
that sponsorship can generate goodwill towards a sponsor (Meenaghan, 2001). Figure 2
shows that the level of SG is highest for the community relations oriented cause-related
sponsorships, followed by the community relations oriented community based sports
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

sponsorships. SG was lowest for the commercially oriented professional sports sponsorships.
These variations in SG occured across all of the five brand attributes confirming that
community relations oriented sponsorships contribute higher levels of enhanced goodwill
than commercially oriented sponsorships (Cornwell et al., 2005; Quester and Thompson,
2001). The results support the proposition that sponsorships are more effective at generating
goodwill when provided to recipients who are viewed as ‘more needy’ and when the
intentions of the sponsorship are presented as sincere (Olson, 2010). Based on a combination
of the dimensions of SA and SG, a sponsorship that delivers higher levels of both would
intuitively be best suited to building long-term consumer based brand equity through its
larger halo effect, particularly where the sponsor is operating in a mass-market environment.
Multiplying the individual SA and SG results provides a SHE score for each of the six
sponsorships (Fig 3). These halo effect scores show that, despite the significantly higher
levels of awareness achieved by the commercially oriented professional sports sponsorships,
community relation oriented cause-related sponsorships achieve the highest halo effect due
primarily to their greater positive impact on the brand attributes.

11
 Figure 3: Sponsorship halo effect (SHE)

Cause-Related
Sponsorships
0.15
0.14

0.08
0.07
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

0.06

0.02

CRA2 CRA1 CBS2 PS1 PS2 CBS1

The study data are now presented in a matrix format (see Figure 4). SG is shown on
the Y axis and SA is depicted on the X axis. Additionally, the SHE for each of the
sponsorships is depicted by the relative sizes of the circles. There are no published studies
that determine what constitutes an adequate level of sponsorship awareness and if this is
applicable in all sponsorship contexts. A subjective median of 20% was set for this study of
the matrix based on the awareness levels consistently achieved by the sponsorships over the
six-year period. Similarly, a median of 0.4 was chosen for the goodwill measures based on
the available data. The sponsorship portfolio performance evaluation matrix is designed
therefore to be adaptable to a certain company’s context and provides an opportunity to
assess the relative performance of sponsorships within, and plan strategies for ongoing
management of, the sponsorship portfolio. A discussion of the implications of a sponsorship’s
positioning in each quadrant follows.

12
 Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

Figure 4: Sponsorship portfolio performance matrix from study data

0.80

0.70 Fledgling Eagle

sponsorships sponsorships
CRA1
0.60 SHE = 0.14

CBS1 CRA2
0.50 SHE = 0.02 SHE = 0.15

0.40

CBS2 PS1
SHE = 0.08 SHE = 0.07
0.30

Sponsorship Goodwill (SG)

0.20

Albatross Peacock
0.10 sponsorships sponsorships
PS2
SHE = 0.06

0.00
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Sponsorship Awareness (SA)

13
 Discussion
Quadrant 1 (Fig 4, top right-hand corner) depicts the highest levels of both awareness
and goodwill and is where a company should aim for its sponsorships to be positioned.
Sponsorships positioned in this quadrant have the largest bubbles based on their sponsorship
effect volume. We term sponsorships in this quadrant as ‘eagle sponsorships’. They deliver a
strong mix of high awareness and goodwill that help the brand soar to new heights.
Consumers who are aware of these sponsorships may become brand advocates for the
sponsor and having higher awareness levels creates a larger base of potential brand
advocates. In this study it was found that both of the cause-related sponsorships (CRA1 and
CRA2) were the most effective from the company’s sponsorship portfolio by achieving the
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

highest levels of halo effect.

Quadrant two (Fig 4 bottom right) could be viewed as the domain of ‘peacock
sponsorships’. The combination in this quadrant of high awareness/low goodwill means
greater numbers of consumers are aware of a sponsorship that is generating lower levels of
goodwill. This can lead to questions in consumers’ minds about the sincerity or validity of
the association and, therefore, create challenges for the sponsor’s brand. The results from this
example position both of the professional sports sponsorships in this quadrant and lead to a
number of observations. High awareness of a sponsorship alone is not the key driver of the
halo effect and, in this example, professional sport may be less capable than most other
sponsorships in building halo effects.
Professional sport, due to its tribal and sub-cultural nature (Garry et al., 2008) and
competitive context, can often polarise opinions. Consequently, although a team may enjoy
prestige in a community, an individual consumer may not have affective commitment to the
community of that team (Lings and Owen, 2007). An additional risk for professional sport
sponsorships positioned in the ‘peacock sponsorships’ quadrant occurs when the sponsored
athlete, team or code becomes embroiled in controversy that results in negative community
perceptions. Based on the higher levels of awareness associated with these sponsorships there
is greater potential for goodwill to be eroded rapidly across a larger group of consumers,
ultimately providing a negative halo effect.
Strategically, a sponsor faced with ‘peacock sponsorships’ should be reviewing the
events and activities of the sponsorship. One response is to work with the sponsorship rights
holder to develop auxiliary programs that better resonate with the consumers and the broader
community. For example, successful professional sport sponsorships should be seen to
support junior development across the code and to integrate other programs that achieve

