2. 110 The Journal of Advertising
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND common and distinctive features weighted by the saliency
of these features. Objects with common salient features are
Concurrent Sponsorships seen as similar and are assigned to the same category, whereas
In concurrent sponsorships, sponsoring brands are often pre- objects with salient distinctive features are assigned to differ-
sented together to consumers through side-by-side signage or ent categories. Objects assigned to the same category become
information relayed by media about the event and its sponsors even more similar through an assimilation effect (Krueger and
(Ruth and Simonin 2003, 2006). As such, sponsoring brands Clement 1994; Tajfel 1959).
are paired together with simultaneous presentations in time Categorization theory has been applied to a number of
and space. These presentations lead consumers to associate marketing contexts. For example, in brand extensions, a new
perceptions of one sponsoring brand with their perceptions product is categorized with the parent brand because of their
of the other(s). Therefore, two concurrent sponsors ultimately shared brand name (e.g., Honda cars and Honda motorcycles).
involve a three-way image transference situation: from the This results in a transfer of image perceptions from the parent
event to sponsoring brand A, from the event to sponsoring brand to the extension product (e.g., Broniarczyk and Alba
brand B, as well as between brands A and B. Image transfer 1994; Martin, Stewart, and Matta 2005). A brand alliance is
between an event and a sponsor is evidenced by Gwinner and conceptually similar to concurrent sponsorships because in
Eaton (1999). Following their work, we assert that image both cases, the categorization process involves the association
transfer occurs when the congruency between brand images of two or more unrelated brands together. Brand alliances can
increases due to a pairing process. be referred to as “composite brand extensions” (Park, Jun, and
As noted, research pertaining to concurrent sponsorships Schocker 1996) wherein two companies with complementary
is scarce. Ruth and Simonin (2003) show that consumer atti- attribute levels cobrand a new product (e.g., Slim-Fast choco-
tudes toward the concurrent sponsoring brands have a positive late cake mix by Godiva) or “advertising alliances” (Samu,
impact on attitudes toward the sponsored event. While their Krishnan, and Smith 1999) wherein two manufacturers jointly
work highlights the positive effects of concurrent sponsor- appear in the same promotional campaign (e.g., Kellogg and
ships, it does not examine the impact of the event on the Tropicana products appearing in an advertisement). Relevant
sponsoring brands or the impact of the sponsoring brands on to the current work is the finding that brand ratings and at-
each other. Carrillat, Lafferty, and Harris (2005) do not find titudes are influenced by the association between cobrands
evidence that the effect of concurrent sponsorships is diluted (Simonin and Ruth 1998).
(i.e., the positive impact of the event on brand attitudes and
purchase intentions is not weaker vis-à-vis a solo sponsorship), Image Transfer and Contrast
but their study does not investigate how concurrent sponsors
influence each other. Ruth and Simonin (2006) examine how Central to our study is the process of brand image transfer-
the number of brands involved in concurrent sponsorships ence. The transfer of brand image is viewed as the process by
moderates the influence that inferred sponsors’ motives have which the meanings and symbols associated with one entity
on attitude toward the event. However, this study also does become associated with another entity. This effect implies that
not investigate the impact sponsors have on each other. Grohs, concurrent sponsorships allow leveraging a brand not only by
Wagner, and Vsetecka (2004) find evidence of image transfer the “borrowing” of an event’s image (Keller 2003), but also by
between an event and concurrent sponsors, but again, do the “borrowing” of concurrent sponsors’ image(s). Note that
not examine image transfer effects between sponsors. Work is image transfer occurs when the perceived congruency between
therefore necessary that addresses this issue. entities increases due to pairing.
Gwinner and Eaton (1999) examine image transfer in a solo
Categorization Theory sponsorship. Defining image congruency as the “consistency
between the event image and the brand image” (p. 53), they
Categorization theory provides the framework from which we find that the image congruency of a brand and an event is
investigate image transfer in concurrent sponsorships. Accord- greater when the brand is sponsoring the event than when the
ing to this approach, people classify stimuli into categories brand is not sponsoring the event, implying that a transfer of
that allow them to understand and treat information from their image takes place. The authors also find evidence of image con-
environment in an efficient manner (e.g., Medin, Goldstone, trast. That is, the congruency between two entities dissimilar
and Gentner 1993; Rosch and Mervis 1975). Similarity is a key to each other (e.g., the PGA Masters Tournament and Busch
issue in categorization. Individuals tend to categorize similar beer) decreases when they are paired in a solo sponsorship. In
objects together and to assign dissimilar objects to different the current study, a similar approach is adopted to capture
categories (e.g., Medin, Goldstone, and Gentner 1993). Ac- the image transfer/contrast that occurs between concurrent
cording to Tversky (1977), object similarity depends on their sponsors.
3. Summer 2010 111
Similarity Effects a familiar brand has a greater number of salient associations
compared with a less familiar brand (e.g., Fazio 1986; Kent
As noted above, Gwinner and Eaton (1999) show that the and Allen 1994; Simonin and Ruth 1998).
image congruency between an event and its sponsor increases Although the effect of brand familiarity on information
when they have a high degree of similarity, whereas when that processing and brand evaluation has been supported in previous
similarity is low, the event–sponsor congruency decreases. works (e.g., Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Hoeffler and Keller
The meaning of similarity is highly context dependent, as it 2003; Lafferty and Goldsmith 2005), the role of familiarity
requires a frame of reference, a basis on which stimuli can be as a moderator of image transfer has yet to be examined. We
assessed (Goodman 1972; Murphy and Medin 1985). note that familiarity may be conceptualized on a continuum.
In brand extension research, different bases of similarity Familiar brands are very well-known brands with which
have been evoked. Some studies rely on feature-based similarity consumers have had the highest degree of direct and indirect
(e.g., Aaker and Keller 1990), illustrated by Ivory soap extend- experience, whereas less familiar brands are relatively unfa-
ing into the shampoo category because both shampoo and soap miliar to consumers, whereby they have had less experience
have cleaning features. Other researchers refer to similarity as with them.
the degree of surprise created by the extension (Lane 2000).
Still others conceptualize similarity as the explanatory “fit”
between the parent brand and the extension category (Bridges, HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Keller, and Sood 2000). Therefore, similarity is rooted in some Image Congruency and Similarity
features of the brands (e.g., Hershey’s and Godiva both con-
tain cocoa), but it includes symbolic meanings as well (e.g., Drawing from categorization theory and previous work on
Gatorade and Nike are both associated with competitiveness) brand alliances and extensions, it is expected that when two
(Park, Milberg, and Lawson 1991). brands with similar concepts engage in concurrent sponsor-
The basis for similarity in our study is the underlying con- ships, they will be categorized together if they are both familiar
cept of the entity, that is, the brand or the event. Brand concept due to the high saliency of their common features (Aaker and
is defined as the abstract symbols associated with a brand, Keller 1990; Boush and Loken 1991; Martin and Stewart 2001;
which originate from a firm’s effort to create meanings from Simonin and Ruth 1998). That is, when consumers perceive
the brand’s features (Park, Milberg, and Lawson 1991). Thus, similarity between brands that are familiar, an assimilation ef-
brand concept similarity encompasses both feature-based and fect will occur and their images will become more congruent as
symbolic meanings, and offers a more holistic, abstract, per- a result of sponsorship pairing. In a solo sponsorship situation,
spective on similarity, which can be captured through global, only one of the brands sponsors the event and the categoriza-
or holistic, measures (Martin and Stewart 2001). Brand concept tion of both brands together does not take place. Therefore,
similarity is especially relevant for the current study because the images of the brands will not be transferred between each
sponsors can often refuse the entry of sponsors from the same other. If the brands are less familiar, they will not be subject to
product category. Therefore, concurrent sponsorships are un- categorization due to the low saliency of their images. That is,
likely to include two brands having similar product features although they possess common features, their lack of saliency
or functionalities. However, two brands with different features in consumers’ memory does not represent sufficiently strong
can be seen as similar based on their overall concepts and may stimuli to allow categorization, which will hamper image
be categorized together. For instance, Jeep and Marlboro could transfer. As such, the following hypotheses are presented:
be seen as similar due to their positioning as outdoorsy and
H1a: The image congruency between two familiar brands with
masculine.
similar concepts will be greater when both brands are concur‑
rent sponsors of an event than when one of the brands is a solo
Brand Familiarity sponsor of that event.
