Search results

What impact do sports sponsorship announcements have on the share price returns of sponsoring firms? This research examines the impact of new, renewal and termination sponsorship announcements on returns, employing event study methodology to analyse 118 announcements made by 19 firms over more than 11 years. The mixed findings across all three announcement types indicate the lack of consideration given to sponsorship investment by investors. The findings suggest that, although firms may position their sponsorships so that they contribute towards a competitive advantage, announcements of sports sponsorships are not always taken into account by the market.

Given the public availability of secondary data on investments in events such as the Olympics, FIFA World Cup and professional sports, event studies that measure stock market response to these investments have grown. Previous findings are mixed, however, with some studies suggesting that the announcement of sponsorship contracts is a positive event and others finding detrimental effects of the announcement on shareholder value. This study aims to analyze the mixed findings from event studies in sport sponsorship to determine if sponsorship announcements influence stock market response.

The meta-analysis examines more than 20 years of research on event studies in sponsorship (34 studies).

The overall results show a positive, but non-significant effect of partnership deal announcements on shareholder wealth. Further analysis considers the effects of sponsorship announcements by each type of event window to see the impact of the announcement relative to time (pre-announcement, announcement day, post-announcement and pre- to post-announcement). This closer examination of the event window shows that stock prices of sponsoring organizations increased in the pre-announcement window.

Quantitative meta-analytic findings indicate that information about sponsorship deals appears to leak to share markets and positively influence share price. This finding suggests that sponsoring the sports and events found in these event studies is seen as value enhancing for sponsoring firms.

The purpose of this study was to examine stock price abnormal returns following title sponsorship announcement and event date of NASCAR, the PGA Tour, and the LPGA Tour. For this purpose, the authors used event study analysis where the analysis measures the impact that a specific event has on stock prices by comparing actual stock returns to estimated returns (Spais & Filis, 2008). An event study analysis demonstrated that title sponsors for the LPGA Tour and NASCAR garnered significant stock price increases on both the announcement date and the event date. The moderator tests suggested that high image congruence and high-technology related sponsorships assumed a key role in stock price increases.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of 51 sponsorship announcements upon the stock prices of firms sponsoring in Australia. The research examines the broader question of whether sponsorship has the potential to transcend cultural boundaries and contribute to financial performance in regional markets.

The methodology is based on the event study technique which is applied to the estimation of excess returns that arise in response to announcements of corporate sponsorship made by leading industrial stocks trading on the Australian Stock Exchange. Regressions examine whether the cost and duration of sponsorship signal information of importance to investors regarding the financial prospects of sponsoring firms.

A small, fleeting positive increase in wealth effects is observed indicating that economically, sponsorship expenditure in Australia is more or less value neutral. While investors appear indifferent to sponsorship cost, they value short‐term sponsorships of less than two years in particular.

Future research needs to examine the role of associated variables such as contract size and length, and the type and level of sponsorship investment.

For firms, the study indicates that sponsorship in smaller regional markets should be valued by investors especially when firms keep the duration of the sponsorship as short. As stock prices tend to rise briefly following sponsorship announcements, marketers should leverage sponsorships immediately to gain the attention of investors. For a regional market, short and sharp sponsorships appear to be the optimal approach.

Using a stakeholder perspective, this paper aims to investigate the effectiveness of sponsorship as a business investment by assessing the impact of sponsorship announcements on the shareholders' reactions of the sponsoring firms. These reactions are examined in two different occasions: in an international mega sport event such as the Olympic Games and in sport organizations such as sport federations/associations.

Event study analysis by using multiple regression models and bootstrapping techniques were employed to study the effects of sponsorship announcements. The sample consisted of sponsors of the 2004 Olympic Games and sponsors of national sport federations.

Overall, the results of the study did not indicate any significant effects of sponsorship announcements on the stock prices of sponsoring firms, suggesting that shareholders' reactions to this business activity are limited.

This is the first research initiative that utilizes a stakeholder approach in examining sponsorship effectiveness. The findings provide evidence that shareholders do not perceive sport sponsorships as business investments due to limited information provided by the sponsoring firms. In addition to theoretical and practical implications, the study proposes a new methodological approach in evaluating the impact of sport sponsorship. Multiple regression models applying bootstrap techniques to avoid data distribution and small sample problems are recommended.

Sponsorships involving foreign brands are ubiquitous, but those involving a company from an animosity-evoking country can adversely affect rather than enhance domestic consumers' attitude towards the brand. This paper explains the mechanisms by which brand denigration occurs, introducing and validating a model of the animosity transfer process as well as considering if various framing and timing strategies attenuate or lead to adverse consumer responses.