14
 broader community development outcomes. Such programs would add depth and substance
to the sponsorship and mitigate the perceptions that the sponsorship is all about support for
elite athletes or team performance with little benefit to the broader community. The increased
levels of goodwill combined with the already high levels of awareness would enable these
sponsorships to develop into the ‘eagle sponsorships’ category.
Quadrant three (Fig 4 bottom left) is the ‘albatross sponsorships’ category. A
sponsorship that is achieving low goodwill and low public awareness scores would be a poor
venture that would require not only significant effort to generate higher goodwill (such as
with ‘peacock sponsorships’) but also an investment in promotion or leveraging to achieve
higher awareness. Hence, vital marketing budget funds could be seen to be disappearing or a
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

burden with ‘albatross sponsorships’, with little chance of an adequate halo effect return on
investment.
Quadrant four (Fig 4 top left) can be viewed optimistically as the sponsor’s ‘fledgling
sponsorships’. These sponsorships generate higher levels of goodwill but not enough
awareness. Awareness is easier (than goodwill) to generate through sponsorship leveraging as
it relates directly to promotion of the sponsor’s association with the activity. The activity
itself doesn’t necessarily need to be changed but can be developed into an ‘eagle
sponsorship’ by raising the sponsor’s profile at the activity or by using general advertising or
other forms of communications to promote both the activity and the sponsor’s involvement.

Conclusions
Managerial implications
The sponsorship portfolio performance matrix is flexible in that it can be adapted for
use by individual companies. Other relevant brand attributes could be substituted and the
medians of the matrix axis adjusted to suit the portfolio being analysed. In such a situation
the sponsorship portfolio performance matrix would be useful in monitoring an individual
company’s sponsorship-linked marketing tactics. This particular example was used to reflect
the community relations objectives of this company’s sponsorship program, we believe the
matrix could be adapted to suit sales and market share objectives of companies with more
commercially focused sponsorship programs.
Research has found that members of a successful sports team’s fan base (a sponsor’s
direct target audience) are likely to engage in sponsorship related purchasing however, this is
not necessarily the case for supporters of unsuccessful teams (Lings and Owen, 2007). The
results of our study support the broader proposition that for sponsors to achieve positive

15
 brand associations they must be perceived as a sincere enabler of activities that benefit both
the activity audience and community at large rather than just purely commercially oriented
events (Hoeffler and Keller, 2002; Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2012).
It is important for sponsors to base their sponsorship decisions on ‘transparent,
evidence-based selection procedures’ (Johnston and Paulsen, 2014, p. 653). Our study shows
a need for both broader community value and its visibility in sponsorships in order for a
substantial halo effect to be realised. Community relations oriented sponsorships, in general,
cost far less than commercially oriented sponsorships - such as those of professional sports.
Therefore, the findings of this study indicate community relations oriented sponsorships,
combined with a strategic leveraging program, would provide a larger halo effect return on
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

investment than a high cost commercially oriented sponsorship.

As more companies look to sponsorship as a means of generating goodwill towards
their brand, the managerial implications are equally important for rights holders of sponsored
activities. Professional sports could add value to their sponsorship offerings, and may
experience increased pressures from sponsors and fans alike to leverage their profiles and
lend support for community relations activities. Meanwhile, cause-related or community
service organisations could increase their levels of support from sponsors by placing greater
emphasis on the broader community perceptions that result from their activities as well as
helping to position sponsors as sincere enablers of those outcomes. As suggested by Ryan
and Fahy (2012), by focusing on the expectations and motivations of all involved in a
sponsorship network, and incorporating relationship portfolio management practices, a broad
range of objectives and opportunities can result.
Our study demonstrates that a sponsorship’s halo effect can be measured and the
sponsorship portfolio performance matrix presented is a framework through which numerous
sponsorships that comprise an organisation’s sponsorship portfolio can be compared,
evaluated and managed to meet longer-term brand equity objectives.

