Third Stage – Construct Analysis

Third Order Themes – Methodological Constructs

The use of Descriptive versus Analytic studies

It is noteworthy that a large part of the studies identified through the systematic literature review is descriptive in general, lacking conceptual explanations of the mechanisms through which sponsorship works, the way in which sponsorship decisions are made, the impact of sponsorship upon several outcomes, and the objectives pursued and motives triggering the sponsorship activity. Such descriptive articles simply report sponsorship practices or the economic aspects of the sponsorship activity in certain contexts (e.g. Asimakopoulos, 1993; Gratton

& Taylor, 1985; Gross, Traylor & Shuman, 1987; Lynn, 1987; Meerabeau et al., 1991; Obsniuk & Smith, 2008; Ordish, 2005) without any intention to provide any explanatory analysis of the trends or the results obtained. In addition, many descriptive studies dealt with objectives and motivation issues and, although those studies (e.g. Polonsky et al. 1996; Thwaites, 1993, Thwaites et al., 1998;

Thwaites & Carruthers, 1998) provided essential information about the desired objectives pursued by sponsors and the driving forces behind their decision to be involved in sponsorship, they failed to locate their findings within certain frameworks, theories and concepts that can provide conceptual explanations of the results. Within the same descriptive framework, several authors reported the practices and criteria used by sponsors when selecting a sponsorship (e.g. Furst, 1994; Irwin & Asimakopoulos, 1992; Liu et al., 1998; Thwaites, 1993, 1994, 1995).

The lack of underlying foundations guiding empirical enquiries was also criticised by many authors (e.g. Sam, Batty & Dean, 2005; Vignali, 1997), and it was indeed highlighted in earlier sponsorship literature reviews (e.g. Walliser, 2003). It is, however, of interest to note that, the systematic review conducted in this research seems to suggest that compared to earlier studies, much more analytical papers

65 have been published recently. Hence, despite a prevalence of studies lacking conceptual foundations, several authors have attempted to approach the sponsorship phenomenon from an analytic point of view. Interestingly, the review of the literature identified an increasing conceptual grounding in the efforts of several authors to explain sponsorship functioning (e.g. Arthur et al., 1997; Berrett

& Slack, 1999; Chadwick, 2002, 2009; Clark et al., 2003; Cornwell, 2008;

Cousens & Slack, 1996; Hoek, 1999; Olkkonen et al., 2000; Quester & Farrelly, 1998; Shaw & Amis, 2001).

Exchange theory had been used by authors such as McCarville & Copeland (1994) in order to enlighten the sport sponsorship activity through focusing on the benefits that the two parties can gain, whilst there had been some research efforts attempting to elaborate on the nature of the sponsorship arrangement through the employment of relationship marketing concepts (e.g. Chadwick, 2002; Farrelly &

Quester, 2005; Geng et al., 2002; Olkkonen, 2001; Olkkonen et al., 2000), the resource based theory (Amis et al., 1997; Daellenbach, Davies & Ashill, 2006;

Davies, Daellenbach & Ashill, 2008; Papadimitriou & Apostolopoulou, 2009), the network perspective (e.g. Olkkonen, 2001; Olkkonen et al., 2000) and strategic alliance (Farrelly & Quester, 2005). Moreover, many of those analytical efforts are found in the sponsorship evaluation literature, with many authors using social identity theory (e.g. Cornwell & Coote, 2005; Garry et al., 2008; Gwinner &

Swanson, 2003; Madrigal, 2001) in their effort to identify and explain the impact of fan identification upon several sponsorship outcomes.

Treating Objectives and Motives as Synonyms

One of the main methodological concerns generated by the constructive analysis of the studies included in this systematic review is the fact that many authors conducting sponsorship research approached motives and objectives as synonyms (e.g. Abratt et al., 1987; Pope & Voges, 1994). With some exceptions in the literature (e.g. Apostolopoulou and Papadimitriou, 2004), many authors such as Amis et al., (1999) Thwaites and Carruthers (1998) and Papadimitriou et

66 al. (2008), treated the rationale for sponsorship involvement and the objectives pursued by sponsors as the same thing. In fact, in the study conducted by Pope and Voges (1994) objectives are used as motives, with the authors arguing that

