The role of mega-sports event interest in sponsorship and ambush marketing attitudes.

MacIntosh, Eric ; Nadeau, John ; Seguin, Benoit 等

The Role of Mega-Sports Event Interest in Sponsorship and Ambush Marketing Attitudes

The sponsorship of mega-sports events has become a marketing tool of choice for corporations seeking reach and branding impact both globally, nationally, and locally within the host city and country. Megasports events are capable of transmitting "promotional messages to billions of people via television and other developments in telecommunications" (Horne & Manzenreiter, 2006, p. 2). In particular, the Olympic Games, and the global sponsorship program known as "The Olympic Programme" (TOP), has become a widely regarded sport marketing initiative.

Since the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics displayed the marketing prowess of the Olympic brand, multiple large scale international organizations have desired affiliation. Indeed, research has shown that the TOP Programme has benefited both the sponsors (Seguin, Lyberger, O'Reilly, & McCarthy, 2005) and the rights-holder; the International Olympic Committee (IOC) (Rozin, 2000). The IOC's 2005-2008 (i.e., TOP VI program) brought revenues in excess of US $866 million from nine sponsors (IOC, 2010) and the 2009-2012 (TOP VII program) is expected to exceed US $1 billion in rights fees from its 11 TOP sponsors. The most recent edition of the IOC's bi-annual Games took place in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Above the monies generated by the 2005-2008 quadrennial, the Vancouver Olympic Games Organizing Committee (VANOC) generated an additional CDN $760 million (VANOC, 2008) in domestic (national) sponsorship monies. Given the amount of international exposure and the considerable monetary investments to become an officially recognized sponsor (e.g., non-alcoholic beverage), understanding the consumer's perspectives on sponsorship activities is critical for sponsors.

The high interest and intense competition from other corporations wishing to benefit from the global mega-sports event platform has created some prominent issues for the IOC; namely the need for increased protection of sponsors from ambush marketing organizations (Seguin & O'Reilly, 2008). Ambush marketing is known to be "a planned effort (campaign) by an organization to associate itself indirectly with an event in order to gain at least some of the recognition and benefits that are associated with being an official sponsor" (Sandler & Shani, 1989, p. 11). In essence, this type of marketing tactic is meant to create confusion in the consumer's mind and hence gain the benefits of being an Olympic sponsor while weakening the competition's position (Meenaghan, 1994).

To date, few studies exist publicly on determining consumer perspectives regarding sponsorship and ambush marketing of mega-sports events. The research that does exist remains inconclusive. Sandler and Shani (1993) reported that 68.8% of their respondents indicated Olympic sponsorship had no impact on their purchase patterns. To the contrary, Stotlar (1993) reported that 66% of respondents indicated that Olympic sponsorship favourably affected their purchase habits. Finally, Seguin et al. (2005) found that 38% of respondents were more likely to consider support of a sponsor, and 31% were more likely to purchase from an official sponsor. Hence, the strength of the relationship between sponsorship attitude and behavior remains rather ambiguous.

The purpose of the research was to examine the impact of consumer interest in the Olympics as a salient determinant of official and unofficial sponsorship attitudes. Secondly, it sought to determine the propensity by which purchase intention is influenced by cognitive and evaluative/affective dimensions as in the greater marketing literature, these relationships are thought to be critical to understanding consumer behavior (e.g., Folkes, 1988; Poon & Prendergast, 2006). In order to achieve these purposes, a series of demographic, cognitive and affective based questions were posed via a written questionnaire to consumers during the second week of the 2010 Olympic Winter Games regarding sponsorship and ambush marketing. This paper adds to the literature on mega-sports event marketing research (e.g., Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2007) and contributes to the research on cognitive and affective dimensions of the sponsorship of mega-sports event paradigm and the contribution these characteristics have in predicting sponsor-related conation; a key indicator of sponsorship success. The paper begins with a review of literature on Olympic sponsorship research and purchasing intentions to help frame the study. Research on the role of cognition and affective states in purchasing intention is also noted. Next, the hypotheses for the research are presented, and the method and data collection are outlined.

Literature Review

The management of Olympic sponsorship is a complex undertaking given the various levels of sponsorship rights, which include the TOP programme (worldwide sponsor exclusivity), the Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG) program, [joint marketing program with the host country's National Olympic Committee (NOC) and OCOG (for a national sponsorship program)] and the NOC programmes (each of the 205 NOC's market their own Olympic marks for exclusive national sponsorship rights). In addition to these three levels of Olympic sponsorship, there are also international sport federations, national sport federations, clubs, events, coaches and athletes that all have sponsorship programs complicating the Olympic sponsorship archetype. While these are not officially linked to the Olympic sponsorship program, they are an integral part of the Olympic system (see Chappelet & Kubler-Mabbott, 2008) and as such, its sponsorship landscape.

