What's in it for me? An investigation of North American professional niche sport sponsorship objectives.

Greenhalgh, Greg ; Greenwell, T. Christopher

What's in It for Me? An Investigation of North American Professional Niche Sport Sponsorship Objectives

Within North American society, an unsponsored event is often viewed as second rate and of little significance (Lamont & Dowell, 2007). Although sponsorship funding is important to all sport properties, professional niche sports (sports that do not receive significant mainstream attention, often referred to as fringe, non-mainstream, emerging, second-tier, or non-traditional sports) face even greater pressure to secure sponsorship funding as sponsorship support often determines whether a niche sport event can even take place (Sutton, 2009). Niche sport properties such as Major League Lacrosse (MLL), Professional Bull Riding (PBR), Minor League Baseball (MiLB), Professional Arena Soccer League (PASL) and National Pro Fastpitch (NPF) operating budgets are often dependent on sponsorship revenue as they typically do not receive the revenues from media broadcasting contracts, merchandise sales, gate receipts, and concessions realized by their mainstream sport counterparts. Funding from sponsorships within niche sports is frequently viewed as vital capital for operations (Lough & Irwin, 2001). Therefore, the attainment of sponsorship support is among the most critical tasks of any niche sport marketer.

Recently, a number of professional niche sports have been struck fatal blows due to a lack of sponsorship support. In 2009, at least five LPGA events were canceled due to a lack of sponsorship funding (Ballard, 2009). The Association of Volleyball Professionals halted their 2010 season early at least partially due to a lack of interest by sponsors, and the 2011 Colorado Springs PRO XCT event, professional mountain biking, was canceled after failing to secure enough corporate support (Bate, 2011). Even though professional niche sports may exhibit a great need for sponsorship funding, they are in direct competition with mainstream professional sport properties, collegiate athletic departments, arts, music, and entertainment events, and even charitable causes for a finite amount of available corporate sponsorship support. Intensifying the situation is the fact many corporations are inundated with sponsorship requests. US Airways and Verizon, for example, have reported receiving thousands of sponsorship requests each year (US Airways, 2011; Verizon, 2011).

Despite the intense competition and need for sponsorship funding by niche sports, the bulk of empirical sport sponsorship research has overlooked professional niche sports focusing on mainstream professional sport, major intercollegiate sport, and elite events such as the Olympic Games (Wartella, 2009). Additionally, researchers have reported sponsorship objectives without consideration of the sport type sponsors were referencing when data was collected. Yet, numerous researchers have indicated sponsors do not evaluate all sponsorship opportunities using identical guidelines (Copeland, Frisby, & McCarville, 1996; Irwin & Sutton, 1994; Kuzma, Shanklin, & McCaully, 1993; Lough, Irwin, & Short, 2000; Lough & Irwin, 2001). Therefore, sponsors and potential sponsors may evaluate professional niche sport sponsorship opportunities different than other levels of sport, however, there exists no empirical data to support or refute this claim.

Whereas professional niche sports may not receive the mainstream media attention or large-scale crowds realized by the NFL, NBA, and MLB, niche sports may be able to provide sponsors with something different yet valuable. Brenner (2003) noted the Core Tour, Long Drivers of America, Wal-Mart FLW Outdoors Tour, and the International Mountain Bike Association have been able to draw many major corporate sponsors including Re/Max International, Fuji Film U.S.A., Nokia, and Subaru of America. Although niche sports often lack the mass media appeal of mainstream sports, they offer sponsors the opportunity to be more targeted with their sponsorship message (Greenwald & Fernandez-Balboa, 1998; Tripodi, 2001). Niche sports often attract more homogeneous fans with respect to demographics (age, gender, education, socio-economic class, and ethnicity) and psychographics (attitudes, beliefs, and feelings) (Stotlar, 2009) as opposed to more popular mainstream sports (Milne, Sutton, & McDonald, 1996). A more targeted audience is but one way North American professional niche sports could differentiate themselves from mainstream sports. The lack of empirical research on niche sport sponsorship has led to anecdotal claims, by both academics and practitioners, as to the rationale for corporation's engagement in niche sport sponsorship relationships. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to empirically identify the objectives sponsors deem important when evaluating professional niche sport sponsorship opportunities within North America.

Sponsorship Objectives

According to Kuzma et al. (1993), the number one principle in selling sponsorships is exhibiting a close match between corporate objectives and event characteristics. In an effort to maximize the likelihood that a sponsorship proposal is accepted and supported, sport marketers need to understand the objectives a potential sponsor is trying to achieve through a sponsorship relationship. Sport sponsorship objectives have been described as corporate marketing, communications, public relations, and/or promotional objectives deemed to be attainable through sport sponsorship (Abratt, Clayton, & Pitt, 1987). In essence, the sport sponsorship relationship is used as a vehicle to achieve these overarching organizational objectives. In arguably the seminal article on sport sponsorship decision-making, Irwin and Asimakopoulos (1992) presented the Sport Sponsorship Proposal Evaluation Model (SSPEM). The SSPEM provided potential sponsors with an extensive checklist of objectives and selection criteria to be used when evaluating a sponsorship opportunity. Irwin and Asimakopoulos (1992) identified several sponsorship objectives including increasing public corporate awareness, enhancing corporate image, altering public perception, getting involved in the community, building business/trade goodwill, enhancing employee relations/motivation, increasing target market awareness, identifying/building image within a target market, and increasing sales/market share. An investigation of the contemporary sport sponsorship literature revealed each of the sport sponsorship objectives put forth by Irwin and Asimakopoulos (1992) have been utilized by numerous researchers. Each objective is discussed more thoroughly below.

Increase public corporate awareness

Sponsorship has been used in an effort to increase the awareness, or educate the public regarding the capabilities of a company (Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2007). Increasing public corporate awareness is arguably the most commonly cited objective within the sport sponsorship literature (e.g., Apostolopoulou & Papadimitriou, 2004; Chadwick & Thwaites, 2004; Greenwald & Fernandez-Balboa, 1998; Lamont & Dowell, 2007; Lough & Irwin, 2001; Ludwig & Karabetsos, 1999; McCarthy & Irwin, 2000; Meenaghan, 1991; Papadimitriou, Apostolopoulou, & Theofanis, 2008; Seguin, Teed, & O'Reilly, 2005; Thjomoe, Olson, & Bronn, 2002; Witcher, Craigen, Culligan, & Harvey, 1991).

Enhance corporate image

A slightly more complex objective than increasing corporate awareness is trying to enhance a corporation's image through sport sponsorship. Through sport sponsorship, the sponsoring corporation is able to associate itself with a sport property in hopes that the positive image fans associate with the sport property is transferred to the sponsor (Mullin et al., 2007; Shank, 2005). The literature has demonstrated an abundance of sponsors who indicated image enhancement was one of their most revered objectives (e.g., Apostolopoulou & Papadimitriou, 2004; Chadwick & Thwaites, 2004; Jarvis, 2002; Lough, 1996; Lough & Irwin, 2001; Ludwig & Karabetsos, 1999; Mack, 1999; Meenaghan, 1991; Papadimitriou et al., 2008; Slack & Benz, 1996; Thjomoe et al., 2002; Witcher et al., 1991).

Alter public perception

Similar to enhancing corporate image, altering public perception is quite contingent upon the view of the company and sponsored sport property by the consumer/fan. The key to altering this perception is finding properties or events which are part of the consumer's lifestyle (Irwin & Asimakopoulos, 1992; Irwin, Sutton, & McCarthy, 2008).

Getting involved in the community

Some sponsors have tried to use sport sponsorship to demonstrate their commitment to a given community. According to Mullin et al. (2007), sport sponsorship has more potential than any other promotional tool to have a direct impact on the community. Researchers have identified community involvement as a salient objective of numerous sport sponsors (e.g., Apostolopoulou & Papadimitriou, 2004; Lough & Irwin, 2001; Mack, 1999; McCarthy & Irwin, 2000; Seguin et al., 2005).

Building business/trade goodwill

"Sport offers an opportunity for building relationships with other businesses, affiliates, and trade customers beyond daily business operations" (Irwin et al., 2008, p. 166). The idea of using sport sponsorship for building goodwill, especially hospitality of key stakeholders, has been well documented as a viable sponsor objective throughout the sponsorship literature (e.g., Crowley, 1991; Jarvis, 2002; Ludwig & Karabetsos, 1999; Mack, 1999; McCarthy & Irwin, 2000; Meenaghan, 1991; Thjomoe et al., 2002).

Enhance employee relations/motivation

Much like utilizing sport sponsorship to host customers and suppliers, sport sponsorship can also be used as entertainment and rewards for sponsors' employees (Fullerton, 2010). Sport sponsorship has the capability of increasing staff motivation and corporate pride (Irwin et al., 2008). A number of researchers have identified employee relations as an important sponsorship objective (e.g., Apostolopoulou & Papadimitriou, 2004; Lough, 1996; Lough & Irwin, 2001; Ludwig & Karabetsos, 1999; Papadimitriou et al., 2008; Seguin et al., 2005).

Increase target market awareness

As noted earlier, sport sponsorship has been used to increase the overall awareness of a company. Numerous sport sponsors have also indicated that they use sport sponsorship to increase the awareness of a particular brand within the sponsor's target market. Sport sponsorship has been found to be a primary alternative to mass marketing. "Companies today are most interested in tailoring specific messages to small, targeted segments" (Irwin et al., 2008, p. 168). Sport sponsorship sometimes allows companies to target a niche market with very little waste on spectators outside of their target market (Irwin et al., 2008). The sponsorship literature has reflected the prevalence of this objective (e.g., Lough, 1996; Lough & Irwin, 2001; Mack, 1999; Meenaghan, 1991).

Increase sales/market share

The ultimate objective of nearly all sponsors is to increase sales and/or increase market share (Fullerton, 2010; Irwin & Asimakopoulos, 1992; Mullin et al., 2007; Shank, 2005). According to Shank (2005) and Irwin et al., (2008) sales and market share objectives are the most popular within sport sponsorship. Increasing sales and market share can be attained in several different ways through sport sponsorship. First, studies have demonstrated that fans of many sports are more prone to purchase products of brands who sponsor activities they value as opposed to competing non-sponsor products (Fullerton, 2010; Irwin et al., 2008). Second, considering so many buying decisions are made in-store, brands have used sport featured point-of-purchase displays to draw attention to their product and influence consumer decisions (Irwin et al., 2008). Finally, sponsorship agreements can include on-site product distribution, trials, or the exclusive concessions rights for a given product category (i.e., Pepsi has exclusive pouring rights for all home Colorado Avalanche, Colorado Mammoth, and Denver Nugget events through their naming rights sponsorship of the Pepsi Center)(Irwin & Asimakopoulos, 1992; Irwin et al., 2008).

Sponsorship Lifecycle

Supporting the need for research specific to North American professional niche sport is the sponsorship lifecycle presented by Lough and Irwin (2001), which posits that as sport properties mature, their associated sponsors' objectives mature as well. The sponsorship lifecycle begins with awareness and image-focused objectives for sponsors of less mature sport properties and progresses towards more market-driven objectives such as increasing sales/market share for sponsors of more mature sport properties.

The sponsorship lifecycle has been supported on two fronts. First, Lough and colleagues demonstrated that less mature sports within North America--women's sport within their research--have sponsors placing a greater emphasis on awareness and image focused objectives than mainstream sport sponsors (Lough, 1996; Lough & Irwin, 2001). Secondly, the sponsorship lifecycle has also been supported via studies of sponsorship objectives within less developed sponsorship regions of the world. Other countries appear to have less mature sport sponsorship markets compared to the United States as evidenced by the findings of Lough et al. (2000), Slack and Benz (1996), and Thjomoe et al. (2002).

Lough et al. (2000), and Slack and Benz (1996) both found Canadian-based sport sponsors to place an elevated level of importance on awareness, image enhancement, and social responsibility focused objectives when compared to U.S. based companies. Likewise, Thjomoe et al. (2002) produced similar findings in their analysis of Norwegian based corporate sponsors. Hence, the sport sponsorship lifecycle theory appears to be credible for both immature sport properties as well as immature sport sponsorship regions compared to mainstream professional sport sponsor objectives within the United States.

