HardestyHSAthleticBranding

Running head: INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC BRANDING
Interscholastic Athletic Branding
Kelvin Hardesty
East Carolina University

INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC BRANDING 2
A general definition of branding is a special mark or characteristic given to something (a
person, animal, etc) used to distinguish it from other things. Despite not being exactly the same,
branding in business has much of the same purpose. According to Storie (2008), “Branding is
generally understood to be a strategy for establishing a trademark the public associates
exclusively with an entity” (as cited in Arai, Ko, & Ross, 2014, p. 98). An example of this is
when people use the brand Kleenex when referring to any facial tissue. In short, branding is a
tool designed to increase the reputation and value of a brand (brand equity), thus differentiating it
from competitors in the eyes of consumers. The end game objective is making it more likely to
be preferred over alternative options when it comes to making decisions involving monetary
resources.
What makes branding relevant to sport? The answer to that is quite simple, sport is a
business, with that aspect only increasing in scope the higher the skill level increases. Over the
last century, little has exceeded the resources that corporate entities have invested in product
branding. The sport industry has been no exception, and in the last two decades teams and
leagues have aggressively jumped into the branding game by employing expert consultants in
various components of sport to increase brand equity (Hardy, Norman, & Sceery, 2014). For
branding to be effective, you must make your brand stand out from competitors. This cannot be
accomplished by simply following the status quo, instead organizations must have some level of
foresight. Walt Disney vaulted Mickey Mouse past Felix the Cat, the most popular silent cartoon,
because he recognized the power of a cartoon with a synchronized image along with sound
(Hardy, et al., 2014). That is the power of successful branding.
There are plenty of examples of how branding has been effectively used to enhance brand
equity of professional athletics (Super Bowl and World Series taglines, NFL Film Presents, Air

Jordan), and intercollegiate athletics have followed suit in the last twenty years. Interscholastic
branding is still a goldmine that has not been thoroughly examined. Consider these statistics
from a 2007 survey conducted by Turnkey Intelligence: 77% of people would be more likely to
purchase from and support a company if it sponsored the local high school (Garvis, n.d.). That is
a perfect partnership opportunity that is not being exhausted by high schools. This research
attempts to examine the depth of comprehension of high school athletic departments in regards to
branding, and assess how branding can fit the interscholastic educational and athletic curriculum.
Literature Review
Previous literature on branding, especially in regards to sport, has been extremely scarce.
Much of this can be attributed to the research orientation of the discipline. Since sport history’s
birth as a sub-discipline most of the research and literature work has been in regards to the social
and cultural history of sport (Hardy, et al., 2014). That was the most effective way for sport to
gain legitimization and respect as a field of research, but left the business aspect of sport
untouched. This was a calculated risk, and ultimately was to the benefit of the field of Sport,
especially in regards to differentiating it from just being business. The business history of sport
has historically been ignored, but in the last two decades this has slowly changed.
There are works on branding from a historical perspective now. Bruce Kidd (1994) in his
study of the National Hockey League (NHL) rise to prominence outlined media used by the
league to promote the aesthetics of the game (as cited in Hardy, et al., 2014). This illustrated that
branding was prominent in the establishment of modern sports. Archeological and historical
research has led to evidence of components of branding in sport as far back as the Roman
Empire. Ancient Roman gladiators were branded along several dimensions, such as weapon of
choice, school of training, and stage name (Hardy, et al., 2014). These different dimensions were

