Lancaster University 2016 - 2017

Building Brand Image through Pro-Social Sport Sponsorship

Lancaster University

2016-2017

Author Note

Elicia Howard, Department of Psychology, Lancaster University.

Francesca Citron supervised the author of this paper, Elicia Howard.

The work submitted in this report is my own and has not been submitted in substantially the same form towards the award of another degree or other qualifying work by myself or any other person. I confirm that acknowledgement has been made to assistance given and that all major sources have been appropriately referenced.

Name ________Elicia Howard____________

Signature ________________________________

Date ___04_September 2017___________

Abstract

The aim of this study was to further develop research and scientific findings on the general ideas and common knowledge of the positive effects of pro-social brands on consumer perception. For this study, Pro-Social is defined as grassroots sports, non-profit organizations, and the sports brands that support them. Using a fictitious brand presented as “new”, its social engagement was manipulated through information provided to participants, leading to the same brand being presented. Highly Pro-Social – consisted of information on the “highest” level of social engagement; Expected Pro–Social – consisted of information on a “moderate” level of social engagement; and Pro–Self – consisted of information on a “low” level of social engagement. No differences between the three levels of engagement on brand attachment, brand personality, attitude toward the brand or purchasing intentions were found. However, Pro-Self led to perception of higher product quality. Possible reasons for the null findings and future directions for further research are discussed.

Building Brand Image Through Pro-Social Sport Sponsorship

The technique of using a high-profile individual to associate with a brand, product, or image has been strategically used to develop and improve consumers’ perceptions for many years. Associating a high-profile individual with a brand, product, or image is a tactic known as image transfer. One aspect of image transfer is most commonly known as celebrity endorsement. An example of such is professional tennis player, Roger Federer, who has been paid to endorse brands such as Nike, Wilson, Mercedes Benz, Rolex and many more. To the average person, a celebrity represents a dream they would like to achieve (Rockwell & Giles, 2015). Federer, who is recognised to be an outstanding tennis player is admired by many and has a very positive image. Fans of Federer will naturally create positive psychological ties to the brand, product or image he is associated with. The psychological ties are established because the brand, product or image is identified with the attributes of the celebrity (Silva et al.; 2015). Another aspect of image transfer, in addition to celebrity endorsement is event sponsorship. Past research done by Gwinner and Eaton (1999), has supported the image transfer technique to be successful through both event sponsorship and celebrity endorsement.

Event sponsorship is a common and successful vehicle for image transfer when building a brand image. Image transfer through event sponsorship uses an event rather than a celebrity or high-profile individual as a vehicle. According to research conducted by Rifon et al. (2004), sponsorships constructs connections between a company (or brand) and the event by influencing consumer recall, awareness, attitude toward the sponsor, and purchasing intentions. During this process of image transfer, there is a psychological development or psychological tie which influences consumers’ perceptions of a brand, this is explained through the schema theory.

The schema theory is a cognitive structure that represents organised knowledge about a concept or a stimulus. Schemas are formed as information relevant to an object, concept, or person becomes integrated into an organized unit (Musante, 2006). When a brand is promoted by an athlete, a high-profile person, or an influential person, the associations consumers have with that person are then transferred to the brand. The schema theory is also applied to event sponsorship, when a company sponsors an event, the events attributes (like celebrity endorsement) are transferred to the brand. The schema technique is most effective with new brands because existing brands have pre-existing associations which make it harder to generate new or different associations. This technique is one of the most well-known marketing strategies and is commonly used by marketers across all industries.

An evolved version of image transfer is known as corporate social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a company’s voluntary activities such as environmental protection, humanitarian engagement and the company’s participation and support of local communities and businesses (Barnett, 2007). Marketers have begun using CSR through a technique known as pro-social. This evolved technique is a combination of image transfer and a company’s social activity or awareness called corporate social marketing (CSM), defined as “a means whereby a corporation supports the development and/or implementation of a behaviour change campaign intended to improve public health, safety, the environment, or community well-being’’ (Kotler & Lee, 2005, p. 114). What differentiates CSM from CSR, or other company/brand initiatives is the intended influence. A company’s (or brand’s) goal for using CSM is to alter a consumer’s behaviour (Inoue & Kent, 2011).

Extensive research has been done on brands being pro-social, i.e., brands that use CSM as a technique by supporting and being involved in communities, social issues, and improving their environmental footprint to influence consumer behaviour. Based on investigation, most of the research conducted on pro-social brands are for the most part, narrowed to the context of gender equality and brands being environmentally friendly. Bambauer-Sachse and Horvath’s (2012) study draws on existing research (Alreck, Settle, and Belch 1982; Chichilnisky, Hermann, and Frederiksen 2008; Gunkel et al. 2007; Hoeber 2007) by examining the effectiveness of CSR that focused on gender equality in a more concise communication context as well as who the target audiences should be for receiving the gender equality communication. Bambauer-Sachse and Horvath’s (2012) study discovered that psychological ties or dimensions of internalisations influences purchasing intentions, interest in the company, increased acceptability to the topic of gender equality in advertising.

Few studies have further investigated the different effects of the diverse levels of pro-sociality in a sports brand image, specifically through sports sponsorship. Research conducted by Walters and Panton (2014) explored social partnerships/sponsorships and the motivations for the partnerships/sponsorships specifically in a professional football context. The social partnerships goals were used to improve specific social issues such as education, health, and crime. Sport, as a vehicle for CSR, has been proven to be a very effective and powerful way in making positive social contributions (Smith & Westerbeek, 2007, p. 25). Sports are a strategic and successful vehicle for social impact, which is why it is important to measure its influence.