Brand familiarity is another important concept in image trans- H1b: The image congruency between two less familiar brands
fer processes that results from the extent to which consumers with similar concepts will not be significantly different when
experience a product or a brand in a direct (e.g., product usage) both brands are concurrent sponsors of an event compared with
or indirect (e.g., advertising) way (e.g., Alba and Hutchinson when one of the brands is a solo sponsor of that event.
1987; Kent and Allen 1994). These experiences lead consumers
to form associations (e.g., images, attitudes, beliefs) with the Image Congruency and Dissimilarity
brand, which contribute to their overall “brand knowledge”
(Campbell and Keller 2003; Keller 2003). It is important In this research, brand dissimilarity is defined as the extent to
to note that a consumer’s cognitive structure representing which the underlying concept of brands A and B are unrelated
4. 112 The Journal of Advertising
(i.e., they do not share abstract symbolic meanings). According tions imply that one or both sponsoring brand(s) was (were)
to Mandler (1982), incongruity between stimuli will result familiar, depending on the sponsorship condition (i.e., solo
in the activation of a different set of cognitive associations for versus concurrent). In the solo sponsorship conditions, concept
each stimulus, which leads to the creation of ad hoc categor- similarity refers only to the similarity between the event and
ies rather than the categorization of the two brands together. the sponsoring brand, whereas in the concurrent-sponsorships
Therefore, in concurrent sponsorships, two brands with dis- conditions, concept similarity refers to the similarity between
similar concepts will be assigned to different categories. As a the two concurrent sponsoring brands, as well as between the
consequence, and consistent with accentuation effects (Krueger brand from the corresponding solo sponsorship condition and
and Clement 1994; Tajfel 1959), the images of two familiar the event. In other words, when brands A and B are concurrent
but dissimilar brands will contrast in concurrent sponsor- sponsors of an event and the comparison condition is the solo
ships. In solo sponsorship, since only one brand is perceptually sponsorship of that event by brand A, if A and B have similar
accessible, they will not be assigned to different categories. concepts, the concept of brand A is also similar to that of the
Therefore, the brands will not be subject to accentuation and event. This ensured that event and brand image transfer were
their congruency will not be negatively affected. not confounded.
On the other hand (and consistent with H1b), less familiar To obtain a measure of image transfer between brands,
brands will not be salient enough to be subject to categoriza- the image congruency of the two sponsoring brands (i.e., in
tion (Tversky 1977). Therefore, in concurrent sponsorships, concurrent sponsorships) is compared to their image congru-
less familiar brands with dissimilar concepts are unlikely to ency when only one of the brands is a sponsor (i.e., in a solo
be assigned to different categories. As a result, accentuation sponsorship). Note that it is necessary to prevent event to
will not occur and no contrast effect will happen (Krueger and brand image transfer from influencing the image congruency
Clement 1994; Tajfel 1959). Thus: between the two brands. This potential confounding effect is
controlled through a covariance procedure that isolates image
H2a: The image congruency between two familiar brands with
transfer taking place between the two brands only.
dissimilar concepts will be lower when both brands are concur‑
rent sponsors of an event than when one of the brands is a solo
sponsor of that event. Pretests
H2b: The image congruency between two less familiar brands Two pretests were conducted to select a well-known event and
with dissimilar concepts will not be significantly different when brands with varying degrees of familiarity and similarity to one
both brands are concurrent sponsors of an event compared with another and the event. The pretested stimuli were real to make
when one of the brands is a solo sponsor of that event. sure they possessed enough meaning for consumers so that image
transfer could reasonably be assessed. As a result, “less familiar”
STUDY 1 rather than “unfamiliar” brands were pretested so that experi-
mental stimuli would have a minimum level of saliency.
An experiment was conducted to investigate fortuitous image
transfer and contrast in concurrent sponsorships. Across solo Pretest 1
and concurrent-sponsorships conditions, the degree of famil-
iarity, as well as the degree of similarity of the brands, were Thirty undergraduate students indicated how familiar they
manipulated. Two hundred and ninety-eight undergraduate were with a pool of major sporting events using a three-item,
students from a large state university took part in the study seven-point semantic differential scale (Kent and Allen 1994)
for in-class extra credit. Thirteen cases were dropped from the (very unfamiliar/very familiar; very inexperienced/very expe-
analysis due to excessive level of missing data, resulting in a rienced; not knowledgeable/very knowledgeable). The reli-
final sample size of 285, with cell sizes ranging from n = 33 ability (α = .72) and unidimensionality of this measure were
to n = 41 (average age = 23 years; 50.7% female). acceptable, and a familiarity index was calculated by averaging
the scale’s items. The Olympic Games exhibited a very high
Design and Experimental Treatments familiarity with the student population and were therefore
selected as the event (MOlympics = 5.28 versus MTour de France = 3.33;
A 2 × 2 × 2 between-subject, factorial design was conducted MFIFA World Cup Soccer = 3.52; MNBA = 4.74).
by manipulating sponsorship type (solo versus concurrent),
brand concept (similar versus dissimilar), and brand familiarity Pretest 2
(familiar versus less familiar). Solo sponsorship refers to condi-
tions in which only one of the two brand sponsors the event, Four types of brands were needed. Each type required differ-
whereas concurrent sponsorships refers to conditions in which ent characteristics in terms of their degree of familiarity and
the two brands concurrently sponsor the event. Familiar condi- concept similarity with other concurrent sponsoring brands
5. Summer 2010 113
Table 1
Brands Used in Experiment 1: Manipulation Checks of Characteristics
Propel
Fitness Red Pert Natural
Gatorade Nike Water Bull Budweiser Shampoo Light
Familiarity Familiar Familiar Less Less Familiar Less Less
familiar familiar familiar familiar
Mean familiarity 5.74 5.59 3.89 4.19 5.26 4.55 4.24
(.17) (.21) (.31) (.28) (.26) (.28) (.39)
Concept relative to Similar Similar Similar Similar Dissimilar Dissimilar Dissimilar
Olympic Games
Mean concept similarity 4.79 4.94 4.57 3.41 2.83 2.91 2.67
with Olympic Games (.29) (.21) (.26) (.23) (.21) (.27) (.29)
Concept relative to Similar Similar Similar Similar Dissimilar Dissimilar Dissimilar
other brand(s), Nike Gatorade Red Propel Gatorade Natural Pert
brand name Bull Light Shampoo
Mean concept similarity 5.29 5.29 3.71 3.71 2.74 2.52 2.52
with the other brand (.24) (.24) (.29) (.29) (1.53) (.25) (.25)
Notes: Boldface items indicate a “high” value on the characteristic considered. Standard errors are in parentheses.
as well as with the Olympics (familiar and similar; less fa- (dissimilar with the Olympics and Pert Shampoo). Ideally, an
miliar and similar; familiar and dissimilar; less familiar and eighth brand, familiar but dissimilar with the Olympics and
dissimilar; see Table 1). It was important that the similarity Budweiser, would have been included in the “familiar and
between the Olympics and the brands in a given condition dissimilar” condition with Budweiser. However, no brand cor-
matches the similarity between the brands in order to avoid responded to these criteria out of the 14 that were pretested.
confound effects. It was therefore decided to use Gatorade in the “familiar and
A first focus group with 30 undergraduate students yielded similar” as well as the “familiar and dissimilar” conditions,
30 brands relevant to them that matched the predefined char- although Gatorade is not dissimilar to the Olympic Games
acteristics. They were further reduced to 14 brands during a (it is, however, dissimilar to Budweiser; see Table 1). It is
second focus group with 57 undergraduate students. Finally, important to note that we covaried out the similarity between
30 undergraduate students rated the familiarity of the brands each of the brand’s concepts and the Olympic Games’ concept
as well as the concept similarity between each pair of brands when testing for the hypotheses involving dissimilar brands
and between each brand and the Olympic Games. in order for the relationship between the event and each brand
Event–brand concept similarity was assessed using a seven- to be homogeneous.