The presence of increased 'clutter' in the marketplace has challenged all sponsoring organizations to communicate their products and services (Elliot & Speck, 1998; Rotfeld, 2002). This is certainly the case for the Olympics where clutter has been attributed to the confusion amongst consumers whom have reported difficulty in distinguishing between official and unofficial sponsors (Sandler & Shani, 1989, 1993; Shani & Sandler, 1998; Seguin et al., 2005). The presence of ambush marketing and the subsequent difficulties consumers have reported in distinguishing between official and unofficial sponsors have been postulated to influence consumer's purchase intention (Seguin et al., 2005, Seguin & O'Reilly, 2008). Concomitantly, a person's level of interest may also be predictive of conation (Koo, Quarterman, & Flynn, 2006; Wang, 2008). As a result, sponsor activation programs (i.e., investment in leveraging the opportunity beyond the rights fees) have become an essential strategy for sponsors in their quest to 'claim their space' (i.e. break through the clutter), to engage consumers with their brands and to have positive return on their investments (Seguin & O'Reilly, 2008; Walliser, 2003).

Sponsorship effectiveness is often linked to its impact on consumers' intent to purchase sponsors' products (Chavanat, Martinent, & Ferrand, 2009; Daneshvary & Schwer, 2000). Although intent to purchase may not be the perfect indicator of sales (Crompton, 2004), it is generally viewed as a good measure (Walliser, 2003). Research has shown that sponsorship has positively influenced consumption, particularly if the association between sponsor and sponsee is a good fit (Cornwell, Pruitt, & van Ness, 2001; Grier et al., 2007; Koo, Quarterman, & Flynn, 2006; Mueller, 2007).

Currently, researchers are delving further into the mental impact and behavioral implications of sponsorship on consumers through examining cognitive and affective factors which are thought to further explain conation (e.g., Poon & Prendergast, 2006; Wang, 2008). Wang (2008) remarked that the availability of information, a person's motivation and their beliefs lead to various attributions and ultimately feelings and behaviors. Lacsniak, Decarlo and Ramaswami (2001) found that what a person attributes to a brand had a significant impact on their evaluation, and others have noted that behavior can be explained in part by a person's degree of interest (Lacey, Close, & Finney, 2010; Zaichkowsky, 1985). Interest in a particular product category or brand motivates a consumer to pay attention to relevant information or seek out additional information pertaining to the object of interest as part of the purchase decision making process (Lacey et al., 2010). Thus, consumers tend to have a higher degree of familiarity with a brand of their interest compared to consumers with a low level of interest. Chavanat et al. (2009) commented that cognitive, affect and conative dimensions could be analysed further to understand the hierarchy of effects on the sponsor and consumer behavior relationship.

Conceptual Development of Constructs

This study examined several factors found to be of particular relevance to sponsorship and ambush marketing attitudes (c.f., Seguin et al., 2005). Attitudes are generally viewed as containing cognition (beliefs), affect (emotions) and conation (intentions and actions) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1972). Poon and Prendergast (2006) maintained that cognition and affect influence behavior (i.e., purchase intention). As purchase intention is also thought to be a consequence of consumer interest (Chavanat et al., 2009; Lacey et al., 2010; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999), we also examined this further in the research. Specifically, respondents were asked to indicate their level of interest in the Winter and Summer Olympic Games, their beliefs about the fairness of official and unofficial sponsors as well as their ability to distinguish between official and unofficial sponsors (i.e., cognitive), their evaluation of ambush marketing activities (i.e., affective), and their likelihood of supporting sponsoring organizations through the purchase of their products or services (i.e., conative).

Hypotheses

H1 = Respondents who have a higher level of interest in the Olympic Games will have more positive sponsorship attitudes than those with lower levels of interest in the Games.

H2 = Respondents who have a higher level of interest in the Olympic Games will have more positive purchase intentions than those with lower levels of interest in the Games.

Study Context

The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games took place in Vancouver (city sports) and Whistler (mountain sports), British Columbia, Canada, between February 12th and 28th (Olympic Games) and March 12th and 21st (Paralympic Games) 2010. The Vancouver Winter Olympic Games marked the third time that Canada has played host to the Olympics following Montreal 1976 (Summer) and Calgary 1988 (Winter). The Vancouver Games were sponsored by nine TOP Sponsors (i.e., Coke, Visa, McDonalds, Atos Origin, Samsung, Acer, Omega, Panasonic, GE) and six National Partners (Bell, HBC, RBC, Rona, GM, Petro Canada). Prior to hosting the Games, the Government of Canada passed Bill C-47, a piece of legislation known as the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act (OPMA) which provided protection to the IOC and the official sponsors over and above the Trademarks Act which protects the intellectual property in general in Canada (see Ellis, Scassa, & Seguin, 2011).

Method

This study employed a survey methodology to collect consumer perspectives on the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games. In order to obtain information from a wide demographic pool, a convenience sample using a mall intercept strategy and quota technique was employed in four different cities across the country during the second week of the Vancouver Games. This timing helped ensure a level of standardization across the various data collection sites.