used to engage the crowd, and build equity amongst the gladiators. Spectators knew what they
could expect based on those dimensions because they had established and accepted brand value.
Gladiatorial contests were ritualistic and symbolic and an important aspect of spectator
(consumer) culture (Hardy, et al., 2014). This research illustrates how even Colosseum fights
were more advanced than just bloodshed; various tactics were used to increase brand equity. This
made the Colosseum a very useful tool for Roman leaders. In his 2007 book, Michael Oriand
described how although the NFL did not use the term “brand” until the 1990’s, their prior actions
and strategies clearly fall within the realm of brand theory (Hardy, et al., 2014). On the collegiate
level, recent literature has shown how top schools such as Notre Dame, became such iconic
brands (Belzer, 2013). Historical research has illustrated the use of branding throughout
professional and intercollegiate athletics, but there has been very little if any historical research
on branding in interscholastic athletics. This is not shocking since the use of branding has been
very limited and is relatively new in the interscholastic realm. An effective use of future research
would be to examine how branding is used specifically in high school athletics.
The review of literature also revealed how branding is used to create brand equity. Aaker
(1996) and Ross (2006) established that from an academic (research) perspective, branding is
often discussed in terms of developing, building, managing, and measuring brand equity (as cited
in Arai, et al., 2014). Aaker (1991), a leading authority on branding, described the construct of
brand equity as “providing value to customers by enhancing their interpretation and processing
of information, confidence in the purchase decision, and satisfaction. Brand equity also provides
value to the firm by enhancing efficiency and effectiveness of marketing programs, prices and
profits, brand extensions, trade leverage, and competitive advantage” (as cited in Yoo & Donthu,
2001, p. 2). Athletic teams on every level depend on fan (consumer) satisfaction and confidence

in purchase decision, this is valuable in sport because it is intangible and the product has a quick
expiration date. High brand equity is the only way to get people to an event whose results are
uncertain. Research has been done with the objective of measuring brand equity on consumers,
and has been implemented by measuring consumer awareness and tracking spending. Yoo and
Donthu (2001) examined the dimensions of perceived quality, brand awareness/association, and
brand loyalty. Their research proved that statistically, the three previously mentioned dimensions
were valid dimensions of brand equity. In relation to sport this is huge, and further proof that
quality, and building brand awareness and loyalty increases brand equity which is beneficial
financial for a nearly unlimited list of reasons such as increased sponsorship, ability to raise
prices, and attract new consumers.
Arai, Ko, and Ross (2014) developed a conceptual model of athlete brand image (MABI).
This model identified three key dimensions of athlete brand image: attractiveness of appearance,
on-field characteristics, and off-field marketability. While more appropriate to professional and
college sport, this model could apply to the high school level especially with the increased
visibility of high school athletic coverage. There are high school athletes capable of increasing
their school’s brand equity due to their own brand image. The proof of this is twitter followers
from top interscholastic athletes. Fans, want to follow these kids as early as possible and
positively promoting their image is great for the brand of the school itself. Watkins and
Gonzenbach (2013) assessed the brand personality of universities through its use of logos.
Alessandri (2007) believed that a logo helps a brand entity differentiate itself and provides a
recognizable visible identity. For a university, a distinctive visual identity can be strongly related
to such distinctiveness of the organization in the minds of its stakeholders (as cited in Watkins &
Gonzenbach, 2013). This leads to an increase brand awareness because the distinct logo

strengthens the association consumers have with that brand thus increasing brand equity. This is
one area of branding extremely relatable to high school athletics. Many high school logos fail at
extending its branding reach because they simply copy the logo of collegiate and professional
teams, so there is no connection made with the logo to their brand. For example, in Pitt County, 5
out of the 6 high school teams use “modified” NFL team logos.
Current literature has also managed to discuss the internal aspect of branding. Generally,
branding resources have been used to develop external strategies to improve brand equity such as
advertisement and sales promotions. Recently, the importance of brand messages to employees
has been explored. “When internal branding efforts are implemented, employees are more likely
to understand the brand, take ownership in the brand, and provide evidence of the brand in their
organizational responsibilities” (Judson, Gorchels, & Aurand, 2006, p. 100). In sport, coaches,
athletes, and administrators all need to be united in the meaning and acceptance of their brand.
Athletic departments are generally the most visible component of schools. It’s harder to see a
top-ranked academic department opposed to a top-ranked football team. This demonstrates the
need for group cohesion amongst stakeholders. While Judson et al. (2006) examined coaches
understanding of their respective brand’s value, it would have been beneficial to show if that
understanding was correlated with some type of brand equity success. There have been several
studies on social media affects on branding. Research has been met with mixed results and still
need further experimentation, but it does explore the need for companies to look at social media
and how it can fit their agenda specifically and not just assume that it will benefit them (Kohli,
Suri, & Kapoor, 2015). Social media users often rely on other social media users instead of
advertising campaigns. This can be a negative detriment to organizations including sport teams,