Research Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether or not a sports brands social engagement had any effect on a consumer’s perception of the brand, ultimately influencing consumer behaviour. The findings of this study can contribute to general marketing literature as well as sports marketing literature. This research can contribute by providing scientific findings to support the general ideas and common knowledge on the positive effects (and the different levels of these effects, if any) when being a pro-social brand specifically regarding grassroots sports, non-profit organisations, and the sports brands that support them. Therefore, the quantitative research that will be conducted will closely examine whether a pro-social sports brand has emotional effects on consumers, changing their perception of the brand and intentions to purchase its products. In order to achieve such findings, the scores obtained from questionnaires administered across the three different groups were reviewed compared. This allowed us to gain insight on how the participants perception varied based on the brand manipulation.

To test the effect of a sports brands social engagement, specifically through sport sponsorship, we developed the following research hypotheses: 1. The Pro-Social and Pro-Self brands will have ≠ brand personality perception. Pro-sociality is expected to affect brand personality, causing a more positive brand perception in the consumers mind (Hwang and Kandampully, 2015). 2. There will be a significantly higher purchasing intention for the Highly Pro-Social condition in comparison to the Pro-Self condition and Expected Pro-Social will remain in between. This hypothesis is based on Chavant et al. (2009) research, consumers purchasing intentions are influenced by brand attachment and brand image variables. This research will explore these findings on a more in-depth level by examining these effects on three different levels of social engagement. 3. Participants will have a significantly higher positive attitude toward the brand (Schubert et al., 2010), positive perception of the brand personality (Aaker, 1997), brand attachment (Chavanat et al., 2009), and purchasing intentions (Madrigal 2001; McDaniel 1999) in comparison to Pro-Self. This is due to the theory that brands who are Pro – Social create a perception and feeling of closeness to the brand (via the brand supporting local communities) and therefore people may develop a positive attitude toward pro-social brands. The sample used for this study belong to a common people who, based on theory may feel closer to pro-social brands because of their exposure to brands who support local community basketball tournaments. 4. There will be no significant difference in attitude toward the product, since the product features were all the same across all 3 conditions.

Method

Participants

Fifty-eight Americans participated in this study and were all above the age of 18. Participants consisted of spectators, parents of participating players, coaches, and tournament staff for a non-profit Nike sponsored community basketball tournament league. Overall, all participants were, in some way, involved with the sport of basketball and were consumers of, or had some familiarity with or exposure to community sports sponsorship. Participants were given one of three different surveys and were therefore randomly assigned to one of three conditions, Highly Pro-Social (19), Expected Pro-Social (19), and Pro-Self (20).

Materials

Participants were given a packet of questions which consisted of five different questionnaires that measured their thoughts and feelings toward the fictitious brand Vyson. The first questionnaire consisted of distractor questions, used to prevent participants from guessing the main purpose of the study. Examples of distractor questions used are: “how would you describe the quality of VYSON’S products?” and “how would you rate the longevity of VYSON’S products?” The distractor questions had no relevance to the study. All of the responses for this study were provided on a 7-point Likert scale. In condition A - “Highly Pro-Social”, participants were given information on the “highest” level of social engagement. The highest level of engagement consisted of mentioning its support of humanitarian relief organizations and the high amounts of “cash donations” or financial support given to them; the funding of grassroots sports and education programs, including the specific amount and type of program or sport as well as high amounts of product donations; investments in the 2016 Refugee Nation Olympic Team, strategically the Refugee Nation team to show a high amount of support for the current refugee crisis; high amounts of local community support and involvement; its agenda to sponsor colleges in the United States, including the dollar amount as well as the number of schools that will receive its licensing deals; and its core values in giving and support to the youth . Language such as million, cash, and donation were used in this condition (see Appendix A).

In the second condition, condition “B” (Expected Pro-Social), the brand was presented as having average - “expected” levels of pro-sociality. “Expected” levels of pro-sociality consisted of information people would generally expect to see from a sports brand, such as when sports brands pay to sponsor Olympians, or partakes in philanthropic behaviour. More specifically, this second condition was presented as a brand that is known to endorse not only professional athletes, but amateur athletes as well. This specific presented information is important because supporting amateur athletes, without specifically defining or stating what an amateur consisted of can allow the consumer/participant to feel a connection with the brand. This connection is formed because it is relatable; if the consumer sees them self as an amateur athlete or an athlete overall, it is a direct link forming an attachment to what is being presented to them. Condition “B” (Expected Pro-Social) gave a more general explanation of its support of grassroots sports in comparison to condition “A” (Highly Pro-Social). The brand was presented with a more general explanation of its support for grassroots sports and programs. In addition, the last paragraph also briefly stated its plans to sponsor colleges in the United States. The announcement of sponsoring colleges excluded specifics on its budget and the amount of money it would be giving to the schools (see Appendix B).

In condition “C” (Pro-Self), the brand was presented as having no community support or involvement. There were no negations used in this text, the provided information consisted of how much the brand was investing in itself rather than in investing in communities. For example, the brand was presented to be supporting and sponsoring high profile or celebrity athletes at high levels using language such as, “high-profile”, “hundreds of thousands” and “high status”. The mentioning of community engagement was strategically presented as receiving the least amount of investments and was last on the list of companies the brand invests in. The brands beliefs and core values were also clearly stated as keeping wealth and status within its family’s private fortune (see Appendix C). The language used and the placement of key information was a vital form of manipulation for this study.

Distractors. The distractor questionnaire contained 4 items, measured on a bipolar scale. The questions were randomly constructed and were not obtained from any previous studies. The questions were created based on the product images and features (see Appendix E).