“the term objective when quoted by previous researchers has in fact been synonymous with motive” (p. 44). This notion is inexact since the literature review in this study identified several motives that cannot be regarded as corporate objectives pursued by sponsors, such as the manager’s personal liking of a certain sport (Burton et al., 1998; Thwaites & Carruthers, 1998), the familiarity of the manager with a particular sport, league or team (Burton et al., 1998), the advancement of personal agendas and interests of the manager (Cornwell, Pruitt

& Van Ness, 2001b) or altruistic and moral motives aiming at providing help or support to the country as demonstrated by Papadimitriou et al. (2008) and Apostolopoulou and Papadimitriou (2004). Hence, it is recommended that the terms motives and objectives should be examined separately in sport sponsorship inquiry.

Predominance of Quantitative methodologies in Sponsorship Literature

It is obvious that the dominant approach in sponsorship research is quantitative since the vast majority of the studies explored in the systematic review employed quantitative measures and methods to examine the sponsorship phenomenon (e.g. Akaoui, 2007; Alexandris, Tsaousi & James, 2007; Bennett et al., 2002;

Christensen, 2006; Cunningham et al., 2009; Grohs et al., 2004; Hansen, Halling

& Christensen, 2006; Irwin, Lachowetz, Comwell & Clark, 2003; Lough & Irwin, 2001; Miloch & Lambrecht, 2006; Miyazaki & Morgan, 2001; Nicholls, Roslow &

Dublish, 1999; Nufer, 2009; Spence et al., 1997; Tomasini, Frye & Stotlar, 2004;

Westerbeek, 2000; Westerbeek & Smith, 2002). Apart from the survey methodology relying on the employment of questionnaires, another nomothetic approach that was employed by a small number of researchers (e.g. Byon &

Zhang, 2009; Coppetti, et al., 2009; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Kuzma et al., 2003;

Levin, Joiner & Cameron, 2001; McCarville, Flood & Froats, 1998; McDaniel,

67 1999; Ruth & Simonin, 2006) was the experimental or quasi-experimental design.

The artificial exposure conditions of the experiment used by some researchers such as McDaniel (1999) and McCarville et al. (1998) however, can be regarded as an important methodological limitation which may have impacted the reliability and validity of the findings, while at the same time limit the generalisability of the results. On the other hand, a methodological strength of this design is that it allows for controlling many external factors such as the impact of advertising.

Although there had been much criticism in the sponsorship literature regarding the prevalence of quantitative methods in exploring a multidimensional phenomenon such as sponsorship, Girginov and Sandanski (2004) in commenting the methodological developments associated with sponsorship argued that those are heavily dependent on the conceptualisation of sponsorship adopted by authors.

Specifically, the authors held that for those espousing a traditional marketing approach dealing with the management of the marketing mix would favor nomothetic methods, while the authors advocating a network perspective dealing primarily with the management of the relationships of a whole network “would prefer action-oriented methods (case studies and action research)” (Girginov &

Sandanski, 2004, p. 129). Hence, it could be argued that an experiential phenomenon such as sponsorship cannot easily and only be studied and understood through positivistic quantitative approaches. The fact, for example, that many researchers used a pre-determined list of sponsors’ motives and objectives or criteria employed for selecting the property to be sponsored (e.g.

Copeland, Frisby & McCarville, 1996, Thwaites et al., 1998 etc.) and asked the respondents to rate their importance when making sponsorship decisions can be regarded as a highly directive method which does not allow the researcher to get in-depth understanding on the respondents’ views and subjective interpretations or conceptions of the sponsorship activity they engage in. Instead, adopting a qualitative perspective in researching sport sponsorship can be proved more constructive and beneficial, albeit that a full detachment of the researcher from the methods, events and analysis of the findings cannot be ensured in an interpretative qualitative research design (Girginov & Sandanski, 2004).

68 Cornwell and Maignan (1998), for example, argued that there are certain areas of sponsorship research, such as studies examining the strategic aspects and use of sport sponsorship, for which qualitative research is more appropriate for improving our understanding. The use of qualitative enquiry has also been advocated by Yang et al. (2008) who went on to argue that qualitative methods such as observations and audits are essential methods for enhancing “the methodological rigour and value” of sponsorship studies (p. 76). Similarly, Shaw and Amis (2001) felt that qualitative approaches can provide a richer understanding of the sponsorship process, whilst Choi et al. (2006, p. 71) opposed to the use of “quantitative metrics” when measuring the sponsorship experience. Thus, there had been a significant number of studies that used qualitative methods in examining the sponsorship phenomenon, albeit that those studies are significantly less than the quantitative studies. Authors such as Olkkonnen (2001), Amis (2003), Girginov & Sandanski, (2004), Farrelly, Quester

& Greyser (2005), Daellenbach et al. (2006), Wilson et al. (2008), Westberg et al.