Study 1 tests the animosity transfer model, utilizing a scenario in which English consumers respond to a German brand sponsoring the England soccer team. Study 2 assesses the generalizability of the model in the context of Indian consumers' responses to sponsorship of their cricket team by a Chinese company, and the extent to which an honest framing of the sponsorship choice through the announcement affects outcomes. Study 3 returns to an England–Germany country dyad, testing whether priming consumers with information about the sponsorship prior to a full announcement, attenuates or intensifies the impact of animosity on the studied outcomes.

The three studies demonstrate that when consumers learn of a sponsorship, it triggers an evaluation process in which the agonistic emotion (anger) they feel plays a pivotal role. More intense emotional appraisals weaken perceptions of sponsor-sponsee congruence, which together act as consecutive process variables mediating the relationship between animosity and sponsorship outcomes. Framing the sponsorship announcement with an honest justification for the partnership can improve outcomes but not amongst those with the highest animosity. Providing consumers with an advanced warning (preannouncement) of the sponsorship also amplifies consumers' unfavorable evaluations showcasing how difficult animosity is to manage in this context.

The animosity transfer model aids understanding of the mechanisms by which animosity affects brand attitude for foreign (out-group) sponsors. It identifies how animosity generates agonistic emotions and in turn weakens perceived fit between the sponsor and sponsee, leading to adverse consumer responses.

The purpose of this paper is to assess how sponsorships affect firm values in professional cycling. Both the effect of entering a sponsorship contract and reactions to good or bad news during the contract period are investigated. Doping scandals are used as examples of bad news and race wins as examples of good news.

The well-known event-study methodology of analyzing stock prices is used. In order to avoid unnecessary noise, the main emphasis is on short-term stock market effects.

The main original finding is a significant negative reaction to doping scandals within the sponsored team, indicating that the outcome of sponsoring agreements is important for investors. There are no significant stock market reactions to the announcement of sponsorships, hence sponsoring cycling teams in general are perceived as value neutral to the sponsor.

The paper encourages sponsors and cycling teams to focus on anti-doping measures as doping scandals are perceived as value destructive. This contradicts previous studies with smaller data samples. The negative impact of doping scandals outweighs the potential positive effects of winning cycling races.

Stadium naming rights programs have proliferated over the past decade, yet we have no direct evidence that these types of sponsorship programs help companies develop their long-term brand equity or even provide a short-term boost to corporate value. This paper examines the impact that naming rights programs have had on the stock values of the corporate sponsors. Using event study analysis, it is found that there are mixed responses to these types of programs. A discussion is provided which helps to explain the mixed results and provides communications mangers with some suggestions on creating more effective naming rights programs.

Sponsorship is a major contributor to income in the South African sports arena, and is a critical component allowing sports unions to remain financially viable and sustainable. Sports sponsoring companies, however, have long questioned the financial returns generated from these ventures. The purpose of this paper is to understand whether financial returns of companies with sports sponsorship in South Africa are significantly different to those without. This research was conducted on Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) listed companies that sponsored sport consistently between 2000 and 2015 for a period of two years. A quantitative methodology was employed whereby share price, revenue and earnings growth were analysed, comparing firms that did not adopt strategies involving sports sponsorships to those that did.

A quantitative methodology was employed, whereby share price, revenue and earnings growth were analysed, comparing firms that did not adopt strategies involving sports sponsorships to those that did. South Africa is an emerging market and a member of the BRICS Forum ranked 14th in the sport sponsorship market globally (Sport Marketing Frontiers, 2011), becoming increasingly dominant in the global sports industry (Goldman, 2011). The population consisted of JSE-listed Main Board and alternative exchange companies that participated in any form of consistent sports sponsorship in the given time frame: 2000-2015, where the company’s share price, revenue and earnings per share (EPS) data for the period were available from the INET BFA database. The JSE is ranked 17th in terms of market capitalisation (over $1 trillion) in the world, being the largest stock exchange on the African continent with over $30bn being traded on average monthly. Multiple journals today publish research done on the JSE, for example the International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Investment Analysts Journal and the South African Journal of Accounting Research. This stock exchange is 125 years old and has over 400 listed companies of which 358 are domestic (Kruger et al., 2014).

