The role of involvement in sports and sport spectatorship in sponsor's brand use: the case of mountain dew and action sports sponsorship.

Bennett, Gregg ; Ferreira, Mauricio ; Lee, Jaedeock 等

Brand use is a critically important measure of business and marketing success (Allenby et al., 2002), and the search for empirical evidence explaining product or brand use is a major stream in marketing literature (Fennell, Allenby, Yang, & Edwards, 2003). Over the past century, research has examined the relationship among several variables (e.g., psychographics, age, gender, and other demographics) in an effort to better understand consumption rates and brand use (Shaw, 1912; Smith, 1956) so strategies can be developed to increase brand use.

In an effort to increase brand use, firms have frequently sponsored sporting events to communicate with targeted consumers via demographic and psychographic variables (Bennett, 1999; Cliffe & Motion, 2005; Fennell & Allenby, 2004; Nicholls, Roslow, & Dublish, 1999; Roy & Cornwell, 2004). Sponsorship particularly provides access to specific target markets that may be hard to reach through traditional media (IEG, 2004). One such example is Mountain Dew's sponsorship of action sports (1) events, which provides access to a coveted target market, consisted of primarily young males (Bennett, Henson, & Zhang, 2003). In fact, Browne (2004, p. 174) connects the "reinvigoration" of the Mountain Dew brand and increases in brand use (sales) to its long-term sponsorship of action sports. The increasing popularity of action sports and the amount of investment they have attracted from corporations is noteworthy (Bennett, Henson, & Zhang, 2002; Browne, 2004).

Despite the access to target markets and other benefits that sponsorship may provide, sponsors may mainly activate the sponsorship via TV broadcasting or live attendance. Therefore, sport spectatorship can play an important role in the implementation of a sponsorship. However, for inaugural events, sponsors generally are in a position to engage in contractual agreements without much evidence of historical attendance or viewership data. Consequently, there is a fair amount of uncertainty of how well the sponsorship will work for brand new events.

As research has indicated that highly involved consumers of sport tend to consume the sport through event attendance more than those who are not as involved (Stone, 1984), sponsors must rely on the expectation that those who are "into" a sport will eventually watch and attend its events. Evidence exists that many individuals attending action sporting events tend to be involved with action sports (Bennett et al., 2003). Therefore, for inaugural events and sponsors alike, there is a need to understand the mechanism that potentially leads to event spectatorship, and how this potential spectatorship is linked to sponsor's products. This discussion leads to the main question of this study, which has not yet been addressed in the sponsorship literature: a) how is involvement, sport spectatorship, and target markets related to sponsor's brand use?

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

As such, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between involvement, demographic characteristics, action sport consumption, and use of an event sponsors brand. We sought to examine the degree to which involvement with action sports (enduring and behavioral), demographics (age and gender) and action sports consumption (spectatorship, participation, and videogaming) actually predict Mountain Dew use among those attending an action sports event.

This study makes a contribution to the extant literature by providing an initial understanding of how involvement, sport consumption, and brand use are related within the context of a sport sponsorship. More specifically, we propose a model that examines the mediating role of sport spectatorship on the relationship between involvement in action sports and brand use.

Hypotheses Development

The role of involvement and sport spectatorship in brand use is presented in Figure 1. Essentially, the premise of the model is that increases in involvement and sport event spectatorship/viewership eventually influence the use of a sponsor's brand, after controlling for important demographic characteristics. The following sections detail the important variables outlined in the model.

Involvement and Action Sports Consumption

While a pioneering investigation was conducted by Sherif and Cantril in 1947, the involvement construct has generated considerable interest in business, marketing, leisure, and recreation literature since that time. In particular, beginning in the 1980s a steady stream of research has been conducted relative to involvement and consumer behavior (Antil, 1984; Kim, Scott, & Crompton, 1997; Rothschild, 1984). More recently, the utility of the construct to explain attitudes or behaviors in sport and leisure settings has increased, with much of this research focusing on consumer behavioral outcomes (Green & Chalip, 1997; Havitz & Mannell, 2005).

Involvement has been generally conceptualized in social-psychological terms as a "motivational state influenced by a person's perception of the object's (e.g., action sports) relevance based on inherent needs, values, and interests", and "its major antecedents are the characteristics of the person, stimulus/object (e.g., action sports), and situation" (Day, Stafford, & Camacho, 1995, p. 70; see also Bloch & Richins, 1983; Celsi & Olson, 1988; Funk, Ridinger, & Moorman, 2004; Havitz & Howard, 1995; Huang, 2006; Iwasaki & Havitz, 1998; Kyle, Absher, Hammitt, & Cavin, 2006; Zaichkowsky, 1985). In common vernacular, it describes the level that a person is really "into" something. In this particular case, involvement would describe the level that a consumer values or believes that action sports are relevant and important to their lives and lifestyles.