and should be given proper attention in future research due to its possible effect on the bottom
line.
Methods
In order to assess the effectiveness of branding at the interscholastic level, interview
questions were developed and targeted at athletic directors of public schools in Pitt County, and
Craven County. The counties were chosen for their proximity, and because they both have
moderate size populations (over 100,000 people), multiple high schools, and median family
incomes over $40,000 (data via county website). The interview questions were developed using
“Toward a History of Sport Branding” as the framework (Hardy, et al., 2014). This is a review
that attempts to illustrate the historical use of branding throughout sports. Aaker's (1996) work
on brand loyalty, brand awareness, and perceived quality were used to provide substance for the
questions. The questions also applied elements of other literature review principles such as
building internal branding, and assessing brand personality (Judson, et al., 2006; Watkins &
Gonzenbach, 2013).
Pitt County and Craven County athletic directors were sent emails regarding their
availability for a brief interview session on athletic branding and its usage at their respective
school. Athletic directors were chosen for the following reasons: they could provide the best
representation of the whole department, are usually the most knowledgeable in regards to athletic
department brand, and the fact that they have actual decision making power. The choice of a
qualitative study was chosen over quantitative measurements due to the fact that surveys with
more depth and reach had been used to measure components of branding previously, and since
there is little relevant information on high school athletic branding, a qualitative measure that
encompasses the entire knowledge base of the athletic directors was perceived to be more

beneficial. In short, there is no proof of what interscholastic athletic directors know on branding,
and that must be answered before moving forward with any type of implementation. Qualitative
research allows the establishment of groundwork that could be the basis used to establish areas
of interscholastic athletic branding in the future that could benefit from quantitative data.
The total amount of emails sent was 10 (first wave), and the email addresses were
provided from the county schools websites, pitt.k12.nc.us and craven.k12.nc.us respectively. The
questions were attached in the email as well to allow the athletic directors to look over them in
advance. This also made it possible for those who schedule did not allow them to meet, to
answer the questions and email them back on their own time. Allowing convenience for the
participants was important in increasing the rate of response. Only two of the athletic directors
were able to schedule a meeting and two others emailed completed questions. A second set of
emails was sent to remaining athletic directors that did not respond to the original set of emails.
This resulted in one additional answer for a total of 5 out of 10 completed “interviews” and a
response rate of 50%. The athletic directors were all male, and all members of the 35 and over
age demographic.
A simple scale was developed in order to provide a sense of quantitative data and to
better establish an idea of the knowledge base the athletic directors had in branding. This scale is
categorical and judges the content of the answers given by the athletic directors as either high
content or low content answers. This has nothing to do with perceived right or wrong, but
whether the athletic directors were able to provide in-depth and coherent answers to the
questions. Since there is very little information about athletic branding at the high school level,
this was done not only to show a quantitative representation but also to gauge the overall
knowledge of the athletic directors in regards to branding. Using future quantitative data on