Brand Personality (BP). Aaker’s (1997) 15-item brand personality scale was used, which ranged from “Least” (1) to “Most” (7) (see Appendix F). The purpose of this scale was to identify and measure brand personality dimensions. Brand personality dimensions are a construct of five main human personality traits. These five human personality dimensions consist of, sincerity, excitement, competence, sophisticated, and ruggedness. This scale allows for an analysis into how the brand personality dimensions are perceived in consumers’ minds, rather than the individual differences in how different people respond to single brands (Aaker, 1997). Participants were asked to rate the extent to which different or several personality traits best describe the brand Vyson.

Attitude Toward the Brand (AB). The AB questionnaire contained 5 items, measured on bipolar scales. Two scales were extracted from Batra and Stayman’s (1990) Brand Attitude scale and ranged from “Unfavourable” (1) to “Favourable” (7). All scales were bipolar; the two scales extracted from Batra and Stayman’s (1990) used the following items for the study: “Unfavourable” (1) and “Favourable” (7), and “Unlikeable” (1) and “Likeable” (7). In addition, the following three items were included: “Distant” (1) - “Close to your side” (7); “Unethical” (1) - “Ethical” (7); “Not Really” (1) - “Really” (7) was used to measure whether the brand made the participant feel comfortable (see Appendix G).

Brand Attachment (BA). The BA questionnaire was a 3-item scale extraction from Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, & Iacobucci (2010). The questionnaire had three items with bipolar scales measuring brand attachment (e.g., how connected one feels to the brand) (see Appendix H).

Purchasing Intentions (PI). This questionnaire had 4 simple items to assess how willingly a person were to purchase Vyson’s products (see Appendix I). The first two items assessed the willingness to purchase Vyson’s products while walking into a store or purchasing online. The other two items assessed willingness to buy supposing that the participant’s school or local community were sponsored by Vyson.

The anchors used for this measure were “Never” (1) and “Definitely” (7).

Design

This study used a between-participants design. All participants were given information on the same fictitious brand called Vyson and shown the same images across all conditions, featuring variety of different products; hence, the brand information sheet was presented in the same format across all three conditions. All other information and content provided about the brand remained the same (e.g., photos, brand name, model athletes, and product information). However, the information about Vyson varied across participants: one third of the participants was exposed to a brand description that was “Highly pro-social”, one third to an “Expected Pro-Social” description, and one third to a “Pro-Self” description

Following the brand information which contained the brand’s manipulated social engagement, was the branded product booklet. The branded content was modelled by unknown athletes wearing the Vyson branded content. The sports that were included in the content were the 4 major American sports, American Football, Basketball, Baseball, Soccer, and Training (men’s and women’s). Training was an important category to include for this experiment because its purpose was to serve as a non-bias category. Sports can carry biases, if an individual is a fan of one sport or team he or she will hold implicit attitudes against other sports or teams (Wenger and Brown, 2014). Including the training category helped to broaden the sample, participants who might not have had any connection or relevance to any of the sports presented, may have had a connection to training because they might have aspired to or trained to stay healthy.

These sports were chosen because participants were most likely to be familiar with one or more sports. The familiarity assisted with connecting participants to the brand as a consumer (Grisaffe and Nguyen, 2010). Participants would have had to see themselves as consumers of the brand so, providing a product they would purchase was necessary.

Procedure

This study received ethical approval from the ethics committee at Lancaster University. Participants were asked to take part in a study that wanted to examine their perception of a new sports brand that was successful in other markets around the world and had plans to begin distribution in the American markets. The brand is fictitious but was introduced as new. People who agreed to participate in the study were then asked to give consent. Following consent, they were handed a booklet containing a description of the new sports brand. Participants were administered three separate documents in an order which followed, the brand information sheet, the product booklet, and the packet of questions. The participants were specifically instructed to read the brand information sheet before continuing on to the product booklet. These specific instructions were given so that the participants were allowed to form an opinion based on the brands information rather than solely on the features of the product. Participants were then advised to closely read the brand information sheet in order for them to better understand what the brand was about. The brand information sheets were labelled A, B, and C so that participants were not aware of any differences; A being the highest and C being the lowest engaging condition they were then asked to answer a set of questions on the quality of the products and its features.

This first questionnaire included questions concerning the quality of the product directly after reading the brand information and observing the visual aids of the branded product. These steps were strategically designed to help manipulate the participants perception of the study. The manipulation caused participants to believe the sole purpose of the study was to discover their opinions on the product and brand. The branded product was presented in the form of photos of athletes wearing the sports gear, in the form of a catalogue. Along with the photos, detailed product information was provided (see Appendix D). The product information consisted of the product description regarding the quality of the materials used in the product, product price, product size availability, and the product features.

Analysis

This study used between-participants One-way ANOVAs for the different dependent measures collected. A principal component analysis (PCA) was also used to reduce the number of dependent variables (DVs) in each one of the questionnaires administered, and the factors extracted were used as DVs for the ANOVAs. This factor analysis was performed in order to extract the underlying independent factors within each set of questionnaires. The between-participants One-way ANOVAs were performed to examine the effects of the three conditions, High Pro-Social, Expected Pro-Social, and Pro-Self on consumers’ perceptions.

Results

Principal Component Analysis

A factor analysis using a principal component analysis was conducted and a varimax rotation was also applied in order to obtain a smaller number of orthogonal, independent factors. The Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin measure verified that the sample for the analysis was an adequate size for this particular study, KMO = 0.83. According to Hutcheson & Sofroniou (1999), this output verifies sample size adequacy. Three factors had eigenvalues above 1 and explained a total variance of 10.09%. For Brand Personality, there were three factors extracted. The scree plot showed an explicit difference between 1 of the 3 factors. Table 1. Shows the factor loadings after rotation. The first set of variables that are clustered together are: spirited, intelligent, charming, cheerful, upper-class, up-to-date, reliable, successful, imaginative, and daring. This suggests that Factor A represents “sophistication”. The second set of variables that are clustered together are: honest, wholesome, and down-to-earth, these suggest that Factor B represents “trustworthy”. The third set of variables that are clustered together are: outdoorsy and tough. These clustered variables suggest that Factor C represents “ruggedness” (see Table 2).