Research has likewise distinguished between three types of involvement, namely enduring, situational, and behavioral (Day et al., 1995; Richins, Bloch, & McQuarrie, 1992). Enduring involvement (EI), also termed ego and leisure involvement, has most often been defined as an "unobservable state of motivation, arousal or interest toward a recreational activity or associated product, evoked by a particular stimulus or situation, and which has drive properties" (Rothschild, 1984, p. 216; adapted from Havitz & Mannell, 2005). EI represents a relatively stable attitude (Havitz & Mannell, 2005) that is intrinsically motivated (Huang, 2006), and it has been used to describe the relative importance a sport has attained in the minds of a consumer (Green & Chalip, 1997; Houston & Rothschild, 1978; Laurent & Kapferer, 1985; Richins & Bloch, 1986). The involvement construct has also been defined in behavioral terms. Richins, Bloch, and McQuarrie (1992) suggested EI influences behavioral involvement (BI), and Stone (1984) defined behavioral involvement as the "time and/or intensity of effort expended in pursuing a particular activity" (as cited in Kim et al., 1997, p. 321). Researchers have listed variables like acquiring information and participating in word of mouth as examples of BI.

Attitudinal and behavioral scholars have suggested that involvement, as a construct, is crucial when considering brand loyalty, purchase and consumption behavior (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Beatty, Kahle, & Homer, 1988; Bloch & Richins, 1983; Bloom, 1981; Branscombe & Wann, 1991; Lovelock, Patterson, & Walker, 1998; Schiffman & Kanuk, 1991). According to Peter and Olsen (1987), level of involvement is an important determinant of behavior with respect to a product, brand, or purchase decisions. Additional research has suggested a link between involvement and brand loyalty (Beatty et al., 1988; Traylor, 1981).

In this particular case, it seems logical that involvement will influence the consumption of action sports products. For example, involved fans or consumers often purchase equipment and apparel associated with the sport of interest and they likewise consume the sport through media and spectatorship. Thus, an involved action sports consumer will be more likely to spend additional time pursuing the sports by attending events and watching events on television (Arnett & Laverie, 2000; Donovan, Carlson, & Zimmerman, 2005; Kahle, Kambara, & Rose, 1996). This guides us to the following hypothesis.

H1: The higher the enduring and behavioral involvement in action sports, the higher the levels of action sport spectatorship.

Although involvement may influence other forms of sport consumption such as participation in action sports and action sports videogaming, they may be not as likely to be vehicles for sport sponsorship activation when compared to sport spectatorship. Therefore, due to the correlated nature of those attending and participating in action sports (Bennett et al., 2003), we would expect that a positive relationship exists between these two forms of sport consumption, participation in action sports and action sports videogaming, which leads us to the following hypothesis:

H2: The higher the levels of participation in action sports and action sports videogaming, the higher the levels of action sport spectatorship.

Brand Use

There has been a dearth of research that has examined the relationship between involvement, sport spectatorship, and brand use. However, according to the sponsorship literature, it is reasonable to believe that the more an individual attend or see action sports through media, the more exposure to sponsors one will receive. Therefore, we could infer that a mere exposure effect (Cornwell, Weeks, & Roy, 2005) related to the amount of exposure to the Mountain Dew brand and the potential image transfer from action sport events to the brand that could result from such exposure (Cornwell et al., 2005) could be some of the mechanisms that can substantiate a relationship between spectatorship and brand use. The increase in action sport consumption, including spectatorship, could lead to higher exposure levels, and potentially consumption of brands associated with the event (Bennett, Hartel, & McColl-Kennedy, 2005; Oliva, Oliver, & Macmillan, 1992). Therefore, we would expect that higher levels of action sport consumption would increase the chances for Mountain Dew brand use. Based on the aforementioned contention, our next hypothesis is stated as follows:

H3: Participants' level of action sports spectatorship will be positively related to brand use.

In addition, age and gender may also relate to brand use. For example, Mountain Dew's targeted market is made up of young men who are involved with action sports (Browne, 2004), a group of individuals that consume large amounts of carbonated soft drinks (CSDs) (Cort, Pairan, & Ryans, 2004; Knight, Knight, Mitchell, & Zepp, 2004; Myers, 2003; Nathe, Cagle, & Baca, 2005). Understanding the use of the brand among young males involved with action sports seems important given the history of Mountain Dew's commitment to action sports sponsorship. It makes sense that the brand has chosen to utilize action sports events and event broadcasts as a marketing communications platform.

Over two decades ago teenagers drank almost twice as much milk as CSDs, but today the opposite is true (Gerrior, Putnam, & Bente, 1998; USDA, 2005). Likewise, CSD consumption peaks between the ages of 20 and 24 and then gradually declines (Knight et al., 2004), making it more critical for CSD firms to effectively position their brand to prospects within the target market. Dube (2004) makes a case that CSDs high in caffeine content also appeal to young males, suggesting that Mountain Dew would appeal to this demographic. Since Mountain Dew has aggressively communicated with this segment through action sports sponsorship, it is important to recognize that age and gender may play a differential role in preference for Mountain Dew. This leads to our next hypotheses.

H4: Males will have a higher likelihood to consume Mountain Dew.

H5: Teenagers (12-17 years of age) and young adults (18-24 years of age) will have a higher likelihood to consume Mountain Dew than older segments.