branding and manipulating a variable would be of very little benefit if interscholastic athletic
directors do not have the knowledge to effectively implement any of its components.
Questions Used in Data Collection
1. What is your current opinion on athletic branding at the interscholastic level? In what ways have you
implemented it at yourschool?
2. How do you perceived the evolution of athletic branding in the future? Do you think schools will be forced
to use more cost-effective methods to actually bring in revenue?
3. How does athletic branding differ from othermarketing activities at your high school? What are the
disadvantages? What are the possible opportunities available that make the high schoollevel different than
other levels of sport?
4. How can athletic branding in interscholastic level benefit the schools,and the local community? Most of
the times, these partnerships are already strong,so how can they be improved in order to capitalize
monetarily?
5. In what ways can you improve the branding directly at your school? What obstacles have you run into,
while trying to accomplish this?
6. What potential short-term benefits can athletic branding bring? What long-term opportunities exist? Is it
possible for High School athletic departments to be self-sufficient at some point in the future through
various branding techniques such as marketing, sponsorship,and fundraising?
7. What element of athletic branding is the most essentialat the interscholastic level? What is the most
challenging?
8. How does the various athletic branding components fit into the budget? Is it something that is prioritized or
is it relegated to what’s left after otherthings?
9. Most colleges have a flagship program. Do you think athletic branding in high schoolwill marginalize
other sports at the expense of football or basketball? Could this be beneficial economically and athletically
to the entire student body?
10. What impact does schoolsize have on branding locally?
11. Athletic Department re-brandings are useful in promoting athletic departments and reaching market
segments.These can be very expensive. Does the benefits outweigh the cost at the high school level?
12. How important is the faculty buy-in at the interscholastic level for branding? What challenges and
opportunities do such interactions present?
13. Are there any other additional things that you want to add about athletic branding that I may have missed?
Results
Throughout the data there were several trends that stood out. Primarily, the high school
athletic directors knew about branding, but they didn’t have much knowledge regarding the
components of branding. The athletic directors also did not know how to fit branding into the
interscholastic curriculum, and either did not know or failed to see the benefits of the business
side of branding. Those were the prevalent themes that were noticeable throughout data analysis.
The “quantitative” data based on the high or low content criteria is illustrated in figures 1 and 2
at the end of this section.

High school athletic directors knew about branding in the basic sense, but did not have
adequate knowledge about the components of branding. Each and every athletic director knew
what branding was, but had little to no idea at all of how to implement it. Questions #2, #5, #7,
#10 were based on Aaker’s (1991) work on brand equity and increasing brand value (as cited in
Arai, et al., 2014). The athletic directors’ answers to those questions were overwhelming low
content. There were approximately 2 high content answers to those questions out of a possible
20. That 10% reflects the fact that athletic directors do not know about the components required
for the implementation of branding. While the percentage may be slightly higher in other areas,
this is more than likely a huge problem for all interscholastic athletic directors. These athletic
directors did not rise through the ranks in intercollegiate athletic departments or profit based
professional teams. At the interscholastic level, athletic directors often come from
teaching/coaching backgrounds. While they are aware of the concept of branding, the in-depth
knowledge or experience from years of sophisticated branding measures are not there. This has
huge implications for future research.
Another major trend of the data was the uncertainty and concerns of athletic directors of
fitting branding into the high school curriculum. John Sheehan, vice president of the Douglas
County school board in Colorado stated, “Education and marketing are like oil and water. Public
education has an agenda that is already crowded enough. When we become marketers and
distributors, we confuse our mission” (Rockne, 2002). The participants of this study echoed
those sentiments throughout several answers. Interscholastic athletics are primarily required to
serve and supplement educational values, and fall in line with the mission statement. The athletic
directors constantly voiced concerns over the compatibility of true branding in high schools.
They held the non-profit components of branding such as fundraising and donations in high

