Affect Transfer
Affect transfer in a sponsorship context is analogous to affect transfer in an advertising context, whereby one's attitude toward the ad transfers to one's attitude toward the brand, with little cognitive mediation (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). As a mechanism through which sponsorship may function, affect transfer refers to positive feelings toward an event transferring to the sponsoring brand through the sponsorship association. This mechanism requires no real cognitive elaboration. It does not even require conscious awareness of the association, although such awareness might be beneficial to the transfer taking place.
Affect transfer is a mechanism that has received some mention in the sponsorship literature, although much of it is rather vague. In an article that reported significant differences in demographic and lifestyle variables among several Hallmark events, Roslow, Nicholls, and Laskey (1992) noted, "Hallmark events are attended by diverse audiences who have come together to enjoy a specific experience or entertainment. This heightened level of expectation may provide a more beneficial exposure content than traditional media" (p. 54). They elaborated, "It is probable that this form of promotion
178 PRACEJUS TABLE 8.1
Summary of Testable Propositions About the Seven Mechanisms
Mechanism
Testable Proposition
Simple awareness
Affect transfer
Image transfer
Affiliation
Implied size
Implied endorsement
Reciprocity
P1: The more frequently a sponsored brand name is encountered by a consumer in the context of an event, the more positive feelings she or he has toward the brand.
P2: The effect of P1 is greater for less familiar brands than more familiar brands.
P3: The more positive the affective response to an event, the more positive the affective response to a sponsoring brand.
P4: The stronger the associative linkage between the brand and the event, the stronger the impact of P3.
P5: Brands involved in few sponsorship activities acquire more of the image and abstract associations of an event than brands that sponsor many events.
P6: Transfer of image from event to brand takes place more easily, and with greater magnitude, for low symbolic brands compared to high symbolic brands.
P7: Due to a "maximum rule," sponsorship by brands with images not fully congruent with an event will not cause appreciable harm to the image of the event.
P8: Affiliation with a sponsored event is positively correlated with perceived prestige of the event.
P9: Affiliation with a sponsored event is positively correlated with frequency of attendance.
P10: Affiliation with a sponsored event is negatively correlated with one's participation in other activities.
P11: Event sponsorship can influence the perceived size of a sponsoring firm.
P12: The larger the perceived size of the event, the greater the impact of the sponsorship on the perceived size of the firm.
P13: Sponsorship of an event by a large sponsor can increase the perceived size of the event.
P14: The sponsorship impact on perceived size can have a positive impact on perceived quality of the brand.
P15: Use of the brand in the sponsored event facilitates the inferences necessary for the implied endorsement to function.
P16: Having the sponsor's name in the event name facilitates the inferences necessary for implied endorsement to function.
P17: The more involved consumers are with an event, the more likely the sponsorship is to engage reciprocity.
would benefit the advertiser from increased levels of excitement and interest associated with hallmark events" (p. 58). These authors seemed to be proposing that the positive affective responses to the hallmark event may transfer to the sponsoring brand.
Crimmins and Horn (1996) also addressed the idea of affect transfer. They discussed the transfer of positive feelings from the event to the brand in terms of Heider's (1946) elementary human calculus. They posited that, given the relative weakness of many brand beliefs, the impact of associating a lowly regarded brand with a highly regarded event should usually lead to an upward estimation of the brand. Although this seems plausible, the authors provided no data to support the assertion. The idea, however, is that the positiveness of the event can transfer to the sponsor.
Stipp and Schiavone (1996) attempted to demonstrate that attitude toward the Olympics can actually rub off onto Olympic sponsors. Through multiple regression, they found that attitude toward Olympic sponsorship in general had a significant impact, net of ad recall and ad evaluation, on sponsor's image.
Indication of an affect transfer mechanism is also found in other commercial association domains. In the context of celebrity endorsers, for example, Misra and Beatty (1990) found that the transfer of affect from spokesperson to brand was facilitated when the two were matched. In the domain of brand extensions, Rangaswamy, Burke, and Oliva (1993) proposed "affect transfer through categorization" as a method by which utility of the brand name impacts utility of the product.
Affect-transfer-like mechanisms are also found in the retail assortment domain. In a factorial design, Jacoby and Mazursky (1984) associated high-and low-quality brands with high- and low-quality stores. They attempted to determine how differential affects in the associate pair interact. They found some support for an averaging process.
Like simple awareness, the cognitively simple mechanism of affect transfer allows for basic predictions to be made. One might expect, for example, that the more a consumer likes a sponsored event, the more positive feelings will be generated about the sponsoring brand. One might also expect that the associative linkage between brand and event would facilitate the transfer of positive affect from event to brand.
Continue reading here: Teams as Brands A Review of the Sports Licensing Concept
Was this article helpful?