• Save
A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM TO DETERMINE THE SPORT SPONSORSHIP RESPONSE
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM TO DETERMINE THE SPORT SPONSORSHIP RESPONSE

on

  • 1,609 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,609
Views on SlideShare
1,608
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
1

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Good work. Well thought off.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM TO DETERMINE THE SPORT SPONSORSHIP RESPONSE A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM TO DETERMINE THE SPORT SPONSORSHIP RESPONSE Presentation Transcript

  • A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM TO DETERMINE THE SPORT SPONSORSHIP RESPONSE Mine IŞIK Advisor: Assoc.Prof.Dr. Y. İlker TOPCU Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • OU TLIN E Introduction Literature review of sponsorship Literature review of marketing applications of AHP The proposed model Results Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Introduction Literature review of sponsorship Literature review of marketing applications of AHP The proposed model Results Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Agriculture Industry Services Figure 1.1 : Sectoral shares in GDP at current prices (TUIK reports- page 609) Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 1998 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Agriculture Industry Services Figure 1.1 : Sectoral shares in GDP at current prices (TUIK reports- page 609) Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 12% 10% 10% 9% 10% 10% 1998 9% 10% 0 1999 9% 2000 2001 8% 2002 8% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Agriculture Industry Services Figure 1.1 : Sectoral shares in GDP at current prices (TUIK reports- page 609) Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • 0.80 0.60 0.40 27% 27% 25% 24% 0.20 23% 22% 24% 23% 12% 22% 10% 22% 10% 21% 9% 10% 10% 1998 9% 10% 0 1999 9% 2000 2001 8% 2002 8% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Agriculture Industry Services Figure 1.1 : Sectoral shares in GDP at current prices (TUIK reports- page 609) Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • 0.80 67% 67% 68% 71% 65% 67% 69% 70% 61% 63% 67% 0.60 0.40 27% 27% 25% 24% 0.20 23% 22% 24% 23% 12% 22% 10% 22% 10% 21% 9% 10% 10% 1998 9% 10% 0 1999 9% 2000 2001 8% 2002 8% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Agriculture Industry Services Figure 1.1 : Sectoral shares in GDP at current prices (TUIK reports- page 609) Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • The general purpose of this research is to put forth a multi-criteria decision analysis approach which is used to measure the effectiveness of sports sponsorship agreements, and selection of them. Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Why “SPORTS” is so important? Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • 9.830.586.985 Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • 4.5 Billion of them watched Olympic Games in Beijing Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Introduction Literature review of sports sponsorship Literature review of marketing applications of AHP The proposed model Results Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Distr ibutio areas n of the in spo resea nsors rch hip 21% 31% Sponsorship Capabilities Core Sponsorship Objectives 26% 15% Sponsorship Selection 7% Sponsorship Effectiveness Sponsorship as a Leverage Activity Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Introduction Literature review of sports sponsorship Literature review of marketing applications of AHP The proposed model Results Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Acco cover rding to th s the e rec years o of 20 rds of We of su bject 05 to 20 b of Scien areas 10, th ce th are a e dist at s follo ribut ws; ion 4% 8% 6% 35% 9% Manufacturing Industry Environmental Management and Agriculture General Decision Problem Power and Energy Industry 11% Transportation Industry 18% Construction Industry 9% Health Marketing Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Coun try B ased Appli Distr catio ibutio ns in Mark n of AHP eting YEAR COUNTRY TOTAL 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Taiwan 5 3 14 10 20 14 66 Turkey 4 5 10 5 12 9 45 USA 2 6 6 4 1 7 26 China 1 2 2 4 1 12 22 Korea 1 1 4 1 3 11 21 Hong Kong 2 1 1 5 0 0 9 Greece 1 0 1 3 2 1 8 India 1 1 2 1 2 6 13 UK 1 2 2 0 2 1 8 TOTAL 18 21 42 33 43 61 218 Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Taiwan 5 3 14 10 20 14 Turkey 4 5 10 5 12 9 USA 2 6 6 4 1 7 China 1 2 2 4 1 12 Korea 11 4 1 3 11 India 11 2 1 2 6 Hong Kong 01 1 5 UK 01 2 2 2 1 Greece 01 1 3 2 1 Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Mark etin g App licatio 15% 7% ns 17% 29% 2% 17% 12% Selection Performance Evaluation Source Allocation Quality Risk NPD CRM Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Introduction Literature review of sports sponsorship Literature review of