A Look At The Corporate Sponsorship Decision-Making Process

Kristie McCook, Douglas Turco & Roger Riley (Illinois State University)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to ascertain the process by which four corporations decide upon sport sponsorship proposals. A collective case study approach was used to examine the process of sponsorship selection involving corporate decision makers. In-depth, structured interviews with each identified executive were recorded on audiotape, and interview notes were transcribed after each interview. Content analysis was used to analyze the responses to questions posed and to illustrate the corporate decision making process.

Introduction

Sport sponsorship has become an effective marketing strategy for many corporations and an equally efective revenue producer for sport organizations during the last decade. Increased competition has created a need for businesses to find ways to differentiate their products and services from the growing number of advertisers in the market place, and to get more return for their promotional dollars (Oneal, Finch, Hamilton, & Hammonds, 1987). There are many other reasons why businesses decide to sponsor sport, such as to: (a) demonstrate good citizenship; (b) demonstrate interest in the community; © generate visibility for products and services; and, (d) generate favorable media interest and publicity (Wilkinson as cited in Ensor, 1987, p.40). Through increased visibility of the company and its products or services via sport sponsorship, most businesses anticipate, and many expect, increased product/service consumption (Turco, 1994).

  Some corporations believe that sponsorships are relatively inexpensive compared to other advertising mediums. Sport sponsorships allow businesses to distinguish themselves from the overabundance of advertisers prevalent in other forms of advertising(Oneal, Finch, Hamilton, & Hammonds, 1987). Increasing market competition and rising costs of traditional advertising mediums also have aided in the shift to sport sponsorship. "Advertisers are aiming to get more bang for their marketing bucks by sponsoring an event itself, rather than just buying 30 seconds of air time during a sports show" (Cook, Melcher, & Welling, 1987, p. 48). The International Events Group projected that North American corporations would spend $3.54 billion on sports marketing in 1996. (IEG, 1995). As the popularity of sport sponsorship has increased, so have the number of sponsorship proposals. Some companies are presented with over 100 sport sponsorship proposals annually (Shelton, 1991). The shift in advertising from traditional mediums to sport sponsorship, coupled with the increased number of sponsorship requests, has made it necessary for corporations to develop a sponsorship evaluation process.

  Sponsorship Evaluation Processes

  Different companies have created various sponsorship evaluation methods. Many of these methods, like the Anheuser-Busch Sports Sponsorship Evaluation, concentrate on post-sponsorship effectiveness. Sprint has implemented a system which includes both a pre and post evaluation (Goff, 1995). This process as been named the Sprint Sponsorship Vision Project. The system ratescertain criteria which have been weighted accordingly. Criteria include: (a) the revenue opportunities for the company; (b) the ability to integrate the product into the sporting event; © the costs of the sponsorship; (d) the exposure to the company’s target market; (e) the company image enhancement gained from the sponsorship; (f) the company’s competitive advantage gained in the market place through the sponsorship; (g) the hospitality/ entertainment opportunities for thecompany that are gained through the sponsorship; and (h) the sponsorship opportunity to show the company’s commitment to the community. Through this process, sponsorships can be evaluated and ranked in order of perceived effectiveness. Sport marketers need to be aware of the various decision making criteria in order to effectively create sponsorship proposals (Brooks, 1990).

Irwin and Asimakopoulos (1992) recommended a pre-event evaluation to sport sponsorship management. The six steps included in this model are: (a) a review of the corporate marketing plan; (b) the establishment of specific sport sponsorship objectives; © the identification and weighing of evaluation criteria; (d) the screening and selection process; (e) the implementation of the selected sponsorship; and (f) the post-event evaluation.