Method

Setting

The Dew Action Sports Tour inaugural event series began in 2005 with five events in Louisville, Denver, Portland, San Jose, and Orlando. Each Dew Action Sports Tour stop was sponsored by major firms attempting to connect with the youth market, including Panasonic, Toyota, Vans, Pepsi, and Sony's Playstation brand. The event series, which is owned and broadcast by the National Broadcast Company (NBC), provided action sports athletes with an annual tour championship much like the PGA Tour and Nextel NASCAR series (Bennett & Lachowetz, 2004). Points were awarded at each event and a champion was named at the end of the season in BMX Dirt, Vert, and Park, Skateboarding Vert and Park, and Freestyle Motorcross.

Prior to this event series a handful of events existed for action sports athletes, the most notable being ESPN's X Games. The X Games are the marquee action sports event, having been in existence for over a decade. The X Games have been a staple for ESPN in regard to broadcasting hours, and they have helped fuel the growth of action sports participation among the youth segment (Bennett et al., 2003). The Dew Action Sports Tour is NBC's response to the continued growth of action sports and market share achieved by ESPN.

Respondents

Respondents (N=552) were attendees at the Dew Action Sports Tour held in Louisville, Kentucky. The data were collected as a part of a larger study, which has been reported in Ferreira, Hall, and Bennett (2008). Although the focus in Ferreira et al. (2008) was on brand positioning, this study distinctly examined the role of involvement and action sport consumption on brand use.

The event site was located in downtown Louisville at the Kentucky Fair and Expo Center with Freedom Hall and Cardinal Stadium serving as venue hosts. Data were randomly collected between noon and 8:00 p.m., over four days. Mall intercept methodology was employed by 10 trained collectors. The sample consisted of a predominance of Caucasian (91%) males (65%). Members of Generation Y (ages 12 to 24) made up 44% of the sample.

Measures

A questionnaire was constructed based upon a review of relevant literature and the hypotheses. The questionnaire contained items related to involvement, consumption of Mountain Dew, and demographics, including gender and age. Face and content validity of the initial survey was evaluated first by a panel of five individuals (two sport management faculty members and three action sport industry managers employed by the Dew Action Sports Tour). The experts were also asked to comment on the relevance, representativeness, and clarity of items and provide suggestions for improving the questionnaire. Minor modifications to the questionnaire were made upon completion of this process.

Demographic Measures--Age and Gender

In a demographic section of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to provide their gender and age at the time of the event. The age measure required an openended response and the gender measure was a dichotomous variable in which was chosen by respondents (1 = male; 0 = female). As gender and age can play an important role in brand use according to the literature review, they were included in the analyses as control measures to assess the relationship between involvement and brand use. In the subsequent analysis, the age measure was dummy-coded and categorized into four different groups (under 17, 18 to 24, 25 to 30, and over 31). The over 31 age group was the largest, consisting of 234 respondents (42.9%), followed by under 17 (25.3%), 18 to 24 (18.8%), and 25 to 30 (12.8%). Although normally it is preferred to not discretize continuous variables such as age, especially to avoid losing information, in some cases, it is appropriate to discretize a continuous variable. As Gelman and Hill (2007) pointed out, it makes sense to use discrete categories for age to allow for different generational patterns to emerge. We had particular focus on the Generations Y and X based upon the literature review.

Enduring Involvement (EI)

Enduring involvement was defined as "the level of perceived personal importance and/or interest evoked by a stimulus" (Antil, 1984, p. 203). In this case the stimulus was action sports. All five items (2) utilized for this study were derived and modified slightly (word change for product-action sports) from Bloch (1981). These items were designed to measure a continuing enthusiasm and preoccupation for a particular product (e.g., action sports). Past research has indicated validity coefficients ranging from .67-.70 for the five items.

Behavioral Involvement (BI)

Behavioral involvement (BI) was defined as "three categories of behavior from the search and post decision stages" exhibited by consumers toward action sports (Richins et al., 1992, p. 150). Categories include acquiring information about action sports (the product), giving others information about action sports, and engaging in word of mouth about action sports (Richins et al., 1992). All five items (3) utilized for this study were derived from Richins et al. (1992).

Action Sports Consumption

Action sports consumption included three constructs operationalized as consumption behaviors related to action sports including spectatorship, participation in action sports and action sports videogaming. Six items (4) measured spectatorship, which was operationalized by how frequently DAST attendees attend or watch action sports on TV. Action sports participation was measured by three items and operationalized by how often respondents participated in the sports or purchased equipment related to performing action sports. Videogaming was defined by how often respondents participated in action sports videogaming and measured by two items. (5) All action sports consumption constructs (6) were measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1--"not at all" to 7--"very frequently."

