Sport managers are often faced with a situation where they must activate an incongruent sponsorship in which the fit between a sponsor and property is not self-evident. Existing research has shown that consumers’ perceptions of fit enhance a sponsorship’s effectiveness. Therefore, the challenge is to explain how an otherwise incongruent sponsor and property are related to one another. The current research addresses this problem and considers analogy as a means for articulating an incongruent sponsorship. We find that analogical articulation offers distinct advantages over a more common method of articulating a sponsorship by describing how a property and sponsor’s consumer base overlap.
Jesse King and Robert Madrigal
Robert Madrigal and Johnny Chen
Fans’ causal attributions for a game outcome refer to their assessments of the underlying reasons for why things turned out as they did. We investigate the extent to which team identification moderates fans’ attributional responses to a game outcome so as to produce a self-serving bias that favors the preferred team. Also explored is the ability of team identification to mediate the effect of attributions on the summary judgments of basking in reflected glory (BIRG) and satisfaction with the team’s performance. Consistent with a self-serving bias, we found that highly identified fans were more likely to attribute a winning effort to stable and internal causes than were lowly identified fans. Moreover, the extremity of response between winners and losers was greater among highly identified fans than lowly identified fans. Team identification was also found to mediate the influence of (a) stability on BIRGing and (b) internal control on BIRGing. No such mediation effects were observed in the case of satisfaction. Managerial implications are discussed.