Research Instrument

The research instrument was based on the Consumer Perception Index used by O'Reilly et al. (2008) and constructed, in part, from earlier indexes developed by Sandler and Shani (1998), Lyberger and McCarthy (2001), and Seguin et al. (2005) to gauge consumer opinions on advertising, commercialization, sponsorship, ambush marketing and interest. The first part of the survey asked respondents to indicate their level of interest (e.g., 1 = no interest at all, 5 = very interested) in the 2010 Olympic Winter Games and other megasports events (e.g., Super Bowl, FIFA World Cup). In order to arrive at a general understanding of the respondents levels of awareness regarding sponsorship, five questions were asked in a 'yes, no, I do not know' format (e.g., I am aware of the different levels of sponsorship associated with the Olympics). Next, respondents were asked a total of 26 questions regarding their attitudes towards sponsorship and ambush marketing. These questions utilized a 5-point Likert scale anchored with 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Questions asked respondents to indicate (for example) whether they can distinguish between official and unofficial sponsors; whether they try to purchase products that are advertised during the Olympics; whether they make the distinction between companies that sponsor the Olympics and companies who only advertise during the telecast of the Olympic Games, among other questions. The instrument also asked respondents to recall and list three official Olympic Sponsors. Finally, demographic questions were asked (e.g., gender, age, education, household income) to describe the sample.

Data Collection Procedure

In order to arrive at similar sample size of respondents and prior to data being collected, each researcher was tasked with finding a quota of 150 respondents from their city. To ensure an appropriate power analyses, it was determined apriori that a minimum of 400 survey responses would need to be collected for the four-city study. Using a street/mall intercept technique, people were approached in public spaces (e.g., shopping plaza) and asked if they would be willing to participate in a survey regarding their perspectives on sponsorship and ambush marketing of the Games. Data was collected during the second week of the Games inclusively in the provinces of Alberta and Ontario. The sample consisted of respondents from a small city (approximate population: 70, 000), medium sized city (approximate population: 150, 000), and two larger cities (average approximate population: 1,000,000).

Results

In total, 619 surveys were completed. Gender was balanced in comparison to the larger Canadian population. The majority (78.5%) of respondents had at least some university or college education. The respondents' age ranged from 18 to 77 with a mean of 31 years of age. Average household income was in the $60,00069,999 category. In total, 153 surveys were collected from the small city, 153 were collected from the medium sized city, and 135 respondents were from the first large city and 178 from the second large city. Overall, the level of interest for the Winter Olympic Games was high (M = 4.19, SD = 1.01), when compared with other mega-sport events such as the Summer Olympic Games (M = 3.74, SD = 1.11), the Stanley Cup (M = 3.5, SD = 1.39), the NFL Super Bowl (M = 3.25, SD = 1.57), the World Cup of Soccer (M = 2.77, SD = 1.51), and the X Games (M = 1.99, SD = 1.16).

Survey Constructs

A principal component analysis was conducted to identify the underlying themes in the data. Table 1 presents the results of this exploratory analysis, which employed a Varimax rotation and found six dimensions of responses with Eigen values in excess of 1. The loadings for many of the items with their dimensions are relatively high. Where the loadings are not very high, the items are placed with the dimensions indicating their strongest fit.

The results of the consumers' perspectives on sponsorship and ambush marketing at the item and construct level and on the basis of higher and lower levels of interest are presented in Table 2. The level of interest that a consumer has with the Olympic Games was assessed based on a summary variable of two items; level of interest with the Winter Games ([bar.X] = 4.10) and level of interest with the Summer Games ([bar.X] = 3.83). Those with a higher level of interest were identified as those with a rating in the approximate top third (n = 244) while those with a lower level of interest had a rating in the bottom third (n = 305). The higher and lower level of interest group was based on the frequency of incidence at the cut-off values. This method allowed for the testing of those with a higher versus lower level of interest while filtering out the moderate range of responses.

Respondents with higher levels of interest in the Olympic Games were found to hold more critical attitudes about ambush marketing tactics overall than those with lower levels of interest (Eigen value = 1.80). In particular, the largest gaps between the two groups demonstrated that those with high levels of interest are more likely to support sponsors which help athletes (Higher Interest [bar.X] = 4.23; Lower Interest [bar.X] = 3.59; F = 61.76; p < .01), to view the IOC's clean venue policy as enhancing viewing enjoyment (Higher Interest [bar.X] = 4.00; Lower Interest [bar.X] = 3.65; F = 18.13; p < .01) and to support sponsors if they can be identified as official sponsors (Higher Interest [bar.X] = 3.67; Lower Interest [bar.X] = 3.33; F = 13.80; p < .01).