esteem, but were skeptical as to whether the business and revenue generating side was necessary
and plausible. The athletic directors’ answers clarified their knowledge of the benefits of
branding but these were outmatched by their concerns. These high school athletic directors did
not want their schools going outside of their core values, which are also a concern in
intercollegiate athletics, in order to increase the potential revenue stream. There was a consensus
that branding may not justify the “price”. When any type of advertising is involved there is
always an ethical dilemma that needs to be examined (Nwachukwu, Vitell, Gilbert, & Barnes,
1997). That cannot be ignored, but there is some good news as well; Notre Dame proved that you
could have a profitable and marketable brand while not diverging off the path of academic and
institutional excellence (Belzer, 2013). More brand related research could quell some of that
uneasiness amongst the athletic directors.
Continuing with the athletic directors’ concerns of compatibility is the fact that branding
requires making decisions that may offend social justice. An example of this would be putting a
disproportionate amount of resources and funding into the football program, because it is seen as
the most useful tool to market and generate value for the overall brand equity of the school. In
interscholastic sport, that isn’t as feasible since there is a dedication to athletic opportunities
across all sports. There was a belief amongst some athletic directors that branding, would
classify the programs by biggest reach and ability to increase brand equity. There is a reason the
University of Texas only has 16 varsity sports, while Boston College has 29 (both numbers
provided via each university’s athletic website) despite having much more resources. Branding
has played a role in that. Interscholastic athletics is built primarily on the principle of uniform
access to athletic opportunities. The athletic directors’ answers also indicated that they are
uniformly aware of the political and power issues that may come from extensive branding. While

they were adamant of that and their administration concerns on branding, they were also aware
that due to public schools needing to increase resources that branding will happen.
The results and analysis also showed that the benefits of the business side of branding
were not fully realized by the athletic directors. It goes back to the fact that high school athletic
directors are usually renowned coaches not sport businessmen. That disconnect is very evident
due to the fact that 4 out of the 5 athletic directors were completely indifferent to using it to
actually increase revenue, and that none of the schools had any type of marketing or promotional
aspects factored into their respective budgets. Athletic directors were homogenous in their belief
that branding could increase brand equity and thus value, but they had no foresight into how to
make this a reality. Question #6 was designed to provide quality data about the business
components of branding, and did not have one answer classified as high content. Answers were
generally in the realm of describing how branding would provide additionally support and
revenue, but there was no mention how that could be done, especially in regards to marketing
and sponsorship. The athletic directors were in some ways naïve about branding, assuming that
simply having branding would increase brand equity and success. For that to happen, branding
must be done right and they failed (maybe due to lack of content knowledge) to see the benefits
of implementation of “business branding”. One athletic director expressly mentioned that since
the schools were publicly funded, there was no need to increase revenue. Every dime raised
means less money that schools have to pay. The usage possibilities and benefits for that were
unfortunately unrealized.
The research showed that the athletic directors require more extensive comprehension of
branding and its elements. Knowing the basics of branding does not put them into position to
actually implement positive measures or to even see the benefits of implementing those

measures. Some concerns over the relationship between branding and education could also be
negated with more thorough analysis of interscholastic branding. With that said, there will
always be concerns and there are risk as well, but that is to be expected in order to increase
visibility. Notre Dame administrators admitted that the only way to fail at branding was to be
boring and continue the status quo (Belzer, 2013). You have to take risks to be successful. The
data supported that the athletic directors know the risks, but not how they can be mitigated or the
overall benefits that these risk could have on brand equity.
Figure 1
9
12
4
8
7
0 5 10 15
AD 1
AD 2
AD 3
AD 4
AD 5
Low Content
High Content

Figure 2
Discussion
The data supported the need for more research on interscholastic branding. With
professional sport literature ignoring branding until recently, and business journals focusing
more exclusively on non-sport related business practices, sport branding as a whole has not been
properly conceptualized (Hardy, et al., 2014). Sport is known for its trickle down effect, and with
more branding exclusively to sport being done at the professional and collegiate level, some of
that knowledge will reach high schools. When that happens high school leadership will have to
make tough decisions in regards to hiring. High school athletic directors aren’t typically seen as
“Branders”, oftentimes they are well-established coaches with great knowledge about the other
schools in the conference, the area as a whole, and scheduling. Interscholastic branding requires
schools to emphasize business elements in the hiring process. That will be met with resistance
from people that are reluctant to change or protecting their own positions. The athletic directors
High Content,
38%
Low Content, 62%
Overall Answer Quality
High Content
Low Content