point Likert-type scale via the following item (Gwinner and
Eaton 1999): “The ideas I associate with [brand X] are related Procedure
to the ideas I associate with the [event Z].” The item “The ideas
I associate with [brand X] are related to the ideas I associate Each participant received a booklet with two ads and two
with [brand Y]” was used for brand–brand concept similar- articles about the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. Ads and
ity. These items measured the abstract notions respondents mock articles are often used in experimental sponsorship re-
assigned to the brands and the event consistently with Martin search (e.g., Gwinner and Eaton 1999; Johar and Pham 1999;
and Stewart’s (2001) view on the abstractness of concept Roy and Cornwell 2003). All the factors were manipulated
similarity. All the brands were then classified in a high or low between-subject; therefore, for each respondent, the two target
group on each measure with a median split. ads and the two target articles contained the same manipula-
Finally, seven brands that satisfied each brand type criteria tion. Two different media (ads and mock press articles) were
were selected for the experimental treatments (see Table 1). used as experimental treatments to make sure participants
The familiar brands were Gatorade (similar with the Olympics were cognizant of the concurrent sponsorships and because
and Nike), Nike (similar with the Olympics and Gatorade), consumers are likely to be exposed to several avenues promot-
and Budweiser (dissimilar with the Olympics and Gatorade), ing the sponsorship in a real setting. Two filler ads also ap-
while the less familiar brands were Propel Fitness water peared between the treatment ads and the articles to minimize
(similar with the Olympics and Red Bull), Red Bull (similar hypothesis guessing. The treatment ads contained the logo of
with the Olympics and Propel), Pert Shampoo (dissimilar the Olympic Games, the location, and the year (i.e., Athens
with the Olympics and Natural Light), and Natural Light 2004). These two ads contained pictures of different sporting
6. 114 The Journal of Advertising
activities that are typical of the Olympic Games’ competitions measured between each brand and the Olympic Games as a
and different statements about the Games. Each treatment ad control variable.
was identical in design and text across all conditions except
for the inclusion (or exclusion) of a sponsor(s), its name, its
Results
logo and ad copy such as: “Gatorade is a proud sponsor of the
2004 ATHENS Olympic Games.” The articles provided had Manipulation Checks
different topics; one was about the Olympic flame and the other
about the surge in the local economy due to the Games. The As shown in Table 1, the familiar brands were significantly
articles were identical across conditions except for the name(s) more familiar than the less familiar ones (t‑values ranging from
of the sponsoring brand(s) mentioned. Note that two sponsors 3.31 to 11.02; ps < .02). Also, note that among the familiar
(with their names, logos, and ad copies) were included in the brands, none was more familiar than the others (t‑values
ads and articles in the concurrent-sponsorships conditions, ranging from –.56 to –1.55; ps > .1) and that, among the less
while only one was included in the ads and articles in the solo familiar brands, the level of familiarity was homogeneous as
sponsorship conditions. well (t‑values ranging from –.11 to –1.56; ps > .1). In addi-
After viewing the ads and the articles, participants com- tion, the brands similar to the event had higher similarity
pleted scales measuring the image congruency between the ratings than the brands dissimilar to the event (t‑values rang-
brands (used for the computation of image transfer) as well as ing from 3.02 to 16.95; ps < .01), while the brands similar to
the image congruency between each brand and the Olympic the other concurrent sponsoring brand had higher similarity
Games (used as covariates to remove confounds from the event). ratings than the dissimilar brands (t‑values ranging from
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the experimental 2.58 to 7.06; ps < .01). The open-ended question revealed no
conditions and were told that the study investigated students’ hypothesis guessing.
reactions to advertisements.
Operationalization of Image Transfer
Dependent Measures
Image transfer taking place between two sponsoring brands
Image transfer and contrast both result from the same construct was operationalized as the increased holistic congruency of
of image congruency. Image transfer/contrast is determined by the brands’ images that results from both brands sponsoring
comparing the congruency between the images of two brands the same event concurrently. Therefore, holistic congruency
across sponsorship conditions. Image transfer (contrast) is between the two brands was measured in both the solo and
present when image congruency increases (decreases) in con- the concurrent-sponsorships conditions. To illustrate, the
current sponsorships compared with a solo sponsorship. Sirgy congruency between brands A and B in the condition where
et al. (1997) propose a holistic measure of image congruency only one of them is a sponsor of the Olympics is compared
that consists of a direct, global evaluation of the congruency with their congruency in the condition where both are spon-
between two entities, which is also used by Gwinner and sors of the Olympics.
Eaton (1999) in their image transfer study. We adopted this Because an event’s image can be transferred to its sponsor
approach and measured the holistic congruency between the (i.e., Gwinner and Eaton 1999), we controlled for this effect
two brands, A and B. between the Olympics and brand A or B by covarying the
Participants read a series of paragraphs like this: “Take a image transferred from the event to the brands out of the
moment to think about Brand X. Think about the various congruency between the two brands. In an analysis of covari-
images and experiences one would encounter when they used ance (ANCOVA), the adjusted means are those that would be
products/services of Brand X. Imagine Brand X in your mind obtained if the mean covariate(s) were the same in all the cells
and then describe it using several adjectives such as: exciting, (Wildt and Ahtola 1978). By holding constant the image con-
traditional, young, conservative, sexy, or whatever adjectives gruency between the event and the brands across conditions,
you think describe the image of Brand X.” One paragraph the ANCOVA isolates the increase in the image congruency
for each brand was included in the questionnaire. Then re- between two brands that is solely due to the influence the
spondents answered the following two items using a Likert- brands have on one another (i.e., fortuitous image transfer).
type scale anchored from 1 = strongly agree to 7 = strongly Therefore, an improved congruency between brands A and B
disagree: (1) “1—My image of Brand X is consistent with cannot be due to an increased congruency between brand A
my image of brand Y,” and (2) “2—How I see Brand X is and the event or brand B and the event. Note that a smaller
similar to how I see Brand Y.” A smaller score indicates less adjusted holistic congruency mean score in the concurrent-
discrepancy between the images of the brands and, therefore, sponsorships condition than in the solo sponsorship condition
greater image congruency. Holistic congruency was also indicates image transfer.
7. Summer 2010 115
Table 2
Experiment 1: Raw and Adjusted Mean Holistic Congruency Between Pairs of Brands
as a Function of Sponsorship Type, Concept Similarity, and Brand Familiarity
Similar brand concept Dissimilar brand concept
Raw means Adjusted means Raw means Adjusted means
Solo Concurrent Solo Concurrent Solo Concurrent Solo Concurrent
Familiar 5.83 3.53 5.66 3.61 5.34 5.84 4.94 6.18
brands (.25) (.27) (.25) (.24) (.21) (.20) (.25) (.23)
Less familiar 4.91 4.43 4.97 4.37 4.98 5.31 5.02 5.26
brands (.28) (.28) (.26) (.25) (.24) (.27) (.25) (.25)
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
In the dissimilar concept conditions, the possibility that a directional F‑tests, setting p = 2(α) in all the ANCOVAs
contrast effect occurring between the brands could be due to (Keppel 1982). In the analyses of directional hypotheses,
the different concept similarity they exhibit with the event significance was therefore set at p = 2(.05) = .10 (i.e., halved
cannot be ruled out (e.g., Gatorade and Budweiser have dif- p‑values are reported).
ferent brand concepts, but Gatorade is similar to the event
whereas Budweiser is dissimilar to the event). Therefore,
Hypothesis 1: Similar Concepts. The image congruency between
concept similarity between the event and both brands was
two familiar brands with similar concepts (Gatorade and Nike)
controlled in the dissimilar concept conditions by including
was expected to increase due to their concurrent sponsorships
these measures as additional covariates in the analyses.