  Previous Studies on Sponsorship Decision Making

In Canada, Copeland (1991) conducted a study of the exchange between corporate sponsors and sport groups to gain a better understanding of the decision making process. Three groups of sport sponsors were sampled: (a) Canadian companies, (b) national government sport organizations, and © Ontario provincial sport organizations. Corporate exclusivity was the most important decision making criteria, followed by: (a) increased company/brand awareness, (b) reinforced company/brand image, (c) signage at events, (d) ability to target spectators, and (e) increased sales/trial of product/service. Of five (5) different forms of marketing, sponsorship was ranked by the surveyed companies as the least effective of all marketing and promotional tools. Their prevailing attitude was that in order to be effective, sport sponsorships should be used in conjunction with other advertising mediums (Copeland, 1991, p. 132).

  McCarville and Copeland (1994) conducted a study to better understand sport sponsorship through exchange theory. The basis of exchange theory is that both parties offer something of value to one another. Thus, both parties achieve their desired results (Blalock & Wilken, 1979). The authors indicated that sports marketers must find rewards that potential sponsors seek but can not obtain alone. Offering a variety of benefits helps to keep these relationships appealing. They concluded that sport marketers must understand what businesses are seeking in sponsorships (McCarville & Copeland, 1994). The authors also recommended that future studies use in-depth interviews of corporate executives to gain a better understanding of the criteria used to select sponsorships.

  Weppler and McCarville (1994) attempted to better understand the corporate decision making process with regard to involvement in fairs, festivals and special events. Using a qualitative approach, this research focused on corporate decision makers’ beliefs, ideas, and biases in relation to sport sponsorship. From in-depth interviews with event sponsors it was shown that buying centers or committees were very typical in the evaluation of sponsorships. Four members were common to most buying centers. Those members and the specific roles they played are described in the following paragraph. It is important to note that the members of these groups varied with the complexity of the sponsorship. For the roles played by individuals in buying centers, "Gatekeepers" were those individuals who made the decision on what and how much information as passed on to key decision makers. These individuals were the committee members who received the initial sponsorship proposal. Gatekeepers included receptionists, assistants, and even consulting firms. "Influencers" were those individuals who had some sort of connection or information regarding the sponsorship requester. Most often the influencer was outside of the buying center. Included in this group of individuals were senior managers, other company employees, or friends who had experienced past events put on by the sponsorship requester. The ultimate decision makers, or "deciders," varied depending on the level and cost of the sponsorship. Small sponsorship proposals were often referred to local or regional managers, while larger proposals were handled by the corporate staff. The final role was that of the buyer. The main responsibility of this position was to undertake negotiations with the event manager. Negotiations were undertaken to ensure that the corporations interests were being met (Weppler & McCarville, 1994, pp. 10-12). In a study involving college athletics, Stotlar and Kadlecek (1993) conducted a telephone survey of corporations involved with the NCAA tournament sponsorship program to identify the reasons corporations buy sport sponsorships. The primary reasons for sponsorship that companies revealed included: (a) the benefits of a corporate affiliation with sports, (b) access to intercollegiate athletic events, © media exposure through signage within the venue, (d) ticket access to NCAA championship events, and (e) product/service exclusivity within the sporting venue/s (pp. 33-34). Supplementary reasons included the (a) desire to increase the corporate consumer base, (b) ability to develop tie-in programs, © enhancement of the corporate image, and (d) tie-ins with the current advertising campaign.

Most of the previous research on sport sponsorship has used a quantitative approach, focusing on "what" (findings, description), rather than the "how" (how one got to what). "What" results are helpful, however, they leave researchers wondering "how" to use the information, or the process by which "what" becomes reality (Miles & Huberman, 1984, p. 230). "Understanding why corporations want to associate themselves with sports may give some clues as to how to develop ways to attract those partnerships" (Brooks, 1990, p. 60). An answer to the "how", through in-depth case studies, can lead to a more holistic understanding of the corporate sponsorship selection process. Multiple case studies give diversity to the quantitative results by focusing on the decision making process. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the process by which four corporations decide upon sport sponsorship proposals.