Limitations and future research recommendations

The volume of data collected across a six-year time scale provided a robust secondary
data set because it negated any short-term market related impacts. To the best of the authors’
knowledge there are no published studies that determine what constitutes an adequate level of
sponsorship awareness across sponsorship types, or the impact of awareness on brand
attributes. Hence the medians chosen in this example are subjective and application of the
matrix in other studies would require the calculation of germane medians. While this

16
 indicates the flexibility of the sponsorship portfolio performance matrix, testing of the matrix
across a broader spectrum of industry situations would be beneficial in developing more
indicative and broadly applicable medians.
It is also noted that the brand attribute variables used were specific to the company
used in this study and a more generic set developed from the literature would be desirable for
future application. The secondary data set supplied also lacked behavioural-based metrics
that would be useful to include for determining broader consumer based brand equity
outcomes. Similarly, other factors, such as a consumer’s relationship with the sponsored
entity and the sponsor and the perceived fit between these two entities, can determine
sponsorship effectiveness (Close and Lacey, 2013; Cornwell et al., 2005; Olson, 2010) yet
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

due to the nature of this archival analysis these factors could not be considered in this study.
Development of the sponsorship portfolio performance matrix will benefit from inclusion of
such metrics in future testing, as would the study of a broader set of sponsorships inclusive of
other sponsorship types, such as the arts and other sporting codes.
The sponsorship portfolio performance matrix developed for this study contributes a
framework to allow the sponsorship industry to assess and compare the performance of
sponsorships. It fills gaps in the literature regarding the sponsorship halo effect and
performance measurement.

17
 References
AAKER, D., KUMAR, V. & DAY, G. 2004. Marketing research, New York, John Wiley &
Sons Inc.
ABELL, D. & HAMMOND, J. 1979. Strategic market planning: problems and analytical
approaches, Englewood Cliffs, NJ., Prentice Hall.
BECKER-OLSEN, K., CUDMORE, A. & HILL, R. 2006. 'The impact of corporate social
responsibility on consumer behaviour'. Journal of Business Research, 59, 46 - 53.
BECKWITH, N., KASSARJIAN, H. & LEHMANN, D. 1978. Halo effects in marketing
research: Review and prognosis. Advances in Consumer Research, 5, 465 - 467.
BIBBY, D. 2009. 'Brand image, equity, and sports sponsorship'. Advances in Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality research, 3, 21 - 99.
CAHILL, J. & MEENAGHAN, T. 2013. 'Sponsorship at O2 - the belief that repaid'.
Psychology & Marketing, 30, 431 - 443.
CLOSE, A. & LACEY, R. 2013. Fit Matters? Asymmetrical Impact for Effectiveness on
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

Sponsors and Events Marketers. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 22, 71 - 82.

COLLIS, D. J., MONTGOMERY, C. A., CAMPBELL, A., GOOLD, M., PRAHALAD, C.
K. & LOIEBERTHAL, K. 1999. Harvard Business Review on corporate strategy,
Boston, MA., Harvard Business Press.
CORNWELL, B. 2008. 'State of the art and science in sponsorship-linked marketing'.
Journal of Advertising, 37, 41.
CORNWELL, B., ROY, D. & STEINARD, E., II. 2001. 'Exploring managers' perceptions of
the impact of sponsorship on brand equity'. Journal of Advertising, 30, 41 - 51.
CORNWELL, B., WEEKS, S. & ROY, D. 2005. 'Sponsorship-linked marketing: opening the
black box'. Journal of Advertising, 34, 21 - 42.
DOLPHIN, R. 2003. 'Sponsorship: perspectives on its strategic role'. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 8, 173 - 186.
FAHY, J., FARRELLY, F. & QUESTER, P. 2002. 'Competitive advantage through
sponsorship: a conceptual model and research propositions'. European Journal of
Marketing, 38, 1013 - 1030.
FLECK, N. & QUESTER, P. G. 2007. 'Birds of a feather flock together... definition, role and
measure of congruence: an application to sponsorship'. Psychology & Marketing, 24,
975 - 1000.
GARRY, T., BRODERICK, A. J. & LAHIFFE, K. 2008. Tribal motivation in sponsorship
and its influence on sponsor relationship development and corporate identity. Journal
of Marketing Management, 24, 959-977.
HENDERSON, B. D. 1970. The product portfolio. Perspective Series. Boston: Boston
Consulting Group.
HOEFFLER, S. & KELLER, K. L. 2002. 'Building brand equity through corporate societal
marketing'. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21, 78 - 89.
IEG 2000. Year One of the IRL Title Builds Traffic, Awareness for Northern Light. IEG
Sponsorship Report.
JOHNSTON, M. A. & PAULSEN, N. 2014. Rules of engagement: A discrete choice analysis
of sponsorship decsion making. Journal of Marketing Management, 30, 634-633.
JOHNSTON, M. A. & SPAIS, G. S. 2014. The Evolution of Scholarly Research on
Sponsorship: Expectations About the Future of this Research Domain. Journal of
Promotion Management, 20, 267 - 290.
KARDES, F., CRONLEY, M. & CLINE, T. 2008. Consumer behaviour, Mason, OH.,
Cengage Learning.
KELLER, K. L. 2003. Strategic brand management: building, measuring, and managing
brand equity, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