Professional Niche Sport

Within North America, the term professional sport typically elucidates thoughts of major leagues such as the NFL or the NBA, sport properties attracting large numbers of live spectators, and even more, watching games on TV or through other forms of media. However, the North American professional sport landscape is scattered with a variety of professional niche sports. Several writers have identified examples of niche sports including the National Lacrosse League (NLL) (Hanas, 2007; Livingstone, 2009; Tedesco, 2009), Professional Bull Riders (PBR)(Livingstone, 2009; McCarthy, 2006; Tedesco, 2009), Association of Volleyball Professionals (AVP)(Tedesco, 2009), Extreme/Action Sports (Hochman, 1999; Mickle, 2010), Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA)(Livingstone, 2009; Tedesco, 2009), and Women's Professional Soccer league (WPS) (Livingstone, 2009; Tedesco, 2009). While this is but a small sampling of North American professional niche sports, it demonstrates the variety of professional sports sometimes forgotten, or at least not top of mind, when most people envision professional sports in North America.

Miloch and Lambrecht (2006) stated niche sports could best be classified as sports that are not mainstream and do not appeal to a mass audience. Rosner and Shropshire (2004) classified niche sports into four categories: (a) minor leagues, (b) emerging sports that represent the top level of competition in their respective sport, (c) indoor variations of traditionally outdoor sports, and (d) gender specific leagues which offer women the opportunity to participate in their own league. These four categories, while not necessarily exhaustive or mutually exclusive of all niche sports, nor overly politically correct, provide insight into the fact the term niche sports encompasses a vast array of sport properties.

Niche sports vary based on region and culture. For example, professional soccer may be considered a niche sport in North America, but certainly is not a niche sport in Western Europe. The current study viewed niche sport through a North American lens and therefore the current study is limited to the North American sport sponsorship culture. For the purposes of the current study, professional niche sports were operationally defined as all North American professional sports not including the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NASCAR, or the PGA Tour.

Whereas niche sports are often quite diverse, they share similar qualities such as a lack of mass appeal and limited media attention (Miloch & Lambrecht, 2006). Also, Milne, McDonald, Sutton, and Kashyap (1996) revealed that participants of many niche sports such as mountain biking, racquetball, sailing and downhill skiing, are demographically quite similar. With this in mind, the current study aimed to highlighting the different objectives sponsors deem important when evaluating North American professional niche sport sponsorship opportunities.

An extensive literature search yielded a small number of studies focusing on the sponsorship of niche sports. However, no studies explored the sponsorship objectives of professional niche sport sponsors. Three main themes emerged from the literature. First, amateur sport sponsorship objectives have been investigated by a number of researchers. Amateur sport sponsorship research included three-on-three basketball, recreation center activities (Greenwald & Fernandez-Balboa, 1998), National Sport Organizations in Canada (Doherty & Murray, 2007; Seguin et al., 2005), State Games (Miloch & Lambretch, 2006), The Gay Softball World Series (Jarvis, 2002), and regional sport tourism events (Lamont & Dowell, 2007).

The second theme encompassed action or extreme sports. While these events may be considered professional niche sport, the current literature has analyzed sponsor recognition (Bennett, Henson, & Zhang, 2002), media preferences of attendees (Bennett, Segas, & Dees, 2006), and factors leading to fans' support of sponsors goods and services (Bennett, Ferreira, Lee, & Polite, 2009) for a variety of action sport events. But to date no researchers have investigated the sponsor's objectives within action sports.

Finally, attention has been paid to the sponsorship of women's sport. Yet, with the exception of Maxwell and Lough's (2009) investigation of sponsorship signage at women's college basketball, each of the studies in this area have not segmented women's sport (Lough, 1996; Lough & Irwin, 2001; Shaw & Amis, 2001). These studies may have been looking at women's sport from the amateur, collegiate, or professional level, but this distinction was not reported making it impossible to look specifically at women's professional sport sponsor's objectives.

Clearly, niche sports can be defined in a variety of ways. The current study attempted to take a more encompassing view on niche sports by including all professional sports within North America not withstanding the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NASCAR, or PGA Tour. While many previous researchers have investigated a singular sport or event qualifying as niche, the current study looks to provide more generalizable results reflective of a group of professional sports.

As noted earlier, the number one principle in selling sponsorships is exhibiting a close match between corporate objectives and event characteristics (Kuzma et al., 1993). While there has been a plethora of research investigating the objectives of sport sponsors, the lack of research on professional niche sport within North America has created a significant gap in the literature. Therefore the purpose of the current study was to identify the objectives sponsors deem important when evaluating professional niche sport sponsorship opportunities within North America.

Method

The survey population for the current study was professional niche sport sponsors within North America. The current study utilized the Corporate Sponsors section of the 2010 SportsBusiness Journal Resource Guide and Fact Book. This resource included contact information for multiple decision-makers within organizations known to engage in sport sponsorship within the United States and internationally. As suggested by Aguilar-Manjarrez, Thwaites, and Maule (1997), and McCook, Turco, and Riley (1997) company contacts with titles pertaining to sponsorship were preferred for inclusion within the sampling frame. If a company listed within the 2010 SportsBusiness Journal Resource Guide and Fact Book did not have a sponsorship specific contact, a marketing executive was included in the sampling frame. Finally, if neither position was published (sponsorship or marketing related) the contact with the highest-ranking title, usually Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or President was then included into the sampling frame.

A total of 352 email contacts were available via the 2010 SportsBusiness Journal Resource Guide and Fact Book. In the spring of 2010, email notifications were first sent to potential respondents, alerting them to the purpose of the study and informing them that a follow-up email would be provided in five days time and would include a link to the survey. After the initial survey email, non-respondents were sent follow-up emails, including a link to the survey. Follow-up reminders were sent to non-respondents four times.

The survey was divided in two sections. In the first section, respondents were provided with the operational definition of professional niche sports ('any North American professional sport not including the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NASCAR, or PGA Tour') and were asked if their company had engaged in a sponsorship relationship with a North American professional niche sport property. If yes, respondents were prompted via an open-ended question to identify the most recent North American professional niche sport their company had sponsored and refer to that sport property for all subsequent questions. Requiring respondents to reflect on one specific sponsorship relationship was intended to enhance the collection of actual sponsorship proposal evaluation as opposed to hypothetical or ideal situations.