of the Olympic Games. The holistic image measure indicated
The two items of the holistic image measure had an ac-
that congruency was greater when both Gatorade and Nike
ceptable level of internal consistency (r = .82), and they were
sponsored the Olympic Games than when only Gatorade was a
averaged to compute a congruency index that was entered into
sponsor, Mconcurrent = 3.61 versus Msolo = 5.66; F(1, 65) = 34.44,
an ANCOVA. Results showed that the covariates “congruency
p < .001, partial η2 = 34.6%. Thus, H1a was supported. This
between brand A and the event,” F(1, 275) = 28.66, p < .001,
indicated a fortuitous transfer of image between Gatorade and
partial η2 = 9.4%, as well as “congruency between brand B
Nike due to their concurrent sponsorships. The congruency be-
and the event,” F(1, 275) = 7.14, p < .001, partial η2 = 2.5%,
tween two less familiar brands with similar images (Propel and
had a significant impact on the dependent variable. Therefore,
Red Bull) was not expected to be affected by the concurrent-
accounting for the event’s impact on the sponsoring brands’
sponsorships manipulation. However, image congruency
images was justified. In addition, the main effects of the in-
was greater in the concurrent sponsorships than in the solo
dependent variables (i.e., sponsorship type, brand similarity,
sponsorship condition, Mconcurrent = 4.37 versus Msolo = 4.97;
and familiarity) were qualified by their significant three-way
F(1, 65) = 2.71, p = .05, partial η2 = 3.8%. This revealed a
interaction, F(1, 275) = 7.13, p < .001, partial η2 = 2.5%. As
transfer of image between the brands; H1b was rejected.
predicted, the impact of concept similarity on image transfer
across sponsorship conditions depends on the familiarity of
the sponsoring brands. Hypothesis 2: Dissimilar Concepts. The congruency between
To specifically test the hypotheses, follow-up ANCOVAs two familiar brands with dissimilar concepts (Gatorade and
(using the covariates previously mentioned) were conducted Budweiser) was expected to decrease in the case of concur-
to compare the appropriate cells on the adjusted means (see rent sponsorships. Gatorade and Budweiser’s images were
Table 2). When empirical predictions are directional and less congruent in the concurrent-sponsorships condition than
formulated in terms of differences between two means, the in the solo sponsorship condition, Mconcurrent = 6.18 versus
p‑value obtained from an F‑test corresponds to the p‑value Msolo = 4.94; F(1, 70) = 9.77, p < .01, partial η2 = 12.2%, in
for a two-tailed t‑test (Levine and Banas 2002). In this case, a support of H2a. This revealed a contrast of image between the
directional F‑test can be performed by doubling the nominal brands. The congruency between two less familiar brands with
level of a regular F‑test, which is statistically equivalent to dissimilar images (Pert Shampoo and Natural Light) was not
locating the entire level in the tail of a t‑distribution (one- expected to be affected by their concurrent sponsorships, which
tailed test), thereby allowing for improved statistical power was confirmed by the results (H2b), Mconcurrent = 5.26 versus
(Keppel 1982; Mohr 1990). We followed this logic and used Msolo = 5.02; F(1, 60) = .46, p = .50, partial η2 = .8%.
8. 116 The Journal of Advertising
Discussion (i.e., a “neutral” image—the less familiar brands). In addition,
because specific image dimensions were manipulated, image
Results from Study 1 support our assertion that the images of transfer had to be captured on these dimensions. Therefore,
two familiar brands concurrently sponsoring the same event brand image was operationalized through image dimension
can be transferred between each other when they have similar measures. Similarity, again, was manipulated via the underly-
concepts, whereas their images contrast when they have dif- ing concept of the brands and the event.
ferent concepts. Note that a transfer effect was also found for
the less familiar but similar brands, Propel and Red Bull. Even
Overview and Design
if they were less familiar than Gatorade and Nike, a subset
of respondents may have been familiar enough with them, The respondents were split between the concurrent-spon-
leading to image transfer. When comparing image transfer sorships condition and a no-sponsorship condition. All the
for the group of respondents whose average familiarity with respondents were first exposed to eight brands, among which
Red Bull and Propel was above the median (n = 35) with a four were characterized by either an “exciting” or a “sincere”
group whose average familiarity with both brands was below image and four had a neutral image. Respondents in the
the median (n = 38), only the familiar respondents exhibited concurrent-sponsorships condition were also exposed to a
image transfer, familiar: Mconcurrent = 4.08 versus Msolo = 5.15; “sophisticated” sporting event (Aaker 1997). It was impor-
F(1, 29) = 3.42, p < .05, partial η2 = 10.5%; less familiar: tant for the event’s image to be distinctive from the images
Mconcurrent = 4.57 versus Msolo = 4.91; F(1, 32) = .41, p = .53, of the brands to avoid confounds when testing image transfer
partial η2 = 1.2%. Some respondents held salient enough among the brands.
perceptions about the brands to trigger image transfer. The image dimensions “sincere,” “exciting,” and “sophisti-
Furthermore, the congruency between the event and the cated” from Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale were used
brands was covaried out, but it could not prevent the con- to operationalize brand image because they represent most of
gruency between the brands themselves to be affected by the the variance in brand personality ratings (Johar, Sengupta, and
event in solo sponsorship compared with an absence of sponsor- Aaker 2006). Two brands conveyed a “sincere” image and two
ships. Therefore, the solo sponsorship conditions could have conveyed an “exciting” image through four different venues
“artificially” decreased the congruence between Gatorade and on their Web page: (1) brand name (e.g., “trust” for a sincere
Nike, or the incongruence between Gatorade and Budweiser, brand), (2) product information (e.g., “has always stood out
which was then brought back to its original level by the con- by its expression of a peerless attitude” for an exciting brand),
current sponsorships. To remedy these issues, a second study (3) tag line (e.g., “Trust Near Your Home” for a sincere brand),
was undertaken. and (4) logo (e.g., use of flashy graphics for exciting brands
versus more sober colors and shapes for sincere brands). Several
STUDY 2 venues were used to induce high situational accessibility for
the manipulated image. In addition, four brands conveyed a
Study 2 relied on fictitious stimuli to more precisely calibrate neutral image as the venues on their Web pages were toned
their familiarity and images. In addition, the control group was down significantly by being descriptive only: (1) brand names
a “no sponsorship” situation to rule out spurious transfer or (e.g., “The Footwear Store”), (2) product information (e.g.,
contrast effects due to the impact of the event on the between- “SportFit proposes an entire line of sportswear in all sizes and
brands congruency in solo sponsorships. The predictions tested colors,” (3) tag line (e.g., “Many Choices”), (4) logo (e.g., they
in Study 2 are the same as those from Study 1; therefore, hy- simply consisted of the brands’ names in a black Times New
potheses were also tested using directional tests at p = 2(α) on Roman font on a white background).
the adjusted means. Because the control group does not include In a pretest, 30 undergraduate students rated fictitious
any sponsoring brand, however, the concurrent-sponsorships brands and different versions of a fictitious sporting event
condition is compared to a condition where the brands are on the “sincere,” “exciting,” and “sophisticated” dimensions
present, but not as sponsors, because there is no event. Eight by indicating on a seven-point scale the extent to which a
brands were included in order for the concurrent-sponsorships series of adjectives described them “very well” or “not at all”
manipulation to be more ecologically valid in line with the (e.g., “honest” and “sincere” [sincerity]; “cool” and “young”
latest studies on sponsorships that involved multiple brands [exciting]; “glamorous” and “good looking” [sophisticated]).
concurrently (i.e., Ruth and Simonin 2006). Familiarity was Some brands had the same “sport” concept as the event (i.e.,
manipulated by first educating respondents about eight new sports-related products), whereas other brands had unrelated
(i.e., fictitious) brands among which four had one salient im- “no sport” concepts (i.e., products unrelated to sports).