Method

The collective case study approach was used to examine the process of sponsorship selection. This method allowed the researchers to delve in-depth into the selection process and gain a more holistic understanding. As presented by McCracken (1988, p. 17), "... the qualitative tradition offers explanations that take us "back stage" in the culture of the question, to let us glimpse assumptions and categories that are otherwise hidden from view... It tells us what people think and do, not how many of them think and do it." This data collection method seemed most appropriate for revealing the process of sponsorship decision making and the different "players" involved.

Sample

The population for this study was limited to current or pending sponsors of Illinois State University Intercollegiate Athletics Department. At the time of the study, there were 89 current and eight (8) pending sponsors for the 1995-96 season. The criteria for inclusion in the sample included the following: (a) the company must be a current or pending (1995-1996) sponsor of Illinois StateAthletics; (b) the company must advertise regionally; (c) the decision making process must include two or more individuals; and (d) the company’s annual advertising and promotional budget must be a minimum of $100,000.

  After reviewing the possible 97 companies, 14 were determined to meet the stated criteria. Four (4) companies from the 14 were selected for the study. Reasons for selection of the four (4) companies were as follows: (a) all were currently or pending to spend at least $20,000 as sponsors of Illinois State Athletics; (b) all were known for regional sport sponsorship involvement; and finally © the companies were convenient in terms of proximity to Illinois State University, for interviewing purposes. The number of companies were limited to four due to the lengthy process of interviewing all the sponsorship decision makers in each company.

Instrumentation

A formal survey was developed by the researchers to obtain basic information regarding corporate sponsorship procedures. The company representative was asked to complete the formal Mail -back survey. The questionnaire covered two areas. Section I, supplied characteristics of each company. Information gained through these questions included, (a) target market sought, and (b) company image/position. Section II focused on each company’s advertising and sport sponsorship approach. Open-ended questions identified levels of advertising (national, regional, local), present advertising budgets, and sport sponsorship budgets. Perceived effectiveness of various advertising vehicles also were ranked. This section concentrated on sport sponsorship history and the decision making process. Finally, an open-ended question was presented to help identify members of the decision making process. This information aided the researchers with the interview process.

  An interviewer-administered questionnaire was formulated to determine the decision making processes and to identify the factors considered most important to decision makers regarding sport sponsorship. Open-ended questions were devised to help reveal, describe, and prioritize decision making criteria. Each member of the sponsorship decision making process was presented with the same questions to gain multiple perceptions across similar topic areas.

Pilot Study

The first step in the development of the both the formal survey and interview questionnaire was to conduct a pilot study. Consultations were held with sport marketing professors to assist with construction and wording of the questionnaire and interview questions. After the consultations, the survey and questionnaire were tested by a sport sponsorship decision maker for a Fortune 500 corporation. The purpose of the review was to report difficulties with the survey and interview questions, administration of the instruments, and appropriateness of the questions. Based on analysis of the comments from the pilot study, the instruments were modified accordingly.

Data Collection

The initial contact person in the decision-making process was identified for each company through a phone call by the interviewer and/or prior knowledge of company representatives. Each representative was mailed a cover letter outlining the study. Included with each letter was a formal questionnaire (and a postage paid, return envelope) which was to be completed and returned in two weeks. Upon receipt of the completed formal survey, all members of the decision making process were identified and an interview was scheduled with each over a three month period from December, 1995 through February, 1996. In-depth, structured interviewswith each identified member were recorded on audiotape, and interview notes were transcribed after each interview.

Data Analysis

Content analysis was used to profile the corporate decision making process. Answers to closed survey questions depicted a company profile for each case study. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze these closed questions. Content analysis was utilized to analyze the responses to questions posed during the interviews (Yin, 1994). Responses were categorized by the researchers then arranged in order of frequency measured. Categories for responses included (a) pre and post evaluation processes, (b) important criteria, © informational requirements, (d) preferred level of contact, and (e) ultimate company decision makers. General and specific reactions to the questions were described by the researchers. Finally, a summary statement was provided for each category.