The second section of the survey employed the use of a revised version of the SSPEM, which has been used by many previous researchers (e.g. Irwin & Sutton, 1994; Lough, 1996; Lough et al., 2000; Lough & Irwin, 2001; McCarthy & Irwin, 2000). The SSPEM was devised to provide a comprehensive list of contemporary sport sponsorship objectives (Irwin & Asimakopoulos, 1992). Participants were asked to rate the level of importance they had placed on each of twelve objectives when they evaluated their most recent professional niche sport sponsorship, on an eight-point scale (1 = Not Important and 8 = Extremely Important). Respondents were also asked to rank the five most important objectives, in order of importance (one through five), their company aimed to achieve through their most recent North American professional niche sport sponsorship. Finally, respondents were given the opportunity to provide any additional objectives they deemed important when assessing their most recent niche sport sponsorship.

Results

Eighty-nine surveys were collected for a response rate of 25.3%. Of those 89 respondents, 60 indicated they were niche sport sponsors. Response rates within the sport sponsorship literature are typically quite low as these studies often use corporations as their sample rather than general consumers/fans. Baldauf, Reisinger, and Moncrief (1999) stated that response rates of 15% have been deemed acceptable when surveying organizations. A response rate of 25% is typical of investigations of companies involved in sport sponsorship, as previous studies within the sport sponsorship literature have yielded similar response rates (e.g., Lough and Irwin (2001) 21.5%; Mack (1999) 20.5%; Thwaites, Aguilar-Manjarrez, and Kidd (1998) 20.5%; Scott and Suchard (1992) 21%; and Weight, Taylor, and Cuneen (2010) 25%).

Of the 60 responses, 32 were deemed usable for analysis. Those surveys deemed unacceptable for analysis were inadequate due to missing data. Previous sport sponsorship researchers have also had usable sample sizes similar to the 32 obtained within the current study. Chadwick and Thwaites (2004) obtained 37 usable responses, Daniels, Baker, Backman, and Backman (2007) analyzed 32 usable responses, Lee and Ross (2012) analyzed 17 usable responses, Lough and Irwin (2001) had 16 usable responses, Ludwig and Karabetsos (1999) completed a study with 11 usable responses, and Weight et al. (2010) secured 15 responses. As noted by Lee and Ross (2012), a relatively small sample size is natural and not problematic in sport sponsorship studies, specifically when surveying people who have extensive knowledge on the topic. Therefore, the 25% response rate and 32 usable responses attained within the current study appear to be typical of this type of research.

To ensure the sample was representative of the population, early and late respondents were compared. Creswell (2002) indicated late respondents closely resemble non-respondents. Early respondents (n = 26) were identified as respondents completing the survey prior to the administration of the second reminder email notification. Late respondents (n = 21) were identified as respondents completing the survey after the second reminder email notification. The second reminder was sent to all non-respondents approximately one week after the original survey disbursement. Only respondents with all data missing were removed from the analysis of early versus late respondents. All available data from the 47 semi-complete surveys were utilized in this analysis.

As suggested by Siebert (2006), a series of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to determine if early and late respondents differed significantly. No statistically significant differences were found between early and late respondents for any sponsor objectives (p = .100-.992). Overall, these results indicate the sample within this study appears to be representative of the population.

Of the 32 usable niche sport sponsor responses, 14 (44%) sponsored professional niche teams, 10 (31.5%) sponsored at the league level, four (12.5%) sponsored niche sport tours, four (12.5%) sponsored niche sporting events, and no respondent companies sponsored individual niche sport athletes. Additionally, four (12.5%) of these respondents indicated they sponsored multiple levels of niche sports (i.e., team and league). The majority of respondents, 14 (46.7%), were international corporations with 11 (33.3%) national level companies, four (13.3%) regional, and two (6.5%) statewide companies across a variety of industries including the airline, auto, investment, beverage, communications, retail, apparel, and health care industries. Overall, respondents represented quite large corporations as 18 (56%) reported having gross annual revenues in excess of $500M, five (15.5%) $251M-$500M, three (9.7%) $101M-$250M, three (6.5%) $51M-$100M, and two (6.5%) $11M-$20M.

Respondents reported the relative importance of each sponsorship objective on an eight-point scale (1 = Not Important and 8 = Extremely Important). According to the analysis of means, respondents reported five objectives to have a mean greater than 4.5: (a) increasing awareness within a specific target market (M = 6.81, SD = 1.65), (b) increase sales/market share (M = 6.56, SD = 2.17), (c) increase public awareness (M = 6.34, SD = 2.16), (d) enhance company image (M = 6.06, SD = 2.17), and (e) become involved in the community (M = 5.50, SD = 2.12). See Table 1 for a complete report of mean scores and standard deviations for each sponsorship objective. Respondents also ranked and reported the top five sponsorship objectives they deemed most important when evaluating niche sport sponsorship opportunities. Respondents were asked to check the objective they considered to be most important, second most important, third most important, fourth most important, and fifth most important. Respondents most frequently selected increasing sales and market share (10) as the single most important sponsorship objective followed by increase target market awareness (9), and increase public awareness (8). A complete analysis of respondents' top five ranked objectives can be found in Table 2.

At the end of the Sponsorship Objectives section, respondents were provided an open-ended opportunity to report any additional objectives they deemed important. This open-ended question produced five comments where respondents reported the following as important objectives missing from the instrument: (a) distributor support for their programs, (b) tour geography, (c) revenue streams from equipment, (d) opportunity to host customers, and (e) unique experience for customers. Distributor support and tour geography, are beyond the control of the sport entity or beyond the scope of the current study. However, opportunities to host current customers and provide customers with unique experiences were found to be important objectives. Perhaps future research on sponsorship objectives need to look at including hospitality of customer, akin to building trade relations or trade goodwill, within the survey instrument. Building relationships with customers, business-to-business or business-to-customer is a vital marketing objective of many companies, and sponsorship could certainly act as a conduit to assist in the attainment of this objective.