age dimension (i.e., “sincerity” or “excitement”—the familiar Ultimately, four “sport” and four “no sport” brands as well
brands) and four did not have any salient image dimension as an event that was associated with a specific image were
9. Table 3
Experiment 2: Characteristics of Brands Used
Boston Massachusetts
GreatBags SportFit Bookstore Footwear Night-Club Fitness Bank & Trust Glissade
Concept Nonsport Sport Nonsport Sport Nonsport Sport Nonsport Sport
Familiarity Less familiar Less familiar Less familiar Less familiar Familiar Familiar Familiar Familiar
Brand image Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Exciting Sincere Sincere Exciting
Mean excitement 2.99 3.31 2.08 2.70 5.69 4.08 3.31 5.67
(.26) (.20) (.26) (.26) (.14) (.22) (.22) (.14)
Mean sincerity 2.41 3.51 3.31 3.17 3.57 5.06 5.05 4.36
(.25) (.16) (.34) (.24) (.16) (.14) (.18) (.17)
Mean sophistication 2.26 2.25 2.25 1.92 4.03 3.79 3.48 3.74
(1.47) (.97) (1.58) (.96) (1.27) (1.31) (1.27) (1.31)
Concept relative to Dissimilar Similar Dissimilar Similar Dissimilar Similar Dissimilar Similar
“sport”
Mean concept similarity 1.25 5.98 1.08 4.78 1.69 5.81 1.15 6.23
with “sport” (.08) (.17) (.04) (.23) (.15) (.16) (.11) (.12)
Notes: Boldface indicate a “high” value on the characteristic considered. Standard errors are in parentheses.
Summer 2010 117
10. 118 The Journal of Advertising
selected (see Table 3). The “sport” brands were “Glissade” (i.e., The Concurrent-Sponsorships Manipulation
exciting), “Fitness” (i.e., sincere), “Footwear,” and “SportFit”
(i.e., neutral). The “no sport” brands were “Night-Club” Respondents were given one of the two sponsorship ma-
(i.e., exciting), “Massachusetts Bank” (i.e., sincere), “Boston nipulations before the exposure phase. Respondents in the
Bookstore,” and “GreatBags” (i.e., neutral). The 2005 Boston concurrent-sponsorships condition read a two-paragraph state-
Golf Tournament was the chosen event. In the similar concept ment indicating the eight target brands would all be sponsors
condition, both brands had either a “sport” concept or a “no of the 2005 Boston Golf Tournament, support the event, and
sport” concept, whereas in the dissimilar concept condition, participate in activities before, during, and after the event. In
one of the brands had a “sport” concept while the other brand addition, there was an illustration at the bottom of the page
had a “no sport” concept. of the signage at the event where logos of the event and of the
There are several points to consider. All the “exciting” sponsoring brands could be seen together. Respondents in the
brands had greater “excitement” ratings than did the “sincere” no-sponsorship condition read a statement mentioning the
brands or the less familiar (i.e., neutral) brands. All the “sincere” brands were arbitrarily chosen from a pool of brands conduct-
brands had greater “sincerity” ratings than did the “exciting” ing test markets in a remote part of the United States.
brands or the less familiar brands (t‑values from 4.06 to 11.54,
ps < .01). In addition, the exciting brands had greater “excite- Target and Foil Brands Exposure
ment” ratings than “sincerity” or “sophistication” ratings,
whereas the sincere brands had greater “sincerity” ratings than Respondents were provided with a copy of a one-page excerpt
“excitement” or “sophistication” ratings (t‑values from 3.39 to of the Web site of each of the four exciting/sincere brands as
10.41, ps < .01). The selected version of the event had greater well as of the four neutral brands (in the concurrent-sponsor-
sophistication ratings (M = 5.26, SE [standard error] = 1.47) ships condition, an excerpt of the Web site of the 2005 Boston
than the sincere, exciting, or neutral brands (t‑values from Golf Tournament was also provided). Half the brands had
2.79 to 9.43, ps < .01). The exciting brands had higher rat- “sport” concepts, and the other half had “no sport” concepts.
ings on the “excitement” dimension than the sincere brands Respondents were asked to familiarize themselves with the
did on the “sincerity” dimension (Night-Clubexciting = 5.69 material at their own pace. The sequence of presentation of the
and Glissadeexciting = 5.67 versus Massachusettssincere = 5.05, stimuli was alternated within each condition to avoid order
t = 2.86, p < .01 and t = 3.07, p < .01, respectively; versus effects. Six fictitious foil brands were also presented to the
Fitnesssincere = 5.06, t = 2.81, p = .01 and t = 2.48, p = .02, respondents with a one-page excerpt of their Web site. Two
respectively). Finally, each brand from the similar group had of the foil brands had a “sincere” image, two had an “excit-
a higher concept similarity with the notion of “sport” than ing” image, and the other two had a “sophisticated” image
did the brands from the dissimilar group (t‑values from 10.82 (determined via pretest).
to 41.77, ps < .01).
Filler Task
Procedure
Respondents first memorized a series of paired associations
One hundred and twelve undergraduate students from a large between the brand names and various words. Next, they were
state university received extra credit for participating in this asked to search a letter matrix for the names of Fortune 500
experiment. They were randomly assigned to a 2 (sponsor- CEOs before being asked to recall the words previously asso-
ship: concurrent versus no) × 2 (brand concept: sport versus ciated with the brands (with the brand name as a cue) and to
no sport) × 2 (brand familiarity: familiar versus less familiar) recognize the correct tag line of the brands. This was designed
mixed-measures design with repeated measures on the last to avoid having respondents switch immediately from brand
two factors. A counterbalancing factor was also included that exposure to brand ratings and also hypothesis guessing.
had no impact on the results. Respondents were told they
were participating in a study of Web site quality for new Dependent Variables and Manipulation Checks
brands. They received a booklet that educated them about
the images of the target and foil brands, led them through a Respondents rated the “sincerity,” “excitement,” and “so-
distraction task, and asked them to rate the brands’ images phistication” for the eight target brands using the same two
on the “sincere,” “exciting,” and “sophisticated” dimensions. adjectives per dimension as in the pretest. In addition, they
Eight respondents were dropped due to excessive missing data. indicated the extent to which each brand was related to the
This resulted in a sample of 104 respondents (control group notion of “sport” on a two-item, seven-point Likert-type scale
n = 57; concurrent sponsorships n = 47). (e.g., “I associate [brand X] with the idea of sports”).
11. Summer 2010 119
Results that the exciting brands had higher ratings on the “excite-
ment” dimension than did the sincere brands on the “sincer-
Operationalization of Image Congruency ity” dimension. Based on image saliency, this suggests that
and Manipulation Checks there was more image transfer potential on the exciting than
The congruency between two brands in Study 2 was operation- on the sincere dimension. This also suggests that the direc-
alized as the absolute difference between the brands’ average tion of transfer was from the exciting to the sincere brands
image ratings on the corresponding items for both the “sincer- since “exciting” was a salient dimension for “Glissade” and
ity” and “exciting” dimensions. Therefore, image transfer or “Night-Club” only.
contrast could be tested on each image dimension. Although The congruency between two less familiar (neutral) brands
difference scores can exhibit psychometric concerns, we hoped with similar concepts was not expected to be affected by the
that by using an alternative dependent measure in this study concurrent-sponsorships manipulation. As predicted, the
we would increase the generalizability of the image transfer image congruency between “Footwear” and “SportFit” (i.e.,
phenomenon if the results were indeed replicated. Because the “sport” replication) did not differ across sponsorship
very specific dimensions of the stimuli’s images were manipu- conditions on either the “sincere” or “exciting” dimensions,
lated, it was possible to control for event–brand transfer, or MExciting concurrent = 1.16 versus MExciting no = 1.42; F(1, 100) = 1.06,
contrast, by covarying out “sophistication” since this was the p = .31, partial η2 = 1.1% and MSincere concurrent = 1.25 versus
unique salient dimension of the event. Therefore, the level of MSincere no = 1.27; F(1, 100) = .02, p = .90, partial η2 = .0%.