Table 1. Factor score coefficients extracted factors of the PCA for Brand Personality

Components

Variables 1 2 3

Spirited 0.10 0.13 - 0.01

Intelligent 0.10 0.00 - 0.00

Charming 0.10 0.13 - 0.01

Cheerful 0.10 0.01 - 0.00

Upper-Class 0.10 0.01 - 0.02

Up-to-date 0.10 - 0.01 - 0.01

Reliable 0.10 0.00 - 0.01

Successful 0.10 0.00 - 0.01

Imaginative 0.10 0.00 - 0.00

Daring 0.10 0.01 - 0.01

Honest 0.20 0.47 - 1.16

Wholesome 0.01 0.46 - 0.15

Down-to-earth 0.01 0.70 - 0.56

Outdoorsy - 0.30 - 0.15 0.65

Tough 0.01 - 0.06 0.55

The numbers in bold are the significant factor score coefficients, i.e., variables that loaded significantly on each component

Table 2. Rotated component matrix for the extracted factors of the PCA for Brand Personality

Components

Variables 1 2 3

Spirited .99

Intelligent .99

Charming .99

Cheerful .99

Upper-Class .99

Up-to-date .99

Reliable .99

Successful .99

Imaginative .99

Daring .99

Honest .91

Wholesome .88

Down-to-earth .70

Outdoorsy .90

Tough .80

Distractors

The descriptive statistics associated with the participants opinions on the quality of the brand (Vyson), across the three conditions [Pro-Self (low), Expected (average), Highly Pro-Social (high)] are reported in Table 3. It can be seen that with the Highly Pro – Social condition, there was a trend toward higher scores (M=0.26, SD = 0.89) as well as the Pro – Self condition (M=0.24, SD = 1.02) in comparison to the Expected Pro – Social condition (M = - 0.47, SD = 0.95). The analysis of variance showed that the effect of brand social engagement on brand quality was significant F(2,55) = 3.80, p = .028.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Distractors

Condition N Mean Std. Deviation

Highly Pro-Social 19 0.26 0.89

Expected Pro-Social 20 - 0.48 0.95

Pro-Self 19 0.24 1.02

Brand Personality

The descriptive statistics associated with the brand (Vyson) personality across the three conditions are reported in Table 4. An ANOVA was administered for each one of the three factors. For Factor A “sophistication”, although a numerical difference between the conditions was observed, Pro-self displayed a higher mean score (0.21, SD = 0.93) than the other two conditions (Expected pro-social M = -0.06, SD = 0.98; High pro-social M = -0.16. SD = 1.10), though no significant difference was found (F(2,54) = 0.68, p = 0.512). The assumption of homogeneity of variances was also tested and satisfied by the Levene’s F test.

To test the hypothesis that the brands level of pro-social engagement had an effect on participants perception of the brands personality, a between groups one-way ANOVA was performed on Factor B “trustworthy”. Although there was again a numerical difference between the conditions observed, with the highly pro-social condition, showing a higher mean score (0.29, SD = 0.81) than the other two conditions (Expected pro-social M = -0.30, SD = 1.4; pro-self M = 0.42. SD = 0.99), no significant difference was found (F(2,54) = 1.69, p = 0.195). The assumption of homogeneity of variances was also confirmed and satisfied by the Levene’s F test.

For Factor C “ruggedness”, the Highly Pro-Social condition (M=0.18) in order to test the hypothesis that the brands level of pro-social engagement had an effect on participants perception of the brands personality, a between groups one-way ANOVA analysis was performed on Factor C. Although a numerical difference between the conditions was observed, with Highly Pro-Social showing a higher mean score (0.18, SD = 0.95) than the other two conditions (Expected pro-social M = -0.13, SD = 1.25; pro-self M = -0.19. SD = 0.79), no significant difference was found (F(2,54) = 0.62, ns). The assumption of homogeneity of variances was also tested and satisfied by the Levene’s F test, [F (2,54) = 0.62, p = 0.540].

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Brand Personality

Factor A Factor B Factor C

Condition N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD

Highly Pro-Social 19 - 0.16 1.10 19 0.29 0.80 19 0.18 0.95

Expected Pro-Social 19 - 0.06 0.98 19 - 0.30 1.14 19 - 0.01 1.25

Pro-Self 19 - 0.00 1.00 19 0.04 0.99 19 - 0.19 0.79

Attitude Toward the Brand

The descriptive statistics associated with the participants attitude toward the brand (Vyson) across the three conditions are reported in Table 5. To test the hypothesis that the brands level of Pro-Social engagement had an effect on participants attitude toward the brand, a between groups one-way ANOVA was performed. For this ANOVA, only 57 of the 58 responses were included in this analysis. The reason for this is, the PCA was specifically conducted to exclude cases pairwise within the analysis. This step was taken to avoid any error within the analysis due to missing data. In this analysis, it can be seen that the Pro-Self condition was the highest mean of brand personality (M =0 .25, SD = 0.89) in comparison to the other two conditions for this measure (Expected Pro-Social M = -0.36, SD = 0.91; Highly Pro-Social M = 0.12, SD = 1.13). The assumption of homogeneity of variances was also tested and satisfied by the Levene’s F test. The analysis of variance showed that the effect of brand social engagement on consumers attitude toward the brand were not significant F (2, 55) = 2.09, p = 0.133.