Brand Use

The behavior measure of likelihood of Mountain Dew consumption was a dichotomous variable, which was determined by whether individuals had consumed Mountain Dew during the previous two weeks (1 = yes; 0 = no). There are a couple of reasons why a dichotomous variable to measure brand use was utilized. First, the use of a binary measure is consistent with the notion that individuals make choice decisions to buy and not buy products daily, where we were primarily interested in "what" brand was used (differentiating users versus non-users of the brand) and not in "how much" each brand was used. The "what" question relates more directly to consumer choice as discrete life events (Louviere, Hensher, & Swait, 2000; Marder, 1997). Therefore, in keeping with the discrete nature of consumer choice, a binary question better reflected the on-off decision to consume a soft drink. Secondly, it is much easier for respondents (hence potentially more reliable) to answer a binary question, than other measures, including volumetric-type of questions.

Data Analysis

The items purported to measure behavioral involvement, enduring involvement, spectatorship, videogaming, and participation in action sports were first subject to a confirmatory factor analysis to examine the validity and reliability of the constructs. The confirmatory model was estimated using the variance-covariance matrix in SPSS Amos version 16. Given the results of the confirmatory factor analysis, factor-based scales were then computed by averaging the original variables representing each factor for subsequent analysis.

Next, according to Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger (1998), only two regressions were needed to test the model hypotheses. A logistic regression model of brand use was first performed to examine whether the action sport spectatorship was related to brand use, after controlling for age, gender, other forms of sport consumption, and involvement constructs. Then, a second regression was performed to test whether the involvement constructs were related to the mediator (action sport spectatorship). In contrast to Barron and Kenny (1986), Kenny et al. (1998) indicated that a third regression to measure a pre-existing direct relationship between involvement and brand use was not necessary to establish mediation.

Results

Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as all the correlations among the composite variables estimated based on the confirmatory analysis, demographic characteristics, and brand use. The results of the confirmatory analysis are displayed in Table 2. As reported, the model showed reasonable fit to the data. Cronbach alpha reliability estimates for the factors were all above .8, with average extracted variances for the factors well exceeding the cutoff .5 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). All loadings in the confirmatory factor analysis were significant at alpha .05.

Table 3 shows the logistic regression (regression 1) of brand use including all predictor variables. The regression 1 was statistically significant: [chi square] (9, N=552) = 63.876, p<.001. The regression 1 showed that 69.82% of the cases were correctly classified, which corresponds to a 16% reduction in error over what could have been obtained by chance alone. Gender ([beta]=0.756, p<.001) and spectatorship ([beta]=0.263, p<.05) were the only significant predictors at alpha = 0.05, while the age category under 17 approximated significance ([beta]=0.485, p=.069). The findings indicate that the odds of consuming Mountain Dew increases 30% with each unit change in measures of action sport spectatorship. Moreover, males were 113% more likely to consume Mountain Dew than females. Furthermore, respondents who were under 17 years of age were 62% more likely to consume Mountain Dew than those who were 30 years of age or older. Behavioral and enduring involvement, videogaming, and participation consumption were not directly related to brand use.

The results of the logistic regression were not substantially different after entering age in the regression as a continuous as opposed to a discrete variable. The only difference was that age became a significant variable at alpha .05 with a negative sign, indicating the younger the respondents, the more likely they were to have used Mountain Dew.

In order to test whether the involvement constructs were related to hypothesized mediator (action sport spectatorship), a multiple linear regression (regression 2) was performed by regressing spectatorship on involvement and other sport consumption measures. As shown in Table 4, the regression 2 was statistically significant ([F.sub.(4, 547)]=315.01, p<.001). All predictors, behavioral involvement ([beta]=0.393, p<.001), enduring involvement ([beta]=0.156, p<.01), videogaming ([beta]=0.141, p<.001), and participation ([beta]=0.234, p<.001) had a significant impact on spectatorship consumption and explained 70% of the variance in spectatorship ([R.sup.2]=0.697). These results indicated that spectatorship increases as behavioral involvement, enduring involvement, participation in action sports, and action sports videogaming increase.

Discussion

This study investigated the relationship among involvement (enduring and behavioral), demographic variables (age and gender), action sport consumption (spectatorship, participation, and viedogaming), and use of a brand sponsoring a sporting event. The major findings were: 1) age, gender, and spectatorship had a direct impact on brand use, and 2) spectatorship mediated the relationship between involvement, participation, videogaming, and brand use.

The mediating role of spectatorship between involvement, and other action sport consumption (participation and videogaming) constructs, and brand use contributes to the extant consumer behavior literature in that it suggests spectatorship could be considered a significant factor influencing brand use. The mechanisms of mere exposure and image transfer (Cornwell et al., 2005), although not directly tested here, are premises for the model and offer a plausible explanation for this result. It is possible that as involvement in action sports increases, individuals increase their spectatorship behavior, and consequently are more exposed to the brand's promotions. This in turn would lead to potential consumption of brands associated with the event (Bennett, Hartel, & McColl-Kennedy, 2005; Oliva, Oliver, & Macmillan, 1992). Interestingly, mediation was only confirmed for spectatorship, as sport participation and videogaming were not directly related to brand use. This suggests that the conditions and settings in which spectatorship takes place (e.g., stadiums and TV) tend to play a more facilitating role for brand use than the other variables. This could be manifested through higher exposure to the brand when attending or watching the events on TV than individuals may experience when participating or playing action sport videogames.