  Results

The formal survey results were used to generate a profile for each company (See Figure 1). State Farm’s advertising and promotional budget for 1995 was $50 million. Fifty-one percent of that total was devoted to sport advertising, while 6% was specifically allocated for sponsorship. State Farm has been involved with sport sponsorship for three years and receives approximately one-hundred sponsorship proposals each year. Of those one-hundred proposals, approximately ten were from National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I schools and another ten were from Division II schools. Division I schools are those meeting NCAA operational requirements, including department budget size, number of sport offerings, arena seeting capacity. In 1994, State Farm accepted two Division I sport sponsorships. Their participation in sport sponsorship included intercollegiate, professional and amateur sport.

  Pepsi’s 1995 advertising and promotional budget was not available for publication. However, of that budget, 25% was devoted to sport advertising, while 5% was considered sponsorship dollars. Pepsi has been involved with sport sponsorship for 97 years and they receive approximately 500 sponsorship proposals annually. Of those proposals received, two (2) were NCAA Division I schools and two (2) were from Division III schools. In 1994, Pepsi accepted one Division I sponsorship. Recipients of their sport sponsorship included intercollegiate, professional, and amateur sport. Cub Foods’ 1995 advertising and promotional budget was $230,000. Of that budget, 10% was devoted to sport advertising and another 10% was considered sponsorship dollars. Cub has been involved with sport sponsorship for one year and received three sponsorship proposals in that year. Of those proposals, one (1) was from a Division I school, and that proposal was accepted. Their involvement in sport sponsorship includes intercollegiate and amateur sport.

  Pennzoil’s 1995 advertising and promotional budget was not available for publication. However, it was determined that 10% of their budget was devoted to sport advertising, with another 5% allocated for sponsorship dollars. Pennzoil has been involved with sport sponsorship for eighteen years, and they receive approximately 200 sponsorship proposals annually. Of this total, 50 were from NCAA Division I schools. In 1994, Pennzoil accepted 20 Division I sponsorship proposals. Their involvement in sport sponsorship includes intercollegiate, professional, and amateur sport.

  Each business representative was asked to list the perceived effectiveness of six (6) different advertising media. State Farm ranked television as the most effective advertising media with radio second, magazines third, newspaper fourth, direct mail fifth, and outdoor advertising sixth. Pepsi also ranked television first, and radio second. However, direct mail came in third, with outdoor advertising fourth, newspapers fifth, and magazines sixth. Cub Foods only listed three (3) of the media as being applicable to their advertising. Of those three (3), newspaper was rated first, direct mail second and radio third. Lastly, Pennzoil also ranked television as the number one form of media advertising with

  Figure 1. Company Profiles

State Farm Insurance, Bloomington, Illinois

Number of Corporate Employees - 69,801
1995 Profits - $1,258,500,000

Typical Consumer

Middle income males and females, ages 25-54, with children

Desired Image of Company

Agents seek image of professional, good neighbors who provide prompt, personal service to policy holders.
Company seeks image of a caring organization that is responsive to the needs of the customers and the public. A leader in supporting women’s sports on a collegiate, amateur and professional level.

Pepsi Cola General Bottlers

Number of Corporate Employees - 4,972
1995 Profits - $1,450,000,000

Typical Consumer

Pepsi Trademark All-Sport

Gender - Males and Females •Gender - Males, 18-34 years
Age - 12 to 34 years

Lipton Iced Tea Chippewa Water

Gender - Males and Females •Gender - Females, 18 to 49 years

Desired Image

To be the highest quality, most desirable product in each beverage category.

Cub Food, Bloomington, Illinois

Number of Local Employees - 200
1995 Profits - N/A

Typical Consumer

Gender - 70% Female, 30% Male; married, middle income

25-40 years of age, holding white collar occupations

Desired Image

A store where a person can purchase the best quality food for less money in a friendly, pleasant environment.