Discussion

Findings from the current study assists niche sport

properties as well as niche sport sponsors and potential sponsors in understanding the objectives current North American niche sport sponsors deem valuable, as well as those objectives considered unimportant within these types of sponsorship relationships. Niche sport sponsors placed a relatively high level of importance on increasing their corporate/brand awareness, specifically within a particular target market. Niche sport sponsors also look to enhance their company's image, and become involved in a community through their sponsorship of a professional niche sport in North America. Conversely, very little consideration was placed on blocking competition, enhancing employee relations, or engaging in corporate philanthropy with respect to niche sport sponsorship. The emphasis sponsors placed on increasing awareness within a specific target market, image enhancement, and community involvement indicates sponsors are looking to achieve something distinctly different than what companies are looking to achieve with a sponsorship of a mainstream sport.

The most important objective in this study was increasing target market awareness. Sport sponsorship has been found to be an effective form of communication to a very specific audience as people who are attracted to sport properties typically share common interests (Irwin et al., 2008; Mullin et al., 2007; Shank, 2005). Niche sports often attract more homogeneous fans with respect to demographics (age, gender, education, socio-economic class, and ethnicity) and psychographics (attitudes, beliefs, and feelings) (Stotlar, 2009) as opposed to more popular mainstream sports (Milne et al., 1996). Hence, a number of large scale sports sponsors, such as sponsors of the Olympic Games and the PGA Tour, place little value on reaching their target market as evidenced by Ludwig and Karbetsos' (1999) evaluation of the corporate partners of the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games and Papadimitriou et al.'s (2008) analysis of the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. Both of the aforementioned studies found Olympic sponsors to place a high level of importance on increasing overall corporate/brand awareness and enhancing their image (Ludwig & Karbetsos, 1999; Papadimitriou et al., 2008). Daniels et al. (2007) found that sponsors of a particular PGA Tour event were mostly concerned about hospitality opportunities and made no mention of increasing awareness within a specific target market.

This finding presents a significant opportunity for niche sport properties. For example, Subaru stated the reason it does not advertise during the Super Bowl is due to the fact that only 10% of the millions of Super Bowl viewers match the demographics and psychographics which align with its brand. Rather, Subaru would prefer to sponsor the International Mountain Bike Association, whose 32,000 members nearly all fit the demographics and psychographics of Subaru customers (Brenner, 2003). Numerous marketers have indicated the more tightly targeted audience of niche sports is a substantial lure for sponsors (Brenner, 2003; Fullerton, 2010; Hanas, 2007; Kojima, 2010; Milne et al., 1996). These sentiments were clearly supported by the findings of the current study. From these findings, it would be wise for niche sport properties to present potential sponsors with opportunities to have their advertising/communications messages resonate with their target market via a sponsorship. Signage at the event, title sponsorship, and jersey logos are all potentially viable and valuable inventory that niche sport properties can offer to sponsors to achieve their objective of increasing awareness among their target markets. Furthermore, niche sport marketers must be able to articulate what their fan base looks like from a demographic and psychographic perspective.

North American professional niche sport sponsors also placed a high level of importance on enhancing their image through niche sport sponsorships. This approach has been utilized within professional niche sports in the past. For example, in an effort to solidify its reputation of being tough and rugged, Ford has sponsored the Professional Bull Riders' tour. Findings of the current study demonstrated that sponsors view image enhancement as a very important part of niche sport sponsorships. Therefore, niche sport properties need to be aware of their image, and how their image may be attractive to potential sponsors. Niche sport properties should also be cognizant of the image potential sponsors have, or are trying to establish, so they can focus on the image intricacies of their sport property which may match the wants and needs of a potential sponsor. An abundance of empirical evidence exists supporting the postulation that a good fit between the image of the sponsoring company and the sponsored sport entity can have a significant positive effect on the sponsorship relationship (e.g., Becker-Olsen & Simmons, 2002; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Olson, 2010; Roy & Cornwell, 2003; Speed & Thompson, 2000; Weeks, Cornwell, & Drennan, 2008).

Niche sport sponsors within the current study also reported a high level of importance on community involvement. Sport sponsorship has been projected to offer more potential than any other promotional tool to have a direct impact on the community (Mullin et al., 2007). Companies engaged in the sponsorship of community-based events are often viewed as being in touch with their community and their community's needs. Jarvis (2002) indicated many sponsors of the Gay Softball World Series revealed that community involvement within the gay and lesbian communities was one of their primary objectives. Jarvis' (2002) findings demonstrated community was not necessarily geographically restricted and a broader definition of community could add value to both sport marketers and sponsors.

Niche sport properties should be aware of their influence on several different communities. Sponsors of niche sports may be attempting to become more involved with the lacrosse community, cycling community, or youth community. These objectives have been demonstrated through Reebok's sponsorship of the National Lacrosse League, Subaru's sponsorship of the International Mountain Bike Association, and Mountain Dew's sponsorship of the Dew Action Sports Tour, respectively. For these reasons niche sport properties need to know how to best reach and connect with the different communities they reach geographically and beyond. Niche sport marketers should have a thorough grasp on each of the communities they reach and what each of those communities looks like from a demographic and psychographic perspective. Furthermore, Close, Finney, Lacey, and Sneath (2006) demonstrated that fans/consumers who feel a company supports their community are more likely to have a positive perception of that company and, indirectly, that fan/consumer has a greater intention to purchase the sponsoring company's product.

The current study also revealed a number of objectives North American niche sport sponsors found to be relatively unimportant. Respondents determined the three least important North American professional niche sport sponsorship objectives to include: (a) Engage in Corporate Philanthropy, (b) Enhance Employee Relations, and (c) Block/Pre-empt Competition. Sport sponsorship may have been considered corporate philanthropy during its infancy, however, times have changed and all current sport sponsors aim to achieve some corporate objective out of each sponsorship relationship (Crompton, 2004). Sport sponsors have sent a very clear message to all sport properties: sport sponsorship is a business endeavor, not a philanthropic venture. Therefore, sport properties, niche and mainstream, must be able to offer a potential sponsor something of value or their proposal will likely be rejected.

The lack of importance companies placed on their competitions' interests when making sport sponsorship decisions indicates that niche sport properties should focus on each sponsorship proposal individually and avoid focusing on the actions of a potential sponsor's competition. Just because one company within an industry is interested in sponsoring a niche sport property other companies within the same industry may have no interest in participating in a similar relationship. Therefore, niche sport properties would be wise to focus on the objectives identified above as the most important objectives rather than concerning themselves with the actions of a potential sponsor's competition.