18
 KOTLER, P., BURTON, S., DEANS, K., BROWN, L. & ARMSTRONG, G. 2013.
Marketing, Frenchs Forrest, NSW, Pearson Australia Group.
LEUTHESSER, L., KOHLI, C. S. & HARICH, K. R. 1995. Brand equity: The halo effect
measure. European Journal of Marketing, 29, 57-66.
LINGS, I. N. & OWEN, K. M. 2007. Buying a sponsor's brand: the role of affective
commitment to the sponsored team. Journal of Marketing Management, 23, 483-496.
MACK, R. 1999. 'Event sponsorship: an exploratory study of small business objectives,
practices and perceptions'. Journal of Small Business Management, 37, 25-30.
MASTERMAN, G. 2007. Sponsorship for a return on investment, Oxford, Elsevier.
MEENAGHAN, T. 1999. 'Sponsorship and advertising: a comparison of consumer
perceptions'. Psychology and Marketing, 18, 191-215.
MEENAGHAN, T. 2001. 'Understanding sponsorship effects'. Psychology and Marketing,
18, 95 - 122.
MEENAGHAN, T. 2013. 'Measuring sponsorship performance: challenge and direction'.
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

Psychology & Marketing, 30, 385 - 398.

MEENAGHAN, T. & O'SULLIVAN, P. 2013. Metrics in Sponsorship Research - Is
Credibility an Issue? Psychology & Marketing, 30, 408 - 416.
NEWTON, L. 2013. ANA survey uncovers marketers' continuing struggle to validate
sponsorship/event marketing initiatives [Online]. New York: Association of National
Advertisers. Available: http://www.ana.net/content/show/id/28377 [Accessed 27
November 2013].
OLSON, E. L. 2010. 'Does sponsorship work in the same way in different sponsorship
contexts?'. European Journal of Marketing, 44, 180-199.
POLONSKY, M. J. & SPEED, R. 2001. 'Linking sponsorship and cause related marketing'.
European Journal of Marketing, 35, 1361 - 1385.
QUESTER, P. G. & THOMPSON, B. 2001. 'Advertising and promotion leverage on arts
sponsorship effectiveness: 1998 Adelaide Festival of the Arts'. Journal of Advertising
Research, 41, 33.
RIFON, N., CHOI, S., TRIMBLE, C. & LI, H. 2004. 'Congruence effects in sponsorship: the
mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive'.
Journal of Advertising, 33.
ROWLEY, J. & WILLIAMS, C. 2008. 'The impact of brand sponsorship of music festivals'.
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 26, 781 - 792.
RYAN, A. & FAHY, J. 2012. Evolving priorities in sponsorship: From media management to
network management. Journal of Marketing Management, 28, 1132-1158.
TORRES, A., BIJMOLT, T., TRIBO, J. & VERHOEF, P. 2012. 'Generating global brand
equity through corporate social responsibility to key stakeholders'. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 29, 13 - 24.
WALLISER, B. 2003. 'An international review of sponsorship research: extension and
update'. International Journal of Advertising, 22, 5-40.
WALSHE, P. 2000. 'What price sponsorship awareness?'. Admap.
WILKIE, W. L., MCCANN, J. M. & REIBSTEIN, D. J. 1974. Halo effects in brand belief
measurement: Implications for attitude model development. Advances in Consumer
Research, 1, 280 - 290.
WILSON, B., STAVROS, C. & WESTBERG, K. 2008. 'Player transgressions and the
management of the sport sponsor relationship'. Public Relations Review, 99-107.
ZIKMUND, W. G., WARD, S., LOWE, B., WINZAR, H. & BABIN, B. J. 2011. Marketing
research, Melbourne, Cengage Learning.

19
 Author biographies

Leonard Vance is a Doctoral Candidate in the School of Business, University of the

Sunshine Coast. Leonard’s research focuses on sponsorship evaluation. Leonard has worked
in sponsorship and events marketing practice for 20 years. Leonard’s research has been
presented at the 2013 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference and the
2014 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Doctoral Colloquium.

Maria M. Raciti, PhD. is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Business, University of the
Sunshine Coast. Maria’s main research interests are services marketing and social marketing.
Her articles have been published in journal including the European Journal of Marketing,
Australasian Journal of Marketing, Journal of Services Marketing and Journal of Consumer
Marketing.
Downloaded by University of the Sunshine Coast At 19:38 10 July 2016 (PT)

Meredith Lawley, PhD, is an Associate Professor (Marketing) at the University of the

Sunshine Coast. Meredith’s main research interests are international education and consumer
behaviour in seafood consumption. Her articles have been published in journals including the
European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Discourse and Journal of
Marketing Education.

20