Pennzoil

Number of United States Employees - 9,700
1995 Profits - ($288,700,000) (loss)

Typical Consumer

1. Do It Yourself (DYI)

Males with high school education and average incomes

2. Installer Market (Individuals who service at Oil/ Lube Stores)

College educated males and females with above average incomes

Desired Image

DYI - A quality image portrayed in blue collar type setting.
Installer - A quality image portrayed through upscale promotional items.

radio second. Magazine, newspaper, outdoor advertising and direct mail followed in that order. Business representatives were also asked to rank four (4) different types of advertising and promotional vehicles (See Table 1). State Farm cited sport sponsorship as their number one form of

Table 1

Perceived Effectiveness of Certain Advertising & Promotional Vehicles

Business

Rank State Farm Pepsi Cub Food Pennzoil

1 Sport Sponsorship Merchandising Merchandising Sport Sponsorship 2 Merchandising Community Events Community Events Merchandising 3 Community Events Sport Sponsorship Sport Sponsorship Other (trade shows)

4 Non-Sport Sponsor Non-Sport Sponsor Non-Sport Sponsor

advertising and promotion. Merchandising was second, with community events third and non-sport sponsorship last. Pepsi, listed merchandising as their number one form of advertising and promotion. Community events came in second with sport sponsorship third, and non-sport sponsorship fourth. Cub Food also selected merchandising as their number one advertising and promotion, with community events as number two. Sport sponsorship was listed third, and non-sport sponsorship ranked last. Pennzoil ranked sport sponsorship and merchandising as number one and two, with "other" (trade shows) as their number three advertising and promotional vehicle.

  Each business was asked to rank seven different sport sponsorship motives, with their results depicted in Table 2. The number one motivating factor for State Farm was image enhancement. Other motivating factors were (a) increased brand awareness, (b) increased sales, (c) community goodwill, (d) generate favorable media interest, and (e) employee/sales force goodwill. Pepsi ranked increased sales as the number one motivating factor to sponsor sport. All other sponsorship criteria were ranked equally. Cub Food, like State Farm, also cited image enhancement as the number one reason they sponsor sport. Community goodwill ranked second, increased brand name awareness third, increased sales fourth, sampling opportunity fifth, generate favorable media sixth, and employee/sales force goodwill seventh. Pennzoil, as Pepsi, ranked increased sales as the number one motivation to sponsor sport. Image enhancement ranked second, with increased brand name awareness third, generate favorable media interest fourth, community goodwill fifth, employee/sales force goodwill sixth, and sampling opportunity seventh.

  Finally, the formal survey asked that each business list the approximate amount of time it takes before a sponsorship decision is reached. Pepsi takes approximately three (3) weeks to reach a sponsorship decision, State Farm and Cub Food four (4) weeks, and Pennzoil six (6) weeks.

  Table 2

Corporate Motivation to Sponsor Sport as Perceived by Decision Makers

Business

Rank State Farm Pepsi Cub Food Pennzoil

1 Image Enhancement Increase Sales Image Enhancement Increase Sales

2 Increase Brand Aware Community Goodwill Image Enhancement

3 Increase Sales Increase Brand Aware Increase Brand Aware

4 Community Goodwill Increase Sales Favorable Media

5 Favorable Media Interest Sampling Opportunity Community Goodwill

6 Employee Goodwill Favorable Media Employee Goodwill

7 N/A Employee Goodwill Sampling Opportunity

Interview Administered Questionnaire

In the formal survey, each company was asked to list the key players in the decision making process. State Farm listed the Assistant Vice President and its advertising agency representative. Pepsi listed the Director of Marketing and its Fountain Drink Manager. Cub Food listed the Store Owner, Store Manager and Assistant Store Manager. Finally, Pennzoil listed its Local Manager, and National conducted with each of these individuals. The following paragraphs outline each interview question with a comparison between each company, as well as the individuals within each company’s decision making team.

  Question #1: Does your company have a formal evaluation process for sport sponsorship proposals?

