Corporate sponsorship of social causes by tobacco and alcohol industries has increased in recent years, although little is known about the effects of prosocial sponsorship efforts in the context of the Internet. This article presents the results of a study designed to evaluate social cause Internet sponsorship effects in terms of two communication objectives: brand awareness and brand image. The effects of three corporate sponsors (Marlboro, Budweiser, Visa), paired with high/low congruent messages, were examined in an Internet experiment (e-newspaper). Sponsor motive also was examined. Results showed no differences with regard to brand awareness. However, high congruent sponsors with stigmatizing products yielded lower brand image than the low congruent sponsor with a nonstigmatizing product. Sponsors with stigmatizing products were thought to have selfish motives and this influenced brand awareness and attitudes about brand image. Implications for social marketers are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoushD. M.FriestadM.RoseG. M.1994. Adolescent skepticism toward TV advertising and knowledge of advertiser tactics. Journal of Consumer Research21(June): 165–75.
2.
CampbellM. C.KirmaniA.2000. Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research27(June): 69–83.
3.
CornwellT. B.1997. The use of sponsorship-linked marketing by tobacco firms: International public policy issues. Journal of Consumer Affairs31(2): 238–54.
4.
CornwellT. B.MaignanI.1998. An international review of sponsorship research. Journal of Advertising27(Spring): 1–21.
5.
CornwellB. T.WeeksC. S.RoyD. P.2005. Sponsorship-linked marketing: Opening the black box. Journal of Advertising34(Summer): 21–42.
6.
CrimminsJ.HornM.1996. Sponsorship: From management ego trip to marketing success. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(4): 11–21.
7.
DeanD. H.2002. Associating the corporation with a charitable event through sponsorship: Measuring the effects on corporate community relations. Journal of Advertising31(4): 77–87.
8.
DrumwrightM. E.1996. Company advertising with a social dimension: The role of noneconomic criteria. Journal of Marketing60(4): 71–87.
9.
EllenP. S.MohrL. A.WebbD.J.2000. Charitable programs and the retailer: Do they mix?Journal of Retailing76(3): 393–406.
10.
Federal Trade Commission (Ftc).2003. Federal Trade Commission Cigarette Report for 2003, issued 2005.
11.
FeinS.1996. Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology70(June): 1164–84.
12.
FriestadM.WrightP.1994. The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research21(June): 1–31.
13.
GardnerM. P.ShumanP.1988. Sponsorships and small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management26(4): 44–52.
14.
GoffmanE.1963. Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
15.
GoldsmithR. E.LaffertyB. A.NewellS.J.2000. The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising29(3): 43–54.
HaleyE.1996. Exploring the construct of organization as source: Consumers’ understanding of organizational sponsorship of advocacy advertising. Journal of Advertising, 25 (Summer): 19–35.
18.
Ieg2004. IEG sponsorship report: Chicago: International Events Group.
19.
JoharG. V.PhamM. T.1999. Relatedness, prominence, and constructive sponsor identification. Journal of Marketing Research36(3): 299–312.
20.
MandlerG.1981. The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In Affect and cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium, eds. ClarkM. S.FiskeS. T., 3–36. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
21.
McDanielS. R.1999. An investigation of match-up effects in sport sponsorship advertising: The implications of consumer advertising schemas. Psychology and Marketing16(2): 163–84.
22.
MeenaghanT.1998. Current developments and future directions for sponsorship. International Journal of Advertising17: 3–28.
23.
MenonS.KahnB. E.2003. Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: When do they impact perception of sponsor brand?Journal of Consumer Psychology13: 316–27.
24.
Meyers-LevyJ.TyboutA. M.1989. Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research16(June): 39–54.
25.
MohrL. A.ErogluD.EllenP.1998. The development and testing of a measure of skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers’ communications. Journal of Consumer Affairs32(1): 30–55.
26.
OsgoodC. E.TannenbaumP. H.1955. The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review19: 42–55.
27.
PracejusJ. W.OlsenG. D.2004. The role of brand/cause fit in the effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns. Journal of Business Research57(6): 635–40.
28.
RifonN. J.ChoiS. M.TrimbleC. S.LiH. R.2004. Congruence effects in sponsorship—The mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive. Journal of Advertising33(1): 29–42.
29.
RodgersS.2003. The effects of sponsor relevance on consumer reactions to Internet sponsorships. Journal of Advertising32(4): 67–76.
30.
SharmaS.DurandR. M.Gur-ArieO.1981. Identification and analysis of moderator variables. Journal of Marketing Research18(August): 291–300.
31.
SrullT. K.1981. Person memory: Some tests of associative storage and retrieval models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory7(6): 440–63.
32.
SzykmanL. R.BloomP. N.BlazingJ.2004. Does corporate sponsorship of a socially-oriented message make a difference? An investigation of the effects of sponsorship identity on responses to an anti-drinking and driving message. Journal of Consumer Psychology14(1–2): 13–20.