acknowledged that implementing change is hard on the high school level because all of the
various stakeholders have to buy-in such as parents, students, the local community, faculty, and
administrators. Without the support of all of those stakeholders, implementing any type of
change in high school is difficult.
Education may not be the ideal setting for sport branding but it is already too late to
prevent it. Companies are already aggressively targeting the younger demographic because there
are over 7 million high school student athletes, an 80% increase in that target market since the
1970’s (Elliot, 2007). There is also excitement amongst the students to be branded and promoted
in this new age of technology and social media. Schools can either decide to capitalize on this
phenomenon or skip it entirely but it will not prevent the business objectives that are being
designed and targeted at kids for consumption. Schools taking part in it, allows the schools to
have more control over the message, while also using it to their advantage to increase equity,
which could be beneficial to a lot of students. Despite the concerns, if public schools value
providing opportunities, then the overall benefits of increased brand equity is critical to meeting
mission statement objectives.
This study primary limitations were in scope and design. Only ten athletic directors were
targeted, mostly because it would have been difficult to try to establish meetings with more than
ten athletic directors. This led to getting only five responses, which is useful for qualitative data
but tough to establish any type of generalizations off of. While these results and data may hold
true for Eastern North Carolina athletic directors, there is little external validity in applying it to
a county in the state of Washington. The design limitation was due to the convenience sampling
being used. Athletic directors were selected due to their proximity, and without random sampling
there is a much greater chance of unexplained variance or previous participant bias affecting

results. Maybe the various boards of education in Eastern North Carolina shun marketing in
interscholastic athletic departments and that skewed the results, especially the content level of
participants. We do not know if that is the case, but without any randomization or controls, we
do not know if that is not the case either. In qualitative data another researcher is useful as well
to prevent the bias of one researcher from influencing the observations of results. Private schools
were strategically excluded but are a limitation. Private schools are more likely to engage in
“selling” their school, so brand awareness and equity would conceivably be higher amongst
private school athletic directors.
Overall, sport branding needs more quantitative and specialized research, and
interscholastic branding is no different. Aaker (1996) addresses the need to track branding, as a
means of actually quantifying results, but there exists no standard of actually tracking true brand
equity in intercollegiate and interscholastic athletics. Future research could examine whether
there is a positive link between branding knowledge and athletic department success (measurable
by several variables), this would examine whether the athletic directors actually need more
theoretical knowledge on branding. An obvious future direction would be to include public and
private schools in a large scale randomized survey that tests some of these same knowledge
principles. That would show whether high school athletic directors are actually lacking in
knowledge in North Carolina, or whether their knowledge base is the norm for the interscholastic
level. Future areas of practice include at the minimum actually marketing events. The athletic
directors acknowledge that high school athletics depends on gate receipts, so the need for
revenue is there. A simple naming sponsorship could reflect the same thing as 100 additional
paying consumers. In the scope of high school athletics, several hundred dollars matter. The
opportunities for sponsorship simply are not being capitalized. Maybe require a branding

workshop for athletic directors. This would provide them with a more extensive view on
branding and its business components and usefulness. High schools as a whole can benefit for
more branding elements especially since research has been done proving that companies want to
work with high schools, and that consumers are supportive of this partnership (Elliot, 2007; Stein
& Encina, 2008). Ultimate the interscholastic athletic directors, as the head of high school
athletic departments have to choose whether they will be proactive in branding. The difference
could be establishing a local Notre Dame type of brand, or a mid-major.