(2008), Scherer, Falcous & Jackson, (2008), Yang et al. (2008), Pichot et al.

(2009), and Pegoraro et al. (2009) relied on qualitative data collection methods in order to explain the nature of sponsorship and its strategic aspects. Qualitative method was also employed by authors examining the management and leveraging strategies used by sponsors (e.g. Armstrong, 1988; Barez et al., 2007;

Choi et al., 2006; Davies & Tsiantas, 2008; Papadimitriou & Apostolopoulou, 2009; Seguin et al., 2005), as well as by authors investigating the motives or objectives associated with sport sponsorship, and the sponsors’ decision-making process when investing in sponsorship (e.g. Apostolopoulou & Papadimitriou, 2004; Berrett & Slack, 1999; Davies & Tsiantas, 2008). Much less qualitative research had been employed in evaluating sponsorship effectiveness (e.g.

Lamont & Dowell, 2008; Meenaghan & Shipley, 1999). Vignali (1997) heavily criticised the predominance of quantitative methods in examining the outcomes of a qualitative activity such as sponsorship. Similarly, Dewk (1993) used the phrase of Lesa Ukman, who argued that sponsorship experts erroneously evaluate

69 sponsorship “in terms of take offs instead of landings - it's a qualitative not quantitative thing."

Most of the studies that used a qualitative methodological research design relied on the use of semi-structured interviews (e.g. Amis et al., 1997; Apostolopoulou &

Papadimitriou, 2004; Berrett & Slack, 1999, 2001; Davies & Tsiantas, 2008;

Motion, Leitch & Brodie, 2003; Papadimitriou & Apostolopoulou, 2009;

Papadimitriou et al., 2008; Sequin et al., 2005; Westberg et al., 2008; Wilson et al., 2008). Semi-structured interviews were regarded for instance by Wilson et al.

(2008), and Westberg et al. (2008) as the most appropriate tool for investigating the sponsorship phenomenon since they provide respondents with the opportunity to expand on questions and to answer on their own terms, whilst at the same time this technique allows for comparability. Interestingly, only one study in the whole literature review conducted in this research employed an ethnographic research design in examining the sponsorship experience. Ethnography, which is defined by Merriam (1998) as a sociocultural interpretation of the data, was employed by Choi et al. (2006) in their effort to examine the attitudes and cultures of the sport spectators of an event. The study used visual observation (through a photo journal that was created for the event under study) and interviews, and the goal was to conduct “an in-depth field study of naturally occurring behaviour at a sporting event” (Choi et al. 2006, p. 72).

Another much less represented qualitative method employed by authors examining sponsorship is the gathering of data through focus group discussions.

Specifically, only Meenaghan and Shipley (1999) relied exclusively on this method for exploring the image transfer process for different sponsorship categories as perceived by consumers, while another study (Pope, 1998) also used focus group discussions in evaluating the results of sport sponsorship through consumption value research, but it was combined with quantitative data collection procedures.

Another interesting methodological characteristic of the studies included in the systematic review is that, regardless whether they have used a quantitative or qualitative methodology, many authors employed a case study method in

70 approaching and researching sponsorship (e.g. Daellenbach et al., 2006; Doherty

& Murrey, 2007; Irwin et al., 2003; Papadimitriou et al., 2008; Sack & Fried, 2001).