With regard to the direct impact on brand use, age and gender were also predictive of Mountain Dew use. This is an interesting finding given the fact that research is mixed on the effects of demographics on brand use (Bucklin & Gupta, 1992; Myers, 2003). Young male respondents (7) were much more likely to consume Mountain Dew, a result in agreement with Browne's (2004) assertions that brand sales have been bolstered by this specific demographic. This particular result seems especially important given the mixed research findings connecting demographics with brand use, along with the notion that this market has been viewed as hard to reach and influence (Bennett & Lachowetz, 2004). However, it is important to point out that these relationships between age and gender and brand use do not take into account the competitive landscape in the market place. Although these relationships were significant, the way Mountain Dew is positioned among specific targets relative to its competitors was not directly assessed here. This question has actually been addressed elsewhere (e.g., Ferreira et al., 2008). For example, if caffeine content is one driver that influences males and individuals under 17 years of age to be more likely to consume Mountain Dew than females and individuals older than 30 years of age, this preference for caffeine can be even more salient toward energy drinks, which offer higher caffeine content.

Managerial Implications

The results provide some interesting implications in regard to sporting event planning. Those watching and attending the events seem to be an important segment to brands sponsoring the event. Thus, the sponsorship and advertising activations should be carefully considered in an effort to increase brand use and meet additional marketing objectives. Both property and brand managers may choose to be heavily involved with activation planning and execution since spectatorship was a critical variable in this sample.

In addition, brand managers seeking to communicate with targeted markets, in this case Mountain Dew communicating with young males involved with action sports, should consider the effectiveness of both advertising and sponsorship platforms. Since brand use is a critically important objective for firms (Allenby et al., 2002), and as spectatorship mediated Mountain Dew use among the target market respondents, it seems important to focus on communicating well with spectators at event sites (i.e., action sports events). Particularly, as spectatorship plays an integral role, sponsors may want to activate through the following mediums to increase exposure/awareness: a) advertise heavily during televised events, b) gain strategic onsite signage for those attending the event, c) obtain product placement in action sports videogames, d) develop a contest or sweepstakes linked to brand for those spectating onsite and/or through media, and e) sales promotions; for example, proof of purchase of product provides discounted entry to event. All of these either directly increase exposure for those spectating, or incentivizes attendance; ultimately, leading to brand consumption.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Although the results of this investigation provide some interesting findings in regard to the relationship among involvement, sport consumption, and brand use, there are a few limitations that are important to discuss. First, it is important to note that the intent here was not to show any causality between sponsorship of action sports and the consumption of Mountain Dew, which is a common limitation in field research (Cornwell & Coote, 2005; Cornwell & Maignan, 1998). Our intention was to examine a possible link between involvement, sport consumption, and brand use. The results do provide some evidence for a link between sport sponsorship and actual consumption of the sponsors' marketed product. Future studies should aim to further advance our knowledge of this potential link given the findings of this particular investigation.

Second, our results were limited to one particular sport event, in one geographical site. Therefore, we suggest caution when interpreting the results as they may not be generalizable to other contexts (e.g., other Dew Action Sports Tour sites, sporting events or event series, etc.). Future studies should attempt to increase the generalizability of the study by examining involvement and brand use in other contexts, exploring brand use across multiple samples and geographic regions of the United States. Nevertheless, further research is needed regarding this link between sport involvement, sport consumption, and brand use, since brand use is a critical element of business success (Allenby et al., 2002) and an objective of marketing and brand managers responsible for implementation of effective sponsorship and advertising campaigns (Fennell et al., 2003; Fennell & Allenby, 2004; Nicholls et al., 1999; Roy & Cornwell, 2004).

We have also not addressed in this study the "how much" question of consumption. The study was particularly focused to differentiate users from non-users of the sponsor's product. Future studies should aim at investigating whether the relationships identified help also to explain variations in consumption.

Finally, the study adds to the extant literature on the relationship between demographics (age and gender), involvement and brand use. The influence of spectatorship on brand use is noteworthy and appears to be a fertile area of study for future investigations on this important business objective. In summary, the results provide an initial understanding of how involvement, sport consumption, and brand use are related.

References

Allenby, G., Fennell, G., Bemmaor, A., Bhargava, V., Christen, F., Dawley, J., Dickson, P., Edwards, Y., Garratt, M., Ginter, J., Sawyer, A., Staelin, R., & Yang, S. (2002). Market segmentation research: Beyond within and across group differences. Marketing Letters, 13(3), 233-243.

Antil, J. (1984). Conceptualization and operationalization of involvement. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 11, pp. 203-209). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Arnett, B., & Laverie, D. (2000). Factors affecting fan attendance: The influence of identity salience and satisfaction. Journal of Leisure Research, 32, 225-247.

Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Journal, 14, 20-39.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Beatty, S., Kahle, L., & Homer, P. (1988). The involvement-commitment model: Theory and implications. Journal of Business Research, 16, 149-167.