As a point of emphasis, it must be restated that the current study only investigated the importance North American professional niche sport sponsors placed on particular objectives when evaluating the most recent niche sport they funded. If these objectives are not achieved through the sponsorship relationship there is a good chance the sponsor will defect or choose not to renew the agreement once the contract expires. This reality has been revealed by a large number of researchers (e.g., Amis, Slack, & Berrett, 1999; Copeland et al., 1996; McCarville & Copeland, 1994; Thwaites et al., 1998). Again, the current study simply investigated the importance sponsors placed on each objective they attempted to achieve, not the level of success they had in actually achieving those objectives.

From a theoretical perspective, the current study also revealed that the sponsorship lifecycle theory presented by Lough and Irwin (2001) may apply to professional niche sports within North America. Findings of the current study support the sponsorship lifecycle as four of the five most important objectives within the current study were awareness or image-focused. Table 3 demonstrates how the current study fits within the sponsorship lifecycle literature base, with respect to the five most important objectives, as rated by sponsors. Findings of the current study mirror the findings of the Canadian-based corporate sponsors in Lough et al.'s (2000) comparison of U.S.-based and Canadian-based corporate sponsors. Furthermore, the current study also supports the findings of Lough and Irwin (2001) as professional niche sport sponsors in the current study rated the most important objectives nearly identical to women's sport sponsors in the previous study.

According to Lough and Irwin (2001), increasing sales/market share is the apex of the sponsorship lifecycle, likely reserved for mature sport properties. In both Lough et al.'s (2000) comparison of U.S. and Canadian corporation's sponsorship objectives and Lough and Irwin's (2001) comparison of general sport sponsors objectives and women's sport sponsors objectives, the more mature entities (U.S. and general sport respectively) placed the highest level of importance on increasing their sales/market share via sport sponsorship. Yet, Canadian-based companies, sponsors of women's sports, and sponsors of North American professional niche sports all found another objective to be most important (increasing target market awareness and enhancing company image). Theoretically, the findings of the current study indicates that North American professional niche sports are different from mainstream sport with respect to the types of objectives companies aim to achieve via sponsorship.

In conclusion, the current study demonstrates that, in order to compete against mainstream sport, intercollegiate athletics, mega-events, and amateur sport for very competitive sponsorship dollars, niche sport properties must thoroughly understand their fan base. The emphasis sponsors placed on increasing awareness within a specific target market, image enhancement, and community involvement indicates sponsors are looking to achieve something distinctly different than what they are looking to achieve with a sponsorship of a mainstream sport. In order to create sponsorship proposals aligned with the aforementioned objectives, niche sport marketers must be able to provide a comprehensive articulation of their fan base from a demographic and psychographic standpoint. Furthermore, it would be very beneficial for niche sport marketers to fully investigate the different 'communities', geographically and otherwise, they reach and how potential sponsors could have their message resonate within these communities.

Limitations and Future Research

The sample for the current study was limited to those companies listed in the 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book. Therefore, any company not listed within this resource was not included in the study. Also, while typical of this type of research, the sample size was limited. This may have been due to the fact that numerous company representatives reported they were unable to take the survey as it was against company policy. Other representatives expressed hesitancy in completing the survey as competitors have been known to imitate researchers in an effort to attain proprietary information. Overall, companies within the current were very large national or international companies. The sample lacked smaller, local or regionally based companies. For these reasons the findings of the current study must be generalized with caution.

The current study was focused on North American professional niche sport and cannot be generalized to other regions. This is especially important considering the term niche sport has regional restrictions (i.e., what is a niche sport in North America may be a mainstream sport in Europe). Therefore the findings of the current study are only applicable to professional niche sports within North America. Furthermore, the very broad definition of niche sports within the current study may be seen as a limitation. Future research in this area may benefit from a more generalizable, yet empirically defensible definition of niche sports. The current study aimed to provide insight into niche sports as a more homogenous group rather than looking at specific niche sports individually. Further investigation in differentiating between mainstream and niche sports would aid in advancing this body of literature.

Moving forward, a longitudinal study of professional niche sport sponsorship objectives may illuminate the maturation of sponsorship objectives through the sponsorship lifecycle. An investigation of niche sport sponsorship proposals would provide a point of comparison between what niche sports are focusing on/offering and what sponsors deem important. The current study also found that sponsors may place a high level of importance on the ability of a sponsorship to enhance the relationship their company has with their customers. This was not represented in the current study and may provide interesting findings if included in future investigations. Finally, the current study was predicated on the idea that North American professional niche sports were different than other types of sport properties with respect to the objectives sponsors deem important when evaluating sponsorship opportunities. Findings from the current supported this claim. However, future research should investigate niche sports more thoroughly to better understand how homogeneous sponsor objectives are within the North American professional niche sport industry. Previous research by Milne et al. (1996), indicates that many niche sports draw very similar participants. A logical extension to this claim would implicate that sponsors of these niche sports would similarly have clustered sponsorship objectives. However, future research would be useful to further flesh out this idea.

References

Abratt, R., Clayton, B. C., & Pitt, L. F. (1987). Corporate objectives in sports sponsorship. International Journal of Advertising, 6, 299-311.

Amis, J., Slack, T., & Berrett, T. (1999). Sport sponsorship as distinctive competence. European Journal of Marketing, 33(3/4), 250-272.

Apostolopoulou, A., & Papadimitriou, D. (2004). "Welcome home": Motivations and objectives of the 2004 Grand National Olympic Sponsors. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13, 190-192.

Aguilar-Manjarrez, R., Thwaites, D., & Maule, J. (1997). Modelling sport sponsorship selection decisions. Asia-Australia Marketing Journal, 5(1), 9-20.

Baldauf, A., Reisinger, H., & Moncreif, W. C. (1999). Examining motivations to refuse in industrial mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 41, 345-353.

Ballard, S. (2009, May 5). Women's pro leagues fight to remain viable. Retrieved from http://www.womenssports foundation.org/MediaCenter/Making-Headlines.aspx

Bate, J. (2011, February 23). Colorado Spring PRO XCT race axed. Retrieved from http://singletrack.competitor.com/2011/02/news/colorado-springs-pro-xct-race-cancelled_13562

Becker-Olsen, K., & Simmons, C. J. (2002). When do social sponsorships enhance or dilute equity? Fit, message source, and the persistence of effects. Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 287-288.