For the Leadership dimension (Eigen value = 1.49), those with more interest in the Olympic Games were more likely to view official sponsors as industry (Higher Interest [bar.X] = 3.53; Lower Interest [bar.X] = 3.20; F = 12.18; p < .01) or market (Higher Interest [bar.X] = 3.50; Lower Interest [bar.X] = 3.18; F = 13.01; p < .01) leaders. On the distinguish dimension (Eigen value = 1.27), three of the four items were significantly different, reflecting the notion that those with more interest in the Games can distinguish between official and unofficial sponsors better than those with lower interest in the Games. From the commerce dimension (Eigen value = 1.08), the converse relationship between higher and lower levels of Olympic interest appears to hold. In this case, those with lower levels of interest responded with higher mean scores for over-commercialization (Higher Interest [bar.X] = 2.74; Lower Interest [bar.X] = 3.06; F = 10.64; p < .01) and excessive sponsorship (Higher Interest [bar.X] = 2.21; Lower Interest [bar.X] = 2.67; F = 24.37; p < .01) than those with higher levels of interest.

The largest Eigen value (6.05) in the Factor Analysis was associated with the purchase intention dimension. There were six items contained in the factor and all six items supported the notion that those with more interest in the Olympic Games were more likely to purchase products from sponsors. This is most obvious with the largest gaps explicitly showing that those with higher interest will support (Higher Interest [bar.X] = 3.43; Lower Interest [bar.X] = 2.89; F = 26.17; p < .01) or buy products (Higher Interest [bar.X] = 2.99; Lower Interest [bar.X] = 2.45; F = 26.42; p < .01) from official sponsors.

Structural Equation Model

To understand the influences on purchase intentions in a sponsorship and ambush marketing context further, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed using LISREL 8.80. Prior to testing different patterns of relationships with SEM, the individual measurement models for each construct were evaluated. Building on the exploratory factor analysis, one construct was modified so its representation in the model was reflective of attitudinal theory rather than being solely based on the empirical results of the exploratory technique. Notably, the Ambush Evaluation construct contained three items (i.e., Q25, Q35, Q37) that were more conative in nature than affective. Therefore, these items were taken out of the construct and tested in the Intention construct through an assessment of the Cronbach Alpha and the incremental deletion statistic. These items passed this test but were later dropped from the construct as part of the measurement model testing process. Indeed, several items for constructs were dropped from further analysis due to poor loadings (i.e., less than .70) for the items. The fit statistics improved on the measurement models for the constructs after these changes were undertaken. The resulting model represents a good fit with the data (see Table 3) and achieved better fit statistics compared to competing models. For instance, an alternative model where the Interest in Olympics construct was modeled as linking solely through the belief constructs (i.e., Fairness and Distinguish) resulted in weaker fit statistics indicating that the presented model offers a better representation of the data and remains consistent with the theory base. In addition, testing of discrete models for each grouping of high interest and low interest resulted in models that did not converge likely due to the small sample size for each group.

The subsequent re-examination of the pattern of relationships was based on the premise that behaviors are derived from evaluations and their preceding beliefs. Of the seven paths, six were significant, thereby illustrating the role of event interest in the purchase decision of sponsors when ambush attitudes are considered. The model achieved reasonable fit statistics for absolute and incremental indices. For instance, absolute fit statistics, such as the Goodness-of-Fit statistic is above the 0.9 threshold and the root mean square error of approximation statistic is below the upper boundary of 0.1 indicating acceptable fit (Kline, 2005; Rigdon 1998). While absolute fit statistics provide a measure of model assessment, it is also worthwhile to examine those statistics that account for model complexity and sample size. From this perspective, the incremental fit measures provide additional support for the model as a good fit for the data. Specifically, the non-normed fit index (NNFI) provides an assessment of fit that accounts for model complexity and the model achieves an NNFI higher than the recommended 0.9 threshold (Hoyle & Panter, 1995). In addition, the comparative fit index (CFI) is less influenced by sample size and provides evidence of good model fit with a value in excess of the .90 threshold. While improved fit statistics could be achieved by presenting an even simpler model, the accepted model provides the broadest explanation of the ambushing phenomenon on purchase intentions based on the existing data and theoretical foundations.

The model demonstrates that the level of interest in the Olympic Games is a key determinant to ambush attitudes. The significant and positive paths between the level of interest in the Olympics and the belief constructs (fairness and distinguish) show that interest can be influential at the cognitive phase of ambush attitudes. While the distinguish beliefs were not found to be related to ambush evaluations (path coeff. = -.09; t = -0.41), fairness beliefs were found to be related negatively to ambush evaluations (path coeff. = -.94; t = 9.84). Therefore, interest in the Olympic Games has both indirect and direct negative paths to ambush attitudes. The model presents evidence of direct and indirect positive paths to purchase intention. Results also reveal that respondents' interest in the Olympic Games is directly related to purchase intentions (path coeff. = .68; t = 8.11) and indirectly through ambush evaluations (path coeff. = .24; t = 3.40).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Discussion

This study contributes to the growing literature on Olympic sponsorship and to the extant literature in sport marketing regarding the role of consumer attitudes in behavior. The study provides support for previous research indicating that official sponsorship is important to the purchase decision (Seguin et al., 2005; IOC, 2010; Stotlar, 1993). Further, the study demonstrated that the level of interest in the Olympic Games plays a salient role in the willingness to support official sponsors. These findings have considerable practical and research-based implications for mega-sports events.