Bennett, G., & Lachowetz, T. (2004). Marketing to lifestyles: Action sports and Generation Y. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13, 239-243.

Bennett, G., Henson, R., & Zhang, J. (2003). Generation Y's perceptions of the action sports industry segment. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 95-115.

Bennett, G., Henson, R., & Zhang, J. (2002). Action sport sponsorship recognition. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 174-185.

Bennett, R. (1999). Sports sponsorship, spectator recall and false consensus. European Journal of Marketing, 33, 291-313.

Bennett, R., Hartel, C., & McColl-Kennedy, J., (2005). Experience as a moderator of involvement and satisfaction on brand loyalty in a business-tobusiness setting. Industrial Marketing Management, 34, 97-107.

Bloch, P., & Richins, M. (1983). A theoretical model for the study of product importance perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 47(3), 69-81.

Bloom, P. (1981). What marketers need to know about the marketing of professional services. In J. H. Donnelly & W. R. George (Eds.), Marketing of services (pp. 86-87). Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Branscombe, N., & Wann, D. (1991). The positive social and self-concept consequences of sports team identification. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 15, 115-127.

Browne, D. (2004). Amped: How big air, big dollars, and a new generation took sports to the extreme. New York: Bloomsbury.

Bucklin, R., & Gupta, S. (1992). Brand choice, purchase incidence, and segmentation: An integrated modeling approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 201-215.

Celsi, R., & Olsen, J. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 210-224.

Cliffe, S., & Motion, J. (2005). Building contemporary brands: A sponsorshipbased strategy. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1068-1077.

Cornwell, B., & Coote, L. (2005). Corporate sponsorship of a cause: The role of identification in purchase intent. Journal of Business Research, 58, 268-276.

Cornwell, B., & Maignan, I. (1998). An international review of sponsorship research. Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 1-21.

Cornwell, T. B., Weeks, C. S., & Roy, D. P. (2005). Sponsorship-linked marketing: Opening the black box. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 21-42.

Cort, K., Pairan, J., & Ryans, J. (2004). The in-school marketing controversy: Reaching the teenage segment. Business Horizons, 47, 81-85.

Day, E., Stafford, M., & Camacho, A. (1995). Opportunities for involvement research: A scale-development approach. Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 69-75.

Donavan, T., Carlson, B., & Zimmerman, M. (2005). The influence of personality traits on sports fan identification. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14, 31-42.

Dube, J. (2004). Multiple discreteness and product differentiation: Demand for carbonated soft drinks. Marketing Science, 23, 66-81.

Fennell, G., Allenby, G., Yang, S., & Edwards, Y. (2003). The effectiveness of demographic and psychographic variables for explaining brand and product category use. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 1, 223-244.

Fennell, G., & Allenby, G. (2004). An integrated approach: Market definition, market segmentation, and brand positioning create a powerful combination. Marketing Research, 16(4), 28-34.

Ferreira, M., Hall, T. K., & Bennett, G. (2008). Exploring brand positioning in a sponsorship context: A correspondence analysis of the Dew Action Sports Tour. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 734-761.

Funk, D., Ridinger, L., & Moorman, A. (2004). Exploring origins of involvement: Understanding the relationship between consumer motives and involvement with professional sport teams. Leisure Sciences, 26, 35-61.

Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gerrior, S., Putman, J., & Bente, L. (1998). Milk and milk products: Their importance in the American Diet. USDA Dietary-Intake Surveys. USDA's Economic Research Service. Retrieved on February 19, 2006, from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/foodreview/may1998/may98e.pdf

Green, C., & Chalip, L. (1997). Enduring involvement in youth soccer: The socialization of parent and child. Journal of Leisure Research, 29, 61-77.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Havitz, M., & Howard, D. (1995). How enduring is enduring involvement? A seasonal examination of three recreational activities. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 255-276.

Havitz, M., & Mannell, R. (2005). Enduring involvement, situational involvement, and flow in leisure and non-leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research 37, 152-177

Houston, M., & Rothschild, M. (1978). Conceptual and methodological perspectives on involvement. In S. C. Jain (Ed.), Research frontiers in marketing: Dialogues and directions (pp. 184-187). Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Huang, M. (2006). Flow, enduring, and situational involvement in the web environment: A tripartite second-order examination. Psychology and Marketing, 23(5), 383-411.

IEG. (International Event Group). (2004). IEG Sponsorship Report. Chicago: IEG, Inc.

Iwasaki, Y., & Havitz, M. (1998). A path analytic model of the relationships between involvement, psychological commitment, and loyalty. Journal of Leisure Research, 30, 256-280.

Kahle, L., Kambara, K., & Rose, G. (1996). A functional model of fan attendance motivations for college football. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 5, 51-60.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilber, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 233-265). New York: Academic Press.

Kim, S., Scott, D., & Crompton, J. (1997). An exploration of the relationships among social psychological involvement, behavioral involvement, commitment, and future intentions in the context of birdwatching Journal of Leisure Research, 29, 320-341.