“sophistication” of the brands’ images was used as a covariate. The image congruency between “Boston Bookstore” and
In addition, in the dissimilar concept conditions, the degree of “GreatBags” (i.e., the “no sport” replication) did not dif-
similarity between the event and both brands was controlled fer on the “sincere” dimension, MSincere concurrent = .89 versus
for by using the extent to which each brand was related to the MSincere no = 1.15; F(1, 100) = 2.03, p = .16, partial η2 = 2%;
“sport” concept as covariables. The “sport” brands had higher however, their image congruency on the “exciting” dimen-
ratings than the “no sport” brands on the sport concept measure sion was greater in the case of concurrent sponsorships, which
(t‑values ranging from 10.82 to 41.77, ps < .01; see Table 3). revealed a transfer of image, MExciting concurrent = 1.02 versus
Raw and adjusted cell means are displayed in Table 4. MExciting no = 1.38; F(1, 100) = 2.84, p < .05, partial η2 = 2.8%.
As in Study 1, only the subset of respondents familiar with
both “Boston Bookstore” and “GreatBags” exhibited image
Similar Concept Brands transfer, whereas the less familiar respondents did not, familiar:
MExciting concurrent = 1.03 versus MExciting no = 1.62; F(1, 47) = 2.98,
The image congruency between two familiar brands with p < .05, partial η2 = 6%; less familiar: MExciting concurrent = 1.03
similar concepts was expected to be greater when they were versus MExciting no = 1.14; F(1, 49) = .19, p = .67, partial
concurrent sponsors. Regarding “Glissade” and “Fitness” (i.e., η2 = .4%. This showed again that image transfer is prevented
the “sport” concept replication), image ratings indicated that between similar sponsors when their images are not salient
their congruency on the “exciting” dimension was greater when enough in consumers’ minds.
both brands were involved in concurrent sponsorships than
when neither brand was involved, MExciting concurrent = .91 versus Dissimilar Concept Brands
MExciting no = 1.20; F(1, 98) = 2.96, p < .05, partial η2 = 2.9%,
whereas the difference observed on the “sincere” dimension The image congruency between two familiar brands with dis-
was not statistically significant, MSincere concurrent = 1.18 versus similar concepts was expected to be smaller when they were
MSincere no = 1.32; F(1, 98) = .32, p = .57, partial η2 = .3%. concurrent sponsors. Regarding “Glissade” (i.e., “sport”) and
Regarding “Massachusetts Bank” and “Night-Club” (i.e., the “Massachusetts Bank” (i.e., “no sport”), image ratings indicat-
“no sport” concept replication), image ratings indicated that ed that there was less congruency on the “exciting” dimension
they were more congruent on the “exciting” dimension when when both brands were involved in concurrent sponsorships
both were involved in concurrent sponsorships than when than when neither brand was involved, MExciting concurrent = 1.38
neither brand was involved, MExciting concurrent = 3.30 versus versus MExciting no = .85; F(1, 97) = 3.51, p < .05, partial
MExciting no = 3.76; F(1, 98) = 3.55, p < .05, partial η2 = 3.5%, η2 = 3.5%, whereas the difference observed on the “sincere” di-
whereas the difference observed on the “sincere” dimension mension was not statistically significant, MSincere concurrent = 1.00
was not statistically significant, MSincere concurrent = 2.53 versus versus MSincere no = .92; F(1, 97) = .09, p = .77, partial η2 = .1%.
MSincere no = 2.72; F(1, 198) = .33, p = .29, partial η2 = .3%. Regarding “Fitness” (i.e., “sport”) and “Night-Club” (i.e.,
Overall, these results supported the notion of a transfer of the “no sport”), image ratings indicated that neither their con-
“excitement” image between similar familiar brands. Recall gruency on the “exciting” dimension nor their congruency
12. 120 The Journal of Advertising
Table 4
Experiment 2: Raw and Adjusted Mean Congruency Between Pairs of Brands in Replication Conditions as a
Function of Sponsorship Type, Concept Similarity, Brand Familiarity, and Image Dimension
Similar brand concept Dissimilar brand concept
Raw means Adjusted means Raw means Adjusted means
No Concurrent No Concurrent No Concurrent No Concurrent
“Exciting” image dimension
Familiar brands
Replication1 1.14 .98 1.20 .91 .86 1.34 .85 1.38
(.13) (.14) (.11) (.12) (.18) (.20) (.18) (.21)
Replication 2 3.62 3.47 3.76 3.30 1.29 1.11 1.32 1.08
(.22) (.24) (.16) (.18) (.13) (.15) (.13) (.15)
Less familiar brands
Replication 1 1.43 1.15 1.42 1.16 1.65 1.71 1.66 1.70
(.17) (.18) (.17) (.18) (.19) (.21) (.18) (.21)
Replication 2 1.96 1.78 1.38 1.02 1.96 1.78 1.92 1.83
(.21) (.22) (.14) (.16) (.20) (.22) (.21) (.23)
“Sincere” image dimension
Familiar brands
Replication 1 1.34 1.16 1.32 1.18 .91 1.00 .92 1.00
(.16) (.18) (.16) (.18) (.18) (.19) (.18) (.20)
Replication 2 2.61 2.67 2.72 2.53 1.58 1.67 1.57 1.65
(.23) (.26) (.22) (.24) (.19) (.21) (.19) (.22)
Less familiar brands
Replication 1 1.28 1.23 1.27 1.25 1.04 .97 1.04 .98
(.14) (.16) (.14) (.16) (.12) (.13) (.12) (.13)
Replication 2 1.21 .94 1.15 .89 1.21 .94 1.18 .97
(.12) (.13) (.12) (.13) (.12) (.13) (.12) (.14)
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
on the “sincere” dimension was affected by the concurrent- respectively; SportFit/GreatBags: MExciting concurrent = 1.83 versus
sponsorships manipulation, MExciting concurrent = 1.08 versus MExciting no = 1.92; F(1, 98) = .07, p = .79, partial η2 = .1% and
MExciting no = 1.32; F(1, 95) = 1.52, p = .22, partial η2 = 1.6% MSincere concurrent = .97 versus MSincere no = 1.18; F(1, 98) = 1.22,
and MSincere concurrent = 1.65 versus MSincere no = 1.57; F(1, 95) = .08, p = .27, partial η2 = 1.2%, respectively. It confirmed there is
p = .78, partial η2 = .1%, respectively. Overall, these results no image contrast between two dissimilar brands when their
brought mixed support for the notion of a contrast of image images are not salient enough.
between familiar brands with dissimilar concepts because in
one replication, the brands’ images contrasted, whereas image GENERAL DISCUSSION
congruency was not affected in the other replication.
The congruency between two less familiar (neutral) brands This research contributes to the sponsorship literature by
with dissimilar concepts was not expected to be affected by providing a better understanding of the effects of concurrent
the concurrent-sponsorships manipulation. As expected, the sponsorships on consumers’ sponsoring brands perceptions.