While previous research examined attitudes of consumers on various issues related to the sponsorship of the Olympic Games (e.g., Sandler & Shani, 1989; Seguin et al., 2005), the factors that may impact purchase intentions have not been examined in detail. In this study, the role of mega-sports event interest was found to significantly influence what consumers think and feel, and how they behave. Specifically, the level of interest in the Olympic Games helps explain differences in respondent attitudes toward sponsorship and ambushing tactics. Although many of these differences are small, it is worth noting the low interest respondents thought that the Olympics were over-commercialized and had excessive sponsorship to a greater degree than those within the high interest group. This seemingly benign result, suggests that the IOC may have made the right decision in the promotion of the clean venue policy; a strategy meant to thwart such perspectives. In future years, it is possible that such strategies may sway public opinion further and thus future and ongoing research is warranted in that regard. In practical terms, this suggests that organizations considering sponsorship of the Olympic Games to achieve brand or awareness objectives would require additional investments in creative and subtle activation programs in the public domain (i.e., athletes, coaches, NSOs, others) over multiple communication platforms in order to promote their association to the Olympic Games and drive purchase intention outcomes.

Overall, the presented model demonstrates that the level of interest had a significant relationship with purchase intention. Indeed, the direct relationship between the level of interest in the Olympics and purchase intention is evidence that sponsorship of the Games can benefit both TOP and National partners. In addition, the model provides evidence of the indirect importance of event interest through fairness and ambush evaluation and hence, further demonstrates the important role of cognition influencing a person's affective state. Moreover, the model demonstrates that level of interest acts as a moderating factor through ambush evaluation on purchase intention. Thus, level of interest influences a person's overall evaluation of ambush tactics and purchase intention to a significant degree which was shown to predict conation.

The results of this study bolster the assertion that consumers are more willing to support sponsors when they can clearly show that their involvement helps athletes attend the Games (c.f., Seguin et al., 2005). Although both high and low interest groups felt they would be more willing to support sponsors knowing that athletes benefited in some way, there was a strong and significant difference in that the high interest group was much more in favor of this type of activity. Thus, the integration of athletes into marketing campaigns may be the most proficient way to appeal to consumers. This has important practical considerations given that both sponsors and non-sponsors are looking for ways to connect with athletes. It is suggested that sponsors strategically integrate their Olympic sponsorship with other sponsorship programs aimed at supporting athletes. In the context of this research study, the program 'Own the Podium' (a CND $117-million initiative created specifically for the Canadian Olympic Team participating in the 2010 Winter Olympic Games), may have created a legitimate platform for sponsors to not only show their direct support to athletes but also to a broader national strategy aimed at being the number one country in terms of medals won at the Olympic Games. The impact of such programs on consumers and purchase intention requires further study. Interestingly, integrating athletes into marketing campaigns seems to be an effective strategy for potential ambushers as well given the many opportunities to sponsor National Teams (through National Sport Organizations) and individual athletes. Given the results presented earlier, it becomes essential for Organizing Committees to develop programs (sponsor recognition, PR) that will help the high interest consumers distinguish between the official sponsors and ambusher.

The results of this study provide a number of interesting recommendations for managers of mega-sports events. First, the relationship between interest and fairness suggests that event managers continue their public relations efforts in informing consumers about their affiliations and associations (i.e., activation and leverage). High interest consumers perceived ambush more negatively than low interest consumers, and thus managers need to make people aware from a public relations standpoint if ambush is a problem. Second, activation strategies appear critical given that the high interest consumer was more likely to purchase official sponsor products as others have also reported. Hence, as suggested above, the use of athletes in this regard may strengthen sponsorship success. As well, purchase decisions may be more strongly linked to sponsorship than advertising connoting the importance of leveraging strategies.

Limitations and Future Research

It is important to note that data was collected in only two provinces within Canada and thus, is likely not representative of the country as a whole. Further, data was collected during the most successful week of the Games for Canada based on medal count and thus, mood was high. Therefore, future research, should ideally look at a greater number of regions within a country where differences in impact by city type (small, medium, large), by proximity to the Games location, and by other demographic factors could be further explored. Further, a broader consideration to the interest variable in Olympics can include consumer behavior responses to encapsulate engagement with the Games (e.g., TV viewing, Internet searching etc.), both during the Games and in a period when Games are not taking place. There is a need to build on this exploration of interest to develop the construct further to help explain why interest has a strong direct relationship with intentions, perhaps broadening the construct to involvement (e.g., Zaichkowsky, 1985). Similarly, level of interest may be influenced by temporal factors since data collection occurred during the Vancouver Games which limits findings. Consequently, a pre-games, during-games, post-games research program can help shed greater light on consumer conation and hence sponsorship success. Further, an assessment of activation strategies is warranted and their influence on purchase intention. It is our hope that this study, will help in the growing interest to understand consumer behavior within a mega-sports event setting.