Knight, C., Knight, I., Mitchell, D., & Zepp, J. (2004). Beverage caffeine intake in US consumers and subpopulations of interest: Estimates from the share of intake panel survey. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42, 1923-1930.

Kyle, G., Absher, J., Hammitt, W., & Cavin, J. (2006). An examination of the motivation-involvement relationship. Leisure Sciences, 28, 467-485.

Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 41-53.

Louviere, J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lovelock, C., Patterson, P., & Walker, R. (1998). Services marketing. Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.

Marder, E. (1997). The law of choice. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Myers, C. (2003). Managing brand equity: A look at the impact of attributes. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12, 39-51.

Nathe, C., Cagle, T., & Baca, M. (2005). Hard facts: Soft drinks. RDH, 25(3), 52, 54-55, 94.

Nicholls, J., Roslow, S., & Dublish, S. (1999). Brand recall and brand preference at a sponsored golf and tennis tournament. European Journal of Marketing, 33, 365-386.

Oliva, T., Oliver, R., & Macmillan, I. (1992). A catastrophe model for developing service satisfaction strategies. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 83-96.

Peter, J., & Olsen, J. (1987). Consumer behavior: Marketing strategy perspectives. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Richins, M., & Bloch, P. (1986). After the new wears off: The temporal context of product involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 280-285.

Richins, M., Bloch, P., & McQuarrie, E. (1992). How enduring and situational involvement combine to create involvement responses. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 143-153.

Rothschild, M. (1984). Perspectives on involvement: Current problems and future directions. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 216-217.

Roy, D., & Cornwell, B. (2004). The effects of consumer knowledge on responses to event sponsorships. Psychology and Marketing, 21, 185-207.

Schiffman, L., & Kanuk, L. (1991). Consumer behavior (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Shaw, A. (1912, August). Some problems in market distribution. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 703-765.

Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego-involvement. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Smith, W. (1956). Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing, 21, 3-8.

Stone, R. (1984). The marketing characteristics of involvement. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 210-215.

Traylor, M. (1981). Product involvement and brand commitment. Journal of Advertising Research, 21(6), 51-56.

United States Dietary Association (2005). USDA dietary-intake surveys. Retreived February 19, 2006, from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/Resources/script.pdf

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

Endnotes

(1) Bennett et al. (2003) describe action sports as a label placed on an eclectic grouping of sports that often include risk, danger, or unconventional rules and/or technique. They also differ from traditional team sports in that athletes compete most often on an individual basis. Some examples of these types of sports include skateboarding, snowboarding, surfing, speed climbing, eco challenge, mountain biking, and in-line skating. These sports have sometimes been grouped together and labeled "extreme" by media, advertisers, marketing agencies, and individual athletes in an effort to provide sport consumers with alternative sport selections. The connotation of extreme exudes an image that is alternative or runs against the tide of conventional sport.

(2) Enduring involvement items included the following: "watching action sports offers me relaxation and fun when life's pressures build up", "I often watch action sports as a way to relieve daily pressures", "attending action sports events is one of the most enjoyable things I do", "I don't like to think of action sports as being ordinary", and "Watching action sports seems to recharge me in body, mind, and spirit".

(3) Behavioral Involvement items included, "in the past month ... "I have carefully read numerous articles about action sports", "I have spoken with many friends and acquaintances to get their opinions about action sports", "I have shared my thoughts about the upcoming Dew Action Sports Tour with a lot of friends and acquaintances", "I have spoken to a lot of people about my favorite action sports athletes", and "In the past, I frequently described to others of exciting events that I have seen in action sports".

(4) Items related to action sports consumption (spectatorship) include: how often do you: a) watch the following events on TV: Dew Action Sports Tour, X Games, Vans Triple Crown and Gravity Games, b) watch action sports on TV, c) plan to watch Dew Action Sports Tour events, d) attend action sport events, e) read magazines for action sports content, and f) talk with friends about action sports.

(5) Items related to action sports consumptioin (videogaming) include: how often do you: a) play videogames, and b) play action sports videogames.

(6) Items related to action sports consumption (participation) include: how often do you: a) participate in action sports, b) purchase action sport apparel, and c) purchase action sport equipment.

(7) The effect of age on the likelihood of Mountain Dew consumption shown in Table 5 indicated the teen segment, consumers between 12-17 years of age, were significantly more likely to consume Mountain Dew than the reference category, consumers older than 30 years of age. The odds for individuals under 17 years of age to have consumed Mountain Dew for the past two weeks were 62% higher than the one of those consumers older than 30 years of age. Results for gender indicate a significant increase of 113% in likelihood of Mountain Dew use for males in comparison to females.

Gregg Bennett, Mauricio Ferreira, Jaedeock Lee, and Fritz Polite

Gregg Bennett, EdD, is an associate professor and the Director of the Sport Marketing Lab at Texas A&M University. His research interests include the action sports segment and effective event marketing.

Mauricio Ferreira, PhD, is with the sport management program at Texas A&M University. His research interests are centered on understanding consumer behavior with a particular emphasis on consumer choice.

Jaedeock Lee is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Health and Kinesiology at Texas A&M University. His research interests include corporate social responsibility in sport and its impacts on diverse stakeholders.

