Slovenia Vs Serbia UEFA Euro 2024 Fixture Guide Every Fixture Detailed.docx
A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM TO DETERMINE THE SPORT SPONSORSHIP RESPONSE
1. A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM TO
DETERMINE THE SPORT
SPONSORSHIP RESPONSE
Mine IŞIK
Advisor:
Assoc.Prof.Dr. Y. İlker TOPCU
Sunday, June 13, 2010
2. OU
TLIN
E
Introduction
Literature review of sponsorship
Literature review of marketing applications of AHP
The proposed model
Results
Sunday, June 13, 2010
3. Introduction
Literature review of sponsorship
Literature review of marketing applications of AHP
The proposed model
Results
Sunday, June 13, 2010
4. Agriculture Industry Services
Figure 1.1 : Sectoral shares in GDP at current prices (TUIK reports- page 609)
Sunday, June 13, 2010
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
9. 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
12. 4.5 Billion of them watched Olympic
Games in Beijing
Sunday, June 13, 2010
13. Introduction
Literature review of sports sponsorship
Literature review of marketing applications of AHP
The proposed model
Results
Sunday, June 13, 2010
18. 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
19. Introduction
Literature review of sports sponsorship
Literature review of marketing applications of AHP
The proposed model
Results
Sunday, June 13, 2010
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
26. 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
27. Introduction
Literature review of sports sponsorship
Literature review of marketing applications of AHP
The proposed model
Results
Sunday, June 13, 2010
28. %
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
32. “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
33. 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
34. “Sports types”
Personal Liking for Sports
Popularity of the Sports Type
Status of the Sports Type
Competitiveness Level
Sunday, June 13, 2010
35. “Sports types”
Personal Liking for Sports
Popularity of the Sports Type
Status of the Sports Type
Competitiveness Level
Sunday, June 13, 2010
36. “Sports types”
Personal Liking for Sports
Popularity of the Sports Type
Status of the Sports Type
Competitiveness Level
Sunday, June 13, 2010
37. “Sports types”
Personal Liking for Sports
Popularity of the Sports Type
Status of the Sports Type
Competitiveness Level
Sunday, June 13, 2010
40. “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
41. 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
42. “Sponsor-team relation”
Duration
Sponsor-Team Fit
Sponsor- Team Identification
Financial Support
Sunday, June 13, 2010
43. “Sponsor-team relation”
Duration
Sponsor-Team Fit
Sponsor- Team Identification
Financial Support
Sunday, June 13, 2010
44. “Sponsor-team relation”
Duration
Sponsor-Team Fit
Sponsor- Team Identification
Financial Support
Sunday, June 13, 2010
45. “Sponsor-team relation”
Duration
Sponsor-Team Fit
Sponsor- Team Identification
Financial Support
Sunday, June 13, 2010
48. 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
49. 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
50. 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
51. 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
52. 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
55. 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
56. 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
62. • 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
63. 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
65. Introduction
Literature review of sports sponsorship
Literature review of marketing applications of AHP
The proposed model
Results
Sunday, June 13, 2010
66. 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
67. 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
69. 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
71. 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