References

Chappelet, J-L., & Kubler-Mabbott, B. (2008). The International Olympic committee and the Olympic system. Oxford, UK: Routledge.

Chavanat, N., Martinent, G., & Ferrand (2009). Sponsor and sponsees interactions: Effects on consumers' perceptions of brand image, brand attachment, and purchasing intention. Journal of Sport Management, 23(5), 644-670.

Cornwell, T. B., Pruitt, S. W., & van Ness. R. (2001). The value of winning in motorsports: Sponsorship-linked marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(1), 17-31.

Crompton, J. L. (2004). Sponsorship ambushing in sport. Managing Leisure, 9, 1-12.

Daneshvary, R., & Schwer, R. K. (2000). The association endorsement and consumer intention to purchase. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(3), 203-213.

Elliott, M. T., & Speck, P. S. (1998). Consumer perceptions of advertising clutter and its impact across various media. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(1), 29-41.

Ellis, D., Scassa, T., & Seguin, B. (2011). Framing ambush marketing as a legal issue: An Olympic perspective. Sport Management Review, 14(3), 297-308.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1972). Attitudes and opinions. Annual Review of Psychology, 23, 487-544.

Folkes, V. S. (1988). Recent attribution research in consumer behaviour: A review and new directions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 548-565.

Grier, S. A., Mensinger, J., Huang, S. H., Kumanyika, S. K., & Stettler, N. (2007). Fast-food marketing and children's fast-food consumption: Exploring parents' influences in an ethnically diverse sample. American Marketing Association, 26, 221-235.

Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship: The role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47-57.

Horne, J., & Manzenreiter, W. (2006). An introduction to the sociology of sports mega-events. The Editorial Board of the Sociological Review, 1-24.

Hoyle, R., & Panter, A. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

IOC. (2010). Olympic marketing fact file. Lausanne, CH: International Olympic Committee.

Kaplanidou, K., & Vogt, C. (2007). The interrelationship between sport event and destination image and sport tourists' behaviours. Journal of Sport Tourism, 12(3), 183-206.

Kline, R. (2005). The principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Koo, G. Y., Quarterman, J., & Flynn, L. (2006). Effect of perceived sport event and sponsor image fit on consumers' cognition, affect, and behavioral intensions. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15, 80-90.

Lacey, R., Close, A. G., & Finney, R. Z. (2010). The pivotal roles of product knowledge and CSR on event sponsorship effectiveness. Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1222-1228

Lacsniak, R. N., DeCarlo, T. E., & Ramaswami, S. N. (2001). Consumers' responses to negative word-of-mouth communication: An attribution theory perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 57-73.

Lyberger, M., & McCarthy, L. (2001). An assessment of consumer knowledge of, interest in, and perceptions of ambush marketing strategies. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 10(2), 130-137.

Meenaghan, T. (1994). Point of view--Ambush marketing: Immoral or imaginative practice? Journal of Advertising Research, September/October, 77-88.

Mueller, B. (2007). Just where does corporate responsibility end and consumer responsibility begin? The case of marketing food to kids around the globe. International Journal of Advertising, 26, 561-564.

O'Reilly, N., Lyberger, M., McCarthy, L., Seguin, B., & Nadeau, J. (2008). Mega-special-event promotions and intent-to-purchase: A longitudinal analysis of the super bowl. Journal of Sport Management, 22(4), 392-409.

Poon, D. T. Y., & Prendergast, G. (2006). A new framework for evaluating sponsorship opportunities. International Journal of Advertising, 25(4), 471-488.

Rigdon, E. (1998). Structural equation modeling. In G. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 251-294). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rotfeld, H. J. (2002). Misplaced marketing the real reason for the real bad advertising. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(4), 299-301.

Rozin, S. (2000). Olympic marketing: striking balance between business and sport. Fortune, July, S2-S10.

Sandler, D. M., & Shani, D. (1993). Sponsorship and the Olympic Games: The consumer perspective. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2(3), 38-43.

Sandler, D. M., & Shani, D. (1989). Olympic sponsorship vs. 'ambush' marketing: Who gets the gold? Journal of Advertising Research, 11(Aug/Sept), 9-14.

Seguin, B., & O'Reilly, N. (2008). The Olympic brand, ambush marketing, and clutter. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 4(1/2), 62-84.

Seguin, B., Lyberger, M., O'Reilly, N., & McCarthy, L. (2005). Internationalizing ambush marketing: The Olympic brand and country of origin. International Journal of Sport Sponsorship and Marketing, 6(4), 216-230.