  Both State Farm representatives responded that they do not have a formal evaluation process for sponsorship proposals. However, the company does have one main objective, which is to sponsor women’s sporting events. Pepsi representatives stated that they do use a formal process for decisionmaking. This process employs a formula thatinvolves the following elements: (a) equipment and product used in the sporting venue; and (b) cost factors. These factors are then weighed against the benefits of the sponsorship. All three Cub Food representatives stated that they do not employ any type of a formal evaluation process. According to both Pennzoil representatives, their evaluation process varies depending on the nature of the proposal.

  From this question it was concluded that most companies do not employ any specific evaluation processes when considering a sponsorship proposal. Although Pepsi does use a particular formula for decisions, its application varies from situation to situation. Basically, each company considers the sponsorship, the cost, and the possible benefits and then compares these to their desired image/results. As stated by Bennet (1993, p. 18), sport sponsorships must fit with the overall position and objectives of a product. Therefore, each sponsorship can differ according to the company.

The Vice President of State Farm stated media time, signage, and national visibility as the most important factors. The DDB Needham agency representative cited the following as the most important, (a) title/ownership of event, (b) national visibility, and © broadcast visibility. Both stated the reason for the importance of the listed criteria was to increase the company’s image.

  The Pepsi decision makers all agreed that selling product at the sporting venue is the most important criteria in sport sponsorship. Status in the community, signage, and impressions are also considered, but are of less importance. The importance of the stated criteria is attributed to the company’s profit motive.

  All three Cub Food decision makers stated that signage and visibility within the community were the most important sponsorship criteria. Other criteria included (a) community goodwill and (b) free event tickets. According to all three interviewees, Cub is involved with sport sponsorship to increase their image within the community.

  Important criteria varies for Pennzoil depending on whether the sponsorship is on a local or national level. Locally, the most important factor was to drive product in that particular market. On a national level, media coverage which increases the image of Pennzoil products was of most importance. According to both interviewees, such criteria are important to Pennzoil because it increases the company image and most importantly sells product.

their sponsorship decision. As presented earlier, media coverage is of number one importance to State Farm’s sponsorship advertising. Pepsi stated that television coverage does have an influence on their sponsorship decision but is not the sole determinant. A proposal that offers television coverage would be considered more favorably than one that does not offer coverage. Cub Food responded that television coverage is not a consideration in their sponsorship decision making process. Finally, Pennzoil responded that television coverage does slightly influence their decision on a national level, but does not make a difference on a local level.

  Question #4: What informational requirements, such as costs, contracts, benefits, etc., do you prefer in a sponsorship proposal?

  Most of the respondents felt that the more information, the better. State Farm responded that demographic information and cost per thousand people reached were two important factors within a proposal. State Farm’s advertising agency representative stated that it was important to list the (a) cost, (b) contract length, and (c) most importantly, all the benefits. For Pepsi, the crucial elements of a sponsorship proposal include (a) fan attendance at the event, (b) television coverage, (c) costs, (d) length of contract, and (e) product usage within the sporting venue. Cub Food sought the following informational requirements: (a) sponsorship costs; (b) sponsorship benefits; (c) free event tickets; and (d) billing terms (payment breakdown). For Pennzoil, the informational costs, length of contract, value-added promotions, and any media coverage.

  Question #5: How much contact do you prefer a sport marketer to have with you after the initial sponsorship proposal?

  As listed in the preceding company profiles, each company takes a different amount of time to make a sponsorship decision. When asked the desired level of contact after the initial presentation, both State Farm decision makers requested 2-3 weeks. Pepsi and Cub Food requested 2 weeks, while Pennzoil stated that this contact level should be decided at the time of the initial presentation. Pennzoil also pointed out that a sport marketer who continues to call week after week can become very irritating when trying to make a decision.

  A sport marketer should understand that each company’s decision making process is different. After presenting an initial proposal, it is important to find out the desired time frame of the potential client. An initial two week follow-up is usually appropriate, however it is important to use good judgment so that the client does not feel pressured and get negative feelings about the sponsorship opportunity.  