References
Aaker, D. (1996). Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets. California
Management Review, 38(3), 102-120.
Arai, A., Ko, Y. J., & Ross, S. (2014). Branding Athletes: Exploration and Conceptualization of
Athlete Brand Image. Sport Management Review, 17(1), 97-106.
Batchelor, B., & Formentin, M. (2008). Re-branding the NHL: Building the League Through the
“My NHL” Integrated Marketing Campaign. Public Relations Review, 34(2), 156-160.
Belzer, J. (2013). What Notre Dame Athletics Teaches Us About Creating Enduring Brands.
Forbes.
Bouchet, A., & Hutchinson, M. (2012). Brand Establishment at the University of Chicago: An
Investigation of De-escalation of Commitment in University Athletics. Journal of Sport
Administration & Supervision, 4(1), 97-113.
Clark, J. S., Apostolopoulou, A., Branvold, S., & Synowka, D. (2009). Who Knows Bobby Mo?
Using Intercollegiate Athletics to Build a University Brand. Sport Marketing Quarterly,
18(1), 57-63.
Cooper, C. G., Ross, S. D., & Southall, R. (2011). Revolutionizing the Market: Innovative
Electronic Branding Strategies Within NCAA Athletic Departments. International Journal
of Sport Management, 12(3), 275-287.
Elliot, S. (2007). Marketers Are Joining the Varsity. The New York Times.
Feris, C. (2007). Marketing a High School Athletic Program. Interscholastic Athletic
Administration, 34(2), 14-15.
Garvis, S. (n.d.). Selling The Passion. Athletic Management.
Hardy, S., Norman, B., & Sceery, S. (2012). Toward a history of sport branding. Journal of
Historical Research in Marketing, 4(4), 482-509.
Judson, K., Gorchels, L., & Aurand, T. (2006). Building a University Brand from Within: A
Comparison of Coaches' Perspectives of Internal Branding. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 16(1), 97-114.
Kohli, C., Suri, R., Kapoor, A. (2015). Will Social Media Kill Branding?, Business Horizons,
58(1) 1, 35-44.
Mah, T. (2005). Refining the Athletics Department's Visual Identity. Athletics Administration,
40(2), 17-19.

Mumford, V. E., Kane, J. J., & Maina, M. P. (2004). Winning Strategies in Marketing Your
Sporting Events. Coach & Athletic Director, 73(6), 50-57.
Nwachukwu, S. L. S., Vitell Jr., S. J., Gilbert, F. W., & Barnes, J. H. (1997). Ethics and Social
Responsibility in Marketing: An Examination of the Ethical Evaluation of Advertising
Strategies. Journal of Business Research, 39(2), 107-118.
Rennstam, J. (2013). Branding in the Sacrificial Mode – A Study of the Consumptive Side of
Brand Value Production. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29(2), 123-134.
Rockne, J. (2002). Branded: Corporations and our Schools. Reclaim Democracy.
Ryan, T. D., Havard, C. T., & Irwin, R. L. (2013). Sponsorship and State High School Football
Championships: An analysis of Consumer Spending. Applied Research in Coaching &
Athletics Annual, 28, 97-110.
Stein, L., Encina, E.A. (2008). Sports Branding Hits High Schools. Tampa Bay Times.
Walsh, P., Clavio, G., Lovell, M. D., & Blaszka, M. (2013). Differences in Event Brand
Personality Between Social Media Users and Non-users. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 22(4),
214-223.
Watkins, B.A., & Gonzenbach, W. J. (2013). Assessing University Brand
Personality Through Logos: an Analysis of the Use of Academics and Athletics in
University Branding. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 23(1), 15-33.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Consumer-based
Brand Equity Scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1-14.
Yong, J. K., Kim, K., Claussen, C. L., & Tae, H. K. (2008). The Effects of Sport Involvement,
Sponsor Awareness and Corporate Image on Intention to Purchase Sponsors' Products.
International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 9(2), 79-94.

HardestyHSAthleticBranding

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to HardestyHSAthleticBranding

HardestyHSAthleticBranding