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for Attitude toward the Brand

Condition N Mean Std. Deviation

Highly Pro-Social 19 0.12 1.12

Expected Pro-Social 20 - 0.36 0.91

Pro-Self 19 0.25 0.89

Brand Attachment

To test the hypothesis that the brands level of pro-social engagement had an effect on participants attachment to the brand (Vyson), a between groups one-way ANOVA was conducted. The descriptive statistics associated with the participants attachment to the brand (Vyson), across the three conditions are reported in Table 6. It can be seen that with the Pro-Self condition there was a trend toward higher scores (M=0.05, SD = 0.74) in comparison to the other two conditions (highly pro-social M = 0.50, SD = 1.27; expected pro – social M = - 0.06, SD = 0.94). However, this difference was not statistically significant (F (2, 54) = 0.55, ns). The assumption of homogeneity of variances was also tested and satisfied by the Levene’s F test, [F (2, 54) = 0.55, p = 0.948].

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for Brand Attachment

Condition N Mean Std. Deviation

Highly Pro-Social 19 - 0.05 1.27

Expected Pro-Social 19 - 0.06 0.95

Pro-Self 19 0.05 0.74

Purchasing Intentions

To test the hypothesis that the brands level of pro-social engagement had an effect on participant’s willingness to purchase the brands product, a between groups one-way ANOVA was conducted. The descriptive statistics associated with the participants purchasing intentions of the brand’s (Vyson) product across the three conditions are reported in Table 7. It can be seen that the highly pro-social condition was the highest mean of brand personality (M=0.15, SD = 1.10). The pro-self condition had the next highest mean (M = 0.05, SD = 0.91) and expected pro-social having the lowest mean (M = - 0.20, SD = 0.98). The assumption of homogeneity of variances was also tested and satisfied by the Levene’s F test. The analysis of variance showed that the effect of brand social engagement on consumer purchasing intentions were not significant F(2,54) = .62, p = 0.54.

Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for Purchasing Intentions

Condition N Mean Std. Deviation

Highly Pro-Social 19 0.15 1.10

Expected Pro-Social 19 - 0.20 0.98

Pro-Self 19 0.05 0.92

Discussion

The present study aimed to closely find if there were positive effects within the three different levels of brand engagement. The brand engagement specifically included grassroots sports, non-profit organizations and the sports brands that support them. In order to closely examine whether a pro-social sports brand has emotional effects on consumers, changing their perception of the brand and intentions to purchase its products four hypotheses were tested. First, the Pro-Social and Pro-Self brands were expected to have ≠ brand personality perception. Pro-sociality was predicted to affect brand personality, causing a more positive brand perception in the consumers mind (Hwang and Kandampully, 2015). The findings of this research do not support the hypothesis that Pro-Social and Pro-Self brand’s personality perception will be ≠. Second, there would be a significantly higher purchasing intention for the Highly Pro-Social condition in comparison to the Pro-Self condition. According to Chavant et al. (2009) consumers purchasing intentions are influenced by brand attachment and brand image variables. This current research explored these findings on a more in-depth level by examining these effects on three different levels of social engagement but the findings of this research do not support this hypothesis.

Third, participants would have a significantly higher positive attitude toward the brand (Schubert et al., 2010), positive perception of the brand personality (Aaker, 1997), brand attachment (Chavanat et al., 2009), and purchasing intentions (Madrigal 2001) in comparison to Pro-Self. This hypothesis derived from the theory that brands who are Pro-Social create a perception of closeness (a brand supporting local communities) and therefore people may develop a positive attitude toward this Pro-Social brand. The sample used for this study belong to a common people who based on theory, may feel closer to Pro-Social brands because of their exposure to brands who support local community basketball tournaments. The findings of this research do not support this hypothesis. Fourth, there would be no significant difference in attitude toward the product since the product features were all the same across all 3 conditions. The findings of this research do not support this hypothesis.

With a substantial amount of existing research on brands and/or company’s using the CSM technique to be more pro-social, there was a gap in research that examined the deeper effects as did this study complete. Though the findings of this study were not what was hypothesised, the findings changed the discussion of pro –social marketing and can lead further research. The results obtained showed that the Highly Pro-Social and Pro-Self conditions had similar perceived brand personalities’ rather than the hypothesized difference. The data proved our third hypothesis must be rejected. According to data of this study, participants in the Highly Pro-Social condition did not show or develop a significantly higher positive attitude toward the brand, higher positive perception of the brand personality, higher brand attachment, or purchasing intentions, in comparison to the Pro-Self condition. Lastly, it was predicted that there would not be a significant difference in the attitude toward the product because the product features and quality of the product were the same across all 3 conditions. Although the measurement of product quality solely served the purpose of distractor questions and was not intended to be included in this study, a difference or pattern was found. The Highly Pro-Social and Pro-Self conditions, in comparison to the Expected Pro-Social condition had a higher purchasing intention response.

The Pro-Self condition had a much higher mean (though not significant) than predicted across all of the measures; in comparison to the Pro-Social condition and on 3 occasions having a higher mean than the predicted Highly Pro-Social condition. The Pro-Self condition had a higher mean in comparison to Highly Pro-Social for the following measures: Attitude Toward the Brand, Brand Attachment, and Factor A in Brand Personality. These findings do not support the third hypothesis, that participants will have a significantly higher positive attitude toward the brand, positive perception of the Brand Personality, Brand Attachment, and Purchasing Intentions in comparison to the Pro-Self condition. The data also presented that the Expected Pro-Social condition had the lowest mean, repeatedly across all 4 measures.