Fritz Polite, PhD, is an assistant professor and the Director of the Institute for Leadership, Ethics & Diversity (I-LEAD) at the University of Tennessee. His research interests include socio-cultural aspects of sport and vertical brand extension. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Model Variables 1 2 3 4 1. Spectatorship -- 0.14 *** 0.20 *** 0.76 *** 2. Gendera -- -0.12 ** 0.15 *** 3. Age -- -0.14 ** 4. Behavioral involvement -- 5. Enduring involvement 6. Videogaming 7. Participation 8. Brand use (MtDew) (b) 5 6 7 1. Spectatorship 0.61 *** 0.54 *** 0.67 *** 2. Gendera 0.08 0.18 *** 0.25 *** 3. Age 0.01 -0.26 *** -0.21 *** 4. Behavioral involvement 0.70 *** 0.43 *** 0.59 *** 5. Enduring involvement -- 0.29 *** 0.45 *** 6. Videogaming -- 0.42 *** 7. Participation -- 8. Brand use (MtDew) (b) 8 Mean Std Dev 1. Spectatorship 0.24 *** 4.92 1.47 2. Gendera 0.22 *** 0.64 0.48 3. Age -0.18 *** 28.77 12.46 4. Behavioral involvement 0.17 *** 4.74 1.55 5. Enduring involvement 0.09 * 5.16 1.25 6. Videogaming 0.20 *** 4.67 2.13 7. Participation 0.22 *** 4.4 1.79 8. Brand use (MtDew) (b) -- 0.64 0.48 (a.) 1 = Male, 0= Female (b.) 1 = Yes, 0 = No (whether individuals had consumed Mountain Dew during the previous two weeks) (c.) Point-biserial correlations are reported for gender and brand use * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001 Table 2. Reliabilities ([alpha]) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results: Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Factor Loadings, and t values Factor Factor and Items [alpha] AVE Loading t Enduring Involvement 0.86 56% 1. Act Sp offers me relaxation 0.80 22.00 2. Act Sp relieves pressure 0.83 22.95 3. Act Sp enjoyable 0.80 21.76 4. Act Sp unordinary 0.49 11.72 5. Act Sp recharge body mind 0.77 20.55 spirit Behavioral Involvement 0.896 65% 1. Read Act Sp content 0.76 20.73 2. Spoken about Act Sp 0.80 22.20 3. Shared thoughts about Act 0.74 19.95 Sp 4. Spoken about Athletes 0.84 23.98 5. Describe Act Sp events 0.86 24.73 Spectatorship 0.896 60% 1. How often plan watch BAST 0.71 18.58 2. How often watch Act Sp on 0.78 21.19 TV 3. How often surf net for Act 0.75 20.10 Sp 4. How often read magaz for Act 0.82 22.99 Sp 5. How often attend Act Sp 0.77 21.04 event 6. How often talk w friends 0.80 22.15 about Act Sp Videogaming 0.933 86% 1. How often play Act Sp 0.89 26.55 videogame 2. How often play videogarnes 0.95 29.58 Participation 0.869 71% 1. How often buy Act Sp apparel 0.92 27.26 2. How often buy Act Sp equip 0.88 25.49 3. How often participate Act Sp 0.70 18.40 [chi square] = 724.250, df-180; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation= 0.074 (90% CI = 0.068,0.08)Ticker-Lewis Index = 0.923, Comparative Fit Index = 0.934 Table 3. Logistic Regression: Direct Effects Predicting Brand Use (N = 552) B SE Wald df p EXP(B) a. Gender: males 0.76 0.20 14.34 1.00 0.00 2.13 Age: under 17 yrs 0.49 0.27 3.29 1.00 0.07 1.62 Age: 18 to 24 yrs 0.23 0.26 0.80 1.00 0.37 1.26 Age: 25 to 30 yrs -0.20 0.29 0.46 1.00 0.50 0.82 Behavioral -0.02 0.11 0.03 1.00 0.87 0.98 involvement Enduring -0.09 0.11 0.67 1.00 0.41 0.91 involvement Videogaming 0.06 0.05 1.37 1.00 0.24 1.06 Participation 0.07 0.07 0.83 1.00 0.36 1.07 Spectatorship 0.26 0.12 5.17 1.00 0.02 1.30 Constant -1.31 0.44 8.90 1.00 0.00 0.27 [chi square] = 63.876, df = 9, p<.001, Negelkerke pseudo [R.sup.2] = 0.15, 69.82% correct classification; Variance Inflated Factor values were all lower than 3.5, which are well below the cutoff value of 10 (Hair et al., 1998). Table 4. Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Spectatorship B SE B [beta] a. (Constant) 0.561 0.153 Behavioral involvement 0.393 *** 0.036 0.414 Enduring involvement 0.156 ** 0.039 0.131 Videogaming 0.141 *** 0.019 0.204 Participation 0.234 *** 0.025 0.284 a. F(4, 547) = 315.01, p<0.001, [R.sup.2] = 0.697 * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001