image congruency between “Footwear” (i.e., “sport”) and This is the first study to demonstrate the existence of a fortu-
“Boston Bookstore” (i.e., “no sport”) on both the “sincere” and itous transfer and contrast of image between sponsoring brands
“exciting” dimensions as well as the image congruency between of the same event. In addition, it extends the understanding
“SportFit” (i.e., “sport”) and “GreatBags” (i.e., “no sport”) regarding the role of brand–concept similarity in image trans-
did not differ across sponsorship conditions, Footwear/Bos- fer and contrast. Furthermore, it shows that sponsoring brand
ton Bookstore: MExciting concurrent = 1.70 versus MExciting no = 1.66; familiarity moderates transfer and contrast of image. In Study
F(1, 98) = .02, p = .90, partial η2 < .1% and MSincere concurrent = .98 1, image transfer occurred between similar and familiar brands
versus MSincere no = 1.04; F(1, 98) = .11, p = .75, partial η2 = .1%, (supporting H1a), while image contrast took place between
13. Summer 2010 121
dissimilar brands that were familiar (supporting H2a), but not Companies are sometimes concerned about the negative
between less familiar brands (supporting H2b). Unexpectedly, consequences of sharing the sponsorship of an event with
there was also some image transfer between less familiar and other sponsors (Tourville 1996). However, note that this
similar brands (disconfirming H1b); however, a subsequent study shows there is no valence associated with the concur‑
analysis showed that the difficulty of calibrating real brands rent sponsorships side effect; therefore, image transfer or contrast
with less salient images that are not totally unfamiliar could could have either a negative or positive impact depending
explain this result. Therefore, it is possible that Red Bull and on the positioning of the brand and the images of the other
Propel may have been slightly congruent with consumers’ held concurrent sponsors. This side effect could be an opportunity
schema, which could have triggered a categorization process or a threat for a brand manager as a function of the marketing
(Mandler 1982). As a result, they were salient enough in con- strategy adopted. This is especially true when both sponsors
sumers’ memory to lead to image transfer. In fact, in Study 2, are familiar because results indicate that the side effect is most
where a better control of the saliency of the brands’ images was robust in this case, but such effects can be controlled to some
possible, only one transfer effect was obtained between less extent. Concurrent sponsorships could offer many possibilities
familiar (neutral) brands across a total of four replicates on the to sponsors for developing or modifying their brands’ images
“exciting” dimension. The similar brands “Boston Bookstore” and positioning. This implies possible cooperation among
and “GreatBags” exhibited image transfer on the “exciting” sponsors, especially if they do not compete in the same product
dimension due to the greater saliency of these brands’ images category. As an illustration, let us assume that Gatorade needs
for a subset of respondents. to strengthen consumers’ perception of its “competitiveness”
In addition, note that the transfer and contrast effects ob- dimension, on which Nike is highly rated, while Nike wants
tained in Study 2 all occurred on the exciting dimension. Here, to cultivate the “fun” dimension of its brand image, which is
again, the underlying phenomenon explaining this result is a salient perception of Gatorade. If Gatorade and Nike become
the differences in saliency of the image dimensions (the excit- concurrent sponsors of the same event, they could achieve their
ing brands had higher ratings on the “excitement” dimension mutual goals. For instance, they could control the side effect
than did the sincere brands on the “sincerity” dimension). of concurrent sponsorships by negotiating together with the
These results show the role of familiarity in increasing the event to ensure they benefit from each other’s image transfer.
saliency of the features of the brands. In line with Tversky’s Note that cooperation between two sponsors only could be
(1977) similarity model, less familiar brands had less salient sufficient to obtain the desired transfer, or contrast, effects
common features, which prevented their assignment to the since Study 2 showed that these effects can occur even among
same categories, and therefore limited image transfer between a pool of eight sponsors.
them. These findings differ from those of Carrillat, Lafferty, In sum, akin to cobranding, concurrent sponsoring brands
and Harris (2005), as well as those of Lardinoit and Quester become associated in consumers’ minds. In concurrent sponsor-
(2001), who find that less familiar brands are more susceptible ships, however, the association between the brands does not
to perceptual changes since consumers hold less firm beliefs have to be formal to lead to a transfer of image between them.
toward them. However, these studies are not contradicting In addition, in this study, direct evidence of image transfer is
the present findings. These researchers investigate the impact found, whereas in most brand extension or cobranding studies,
of familiar events on less familiar brands, whereas in H1b, image transfer is assumed, rather than empirically examined
we investigated the impact of less familiar brands on other on its own, in order to predict improved brand evaluation.
less familiar brands. It is possible that less familiar events As Gwinner and Eaton (1999) did with solo sponsorship, this
would have had a lower attitudinal impact due to less salient study provides an in-depth examination of the image transfer-
associations in Carrillat, Lafferty, and Harris (2005) as well ence mechanism in concurrent sponsorships.
as Lardinoit and Quester (2001).
The contrast effect from Study 1 was supported by one LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
replication in Study 2, but not by the second replication;
however, the overall results regarding the prediction that Several factors limit the generalizability of our findings. It
familiar/dissimilar brands will have their image congruency is difficult to recreate authentic sponsorships effects with an
diminished if they concurrently support the same event ap- experiment because typically consumers are subject to nu-
pear to be generally supported, as it occurred two times out of merous stimulations associated with an event (e.g., ads seen
three. This is in line with our theoretical view that familiar/ in other media, attendance of the event). Note that because
dissimilar brands are assigned to different categories (Mandler the effects produced by experimental treatments are weaker
1982), which triggers a contrast of their images and accentu- than with real stimuli, the results obtained are likely to be
ates their incongruence (Krueger and Clement 1994; Tajfel conservative. This suggests that the concurrent sponsorships
1959). side effect is not to be underestimated. Student samples were
14. 122 The Journal of Advertising
used; however, college students are generally acceptable for REFERENCES
theory testing and efforts were made to ensure that the brands
and the event were relevant to them. In addition, the under- Aaker, David A., and Kevin Lane Keller (1990), “Consumer
lying psychological process investigated is unlikely to differ Evaluations of Brand Extensions,” Journal of Marketing, 54
between students and other portions of the population due (1), 27–41.
to the universal appeal of the Olympic Games, which mini- Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,”
mized the chances of a selection × treatment interaction. In Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3), 347–356
Alba, Joseph W., and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), “Dimen-
spite of this, further research could replicate this study using
sions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research,
nonstudent samples. 13 (4), 411–454.
The experimental designs were not intended to distinguish Boush, David M., and Barbara Loken (1991), “A Process-Tracing
between the sources of image transfer. As a consequence, it is Study of Brand Extension Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing
not possible to know if brand A transferred image to brand B Research, 38 (February), 16–28.
or vice versa or both. Another limitation is that the strength Bridges, Sheri, Kevin Lane Keller, and Sanjay Sood (2000),
of the link between the event and the sponsoring brands was “Communication Strategies for Brand Extensions: Enhanc-
assumed to be equal across sponsors. The association between ing Perceived Fit by Establishing Explanatory Links,”
the Olympics and its sponsors can be stronger if the sponsors Journal of Advertising, 29 (4), 1–11.
actively promote their sponsorship activities (Crimmins and Broniarczyk, Susan M., and Joseph W. Alba (1994), “The
Importance of the Brand in Brand Extension,” Journal of
Horn 1996). Marketing Research, 31 (2), 214–228.
Although our investigation of the conditions under which Campbell, Margaret C., and Kevin Lane Keller (2003), “Brand
transfer/contrast effects do or do not occur provides guidelines Familiarity and Advertising Repetition Effects,” Journal
to managers for better controlling the side effects of concur- of Consumer Research, 30 (September), 292–304.
rent sponsorships, more direct ways to control for such ef- Carrillat, François A., Barbara A. Lafferty, and Eric G. Har-
fects might be investigated in further research. For instance, ris (2005), “Investigating Sponsorships Effectiveness:
a brand can alleviate the negative outcomes linked to the Do Less Familiar Brands Have an Advantage over More
sponsorship of an incongruent event by articulating the event Familiar Brands in Single and Multiple Sponsorship
to brand relationship (Cornwell et al. 2006). Assuming that Arrangements?” Journal of Brand Management, 13 (1),
50–64.
a sponsoring brand is seeking brand-to-brand image transfer
Cornwell, T. Bettina, Clinton S. Weeks, and Donald P. Roy
but is incongruent with the concurrent sponsors, articulation (2005), “Sponsorship-Linked Marketing: Opening the
could make them fit. For instance, if IBM is incongruent Black Box,” Journal of Advertising, 34 (2), 21–42.
with the event and the concurrent sponsors and, therefore, ———, Michael S. Humphreys, Angela M. Maguire, Clinton
should be subject to image contrast, explaining how it fits S. Weeks, and Cassandra L. Tellegen (2006), “Sponsorship-
with the event and the other concurrent sponsors through a Linked Marketing: The Role of Articulation in Memory,”
press release (e.g., “IBM is sponsoring event X because IBM Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (3), 312–321.
represents the best in its category similarly to the participants Crimmins, James, and Martin Horn (1996), “Sponsorship: From
of the events and the other sponsors of the event”) could make Management Ego Trip to Marketing Success,” Journal of
the relationship between the brands less incongruent, or even Advertising Research, 36 (July/August), 11–21.