Shani, D., & Sandler, D. M. (1998). Ambush marketing: Is confusion to blame for the flickering of the flame?' Psychology & Marketing, 15(4), 367-383.

Stotlar, D. K. (1993). Sponsorship and the Olympic winter games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2(1), 35-43.

VANOC. (2008) Vancouver 2010 exceeds 2007 sponsorship revenue target; Canadian companies encouraged to join the team. Retrieved from http://www.vancouver2010.com/en/OrganizingCommittee/MediaCentr e/NewsReleases/2007/10/19/76537_0710190749-642

Walliser, B. (2003). An international review of sponsorship research: Extension and update. International Journal of Advertising, 22(1), 5-40.

Wang, Y. J. (2008). The application of attribution theories in marketing research: A critique. Review of Business Research, 8(3), 174-180.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341-352.

Eric MacIntosh, PhD, is an assistant professor in the School of Human Kinetics at the University of Ottawa. His research interests focus on sport marketing, organizational culture and theory.

John Nadeau, PhD, is an associate professor of marketing in the School of Business at Nipissing University. His research interests include consumer behaviour, the application of images, tourism marketing, sport marketing, and sport finance. North Bay, Ontario, Canada

Benoit Seguin, PhD, is an associate professor of sport management in the School of Human Kinetics at the University of Ottawa. His research interests include sport sponsorship, consumer behavior, branding, the Olympic Games, and ambush marketing.

Norm O'Reilly, PhD, is an associate professor in the School of Human Kinetics at the University of Ottawa. His research interests include sport marketing and sport finance.

Cheri L. Bradish, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Sport Management at Brock University. Her research interests include Olympic marketing, corporate social responsibility and sport, sport marketing and sponsorship, regional sport commissions, and sport management education.

David Legg, PhD, is an associate professor and the program coordinator for Sport & Recreation at Mount Royal University. His research interests include sport management and adapted physical activity.

Table 1.
Principal Components Analysis Results from Survey
 Factor
Dimension and Related Questionnaire Items Loadings

Fairness Beliefs (Eigen value = 2.89)
Q14 Advertising link of non-sponsors to Games .694
Q15 Non-sponsor association with the Games is clever .686
Q24 Commercial activities around the Games are fair .551
Q32 Fair for non-sponsors to associate with Olympics .678

Leadership Beliefs (Eigen value =1.48)
Q21 Companies that sponsor are industry leaders .700
Q29 Official sponsor are market leaders compared to
 non-sponsors .795

Distinguish Beliefs (Eigen value =1.27)
Q12 Distinguish between official and non-sponsors .783
Q13 Sponsor did not paid a fee for official status .654
Q22 Distinguish between sponsors and those who advertise .536
Q28 Difficult to distinguish sponsor from non-sponsor
 (flipped) .466

Commerce Evaluation (Eigen value =1.07)
Q27 Olympic Games are over commercialized .809
Q31 Olympics losing appeal due to excessive sponsorship .837

Ambush Evaluation (Eigen value =1.80)
Q16 Lower opinion of non-sponsors who associate with Games .408
Q25 Willing to support if helping athletes .451
Q23 IOC Clean venue policy makes viewing more enjoyable .559
Q30 Illegitimate association with the Games is unethical .415
Q34 Non-sponsors should not lead people to believe they .589
 sponsor
Q35 Support official sponsor if they could be identified .589
 as such
Q36 Annoyed by companies trying to associate .520
Q37 Government should pass laws to protect sponsor rights .487

Purchase Intentions (Eigen value =6.05)
Q17 Less likely to buy from company with illegitimate ties .548
Q18 Support company that is an Olympic sponsor .719
Q19 Purchase is based on Olympic sponsorship and not .761
 advertising
Q20 Buy products from Olympic sponsors .797
Q26 Try to purchase products advertised .655
Q33 Official sponsor has no effect on my purchase patterns
 (flipped) .615

Table 2.
Comparison of Mean Responses using ANOVA for Interest Level

Construct and Related Questionnaire Items Higher Lower
 Interest Interest
 n = 244 n = 305
 Means Means

Fairness Beliefs (Eigen value = 2.89)
Q24 Commercial activities around the Games 3.11 3.18
 are fair
Q15 Non-sponsor association with the Games 3.09 2.95
 is clever
Q14 advertising link of non-sponsors to 2.52 2.61
 Games
Q32 Fair for non-sponsors to associate with 2.34 2.52
 Olympics

Leadership (Eigen value =1.48)
Q21 Companies that sponsor are industry 3.53 3.20
 leaders
Q29 Official sponsor are market leaders 3.50 3.18
 compared to non-sponsors

