Lifestyle Sponsorship 2005


Published on

The first presentation of the lifestyle sponsorship breach as market opportunity concept. The audience was not impressed that we wanted to treat football players as humans.

Reference: Dann, S & Dann, S (2005) "Lifestyle Sponsorship and Player Lifestyle Breach: Opportunity, Not Loss?" Second Australasian Nonprofit and Social Marketing Conference, Melbourne, 25 September 2005.

Available at

Published in: Economy & Finance, Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Lifestyle Sponsorship 2005

  1. 1. Lifestyle Sponsorship and Player Lifestyle Breach: Opportunity, Not Loss? Dr Stephen Dann (QUT) Dr Susan Dann (National Seniors)
  2. 2. Frameworks <ul><li>Sponsorship </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the provision of assistance either financial or in-kind to an activity by a commercial organisation for the purpose of achieving commercial objectives (Meenaghan, 1983). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The act of sponsorship is seen as two parts: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(1) an exchange between a sponsor and a sponsee whereby the latter receives a fee and the former receives rights to associate itself with the activity sponsored, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(2) the marketing of the association by the sponsor </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Gwinner (1997) framework <ul><li>Sponsorship relevance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>direct relevance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>functional based similarity </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>occurs where the sponsors products are used in the event </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Indirect relevance – </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“image-based similarity” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>match between the core values of the consumer and the values represented by the sponsors and sponsorship event </li></ul></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Lifestyle Sponsorship <ul><li>Lifestyle sponsorships </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“the provision of financial assistance, or in-kind assistance to an activity by an organisation for the purpose of promoting lifestyle or behavioural change objectives” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>core identifier of a lifestyle sponsorship is the product being promoted by the sponsorship </li></ul><ul><ul><li>is not a commercial product or service </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>is a behaviour, lifestyle change or attitude change </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Features of Lifestyle sponsorships <ul><li>Lifestyle sponsorships </li></ul><ul><ul><li>are targeted where a problem exists to be solved, rather than where a demand exists to be fulfilled or expanded. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What constitutes &quot;functional similarity&quot; for lifestyle sponsorship under Gwinner's (1997) model of sponsorship relevance? </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Problems with Lifestyle Sponsorships <ul><li>Lifestyle sponsorships </li></ul><ul><ul><li>sponsorship arrangement may carry the expectation that the lifestyle message be adopted and enforced in private activities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>restricted by the nature of the sponsor product </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>can only offer education sessions for players, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>cannot provide compliance for the team. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Related problems arise for other physical goods based lifestyle sponsorships </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>sponsees are required to behave in a restricted manner, they are not guaranteed an outcome from this behaviour. </li></ul>
  7. 7. The TAC Case Study: Lifestyle in Breach <ul><li>Core of the lifestyle sponsorship proposal is the assumption that society, as it stands, has a current problem which requires addressing. </li></ul><ul><li>Consequently, sponsorship would continue until the social goals of the campaign have been met </li></ul>
  8. 8. TAC Case
  9. 9. TAC Sponsorship <ul><li>assumption that drink driving was a social problem, and that this problem could be addressed through raising awareness and profile with the associated sponsorship. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Richmond player committed the lifestyle breach it was demonstrable proof that the campaign was still necessary. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>16 years of sponsorship, </li></ul><ul><ul><li>two incidents of road safety lifestyle breaches (2001, 2005) involving drink driving. </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Social Issue at stake <ul><li>Where a campaign is targeted at addressing a social problem (drink driving), the continuation of the campaign is based on demonstrating the continued existence of the problem. </li></ul><ul><li>The high profile breach of the lifestyle message by the Richmond player was demonstrable proof of the need to continue promoting the TAC lifestyle message. </li></ul>
  11. 11. Schema Congruity <ul><li>Sponsorship and celebrity endorsement are both heavily dependent on schema congruence for success in message transfer </li></ul><ul><li>where there is a moderate incongruity, or a partial match, this increases the amount of thought the individual puts into assessing the sponsorship message </li></ul><ul><li>the mismatch increases the recall of the sponsor message due to the stronger, more elaborate schema that is created by the additional interpretation </li></ul>
  12. 12. Three Assumptions <ul><li>the purpose of the lifestyle sponsorship was to address a social change need whereby a social problem was to be solved, limited or have attitudes toward it changed. </li></ul><ul><li>that the sponsorship arrangement is predicated on sponsees following mandated sponsor approved lifestyle choices. </li></ul><ul><li>a breach of the lifestyle sponsor mandated behaviour can be rectified by some component of the sponsor's social change product </li></ul>
  13. 13. Four steps to resolution <ul><li>Step 1: Assessing the impact of the breach </li></ul><ul><li>Step 2: Reaffirm the purpose of the Lifestyle Sponsorship Message </li></ul><ul><li>Step 3: Use schema mismatch as a basis for continuing the sponsorship in breach </li></ul><ul><li>Step 4: Endorse the lifestyle message with the sponsee who was in breach. </li></ul>
  14. 14. Step 1 <ul><li>Damage control for the lifestyle sponsor is based on the breadth of coverage, and the confusion between the sponsor message and the message sent by the action. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>media coverage emphasised the incongruity between the TAC sponsorship message and the actions of a sponsee employee </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Breach resulted in </li></ul><ul><ul><li>awareness of the sponsorship was increased, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>possible levels of recall were improved, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>uncertainty exists as to the impact on attitude towards the sponsor and the sponsor's image. </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Step 2 <ul><li>Capitalise on the sponsor image and attitudes towards the sponsors by taking control of the message incurred by the breach. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reaffirming the commitment to the sponsorship and the campaign </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Justify with proactive statements illustrating the need for the continuation of the campaign as a direct result of the breach </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Note: The breach did not demonstrate an opportunity for TAC to withdraw from the propagation of the message </li></ul>
  16. 16. Step 3 <ul><li>Create schema mismatch </li></ul><ul><ul><li>breach negatively influences the image similarity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>creates opportunity to capitalise on functional based similarity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>demonstrating the newly adopted use of the sponsor endorsed lifestyle by the sponsee in breach </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Initial reaction to a lifestyle breach is to withdraw the sponsorship due to tainting of image based similarity </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Step 4 <ul><li>Sponsee in breach endorses the new lifestyle message </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the sponsee in breach who continues to endorse </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>a non-breach lifestyle </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>breach-recovery lifestyle, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>improves their schema match with the campaign message </li></ul></ul><ul><li>By endorsing a modified version of the campaign, the sponsee in breach demonstrates </li></ul><ul><ul><li>credibility (having engaged in the negative behaviour), </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>expertise (has experienced the breach), </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>trustworthiness (voluntary admission of breach and involvement) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>empathy (has felt the emotional consequences of the breach) </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Conclusions <ul><li>By utilising both the functional and image similarity aspects of Gwinner's (1997) model for determining the relevance of the lifestyle sponsorship, the sponsor becomes less vulnerable to damage from breach. </li></ul><ul><li>However, if the sponsor only uses the image similarity relevance component, a lifestyle breach will cause irreparable damage to their message and campaign </li></ul><ul><li>Breach, and breach recovery, creates an opportunity, not a threat, for the proactive lifestyle sponsor willing to stick to their core business – addressing a social need. </li></ul>