Dean, Dwane Hal (2002), “Associating the Corporation with
congruent. This could annihilate image contrast or even lead
a Charitable Event Through Sponsorship: Measuring the
to image transfer. Effects on Corporate Community Relations,” Journal of
Similarity has been criticized as being a concept that is too Advertising, 31 (1), 77–87.
flexible (Medin, Goldstone, and Gentner 1993). In an absolute Fazio, Russell H. (1986), “How Do Attitudes Guide Behaviors?”
sense, any two objects or concepts can be thought of as similar in The Handbook of Motivation and Foundations of Social
or dissimilar if one considers the appropriate criteria. We also Behavior, Robert M. Sorrentino and Edward T. Higgins,
note that boundary conditions for image transfer could apply. eds., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 204–243.
In what ways can image transference be considered negative? Goodman, Nelson (1972), “Seven Strictures on Similarity,” in
Work is also needed that addresses the extent to which image Problems and Projects, Nelson Goodman, ed., New York:
transfer effects are enduring versus transitory. Research sug- Bobbs-Merrill, 437–447.
Grohs, Reinhard, Udo Wagner, and Sabine Vsetecka (2004),
gests that many effects found in advertising and sponsorship
“Assessing the Effectiveness of Sport Sponsorships—An
arrangements are transitory (e.g., Crimmins and Horn 1996; Empirical Examination,” Schmalenbach Business Review, 56
Vakratsas and Ambler 1999), and our findings are limited by (April), 119–138.
the exclusion of a method to measure the nature of these effects. Gwinner, Kevin, and John Eaton (1999), “Building Brand
Other approaches (e.g., longitudinal studies) would be very Image Through Event Sponsorship: The Role of Image
helpful for developing a better understanding of this issue. Transfer,” Journal of Advertising, 28 (4), 47–57.
15. Summer 2010 123
Hoeffler, Steve, and Kevin Lane Keller (2003), “The Marketing Murphy, Gregory L., and Douglas L. Medin (1985), “The Role
Advantages of Strong Brands,” Journal of Brand Manage‑ of Theories in Conceptual Coherence,” Psychological Review,
ment, 10 (6), 421–445. 92 (July), 289–316.
Johar, Gita Venkataramani, and Michel Tuan Pham (1999), Park, C. Whan, Sung Youl Jun, and Allan D. Schocker (1996),
“Relatedness, Prominence, and Constructive Sponsor “Composite Brand Alliances: An Investigation of Extension
Identification,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (3), and Feedback Effects,” Journal of Marketing Research, 33
299–312. (November), 453–466.
———, Jaideep Sengupta, and Jennifer L. Aaker (2006), “Two ———, Sandra Milberg, and Robert Lawson (1991), “Evaluation
Roads to Updating Brand Personality Impressions: Trait of Brand Extension: The Role of Product Feature Similar-
Versus Evaluative Inference,” Journal of Marketing Research, ity and Brand Concept Consistency,” Journal of Consumer
42 (4), 458–469. Research, 18 (2), 185–193.
Keller, Kevin Lane (2003), “Brand Synthesis: The Multidi- Rifon, Nora J., Sejung Marina Choi, Carrie S. Trimble, and
mensionality of Brand Knowledge,” Journal of Consumer Hairong Li (2004), “Congruence Effects in Sponsorships,”
Research, 29 (4), 595–600. Journal of Advertising, 33 (1), 29–42.
Kent, Robert J., and Chris T. Allen (1994), “Competitive In- Rosch, Eleanor, and Carolyn B. Mervis (1975), “Family Resem-
terference Effects in Consumer Memory for Advertising: blances: Studies in the Internal Structures of Categories,”
The Role of Brand Familiarity,” Journal of Marketing, 58 Cognitive Psychology, 7 (4), 573–605.
(3), 97–105. Roy, Donald P., and T. Bettina Cornwell (2003), “Brand Equity
Keppel, Geoffrey (1982), Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Influence on Responses to Event Sponsorships,” Journal of
Handbook, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Product and Brand Management, 12 (6), 377–393.
Krueger, Joachim, and Russel W. Clement (1994), “Memory- Ruth, Julie A., and Bernard L. Simonin (2003), “‘Brought to You
Based Judgments About Multiple Categories: A Revision by Brand A and Brand B’: Investigating Multiple Spon-
and Extension of Tajfel’s Accentuation Theory,” Journal of sors’ Influence on Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Sponsored
Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (1), 35–47. Events,” Journal of Advertising, 32 (3), 19–30.
Lafferty, Barbara A., and Ronald E. Goldsmith (2005), “Cause– ———, and ——— (2006), “The Power of Numbers,” Journal
Brand Alliances: Does the Cause Help the Brand or Does of Advertising, 35 (4), 7–20.
the Brand Help the Cause,” Journal of Business Research, Samu, Sridhar, H. Shanker Krishnan, and Robert E. Smith
54 (8), 423–429. (1999), “Using Advertising Alliances for New Product
Lane, Vicki R. (2000), “The Impact of Ad Repetition and Ad Introduction: Interactions Between Product Complemen-
Content on Consumer Perceptions of Incongruent Exten- tarity and Promotional Strategies,” Journal of Marketing,
sions,” Journal of Marketing, 64 (2), 80. 63 (1), 57–74.
Lardinoit, Thierry, and Pascale G. Quester (2001), “Attitu- Simonin, Bernard L., and Julie A. Ruth (1998), “Is a Company
dinal Effects of Combined Sponsorship and Sponsor’s Known by the Company It Keeps? Assessing the Spillover
Prominence on Basketball in Europe,” Journal of Advertising Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes,”
Research, 41 (1), 48–58. Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (1), 30–42.
Levine, Timothy R., and John Banas (2002), “One-Tailed F‑tests Sirgy, M. Joseph, Dhruv Grewal, Tamara F. Mangleburg, Jae‑ok
in Communication Research,” Communication Monographs, Park, Kye‑Sung Chon, C. B. Clairborne, J. S. Johar, and Har-
69 (2), 132–143. old Berkman (1997), “Assessing the Predictive Validity of
Mandler, George (1982), “The Structure of Value: Accounting Two Methods of Measuring Self-Image Congruence,” Journal
for Taste,” in Affect and Cognition: The 17th Annual Carn‑ of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (3), 229–241.
egie Symposium, Margaret S. Clark and Susan T. Fiske, eds., Speed, Richard, and Peter Thompson (2000), “Determinants
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 3–36. of Sports Sponsorship Response,” Journal of the Academy of
Martin, Ingrid M., and David W. Stewart (2001), “The Differ- Marketing Science, 28 (2), 226–238.
ential Impact of Goal Congruency on Attitudes, Intentions, Tajfel, Henri (1959), “Quantitative Judgment in Social Perspec-
and the Transfer of Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing tive,” British Journal of Psychology, 50 (1), 207–218.
Research, 38 (4), 471–84. Tourville, Julie (1996), “La commandite multiple et son impact
———, ———, and Shashi Matta (2005), “Branding Strate- sur les réactions des consommateurs,” master’s thesis, Uni-
gies, Marketing Communication, and Perceived Brand versity of Sherbrooke, School of Business.
Meaning: The Transfer of Purposive, Goal-Oriented Brand Tversky, Amos (1977), “Features of Similarity,” Psychological
Meaning to Brand Extensions,” Journal of the Academy of Review, 84 (4), 327–352.
Marketing Science, 33 (3), 275–294. Vakratsas, Demetrios, and Tim Ambler (1999), “How Advertis-
Medin, Douglas L., Robert L. Goldstone, and Dedre Gentner ing Really Works: What Do We Really Know?” Journal of
(1993), “Respects for Similarity,” Psychological Review, 100 Marketing, 63 (1), 26–43.
(2), 254–278. Wildt, Albert R., and Olli T. Ahtola (1978), “Analysis of Covari-
Mohr, Lawrence B. (1990), Understanding Significance Testing, ance,” Sage University Papers Series on Quantitative Ap-
Newbury Park, CA: Sage University Paper. plications in the Social Sciences, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16. Copyright of Journal of Advertising is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