Distinguish Beliefs (Eigen value =1.27)
Q13 Sponsor did not paid a fee for official 3.81 3.38
 status
Q28 Difficult to distinguish sponsor from 3.48 3.47
 non-sponsor (flipped)
Q12 Distinguish between official and 3.28 2.78
 non-status
Q22 Distinguish between sponsors and those 2.90 2.71
 who advertise

Commerce (Eigen value = 1.07)
Q27 Olympic Games are over commercialized 2.74 3.06
Q31 Olympics losing appeal due to excessive 2.21 2.67
 sponsorship

Ambush Evaluation (Eigen value 1.80)
Q25 Willing to support if helping athletes 4.23 3.59
Q23 IOC Clean venue policy makes viewing 4.00 3.65
 more enjoyable
Q34 Non-sponsors should not lead people to 3.82 3.63
 believe they sponsor
Q35 Support official sponsor if they could 3.67 3.33
 be identified as such
Q37 Government should pass laws to protect 3.42 3.09
 sponsor rights
Q16 Lower opinion of non-sponsors who 3.38 3.07
 associate with Games
Q30 Illegitimate association with the Games 3.37 3.20
 is unethical
Q36 Annoyed by companies trying to associate 3.14 2.96

Purchase Intentions (Eigen value 6.05)
Q18 Support company that is an Olympic 3.43 2.89
 sponsor
Q17 Less likely to buy from company with 3.09 2.82
 illegitimate ties
Q20 Buy products from Olympic sponsors 2.99 2.45
Q19 Purchase is based on Olympic sponsorship 2.65 2.29
 and not advertising
Q33 Official sponsor has no effect on my 2.58 2.32
 purchase patterns (flipped)
Q26 Try to purchase products advertised 2.54 2.22

Construct and Related Questionnaire Items Diff. F Stat Sig.

Fairness Beliefs (Eigen value = 2.89)
Q24 Commercial activities around the Games .07 .59 .444
 are fair
Q15 Non-sponsor association with the Games .14 1.65 .200
 is clever
Q14 advertising link of non-sponsors to .09 .71 .400
 Games
Q32 Fair for non-sponsors to associate with .18 3.81 .051
 Olympics

Leadership (Eigen value =1.48)
Q21 Companies that sponsor are industry .33 12.18 .001 **
 leaders
Q29 Official sponsor are market leaders .32 13.09 .000 **
 compared to non-sponsors

Distinguish Beliefs (Eigen value =1.27)
Q13 Sponsor did not paid a fee for official .43 19.81 .000 **
 status
Q28 Difficult to distinguish sponsor from .01 .01 .952
 non-sponsor (flipped)
Q12 Distinguish between official and .50 27.33 .000 **
 non-status
Q22 Distinguish between sponsors and those .19 4.28 .039 *
 who advertise

Commerce (Eigen value = 1.07)
Q27 Olympic Games are over commercialized .32 10.64 .001 **
Q31 Olympics losing appeal due to excessive .46 24.37 .000 **
 sponsorship

Ambush Evaluation (Eigen value 1.80)
Q25 Willing to support if helping athletes .64 61.76 .000 **
Q23 IOC Clean venue policy makes viewing .35 18.13 .000 **
 more enjoyable
Q34 Non-sponsors should not lead people to .19 3.98 .046 *
 believe they sponsor
Q35 Support official sponsor if they could .34 13.80 .000 **
 be identified as such
Q37 Government should pass laws to protect .33 10.53 .001 **
 sponsor rights
Q16 Lower opinion of non-sponsors who .31 7.97 .005 **
 associate with Games
Q30 Illegitimate association with the Games .17 2.69 .101
 is unethical
Q36 Annoyed by companies trying to associate .18 3.25 .072

Purchase Intentions (Eigen value 6.05)
Q18 Support company that is an Olympic .54 26.17 .000 **
 sponsor
Q17 Less likely to buy from company with .27 6.49 .011 **
 illegitimate ties
Q20 Buy products from Olympic sponsors .54 26.42 .000 **
Q19 Purchase is based on Olympic sponsorship .36 13.30 .000 **
 and not advertising
Q33 Official sponsor has no effect on my .26 7.14 .008 **
 purchase patterns (flipped)
Q26 Try to purchase products advertised .32 11.56 .001 **

Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01

Table 3.
Structural Equation Model, Path Co-efficient and Results

Path Path Coeff. t-values

Interest in Olympics Fairness Beliefs .19 2.50 *
Interest in Olympics Distinguish Beliefs .43 5.41 *
Interest in Olympics Ambush Evaluation .53 3.05 *
Interest in Olympics Purchase Intentions .68 8.11 *
Fairness Beliefs Ambush Evaluation -.94 -9.84 *
Distinguish Beliefs Ambush Evaluation -.09 -0.41
Ambush Evaluation Purchase Intentions .24 3.40 *

Note: Overall model and fit indices were, p-value = .000, CFI =
0.94, GFI =.94, NNFI = .92, RMSEA = .075

* denotes a significant path