State Farm responded that the main factor controlling a sponsorship decision was product exclusivity. In most cases, they would pay a premium to have exclusivity within a sporting venue. Budget constraints was another controlling factor. Pepsi looks for long term contracts, and exclusivity within a sporting venue. Cub Food stated costs and exclusivity as important factors. Pennzoil, however was very concerned with the costs, compared to the number of people reached.  

This question was asked to see if there was agreement between the decision makers regarding who is the final decision maker within each company. In every case, these answers all matched, except for Cub Food. Both the owner and the assistant manager cited the owner as the final decision maker, while the Cub Food store manager cited himself as the final decision maker.  

Question #8: What other individuals are involved in the decision making process and how much influence do they have on the final outcome?

Cub Food, Pepsi and Pennzoil all cited the same individuals as being involved in the decision making process. State Farm listed the Vice President of Marketing and DDB Needham Advertising Agency Representative in the formal survey, however during the interview both representatives mentioned two (2) State Farm Advertising Directors who were involved in the process. This discrepancy makes it apparent that often what one person believes regarding the sponsorship decision, may be different than another individual within that company. As a sport marketer, it is important to know who is involved in the decision process and make direct contact with them.  

When asked how each company measures the effectiveness of a sponsorship, many of the answers were rather vague. State Farm considers the audience promised and the audience delivered. A private consulting firm does research on the perception of State Farm’s involvement in sport sponsorship. According to a representative from the firm, State Farm is seeking to increase the company’s image, not necessarily sell insurance policies.  

Pepsi uses an Internal Rate of Return formula to calculate the effectiveness of their sponsorship involvement. This formula considers sales over the year, the exposure gained and whether the sponsorship met the needed requirements. After a contract expires, they consider whether it meet what was expected. If so, in most cases, Pepsi will renew the sponsorship contract.

  Cub Food measures their effectiveness through "gut feeling." According to all three individuals interviewed, the effectiveness of a sponsorship arrangement is based on their perception of the sponsorship. In most cases they are not looking to gain any immediate feedback, only an overall image enhancement. For this reason it is very difficult to measure the effectiveness accurately. It was stated that the way a sport marketer handles their account can make a great difference in their perceived effectiveness of the sponsorship. If a sport marketer is professional, attentive to the client’s needs, and makes an effort to ensure client satisfaction, Cub will most likely be pleased with the sponsorship. However, if the sport marketer was careless and not attentive to the account, Cub would perceive the sponsorship as not very effective.

  Finally, Pennzoil measures its sponsorship effectiveness by considering the media coverage received and product sales after the sponsorship. Many times they employ promotions that can be tracked, such as sweepstakes, coupons, etc. Through these particular promotions, Pennzoil can better measure their sponsorship effectiveness.

  From these answers, it was concluded that it is important for a sport marketer to service each account and make them feel comfortable about their sponsorship agreement. It is also important to be truthful about what a sport sponsorship can and cannot deliver to a business. If a sport marketer sells a business on a particular sponsorship, is attentive to the clients needs, and delivers what was promised, they can most likely look to renew that sponsorship agreement.

Conclusions

Each of the companies studied used a slightly different approach to sponsorship decision making. Large, national companies used a gatekeeper as the initial sponsorship decision maker (Weppler & McCarville, 1994). These gatekeepers were most often an advertising agency representative, who makes the decision whether or not to pass a sponsorship opportunity on to key decision makers. The key decision makers usually include the advertising department’s senior management or department heads. The ultimate decision makers depend on the level and cost of the sponsorship. Small sponsorships were often handled by local managers or an advertising director, while larger sponsorship opportunities were brought before the vice-president of the department and his/her committee. The decision making process for small, local companies differed in that decisions were made by the store owner or manager. These people were responsible for not only making the sponsorship decision, but for operating the company. Once again, the decision maker varied, depending on the size (in dollars) of the sponsorship opportunity. A small sponsorship decision would be made by the local manager. A larger, more costly decision, however, would require the inclusion of the owner of the company. These results closely matched those of the study conducted by Weppler and McCarville (1994) regarding the corporate decision making process for events and festivals. Sport marketers should seek to identify the key decision-maker when proposing a sponsorship opportunity to a business, and not deal initially with clerks or assistant managers.  