There are a few important influences that we must consider when interpreting these findings: first is the socio-economic status of the sample used for this study; second, negative valence being more salient are two key factors that need to be acknowledged because of what they both mean together. The first angle of interpretation is the sociocultural factor, based on the participants group power, social and financial status, and achieved or ascribed status are influential on participants perception of a brand (Grier & Brumbaugh, 2013). Depending on the participants race and economic status, a minority of low or middle-class income may have a different perception of information on a brand that is describing its in-group of wealth and status such as the Pro-Self condition. Socio-economic information of the participants was not recorded for this study. Based on previous knowledge and familiarity of the community in which this study used, this sample was generally made up of common people.

According to Matthews & Zeidner (2003), valence is the cognitive-architectural level of a stimulus, negative or positive, which may control how information is processed (e.g., anger, sad, selfish is a negative valence that consists of negative emotions; joy, happy, sharing is a positive valence that consists of positive emotions). For this study, the Pro-Social condition represented content of a positive valence and the Pro-Self condition represented content of negative valence. It was assumed there would be a negative perception or a less positive perception of the Pro-Self condition. Based on Skowronski and Carlston’s (1989) study, negative information possesses as more salient and has a greater impact due to the aspiring in-group theory. Skowronski and Carlston (1989) research findings can possibly be an answer as to why the findings for this research were null based on findings that investigate negative biases during information formation. The in-group theory is another possible answer to this study’s research findings. The in-group theory explains that humans are very social beings and aspire to be within an in-group. When ostracised by members within an in-group as opposed to a member of an out-group the experience is more intense (Sacco et al., 2014). In this case, the Pro – Self brand information is displayed as an out-group that does not mention or present inclusion to the reader, which can create an ostracising perception or feeling for the reader.

There were a few limitations of this study. The first limitation was the atmosphere in which the study took place in. The completion of the booklet required the participant’s to be fully concentrated, and able to completely and thoroughly read through the brand information provided to them. The atmosphere of the research study was loud, busy, and had many distractions. This increases the chances of participants skipping over important content, or missing important directions. The original sample was strategically chosen to be in a class room setting, where participants would have been able to sit and read all information carefully. This original sample would have been an opportunity sample which consisted of, Sport Management Undergraduate majors at Farmingdale State University of New York. This sample of students may have possibly been too specific for this study. However, the procedure for this original sample would have been a better suited environment for participants to thoroughly read the materials administered for the study.

The theoretical implications of this research findings are that, brands who do not engage in corporate social responsibilities or pro-social behaviour does not necessarily have a lesser connection to consumers. Based on the findings of this study, brands who are less engaging and portray to be more self-involved create a want in consumers. Consumers view the brand and/or product to be of better or higher quality.

References

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.945432

Åkestam N, Rosengren S, Dahlen M. Advertising “like a girl”: Toward a better understanding of “femvertising” and its effects. Psychol Mark. 2017;34:795–806. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lancs.ac.uk/10.1002/mar.21023

Aksoy, H. (2012). Event and brand image transfer in multiple fair sponsorship. African Journal Of Business Management, 6(16). doi:10.5897/ajbm11.2333

Albus, H., & Ro, H. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 41(1), 41-65. doi:10.1177/1096348013515915

Alreck, P. L., Settle, R. B., & Belch, M. A. (1982). Who responds to “gendered” ads, and how Masculine brands versus feminine brands. Journal of Advertising Research, 22, 25-32.

Bambauer-Sachse, S., & Horvath, Z., (2011). Does Advertising Based on Gender Equality Work and Which Consumer Groups Should Be Addressed? Association for Consumer Research http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/15782/volumes/v38/NA-3

Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder Influence Capacity And The Variability Of Financial Returns To Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794-816. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.25275520

Batra, R., & Stayman, D. M. (1990). The Role of Mood in Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 203. doi:10.1086/208550

Brumbaugh, A. M., & Grier, S. A. (2013). Agents of Change: A Scale to Identify Diversity Seekers. Journal Of Public Policy & Marketing, 32144-155. doi:10.1509/jppm.12.035

Chavanat, N., Martinent, G., & Ferrand, A. (2009). Sponsor and Sponsees Interactions: Effects on Consumers’ Perceptions of Brand Image, Brand Attachment, and Purchasing Intention. Journal of Sport Management, 23(5), 644-670. doi:10.1123/jsm.23.5.644

Chichilnisky, G., & Frederiksen, E. H. (2008). An equilibrium analysis of the gender wage gap. International Labour Review, 147(4), 297-320. doi:10.1111/j.1564-913x.2008.00038.x

Fazio, R. H., Pietri, E. S., Rocklage, M. D., & Shook, N. J. (2015). Positive Versus Negative Valence. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 97-146. doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2014.09.002

Geoff Walters & Mark Panton (2014) Corporate social responsibility and social partnerships in professional football. Soccer & Society, 15:6, 828-846, DOI: 10.1080/14660970.2014.920621

Grisaffe, D. B., & Nguyen, H. P. (2011). Antecedents of emotional attachment to brands. Journal of Business Research, 64(10), 1052-1059. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.11.002

Grier, S. A., & Brumbaugh, A. M. (1999). Noticing Cultural Differences: Ad Meanings Created by Target and Non-Target Markets. Journal of Advertising, 28(1), 79-93. doi:10.1080/00913367.1999.10673578

Gunkel, Maarjana, Edward J. Lusk, Birgitta Wolff, and Fang Li (2007), “Gender-speci c Effects at Work: an Empirical Study of Four Countries,” Gender, Work and Organization, 14 (1), 56-79.

Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building Brand Image Through Event Sponsorship: The Role of Image Transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47-57. doi:10.1080/00913367.1999.10673595

Hearn, J. (n.d.). Men, Gender Equality and Gender Equality Policy. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion at Work. doi:10.4337/9781848449299.00042

Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (n.d.). Factor Analysis. The SAGE Dictionary of Quantitative Management Research, 117-121. doi:10.4135/9781446251119.n35

Smith, A. and Westerbeek, H., (2007). Sport as a vehicle for deploying corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, vol. 7, no. 25, pp. 43-54.

Hwang, J., & Kandampully, J. (2015). Embracing CSR in pro-social relationship marketing program: understanding driving forces of positive consumer responses. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(5), 344-353. doi:10.1108/jsm-04-2014-0118

Inoue, Y., & Kent, A. (2012). Investigating the role of corporate credibility in corporate social marketing: A case study of environmental initiatives by professional sport organizations. Sport Management Review, 15(3), 330-344. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2011.12.002

Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 1-7. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00277.x

Matthews, G., & Zeidner, M. (2003). Negative Appraisals of Positive Psychology: A Mixed-Valence Endorsement of Lazarus. Psychological Inquiry, 14(2), 137-143. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lancs.ac.uk/stable/1449821

Musante, M., (2006). Sport Sponsorship as an Image Development Opportunity for New Brands. Innovative Marketing (hybrid), 2(4)

Park, C. W., Macinnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 1-17. doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.6.1

Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., & Li, H. (2004). CONGRUENCE EFFECTS IN SPONSORSHIP: The Mediating Role of Sponsor Credibility and Consumer Attributions of Sponsor Motive. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 30-42. doi:10.1080/00913367.2004.10639151

ROCKWELL, D.; GILES, DAVID, C. Being a celebrity: a phenomenology of fame. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, v. 40, n. 2, p. 178-210, 2010.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). On Evaluating Story Grammars*. Cognitive Science, 4(3), 313-316. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0403_5

Sacco, D. F., Bernstein, M. J., Young, S. G., & Hugenberg, K. (2014). Reactions to social inclusion and ostracism as a function of perceived in-group similarity. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, And Practice, 18(2), 129-137. doi:10.1037/gdn0000002

Sen, S., Du, S., & Bhattacharya, C. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: a consumer psychology perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 70-75. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.12.014

Silva, L., Lopes, E., Freire, O., & Silva, D. (2015). The Brand’s Effect on the Evaluation of Advertising Endorsed by Celebrities: an Experimental Study. Brazilian Business Review, 12(4), 57-78. doi:10.15728/bbr.2015.12.4.3

Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1), 131-142. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131

Wenger, J. L., & Brown, R. O. (2014). Sport Fans: Evaluating the Consistency between Implicit and Explicit Attitudes toward Favorite and Rival Teams. Psychological Reports, 114(2), 572-584. doi:10.2466/05.pr0.114k19w1

Appendix A

Highly Pro – Social Brand Information

VYSON Brand Information (A)

VYSON, incorporating in 2013, is considerably a new brand on the market in comparison to its competing counterparts. VYSON brand stands for encouraging energy, passion, and drive within its consumers/athletes. VYSON’S involvement and speed of growth in certain countries around the world has successfully accelerated to the top of the market nearly making head to head competition with top sports brands such as Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour. While successfully emerged in global markets, VYSON has not yet reached North America.

VYSON is focused on its elite designs, product innovation, giving back to the community, and most importantly encouraging and developing young athletes to succeed within sport and in life. VYSON is also known for its unique and creative marketing and selling of athletic footwear, apparel, equipment, accessories and services.

VYSON offers its brand product services in six categories: Baseball, Basketball, Football, Soccer, Running, and Training. The company not only provides performance apparel for these six categories but also provides a range of performance equipment and accessories. The equipment VYSON brand provides are: bags, socks, gloves, protective equipment (for Baseball, Football, and Soccer); balls, eyewear, and digital devices. The company also provides products designed for kids, also including performance apparel, equipment, and accessories.

VYSON is consumer/athlete-focused therefore continuously improving the quality of the materials used, as well as the look, feel, and image of its products. VYSON strives to exceed its consumer expectations to provide them with the highest value and continue to excel to the top surpassing its competitors.

Globally, VYSON supports humanitarian relief organizations, funds several grassroots programs, and has invested in the 2016 Refugee Nation Olympic Team. VYSON gives $2 million a year in cash donations to humanitarian relief organizations; $4 million a year to grassroots programs around the world (these including, 6 Basketball and education programs in 4 different countries across Africa, 12 Soccer clubs in England, 8 Running clubs in France, Ireland, and Italy; and 5 Basketball tournaments in China. VYSON believes in giving the youth, regardless of their background or wealth, access to a multitude of different sports.

VYSON expects to begin distribution in North America by 2020. With plans of being active in the collegiate market, planning to hold apparel and equipment licenses with 48 colleges. VYSON not only projects to sponsor colleges within North America, but also support the young athletes by sponsoring grassroots sports via tournaments, camps, clubs, leagues, and after-school programs. Once within the North American market, VYSON specifically intends to sponsor 15 Baseball youth leagues, 15 Basketball youth tournaments, 15 Football youth camps, 15 Soccer youth clubs and 10 after-school programs. Each youth program will receive $30,000 in VYSON products and $15,000 in funding for each program’s scheduled season.

Appendix B

Expected Pro –Social Brand Information

VYSON Brand Information (B)

VYSON is focused on its elite designs, and product innovation. VYSON is also known for its unique and creative marketing and selling of athletic footwear, apparel, equipment, accessories and services. VYSON offers its brand product services in six categories: Baseball, Basketball, Football, Soccer, Running, and Training. The company not only provides performance apparel for these six categories but also provides a range of performance equipment and accessories. The equipment VYSON brand provides are: bags, socks, gloves, protective equipment for Baseball, Football, and Soccer; balls, eyewear, and digital devices. The company also offers products designed for kids, including performance apparel, equipment, and accessories.