Goldman and Johns (2009), for example, focused on a single case study in order to examine sport sponsorship, and what it is interesting about this paper is that the authors gathered evidence from many different sources, such as press articles, sponsorship reports, figures and other data, interviews, conversations and direct observation of the event. The authors felt that a case study approach would be much more beneficial in investigating sport sponsorship within its real-life context, whilst the variety of evidence gathered had been regarded as very important in constructing valid findings. Moreover, there are several authors who examined sponsorship using a multi-case study method (e.g. Aiyeku, 2009;

Berrett & Slack, 2001; Lamont & Dowell, 2008; Shaw & Amis, 2001; Smolianov &

Aiyeku, 2009; Tripodi & Hirons, 2009). Hence, the focus of those studies had been on examining the sponsorship practices of a certain category of sponsors, such as the study conducted by Papadimitriou et al. (2008) on Grand National Olympic sponsors, or the work carried out by Smolianov and Aiyeku (2009) on the sponsors of the Wimbledon Tennis Tournament in London and the Olympic Games in Sydney.

Focus and Sample Considerations

Some additional points that emerged from the construct analysis of the studies concern the properties explored and sample characteristics. Specifically, most of the studies have focused on the sponsor and its policies, priorities, management practices, objectives and motives, whilst very few studies chose to direct attention to the sponsored property. Some of those authors that focused on investigating the sponsored property and its management efforts in securing or managing a sponsorship deal are Berrett and Slack (2001), Sack and Fried (2001), Jowdy and McDonald, (2002), Tomasini et al. (2004), Sam et al. (2005), Doherty and Murrey, (2007), Wilson and Westberg, (2008), Braunstein, Newman & Beissel, (2008), and McKelvey and Grady, (2008). Interestingly, there had been some research

71 efforts that explored both parties involved in a sponsorship arrangement - the sponsor and the sponsee – but those are scarcely found in the sponsorship literature included in this systematic review (e.g. Deane, Smith & Adams, 2003;

DeGaris, 2008; Farrelly & Quester, 2008; Geng et al., 2002; Goldman & Johns, 2009; Hansen et al., 2006; Lamont & Dowell, 2008; Scherer et al., 2008; Séguin et al., 2005). Even more limited research has tried to be more inclusive (e.g.

Girginov & Sandanski, 2004) and attempted to investigate all actors involved in a sponsorship deal, such as the sponsor, the sponsee, the media, national governing bodies etc.

In addition to the strong emphasis found on the sponsor, another interesting finding is the prominence of studies that focused upon mature and more commercialised sponsorship contexts, such as the USA, Canada and the UK.

Indeed, sponsorship theories and frameworks were primarily constructed based on a “highly commercialized market and related systems of social and cultural values” (Yang et al., 2008, p. 63), whilst less developed and less matured sponsorship contexts with unique characteristics and cultural settings were highly ignored in sponsorship research, despite the fact that those can provide an interesting and highly valued background for sponsorship inquiry. Thus, there had been much less interest upon developing sponsorship environments such as Greece (e.g. Davies & Tsiantas, 2008; Papadimitriou & Apostolopoulou, 2009;

Samitas et al., 2008; Tsiotsou & Alexandris, 2009), China (e.g. Geng et al., 2002;

Soderman & Dolles, 2008; Yang et al., 2008), South Africa (Van Heerden & du Plessis, 2004), Romania (Constantinescu & Szekely, 2009) or Australia (e.g.

Farrelly & Quester, 2005; Lamont & Dowell, 2008; Polonsky et al., 1996).

Examining, however, sponsorship activities in less commercialised contexts can be proved particularly useful, especially when considering that research has implied differences with regard to sponsorship practices between mature and less mature markets (e.g. Farrelly et al., 1997). Although the majority of the studies paid attention to the countries characterised by more sophisticated sponsorship environments, there have been some international research efforts to examine sponsorship in different contexts (e.g. Armstrong, 1988; Chadwick, 2009; Farrelly

72 et al., 2005; Giannoulakis, Stotlar & Chatziefstathiou, 2008; Koo et al., 2006a;

Ladousse, 2009; Olkkonen, 2001; Santomier, 2008; Shaw & Amis, 2001), with some of them combining more mature and less mature markets (e.g. Akaoui, 2007; Dalakas & Kropp, 2002; Farrelly et al., 1997; Kropp, Lavack, Holden &

Dalakas, 1999; Smolianov & Aiyeku, 2009; Vignali, 1997) and some of them undertaking comparative research (e.g. Burton et al. 1998; Dalakas & Kropp, 2002; Farrelly et al., 1997) in order to identify differences in sponsorship management practices.