marketing applications of AHP The proposed model Results Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • % 15 Why AHP weighted TOPSIS? According to the researchers that are conducted between 12 the years of 2005 to 2010, 61% of AHP applications includes “integrated methods” (Sipahi and Timor, 2010). Simulation, 11 TOPSIS and GIS (Rahman et al., 2009) are the most popular methods that are integrated to AHP. 9 8 7 6 6 5 5 5 Simulation TOPSIS GIS Goal Programming DEA Delphi Method Factor Analysis Balanced Scorecard Genetic Algorithm Fuzzy Logic SWOT Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • “Sports types” that stands for the different levels of supporter involvement. The effect of the sports type on sponsorship success on basis of the following sub-criteria: Personal Liking Popularity of the Sports Type Status of the Sports Type Competitiveness Level Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • SPORTS TYPE EFFECTS Personal Liking for Popularity of the Status of the Sports Competitiveness Level Sports Type Sports Type Type DʼAstous and Bitz (1995) Coakley (2004) Coakley (2004) Akşar & Merih (2005) Crimmins and Horn (1996) Howard & Crompton (2003) Meenaghan (1991) Faed (2006) Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • “Sports types” Personal Liking for Sports Popularity of the Sports Type Status of the Sports Type Competitiveness Level Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • “Sports types” Personal Liking for Sports Popularity of the Sports Type Status of the Sports Type Competitiveness Level Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • “Sports types” Personal Liking for Sports Popularity of the Sports Type Status of the Sports Type Competitiveness Level Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • “Sports types” Personal Liking for Sports Popularity of the Sports Type Status of the Sports Type Competitiveness Level Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • “Sponsor team relation effects” that stands for the connection between the both side of sponsorship.The effect of the sponsor team relation on sponsorship success on basis of the following sub-criteria: Duration Sponsor-Team Fit Sponsor- Team Identification Financial Support Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • SPONSOR TEAM RELATION EFFECTS Duration Sponsor Team Fit Sponsor Team Identification Financial Support Wallier (2005) Martin (1994) Cornwell (2005) Meenaghan (1991) Nicholls & Roslow (1999). Cornwell& Maignan (1998) Crimmins & Horn (1996) Beech & Chadwick (2004) Sözer (2008) Gwinner (1999) Crimmins & Horn (1996) Koo, Quarterman, & Flynn (2006) Speed & Thompson (2000) Meenaghan & Shipley (1999) Fareelly, Quester & Burton (1997) Trimple & Li (2004) Zyman (2002) Gwinner (1997) Webb & Carter (2001) McDonald (1991) Ross, James & Vargas (2006) Kim (2009) Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • “Sponsor-team relation” Duration Sponsor-Team Fit Sponsor- Team Identification Financial Support Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • “Sponsor-team relation” Duration Sponsor-Team Fit Sponsor- Team Identification Financial Support Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • “Sponsor-team relation” Duration Sponsor-Team Fit Sponsor- Team Identification Financial Support Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • “Sponsor-team relation” Duration Sponsor-Team Fit Sponsor- Team Identification Financial Support Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • The sub-criteria influencing the “sponsor” effects are included to measure the customer feelings about the sponsor firm are: Attitude to Sponsor Sincerity of Sponsor Ubiquity of Sponsor Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • SPONSOR EFFECTS Attitude to Sponsor Sincerity of Sponsor Ubiquity of Sponsor Cornwell (2005) Sandler & Shani (1993) Alay (2008) Bigne (1997) Pringle & Thompson (1991) Speed & Thompson (2000) Alay (2008) Webb & Carter (2001) Sözer (2008) Pope & Voges (2000) Fareelly, Quester & Burton (1997) Laroche & Brisoux (1989) Copeland (2001) Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • The sub-criteria influencing the “sponsor” effects are included to measure the customer feelings about the sponsor firm are: Attitude to Sponsor Sincerity of Sponsor Ubiquity of Sponsor Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • The sub-criteria influencing the “sponsor” effects are included to measure the customer feelings about the sponsor firm are: Attitude to Sponsor Sincerity of Sponsor Ubiquity of Sponsor Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • The sub-criteria influencing the “sponsor” effects are included to measure the customer feelings about the sponsor firm are: Attitude to Sponsor Sincerity of Sponsor Ubiquity of Sponsor Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • The sub-criteria of the “team” criterion all of which are stands for the qualifications of team solely: Fan Strength Team On-Field Performance Popularity of Team Star Coach / Player Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • TEAM EFFECTS Fan Strength Team On-field Performance Popularity of Team Star Coach/Player Cialdini et al. (1976) Gladden & Funk (2002) Speed & Thompson (2000) Gladden & Funk (2002) Branscomb & Wann (1991) Chadwick and Thwaites (2004) Lee (2008) Coakley (2004) McDonald (1991) Walberg (2004) Meenaghan (1991) Lee (2008) Capella (2002) Lee (2008) Sherry (1998) Erdogan & Kitchen (1998) Wann & Branscomb (1993) Katz (1994) Wann & Dolan (1994) Gladden, Milne & Sutton (1998) Wann, Tucker & Schrader (1996) Wann and Branscomb (1993) Branscombe & Wann (1992) Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Fan Strength Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sponsorship Pairings Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • The Survey Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • • Composed of 61 questions including basic demographics • Both web and print • Published in newspapers and online fan sites that boosted participation Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Web Print TOTAL Distributed - 1450 Completed 537 850 Rate of eligibility Eligible 446 740 1186 47% Incomplete 497 110 TOTAL 1054 1450 2504 Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Print 489 Web 446 Male 713 Female 222 Literate 5 Primary 48 High 401 Undergrad 403 Masters 65 Doctorate 10 <=1000 460 1001 - 2000 244 2001 - 3000 113 3001 - 4000 42 4001 - 5000 15 >=5000 33 BJK 200 FB 420 GS 315 Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Introduction Literature review of sports sponsorship Literature review of marketing applications of AHP The proposed model Results Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Weight Weight Indicator Types Indicator Details Evaluation Methods (%) (%) five-point Likert scale was used to determine the importance A.1-Personal Liking for Sports 41.9 weights five-point Likert scale was used to determine the importance A.2-Popularity of the Sports Type 31.6 A-Sport Type weights 25.3 Effects five-point Likert scale was used to determine the importance A.3-Status of the Sports Type 10.8 weights A.4-Competitiveness Level 15.7 Hirfindahl Hirschman Index B.1-Duration 8.4 Information gathered from team's sponsorship statistics five-point Likert scale was used to determine the importance B.2-Sponsor-Team Fit 23.2 B-Sponsor Team weights 37.6 Relation Effects five-point Likert scale was used to determine the importance B.3-Sponsor-Team identification weights B.4-Financial Support 49.5 Information gathered from financial statistics five-point Likert scale was used to determine the importance C.1-Attitude to Sponsor 74.5 weights five-point Likert scale was used to determine the importance C-Sponsor Effects 10.7 C.2-Sincerity of Sponsor 11.1 weights five-point Likert scale was used to determine the importance C.3-Ubiquity of Sponsor 14.3 weights five-point Likert scale was used to determine the importance D.1-Fan Strength 46.1 weights D.2-Team On-Field Performance 6.9 Hirfindahl Hirschman Index D-Team Effects 26.4 five-point Likert scale was used to determine the importance D.3-Popularity of Team 36.8 weights five-point Likert scale was used to determine the importance D.4-Star Coach / Player 10.2 weights Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • A. Sport-type (25.3%) B. Sponsor-team relation (37.6%) A2. Popularity of the sports type 37.4% B1. Duration 36% A1. Personal liking for sports 25.4% B4. Financial support 27.1% A4. Competitiveness level 22.8% B2. Sponsor-team fit 19.5% A3. Status of the sports type 14.4% B3. Sponsor-team identification 17.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% C. Sponsor (10.7%) D. Team (26.4%) C1. Attitude to sponsor 63.9% D3. Popularity of team 35.8% D2. Team-on-field performance 31.1% C2. Sincerity of sponsor 18.8% D1. Fan strength 19.6% C3. Ubiquity of sponsor 17.3% D4. Star coach/player 13.5% 0% 17.5% 35% 52.5% 70% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Results of AHP Weighted TOPSIS Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Fenerbahce F - Avea 0.655 Fenerbahce BM - Ulker 0.653 Galatasaray F - Turk Telekom 0.648 Besiktas F - Cola Turka 0.597 Galatasaray BM - Cafe Crown 0.567 Fenerbahce BW - Aras Cargo 0.552 Besiktas BM - Cola Turka 0.536 Galatasaray BW - Turk Telekom 0.525 Besiktas BW - Cola Turka 0.466 0 0.175 0.350 0.525 0.700 Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Conclusion and Further Suggestions Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • In this study, the main objective is to conduct a multi criteria decision- making tool that allows managers to quantify the probable sponsorship alternatives. According to the results, in the case of sponsorship, “popularity, duration and attitude toward sponsor” encountered as key words. “Fan strength” gets relatively high ratio, which can surpass ʻubiquity, sincerity, star-coach playerʼ. Wide range of sponsorship pairings can be analysed (including art sponsorship or medical research sponsorship) Sunday, June 13, 2010
  • Thank you... Sunday, June 13, 2010