Globally, VYSON is known for endorsing amateur and professional athletes around the world. VYSON supports the young athletes by sponsoring grassroots sports via tournaments, camps, clubs, leagues, and after-school programs. VYSON sponsors 15 Baseball youth leagues, 15 Basketball youth tournaments, 10 Football youth camps, 15 Soccer youth clubs and 10 after-school programs. Each youth program receives $10,000 in VYSON products and $5,000 in funding.

VYSON expects to begin distribution in North America by 2020. With plans of being active in the collegiate market, planning to hold apparel and equipment licenses with 13 colleges. Along with sponsoring colleges within North America, VYSON plans to also support their young athletes by sponsoring grassroots sports via tournaments, camps, clubs, leagues, and after-school programs.

Appendix C

Pro –Self Brand Information

VYSON Brand Information (C)

VYSON is focused on its elite designs, and product innovation. VYSON is also known for its unique and creative marketing and selling of athletic footwear, apparel, equipment, accessories and services. VYSON offers its brand product services in six categories: Baseball, Basketball, Football, Soccer, Running, and Training. The company not only provides performance apparel for these six categories but also provides a range of performance equipment and accessories. The type of equipment VYSON brand provides are: baseball bats, bags, socks, gloves, protective equipment (for Baseball, Football, and Soccer); balls (baseballs, basketballs, footballs, and soccer balls), eyewear, and digital devices. The company also provides products designed for kids, also including performance apparel, equipment, and accessories.

Globally, VYSON holds apparel and equipment licenses with 84 professional teams across global markets, the company endorses several high-profile athletes, and invests hundreds of thousands into high status individuals. Most of VYSON’S investments are through a connected stream of the founding family’s income. Its investment deals are done between long time business partners or its founding family’s other companies such as, financial services, real estate, mining, energy, mixed farming, winemaking, and a few nonprofits. VYSON believes heavily and has been successful in keeping wealth and status within its private fortune.

VYSON expects to begin distribution in North America by 2020. With plans of being active and just as successful if not more than it has already been across the world in North America.

Appendix D

Page out of the Branded Content Booklet

Appendix D

Page out of the Branded Content Booklet

Appendix E

Distractor Questionnaire

Questionnaire A

1. On a scale of 1 – 7 how would you describe the quality of VYSON’S products?

(Poor) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (High Quality)

2. On a scale of 1 – 7 would you describe VYSON’S products to be versatile?

(Not at all) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Very much)

3. On a scale of 1 – 7 how would you rate the longevity of VYSON’S product?

(Short) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Long)

4. On a scale of 1 -7 does VYSON’S product make you feel motivated?

(Not really) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Really)

Appendix F

Brand Personality Questionnaire

Questionnaire B

On a scale of 1 – 7 how likely are you to rate VYSON as:

1. Down to earth (e.g. family oriented, small town, down to earth)

(Least) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Most)

2. Honest (e.g. sincere, honest, real)

(Least) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Most)

3. Wholesome (e.g. original, wholesome)

(Least) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Most)

4. Cheerful (e.g. cheerful, sentimental, friendly)

(Least) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Most)

5. Daring (e.g. trendy, daring, exciting)

(Least) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Most)

6. Spirited (e.g. cool, spirited, young)

(Least) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Most)

7. Imaginative (e.g. unique, imaginative)

(Least) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Most)

8. Up-to-date (e.g. independent, contemporary)

(Least) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Most)

9. Reliable (e.g. hard-working, secure)

(Least) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Most)

10. Intelligent (e.g. technical, corporate)

(Least) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Most)

11. Successful (e.g. leader, confident)

(Least) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Most)

12. Upper class (e.g. glamorous, good-looking)

(Least) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Most)

13. Charming (e.g. feminine, smooth)

(Least) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Most)

14. Outdoorsy (e.g. masculine, western)

(Least) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Most)

15. Tough (e.g. rugged)

(Least) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Most)

Appendix G

Attitude Toward the Brand

Questionnaire C

On a scale of 1 – 7 how would you describe your attitude toward VYSON?

(Unfavourable) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Favourable)

On a scale of 1 – 7 how would you describe VYSON to be on your side?

(Distant) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Close to your side)

On a scale of 1 – 7 how would you describe VYSON’s ethics?

(Unethical) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Ethical)

On a scale of 1 -7 does VYSON make you feel comfortable?

(Not really) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Really)

On a scale of 1 – 7 how would you rate VYSON’s likeability?

(Unlikable) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Likeable)

Appendix H

Brand Attachment

Questionnaire D

On a scale of 1 – 7 Based on your short exposure to/familiarization with this brand, to what extent do you feel personally connected to VYSON?

(Least connected) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Most connected)

On a scale of 1 – 7 if you were to use VYSON’s products (from now on), to what extent would VYSON say something to other people about who you are?

(Least) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Most)

On a scale of 1 – 7 to what extent does the word VYSON automatically evoke in you good thoughts about the past, present, and future?

(Not at all) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Very much)

Appendix I

Purchasing Intentions

Questionnaire E

On a scale of 1 – 7 how likely are you to purchase VYSON’s products?

Via:

Walking into a VYSON retail store

(Never) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Definitely)

Purchasing online

(Never) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Definitely)

If your school was sponsored by VYSON?

(Never) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Definitely)

If VYSON sponsored your local community sports program?

(Never) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Definitely)

Data compiled by Elicia Howard.