Moreover, it is worth noting the prevalence of certain sport contexts that received much research attention, especially professional and collegiate sports (e.g.

football, the Olympics, and rugby) whereas areas such as the recreational and leisure sectors were not heavily researched. Another methodological characteristic of the sponsorship literature review is that a very large number of authors examined large corporations that act as sponsors, with small businesses receiving much less interest. In fact, very few studies took into consideration small businesses involved in sponsorship (e.g. Cornwell, Pruitt & Clark, 2005; Lamont &

Dowell, 2008; Polonsky et al., 1996), but given that many small businesses are involved in small scale sport sponsorships, it would be very beneficial to examine their sponsorship activities which may differ from large sponsors’ priorities and practices, as research has suggested (Crowley, 1991; Doherty & Murray, 2007;

Gratton & Taylor, 1985; Polonsky et al, 1996; Thwaites & Carruthers, 1998;

Westerbeek, 2000).

Another important methodological finding that emerged from the construct analysis involves sample quality and size issues. Specifically, many studies relied on convenience samples consisting mainly of students (e.g. Bennett et al., 2002;

Chebat & Daoud, 2003; Dalakas & Kropp, 2002; Hansen et al., 2006; Lee, Sandler & Shani, 1997; McCarville et al., 1998; McDaniel, 1999; Pope, 1998;

Ruth & Simonin, 2006). This type of sample raises concerns regarding the generalizability of the findings to different populations. Although student population is an important target audience for many sponsors, shifting attention to

73 other age populations or professional groups would be constructive and advantageous for sponsorship research. In addition to the sample quality, sample size issues generate more concerns and it is a methodological area that needs considerable improvements since many studies used a very small sample – approximately 100 participants - (e.g. Chebat & Daoud, 2003; Westerbeek &

Smith, 2002), whilst only a few of the studies identified in the literature review focused on a large number of participants – O'Reilly, Lyberger, McCarthy, Séguin

& Nadeau (2008), for example, relied on more than 3000 participants for their longitudinal study, Shin & Turco (2005) used more than 1000 respondents, Pope (1998) relied on a sample consisting of 921 individuals, Sack & Fried (2001) on 1400 participants, and Stotlar (2002) on 717 respondents.

Another issue that raises concerns with regard to the sample quality involves the approach to data collection adopted by certain studies. The fact, for example, that some studies relied on on-line research using mainly web-based questionnaires (e.g. Akaoui, 2007; Dees, Bennett & Villegas, 2008; Portlock & Rose, 2009) leads to the conclusion that consumers who are not IT-literate are excluded from the research, creating biases in the sample (Portlock & Rose, 2009). Indeed, Dees et al. (2008) acknowledged that this method may had contributed to the age distribution of the sample that appeared in their study, with young adults being much more well represented since they may had been more familiar or more comfortable with using the required technology. Additional concerns are raised from the fact that some countries may have low internet penetration rates, something that can also result to the exclusion of many individuals from an online study’s sample (Akaoui, 2007). Additionally, there is an issue relating to internet penetration across target groups (Akaoui, 2007) which is regarded as an obstacle when the goal is to research target groups that are less familiar with technology (e.g. older population).

An additional problem associated with web-based research is that, the completion of an on-line questionnaire without the presence of the researcher raises significant concerns regarding the reliability of the data gathered. This is what

74 Akaoui (2007, p. 149) called “the respondent’s elusiveness” which is regarded by the author as resulting in the attention of the respondents becoming distracted and thus affecting the quality of the findings. In addition, the fact that there is no interviewer guiding or controlling the process can allow respondents to have access to external stimulation (Portlock & Rose, 2009), something that is undesirable in some cases, such as when the study is measuring unaided sponsors’ recall for example. Having said this, it is important not to underestimate the advantages of on-line research, such as the fact that data are gathered really quickly, the economic benefit of such a cost-effective method, the ease of

74 Akaoui (2007, p. 149) called “the respondent’s elusiveness” which is regarded by the author as resulting in the attention of the respondents becoming distracted and thus affecting the quality of the findings. In addition, the fact that there is no interviewer guiding or controlling the process can allow respondents to have access to external stimulation (Portlock & Rose, 2009), something that is undesirable in some cases, such as when the study is measuring unaided sponsors’ recall for example. Having said this, it is important not to underestimate the advantages of on-line research, such as the fact that data are gathered really quickly, the economic benefit of such a cost-effective method, the ease of