Bennett, G., Ferreira, M., Lee, J., & Polite, F. (2009). The role of involvement in sports and sport spectatorship in sponsor's brand use: The case of Mountain Dew and action sports sponsorship. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 18, 14-24.

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

Bennett, G., Sagas, M., & Dees, W. (2006). Media preferences of action sports consumers: Differences between Generation X and Y. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15, 40-49.

Brenner, S. (2003, September 15). Emerging sports sponsors find value below the radar. SportsBusiness Journal. Retrieved from: http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/index. cfm?fuseaction=article.preview&articleID=33191

Chadwick, S., & Thwaites, D. (2004). Advances in the management of sport sponsorship: Fact or fiction? Evidence from English professional soccer. Journal of General Management, 30(1), 39-60.

Close, A. G., Finney, B. R. Z., Lacey, R. Z., & Sneath, J. Z. (2006). Engaging the consumer through event marketing: Linking attendees with the sponsor, community, and brand. Journal of Advertising Research, 46, 420-433.

Copeland, R., Frisby, W., & McCarville, R. (1996). Understanding the sport sponsorship process from a corporate perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 10(1), 32-48.

Cresswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Crompton, J. L. (2004). Conceptualization and alternate operationalizations of the measurement of sponsorship effectiveness in sport. Leisure Studies, 23, 267-281.

Crowley, M. (1991). Prioritising the sponsorship audience. European Journal of Marketing, 25(11), 11-21.

Daniels, M., Baker, R., Backman, K., & Backman, S. (2007). What sponsors want. International Journal of Sport Management, 8, 131-146.

Doherty, A., & Murray, M. (2007). The strategic sponsorship process in a non-profit sport organization. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16, 49-59.

Fullerton, S. (2010). Sports marketing (2nd ed.). New York; NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Greenwald, L., & Fernandez-Balboa, J. (1998). Trends in the sport marketing industry and in the demographics of the United States: Their effect on the strategic role of grassroots sport sponsorship in corporate America. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 7(4), 35-47.

Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship: The role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 25(2), 19-35.

Hanas, J. (2007). Going pro: What's with all these second-tier sports? Advertising Age, 78(5), S3.

Hochman, P. (1999). Street lugers, stunt bikers, and - Colgate-Palmolive! Fortune, 140(10), 60.

Irwin, R. L., & Asimakopoulos, M. K. (1992). An approach to the evaluation and selection of sport sponsorship proposals. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 1(2), 43-51.

Irwin, R. L., & Sutton, W. A. (1994). Sport sponsorship objectives: An analysis of their relative importance for major corporate sponsor. European Journal of Sport Management, 1(2), 93-101.

Irwin, R. L., Sutton, W. A., & McCarthy, L. M. (2008). Sport promotion and sales management. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Jarvis, N. (2002). Sponsorship and gay sport: A case study of the 2000 Gay Softball World Series. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, September/October, 205-230.

Kojima, S. (2010, January 22). NLL seeks new sponsorship, Reebok deal expires in 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nllinsider.com/2010/01/22/nll-seeks-new-sponsorships-reebok-deal-expires-in-2010/

Kuzma, J. R., Shanklin, W. L., & McCally, J. F. (1993). Number one principle for sporting events seeking corporate sponsors: Meet benefactor's objective. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2(3), 27-32.

Lamont, M., & Dowell, R. (2007). A process model of small and medium enterprise sponsorship of regional sport tourism events. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14, 253-266.

Lee, S., & Ross, S. D. (2012). Sport sponsorship decision making in a global market: An approach of analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Sport, Business, and Management: An International Journal, 2, 156-168.

Livingstone, S. (2009). PBR stays in saddle. USA Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday.com/sports/2009-01-14-tough-economy-impact_N.htm

Lough, N. L. (1996). Factors affecting corporate sponsorship of women's sport. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 5(2), 11-19.

Lough, N. L., & Irwin, R. L. (2001). A comparative analysis of sponsorship objectives for U.S. women's sport and traditional sport sponsorship. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 10, 202-211.

Lough, N. L., Irwin, R. L., & Short, G. (2000). Corporate sponsorship motives among North American companies: A contemporary analysis. International Journal of Sport Management, 1, 283-295.

Ludwig, S., & Karabetsos, J. D. (1999). Objectives and evaluation processes utilized by sponsors of the 1996 Olympic Games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 8(1), 11-19.

Mack, R. W. (1999). Event sponsorship: An exploratory study of small business objectives, practices and perceptions. Journal of Small Business Management, July, 25-30.

Maxwell, H., & Lough, N. (2009). Signage vs. no signage: An analysis of sponsorship recognition in women's college basketball. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 18, 188-198.

McCarthy, M. (2006, April 17). Bull riding set to piggyback on high viewer-ship of NFL. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2006-04-16-bull-riding-tv_x.htm

McCarthy, L. M., & Irwin, R. (2000). An examination of the rationale and motives for corporate purchase of stadia and arena naming rights. Cyber Journal of Sport Marketing, 4(3).

McCarville, R. E., & Copeland, R. P. (1994). Understanding sport sponsorship through exchange theory. Journal of Sport Management, 8, 102-114.

McCook, K., Turco, D., & Riley, R. (1997). A look at the corporate sponsorship decision-making process. Cyber-Journal of Sport Marketing. Retrieved from http://fulltext.ausport.gov.au /fulltext/1997/cjsm/v1n2/mcook.htm

Meenaghan, T. (1991). The role of sponsorship in the marketing communications mix. International Journal of Advertising, 10, 35-47.

Mickle, T. (2010, January 25). Sponsors have more flexibility at X Games. SportsBusiness Journal, p. 27.

Milne, G. R., McDonald, M. A., Sutton, W. A., & Kashyap, R. (1996). A niche-based evaluation of sport participant patterns. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 417-434.

Milne, G. R., Sutton, W. A., & McDonald, M. A. (1996). Niche analysis: A strategic measurement tool for sport managers. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 5(3), 15-22.

Miloch, K. S., & Lambrecht, K. W. (2006). Consumer awareness of sponsorship at grassroots sport events. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15, 147-154

Mullin, B. J., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W. A. (2007). Sport marketing (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Olson, E. L. (2010). Does sponsorship work in the same way in different sponsorship contexts? European Journal of Marketing, 44(1/2), 180-199.