From initial meetings with a business’ decision-makers and through secondary intelligence gathering, a thorough understanding of the company’s objectives, prior to the development of the sponsorship proposal, is important to the success of the plan for a sport marketer. By gaining an understanding of each individual company, its mission and markets, a sponsorship can be developed to meet specific corporate needs. Once a proposal is accepted, client service and/or follow-up are of utmost importance in making company decision makers feel satisfied with their sponsorship decision, and hopefully in guaranteeing a renewal. Preferred client service/follow-up included occasional contact with the company representative to be sure they are happy with the sponsorship. It is important to make sure the sponsorship is running smoothly in the eyes of the client. Without follow-up, a sport marketer may find out about sponsorship problems after it is too late to make amends. Offering a client game tickets, tournament tickets and special event opportunities can help to make them feel like they are a part of the sport "team." As with any sale, it is important to build good rapport with the client and make them feel good about their decision to sponsor the sport. A sound business relationship and personal rapport with sponsor clients can be simply attained through periodic contact and correspondence. High turnover at the regional levels of some corporations makes this difficult, as the sponsorship decision-maker may change on a seemingly annual basis.

  The sport marketplace is beginning to become cluttered with sport sponsorship opportunities. For this reason, business decision makers are being forced to create pre-evaluation processes for sponsorship decisions (Ensor, 1987). It is important for sport marketers to make an effort to work with businesses to create sponsorships that mutually benefit the cooperating organizations (Stotlar & Kadlecek, 1993). It is also important for sport marketers, who are seeking corporate sponsors, to learn as much as possible about what companies look for when making sponsorship decisions.

Recommendations for Future Study

It is recommended that future qualitative research on sport sponsorship decision-making include only national or only local companies. Due to the differences between national and local companies in this study, such a study might give more accurate and conclusive results regarding the sponsorship decision making process for companies with similar geographic market scopes. A separate study completed with product oriented companies and service oriented companies might show similarities and/or differences in the decision making processes. Lastly, an examination of tournament or short-term event sponsorship might provide a comparison for the results of this study. Such a study might show similarities and/or differences between decision making for seasonal sponsorships and tournament sponsorships.

References

Blalock, H. M., & Wilken, P.H. (1979). Intergroup processes: A micro-macro perspective. New York: Free Press.  

Cook, D., Melcher, R. A., & Welling, B. (1987, August 31). Nothing sells like sports: Business pours billions into fun and games. Business Week, pp. 48-53.

  Copeland, R. P. (1991). Sport sponsorship in Canada: A study of exchange between corporate sponsors and sport groups. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.  

Irwin, R. L. & Sutton, W.A. (1994). Sport sponsorship objectives: An analysis of their relative importance for major corporate sponsors. European Journal for Sport Management, 1 (2): 93-101

Irwin, R. L., & Asimakopoulos, M. K. (1992). An approach to the evaluation and selection of sport sponsorship proposals. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 1(2), 43-51. 

McCarville, R. E., & Copeland, R. P. (1994). Understanding sport sponsorship through exchange theory. Journal of Sport Management, 102-114.

  McCracken, G. D. (1988). Culture and consumption: New approaches to the symbolic character of consumer goods and activities.

  Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement works. New York: Plenum Press.  

Shelton, C. (1991). Funding strategies for women’s sports. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 62(3), 51-54.

Stotlar, D. K., & Johnson, D. A. (1989). Assessing the impact and effectiveness of stadium advertising on sport spectators at Division I institutions. Journal of Sport Management, 3, 90-102.

Turco, D. M. (1994, December). Event sponsorship: Effects on consumer brand loyalty and consumption. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 42-45

Weppler, K. A., & McCarville, R. E. (1994). Understanding organizational buying behavior to secure sponsorship. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON.

Wilkinson, D. (1988). The Event Management and Marketing Institute. Toronto, Canada: The Event Management and Marketing Institute.