Results show that companies involved in sports sponsorship during the period analysed did not experience enhanced share price or revenue growth in excess of those companies not involved in sports sponsorship. As a whole, sports sponsoring companies did however experience greater income growth (EPS) than those companies not involved in sports sponsorship. Enhanced revenue growth was found in the consumer services sector, indicating that sport sponsorship in this sector drives brand image and recall resulting in enhanced revenues. These results though indicate that a multitude of differing objectives may exist for companies engaging with sports sponsorship, with increased sales not the singular objective. In general it is concluded that sports sponsorship is considered to achieve a broad spectrum of outcomes that are likely to contribute to increased profitability.

The relatively small size of 40 firms on the JSE in the South African sports sponsorship market is a limitation for this research. The purely quantitative approach limited the ability to gain the required level of insight into those sectors with small samples, which a qualitative study would reveal. SABMiller as example could not be analysed against its sector peers, given that it is one of the most prominent and consistent sports sponsors in South Africa across all major sporting codes. The telecommunications sector was represented entirely by companies that were involved in sports sponsorship and, hence, no in-depth comparison could be conducted within this sector. Vodacom, a major sponsor of sport in South Africa, could not be compared with its peers utilising purely financial and statistical methods. Cell C is one of the most prominent sponsors of rugby in South Africa, through its title sponsorship of the Cell C Sharks, and was not included in this study as it is not listed on the JSE. It is suggested that such companies should be included in a qualitative study approach.

The results of the Mann-Whitney U test for the consumer services and financial sectors confirm no significant difference in EPS growth for companies utilising consistent sports sponsorship as part of their marketing mix to those that do not. The consumer services sector has seen above-average revenue growth from sports sponsorship compared with its sector peers; however, the sector was unable to convert this increased revenue growth into increased profits, suggesting that the cost of sponsoring, as well as the operating costs associated with sports sponsorship, counteract any growth in revenue.

The sample of sports-sponsoring companies experienced a larger annual mean EPS growth rate of 30.6 per cent compared to the remaining JSE Main Board companies which grew EPS annually at 27.4 per cent. The results of the Mann-Whitney U test confirm a significant difference in EPS growth for companies utilising consistent sports sponsorship as part of their marketing mix. From a practical interpretive perspective, this result reveals that those companies in South Africa involved in sports sponsorship consistently attain greater than market-related profit growth. This poses some interesting points for discussion, given that revenue growth was not statistically different, which suggests that many sponsors are utilising the sponsorships for purposes other than sales growths that result in a profitable outcome. The potential range of options is large but would likely comprise the creation of stronger supplier relationships, resulting in optimised business inputs. Sponsors might be utilising sponsorships to improve corporate social status, which assists them in creating regulatory compliance, in some instances. Additionally, these sponsorships may be utilised to maintain key client relationships that provide the highest levels of profitability, and whilst this might not grow revenue through new business acquisition, it may result in higher profitability as a result of a loyal and stable customer base.

Much of the available research focusses on the sponsorship of specific sporting events and the share price impact thereof at specific occasions like the announcement, renewal and termination. Where research is conducted across a multitude of sporting events and codes, this predominantly focusses on share price performance only, with varying and somewhat inconclusive results. There is little research focussing on wider, more comprehensive sets of sponsored events and sporting codes, and that seeks to provide an understanding of financial returns for sponsoring properties. In a study of more than 50 US-based corporations it was found that, as a group, corporations which consistently invested in sports sponsorships outperformed market averages, and that those with higher sponsorship spend achieved higher returns (Jensen and Hsu, 2011). The study utilised descriptive statistics. More analysis, utilising detailed statistical analysis, is required to better understand the effects of sponsorship on the wider set of variables analysed. In this case, a five-year compound annual growth rate was calculated for stock price appreciation, total revenue, net income and EPS, and analysed descriptively with only means and standard deviation. Measurement of such variables assists with an understanding of the materialized results of sponsorship as opposed to much of the work in this field, which analyses market reactions to sponsorship announcements.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of sponsorship on companies that supported the 2002 Winter Paralympics. The aim of the study was to find out whether sponsorship was related to positive cumulative abnormal returns on the stocks of selected companies. Specifically, was there a difference between the stock values of the 16 companies (with shares in US markets) that sponsored Paralympic games versus leading competitors that did not? Results indicated that no differences existed between those companies that chose to sponsor Paralympics and their leading competitors at any of the time periods F(1, 30 ) = 1.15, p < .05. These findings were consistent with past studies conducted on sport events for persons without disabilities. Further studies are needed to measure other possible company gains by sponsoring Paralympics.