Papadimitriou, D., Apostolopoulou, A., & Theofanis, D. (2008). Event sponsorship as a value creating strategy for brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17, 212-222.

Rosner, S., & Shropshire, K. L. (Eds). (2004). The business of sports. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Roy, D., & Cornwell, T. B, (2003). Brand equity's influence on responses to evnt sponsorhips. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12, 377-393

Scott, D. R., & Suchard, H. T. (1992). Motivations for Australian expenditure on sponsorship--An analysis. International Journal of Advertising, 11, 325-332.

Seguin, B., Teed, K. C., & O'Reilly, N. J. (2005). National sports organizations and sponsorship: An identification of best practices. International Journal Sport Management and Marketing, 1(1/2), 69-92.

Shank, M. (2005). Sports marketing: A strategic perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Shaw, S., & Amis, J. (2001). Image and investment: Sponsorship and women's sport. Journal of Sport Management, 15, 219-246.

Siebert, D. C. (2006). Maximizing response rates in survey research: Issues and methods. Advances in Social Work, 7(2), 1-11.

Slack, T., & Benz, L. (1996). The involvement of small businesses in sport sponsorship. Managing Leisure, 1, 175-184.

Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sport sponsorship response. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(Spring), 226-238

Stotlar, D. K. (2009). Developing successful sport sponsorship plans. (3rd ed.). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Sutton, B. (2009, October 5). Conditions leading Big Four leagues to jersey sponsorships. Sports Business Journal. Retrieved from http://www.sports businessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2009/10/20091005/From-The-Field-Of/ Conditions-Leading-Big-Four-Leagues-To-JerseySponsorships.aspx? hl=Sutton%202009&sc=0

Tedesco, R. (2009, February). Second string: 'Smaller' sports are scoring in tough times. Promo Magazine, 22-24.

Thjomoe, H. M., Olson, E. L., & Bronn, P. S. (2002). Decision-making processes surrounding sponsorship activities. Journal of Advertising Research, November/December, 6-15.

Thwaites, D., Aguilar-Manjarrez, R., & Kidd, C. (1998). Sports sponsorship development in leading Canadian companies: Issues & trends. International Journal of Advertising, 17(1), 29-49.

Tripodi, J. A. (2001). Sponsorship--A confirmed weapon in the promotional armory. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, March/April, 1-20.

US Airways. (2011). Corporate giving. Retrieved from http://www.usair-ways.com/en-US/FAQs/corporategiving.html

Verizon. (2011). Corporate sponsorships. Retrieved from http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/sponsorships/

Wartella, J. (2009). Sponsorship of interscholastic athletics: An examination of state high school athletic/activity association sponsors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV.

Weeks, C. S., Cornwell, T. B., & Drennan, J. C. (2008). Leveraging sponsorship on the internet: Activation, congruence, and articulation. Psychology and Marketing, 25(7), 637-654.

Weight, E., Taylor, K., & Cuneen, J. (2010). Corporate motives for sport sponsorship at mid-major collegiate athletic departments. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 3, 119-130.

Witcher, B., Craigen, J. G., Culligan, D., & Harvey, A. (1991). The links between objectives and function in organizational sponsorship. International Journal of Advertising, 10, 13-33.

Greg Greenhalgh, PhD, is Director of Students Services and Outreach at the Center for Sport Leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University. His research interests include niche sport marketing, sponsorship, and social media and sport.

T. Christopher Greenwell, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Health & Sport Sciences at the University of Louisville. His research interests include customer service and service marketing. Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Niche Sport Sponsorship Objectives (N=32) Objective Mean Std. Deviation Increase Target Market Awareness 6.81 1.65 Increase Sales/Market Share 6.56 2.17 Increase Public Awareness 6.34 2.16 Enhance Company Image 6.06 2.17 Involve with the Community 5.5 2.13 Build Trade Goodwill 4.25 2.09 Build Trade Relations 4.09 2.13 Alter Public Perception 4.00 2.54 Engage in Social Responsibility 3.72 2.19 Engage in Corporate Philanthropy 3.46 2.16 Enhance Employee Relations 3.22 2.04 Block/Pre-empt Competition 2.81 1.71 Table 2 Top Five Ranked Sponsorship Objectives Objectives Most Second Third Important Most Most Important Important Increase Sales/Market Share 10 7 5 Increase Target Market Awareness 9 6 2 Increase Public Awareness 8 4 6 Enhance Company Image 0 7 5 Involve with the Community 2 3 0 Alter Public Perception 0 0 5 Build Trade Relations 0 1 2 Engage in Social Responsibility 1 1 1 Build Trade Goodwill 0 0 3 Engage in Corporate Philanthropy 1 1 0 Block/Pre-empt Competition 0 1 1 Enhance Employee Relations 0 0 1 Objectives Fourth Fifth Most Most Important Important Increase Sales/Market Share 2 2 Increase Target Market Awareness 3 6 Increase Public Awareness 4 2 Enhance Company Image 7 4 Involve with the Community 5 2 Alter Public Perception 4 2 Build Trade Relations 2 5 Engage in Social Responsibility 1 2 Build Trade Goodwill 3 1 Engage in Corporate Philanthropy 1 0 Block/Pre-empt Competition 0 3 Enhance Employee Relations 0 2 Table 3 Comparison of Most Important Sponsorship Objectives Current Study Lough & Irwin (2001) Niche General Women's Increase Target Increase Sales/ Enhance Company Market Awareness Market Share Image Increase Sales/ Increase Target Increase Target Market Share Market Awareness Market Awareness Increase Public Enhance Company Increase Sales/ Awareness Image Market Share Enhance Company Increase Public Increase Public Image Awareness Awareness Involve with Demonstrate Demonstrate the Community Community Community Involvement Involvement Current Study Lough, Irwin, & Short (2000) Niche U.S. Canadian Increase Target Increase Sales/ Increase Target Market Awareness Market Share Market Awareness Increase Sales/ Increase Target Increase Sales/ Market Share Market Awareness Market Share Increase Public Increase Public Increase Public Awareness Awareness Awareness Enhance Company Enhance Company Enhance Company Image Image Image Involve with Build Trade Demonstrate the Community Relations Community Involvement