Purpose The purpose of the current study is to advance understanding of sponsorship effectiveness by investigating the impact of the quality of the relationship between a consumer and a sport property on sponsorship effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach A model was developed to examine linkages among relationship quality, sincerity, attitude toward sponsor and intention to purchase a sponsor's product. The measurement model was tested using confirmatory factory analysis. The relationships in the hypothesized model were tested using simultaneous equations. Findings The results indicate that positive attitude toward a sponsor and intention to purchase said sponsor's product(s) are more likely to occur among the customers who perceive a higher degree of relationship quality with the sport property and believe the sponsor motives are sincere. Research limitations/implications A conceptual model of sponsorship effectiveness was developed and empirically tested. The tested model provides an expanded view of relationship quality and its impact on key variables of sponsorship effectiveness. Practical implications Provided in this study is a framework for both sponsors and sport teams that can be used to understand some of the ways in which sponsorship works. The findings suggest that sponsors should leverage their activities to communicate sincere motives, not just “doing business”. For the sport property, the implication is developing quality relationships with consumers, and being able to promote such relationships to prospective sponsors. Originality/value Relationship quality has been previously shown to influence various behavioral aspects related to partners in business‐to‐business relationships. This study extends the literature by examining the effect of business‐to‐consumer relationship quality on the expected outcomes associated with a business‐to‐business relationship.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: