Building Customer Based Brand Equity via Corporate Cobranding:

The Case of Sponsorship

Abstract
The purpose of the paper is to extend brand relationship and brand equity research into the
corporate sponsorship literature in corporate co-branding. We obtain this goal by developing a
conceptual model that synthesizes three theoretical frameworks in order to explain the spill-over effects in
corporate co-branding within the context of sponsorship. The model posits that motivational factors
(brand involvement and brand self expression) account for the creation of close relationships with a
corporate brand - sport team (brand attachment) which in co-branding situations facilitates associative
learning and leads to consumers brand equity reactions toward the partner corporate brand - sponsor
(increased familiarity, favored personality and image, and positive word of mouth). Consumers
increased ability to process information about the secondary corporate brand (sponsor familiarity and
sponsor personality) affects their motivation (brand involvement and brand self-expression) and
reinforces their emotional bond with the parent corporate brand. The model was tested using data
collected from sport consumers in a South East European country (N=280) and its results not only
confirm the proposed relationships but provide new insights regarding the role of brand equity elements in
creating spill-over effects in corporate co-branding.
Keywords: corporate co-branding, brand equity, sponsorship, brand attachment, self-expression, wordofmouth

Building Customer Based Brand Equity via Corporate Cobranding:

The Case of Sponsorship
1.

Introduction
Co-branding constitutes a type of brand extension (Hadjicharalambous, 2006), a source of brand
equity (Motion et al., 2003), and a long-term brand alliance strategy in which two or more brands are
combined to form a new brand (Hillyer and Tikoo, 1995). Brand equity is directly related to co-branding
because high brand equity of partner brands improves the perceived brand equity of the co-branded
product and generates positive direct effects (Washburn et al., 2000; 2004).
Although the practice of co-branding is not new, there are limited quantitative empirical
investigations on the topic (Helming et al., 2008). In their review of literature, Helming et al. (2008)
identify only 25 empirical studies on co-branding and ascertain several shortcomings such as: a paucity
of research on co-branding, and particularly on spill-over effects, in combination with the use of student
samples in the majority of the studies which do not allow for generalizations of their findings. The
measurement models used are often confined to one item per construct putting into question the
reliability and validity of these constructs. Furthermore, the majority of the studies use hypothetical cobranded products for evaluation whereas only few of them investigate the spill-over effects of real cobranded products. The above authors recommend the examination of antecedents of co-branding success
factors and multi-group analysis in order to achieve a more comprehensive picture of co-branding and
its effects. Furthermore, because most empirical investigations use fast-moving consumer goods, they
consider imperative the inclusion of durables and services in the research agenda of co-branding.
Our review of literature reveals an additional under-investigated area on co-branding, corporate cobranding. Corporate co-branding refers to partnerships between corporate brands and other corporate, product
or service brands in order to establish a co-branded identity. This strategic alliance enables the parties
involved in expanding and reinforcing their existing set of corporate brand values without
diminishing their corporate brand equity (McDonald et al., 2001; Motion et al., 2003). Corporate brands
differ from product brands in their strategic management, communication and culture (Balmer, 2001).
However, as Motion et al. (2003) indicate, there is a significant gap in the literature regarding the
sources of corporate co-branded equity and especially, how co-branding within a sponsorship leverages
corporate relationships to partnerships and builds brand equity.
Taking into account all the above deficiencies, the present study aims to respond to recent calls
for more research on co-branding (Helming et al., 2008) and co-branded equity (Motion et al., 2003), to
delve deeper in the co-branding mechanism, and to contribute to some unsolved issues in the literature.
Specifically, the objectives of this research are: a) to investigate the mechanism under which spill-over
effects take place in co-branding, and specifically in a special case of corporate co-branding such as
sponsorship; b) to identify the antecedents of corporate co-branding success and c) to examine the
effects of the parent corporate brand on specific outcomes of the secondary corporate brand such as
brand equity dimensions (image, familiarity, and personality) and word of mouth. The contribution of
the present investigation is multi-fold: First, to our knowledge, this is the first study that investigates the
spill-over mechanism and effects on corporate co-branding. Moreover, this is the first research endeavor
focusing on corporate co-branding in the context of sponsorship. Although sponsorship has been
proposed as a corporate co-branding case (Kahuni et al., 2009; Farrelly et al., 2005; Motion et al., 2003),
there is no quantitative empirical data explaining the spill-over phenomena and their underlying
mechanisms in this context. The two available investigations (Kahuni et al., 2009; Motion et al., 2003)
use case studies in order to show how corporate co-branding operates in sponsorship. Thus, this is the
2

first research endeavor that proposes a comprehensive conceptual framework and uses quantitative data in
order to examine the spill over effects in corporate co-branding in sponsorship.
Following, the conceptual framework of the study is presented along with the method utilized.
Then, the results are reported and the paper concludes with a discussion of findings in terms of their
implications for marketing theory and practice.
2.

Conceptual framework
In our study we will focus on corporate co-branding which we argue that it is very much
applicable concept in the sponsorship context. Recently, sponsorship is recognized as a case of corporate
co-branding (Kahuni et al., 2009; Farrelly et al., 2005; Motion et al., 2003) that can be used for strategic
purposes (Cliffe and Motion, 2005). Thus, sponsorship is much more than a commercial activity aiming
to increase the advertising exposure of the sponsor. It is a co-branding partnership situation which
enables values to be extracted from the relationship at a variety of levels (Motion et al., 2003), and a
significant driver of brand strategy that leverages the value of the brand (Cliffe and Motion, 2005).
Therefore, we develop a conceptual model that explains how the spill-over effects take place in
sponsorship. We combine three frameworks, brand relational perspectives, associative learning, and brand
equity in order to explain how co-branding operates within sponsorship. The proposed framework is shown
on Figure 1. For communication purposes we use the term brand when referring to the sport team (parent
corporate brand) and the term sponsor for the sponsors corporate brand (secondary
corporate brand).
2.1 The role of self-expression and involvement on brand attachment
Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) defined a self-expressive brand as the consumers perception of the
degree to which the specific brand enhances ones social self and/or reflects ones inner self (p.82). It is
well documented in the consumer behavior literature that individuals choose specific brands not only for
their functional benefits but also for their symbolic properties (Piacentini and Mailer 1999;
Wattanasuwan, 2005). Consumers choose brands that help them in creating, fostering and developing
their identity (Elliot and Wattabasuwan, 1998; Yoo et al., 2006). In this case, the symbolic meaning of
the brand is used as an expression of a consumers self-concept in relation to her / his status in society
(Elliot, 1999). Piacentini and Mailer (1999) also argued that consumption of a specific brand might also
be used by consumers for communicating with their friends and significant others. In this case,
purchasing of a specific brand is used as mean for encoding messages to others. The same author also
argued that products, which are consumed in social situations, are those that have the highest symbolic
meaning, since this situation help consumers to better express their identity. Furthermore, as Piacentini
and Mailer (1999) discussed, individuals can use the symbolic content of a chosen brand to reflect to
their affiliation or connection to a particular social group. Following the above discussion we
hypothesized that:
H1. Brand self-expression is positively related to brand attachment.
Involvement is regarded as a primary determinant of consumer behavior and has been defined as
a person's perceived relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values, and interests
(Zaichkowsky, 1985, p. 342). Involvement is a function of individual characteristics (e.g. needs, values,
goals), situational factors (e.g. purchase occasion or perceived risk associated with a purchase decision),
and characteristics of the product or stimulus (e.g. type of the media, variations within a product class)
3

(Zaichkowsky, 1985). The consequences of involvement are higher motivation, heightened arousal and
increases in cognitive elaborations (Mano and Oliver, 1993). Zaichkowsky (1985) distinguished
involvement into two categories: product involvement and brand-decision involvement. Product
involvement refers to the interest consumer finds in a product class. Brand-decision involvement is the
interest taken in making the brand selection. Involvement has been related to brand loyalty and brand
commitment (Beatty and Kahle, 1988) and to the success of co-branding (Helming et al., 2008). We
therefore propose that:
H2. Brand Involvement is positively related to brand attachment.
2.2. The effect of brand attachment on sponsor equity dimensions and word-of-mouth
In line with the works of Washburn et al. (2004) and Osselaer and Alba (2000), we build upon the
associative-learning framework to explain the spill-over effects on corporate co-branding.
Consumers involved and attached with a brand develop a number of associations (cognitive and
emotional) around this brand. When the brand is coupled with another brand, this association may lead
consumers to extend the features of the parent brand to the secondary brand. We also propose that the
associations of the parents brand should be strong in order for co-branding to be viable and brand
attachment acts as the gatekeeper in building co-branded equity.
Brand attachment has been defined as the strength of the cognitive and affective bond
connecting the brand with the self (Park et al., 2006, p. 4) in a symbolic manner (Wallendorf and
Arnould, 1988). The significance of brand attachment as a key determinant in consumer consumption
behavior is substantiated by several attributes inherent to the concept. Attachment expresses emotional
bonds which are persistent, resist to change, impact cognition, and predict behavior (Krosnick and Petty,
1995). Persistence reflects the degree to which an individual's attachment toward an object remains
unchanged over time. Resistance represents an individuals ability to refuse shifting to competitive
products (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). A strong attachment will lead to consumers resistance to change
and the ability of a brand (e.g. sport team) to withstand bad results (Keller et al., 2008). Moreover, brand
attachment has been linked recently to brand equity (Park et al., 2006) and brand equity behaviors
((Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).
Research shows brand attachment as a key variable in brand extensions (Fedorikhin et al., 2008)
and sponsorship (Gwinner and Swanson, 2003; Madrigal, 2001; Meenagham, 2001; Pope and Voges,
1999). Fedorikhin, Park and Thomson (2008) found that attachment with the parent brand has positive
effects on consumer reactions to brand extensions. Sponsorship can develop an associative partnership
between the sponsor and the sponsored team where image spill-over effects take place (Kahuni et al.,
2009) via consumers emotionally laden experiences (Cliffe and Motion, 2005). We argue here that the
emotional experiences with a sport team are accumulated and expressed on consumers attachment with
this team which in turn affects through association sponsors brand equity. Although previous research
does not use the associative learning paradigm, indicates that consumers highly attached to sport teams
develop positive attitudes towards their sponsor, exhibit higher levels of sponsor recognition, patronage,
and satisfaction (Madrigal, 2001; Gwinner and Swanson, 2003). Therefore, we propose here that brand
attachment plays a critical role in developing the spill-over effects in co-branding and specifically we
hypothesize that:
H3. Brand attachment is positively related to sponsor familiarity.
4

H4. Brand attachment is positively related to sponsor personality.

Familiarity refers to the "number of product related experiences that have been accumulated by
the consumer." Increased familiarity with a brand may result in a better developed knowledge
(Brucks, 1985), including objective and subjective knowledge (Park et al. 1994; Cordell 1997), and
brand equity (Krishnan, 1996). Perceptions about a brand are reflected by the brand associations held in
consumer memory (i.e., brand image) and are developed through the various consumer experiences with
a brand (i.e., familiarity) (Keller 1993). Brand familiarity produces greater recall of new information
(Kent and Allen 1994) and can also enhance the attitude toward a brand extension (Roux and Boush,
1996) or a brand alliance (Simonin and Ruth, 1998). Taking into consideration the link between brand
familiarity and brand equity where brand image constitutes one its main elements, we propose that:
H5. Sponsor familiarity is positively related to sponsor image.
Brand personality refers to the set of human personality traits that are both applicable and
relevant for brands (Azoulay and Kapferer 2003, p.151). Brand personality is an important aspect of
brand image (Gwinner and Eaton, 1999) and a key element of brand equity (Keller 2003). Brand
personality assists marketers in brand differentiation and in building brand preferences not only in terms
of their functionality but in their symbolic meaning to consumers as well (Aaker 1997; Keller 2003).
Moreover, brand personality enables consumers express their own self or specific aspects of their self as
well as their ideal self (Belk, 1988). There is sufficient evidence in the literature that relates brand
personality to several important marketing constructs such as brand image, brand familiarity, brand
equity, and brand differentiation. Consumers often choose or remain loyal to brands that encompass
personality traits which are relevant and consistent with their own self-concept (Aaker 1997; Keller
2003). Brand personality can positively influence brand evaluations (Aaker 1997), lead to image
enhancement and payment of a premium price for a brand while it facilitates consumers acceptance of
brand extensions (Diamantopoulos et al. 2005; Venable et al. 2005). Strategically speaking, brand
personality is important because it can assist firms achieve enduring brand differentiation and
sustainable competitive advantage (Diamantopoulos et al., 2005; Venable et al., 2005) by building a
distinct image for a brand and developing a long-term brand equity (Keller, 2003). Therefore, we expect:
H6. Sponsor personality is positively related to sponsor image.
Word-of-mouth is defined as the extent to which a customer informs friends, relatives and
colleagues about an event/brand that has created a certain level of satisfaction (Anderson, 1998). Brand image
communicates expectations through marketing communications such as advertisement, personal sales and
word-of-mouth communication. This way image directly affects market communication. A positive image
facilitates efficiency of communication and makes consumers more receptive to positive word-of-mouth
(Gronroos, 2000). Word of mouth is a highly desirable outcome in co-branding, and consequently in
sponsorship, because it is considered as one of the most effective communication tools (Laczniak et al., 2001).
Therefore, we propose that:
H7. Sponsor image is positively related to word-of-mouth.
3.

Method
5

The target population for this research is the sport industry and specifically professional sport
teams. The particular industry, sport, is of great economic importance due to its size and continuous
development. A single industry approach was taken because it allows developing questions understood
by all respondents (Dobni and Luffman, 2000), provides a degree of control over environmental
particularities, and increases internal validity at the expense of its findings generalizability (Dobni and
Luffman, 2000). Furthermore, because causal relationships are tested, a single industry investigation is
more appropriate for inference purposes. Data were collected from a questionnaire distributed to sport
fans of various teams in a Southeast European country. A total of 280 completed questionnaires were
collected.
3.1.

Construct operationalisation and measures

Brand Involvement: Two scales of involvement were used to measure brand (sport team)
involvement. A revised version of the Personal Involvement Inventory (PII) (Zaichkowsky, 1994) was
used and specifically, the importance factor consisting of 5 items (7-point bipolar scale), and the
Hedonic factor of the involvement scale developed by Higie and Feick (1988) consisting of 5 items (7point bipolar scale). The mean score of the two scales were used as the two indicators of brand
involvement.
Brand Self-Expression: To measure the self-expressive value of the brand, the instrument
developed by Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) was employed. Their scale consists of two factors: inner self (4
items) and social self (5 items) and uses a seven point Likert scale anchored by Strongly Disagree (1) to
Strongly Agree (7). The mean score of the two factors were used as the two indicators of brand selfexpression.
Brand attachment: Eight items were initially used to measure brand attachment. The items were
initially proposed and tested in a sport context by James and Ross (2002). Four items measure the
degree to which an individual has a felt commitment to their team and four additional items assess the
extent to which an individual has internalized the team within his/her self-concept. Respondents
responded to the items using a seven point Likert scale anchored by Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly
Agree (7).
Sponsor Personality: Aakers Brand Personality Scale (BPS) scale was used to measure the
perceived personality of the sponsor. BPS consists of 42 items and five personality dimensions.
Participants in the study responded to the items using a seven point Likert scale anchored by Not at all
descriptive (1) to Extremely descriptive (7).
Sponsor Familiarity: Sponsor familiarity was measured with two items identified in the
marketing literature using a 7-point Likert-type scale.
Sponsor Image: Six items proposed by Aaker (1996) and Martinez and de Chematony (2004) to
measure brand image were used. Respondents replied on a 7-point scale anchored by Strongly Disagree
(1) to Strongly Agree (7).
Sponsor Word of Mouth: In order to measure Word of Mouth behavior for sponsors products, 4
items proposed by Zeithaml et al. (1996) were utilized. Seven point Likert scales anchored by Strongly
disagree (1) to Strongly agree (7) were used.
4.

Results
First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used for testing the measurement model and
then, structural equation modelling (SEM) was deployed to test the theorized model (Figure 1).
6

4.1.

Confirmatory factor analysis

The initial 29 items used to measure the 7 latent constructs were subjected to Confirmatory
Factor Analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8.52. CFA was employed to test the proposed theoretical
framework and to verify uni-dimensionality and convergent validity. Several items were dropped from
the analysis due to small loadings (Table 1). The revised measurement model consisted of 16 items and
was found to fit the data well with the chi-square goodness of fit index not being statistically significant
(2 =197-76 with 81 degrees of freedom, ratio 2 / d.f.=2.4). Moreover, the fit indexes values met or
exceeded the critical values for good model fit (RMSEA = 0.07, NFI = 0.92, GFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.95).
Next, internal consistency was evaluated by using Cronbach and composite reliability (CR). The
Cronbach for the latent variables ranged from 0.73 to 0.87, well above the recommended 0.70 cut-off point.
Both composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) were calculated using the procedures
recommended by Fornell and Larker (1981). As shown on Table 1 all the composite
reliabilities for the seven multi-item scales ranged from 0.57 to 0.80, indicating acceptable levels of
reliability for the constructs. Moreover, the AVEs ranged between 0.73 and 0.87, well above the
recommended 0.50 level (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Finally, the model was tested for convergent and
discriminant validity by using the factor loadings and the matrix. These two tests indicated that the
conditions for convergent and discriminant validity were satisfied indicating that the constructs are
measured reliably and can be discriminated.
4.2. Testing the structural model
After the preliminary analyses, the structural model of the study was tested using the statistical package
LISREL 8.52 and employing Maximum Likelihood (ML). The proposed model (Figure 1) did fit the
data well with a chi square value of 269 and 94 degrees of freedom (ratio 2 / df=2.9),. The fit indexes
values were close or larger than the 0.90 threshold (NFI = 0.88, GFI = 0.89, CFI = 0.92) and the
RMSEA value was close to the acceptable levels (0.084), another indication of the good model fit. All
the hypothesized effects were confirmed with all paths being significant at the .05 level. However, the
modification suggested add the paths: one path from Sponsor Familiarity to Brand Involvement, one
path from Sponsor Personality to Brand Self-Expression, one from Sponsor Familiarity to Sponsor
Personality, one from Sponsor Personality to Word of Mouth and one path from Brand Self-Expression
to Brand Involvement. When the paths were added, the model exhibited a better fit with a chi square
value of 230.39 and 90 degrees of freedom (ratio 2 / df=2.6). All fit indexes values were larger than the
0.90 threshold (NFI = 0.91, GFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.94) and the RMSEA value was .07, lower than the
recommended cut-off point (0.08).
All hypotheses were confirmed by the conceptual model and the new paths were significant at
the .05 level as can be seen on Figure 1. We added the new paths and accepted the revised model
because the proposed relationships were in line with the related literature on co-branding and brand
equity. The total, direct and indirect effects on the endogenous variables of the proposed model were all
significant whereas all constructs used in the model presented significant positive direct and/or indirect
effects.
With respect to the explained variance of the endogenous variables, 42% of the variance on
Word of Mouth was explained and 86% of the variance on Sponsor Image. Brand Attachment and
Sponsor Familiarity explained 31% of the variance on Sponsor Personality whereas Brand Involvement
and Brand Self Expression explained 64% of the variance on Brand Attachment. Finally, 26% of the
variance on Brand Involvement and 25% of the variance on Brand Self-Expression was explained in the
revised model.
7

5.

Discussion of findings and study limitations

An emerging challenge in corporate brand management is how to develop, manage and leverage
corporate brand partnerships. The present study investigates how sponsorship alliances become cobranded
partnerships that benefit both parties involved via spill-over effects between both corporate brands. The
findings unlock the spill-over effects phenomenon in corporate co-branding and support Motion et al., (2003)
assertion that sponsorship is not a simple exchange transaction but it is a more strategic and complex
partnership within the co-branding continuum.
In the current paper, we introduce the attachment construct into the co-branding literature and
suggest that it operates as a powerful determinant of consumers reactions to co-branding. We
compliment previous research on brand extensions (Fedorikhin et al., 2006) by showing that the positive
effect of brand attachment on consumer reactions is also present in a co-branding situation. Specifically,
the findings show that strong emotional attachment with the parent brand constitutes a necessary
prerequisite in building brand equity for the secondary brand. Previous research disregarded the role of
emotional bonds in co-branding and their spill-over effects in building brand equity. The present study
confirms Park et al. s (2006) speculation that brand attachment is more than an attitudinal construct and
accounts for higher-order consumer behaviors associated with commitment to a relationship. This
research shows that attachment is not only a characteristic of the relationship between a consumer and a
brand (Park et al., 2006), but the connecting chain that leads to spill-over effects between the brands
involved in co-branding. Our findings indicate that when consumers self-concept (inner and social self)
is expressed through a brand, consumers get into a relationship with the brand, become attached to the
brand and process any information associated with the brand such as a partner brand in co-branding. In a
co-branding context, brand attachment not only reflects the strong linkages between a consumers self
and the parent brand leading to automatic retrieval of thoughts and feelings about the brand (Park et
al., 2006) but through associative learning accounts for brand equity relevant behaviors for the
secondary brand (increased familiarity, and favorable image, personality and word-of-mouth).
Moreover, the findings show that reciprocal spill-over effects take place in co-branding where
consumers increased ability to process information regarding the secondary brand (brand familiarity
and brand personality) affects their motivation factors for the parent brand (brand involvement and
brand self-expression).
Managerially speaking, because brand attachment plays a central role in the success of
cobranding, we recommended that corporate brands seek partnerships with corporate brands whose
consumers have strong emotional bonds with them, with favorable brand personalities, and familiar
brands in order to benefit from the spill-over effects and develop successful partnerships.
The proposed model was tested in the context of corporate sponsorship limiting our ability to
generalize the results to other corporate co-branding cases. The favored teams of the consumers
participating in the study were high equity corporate brands (high winning records) partnered with
corporate sponsors of high equity brands as well (well known telecommunication companies).
Therefore, we recommend future research should use corporate brands with varied degrees of brand
equity in order to validate the proposed model. Moreover, the data was gathered from consumers of a
single country, a South East European country. Using samples from other countries could help in
validating the proposed model and providing useful insights in developing international corporate cobranding relations.
8

References
Aaker DA. Building strong brands, New York, The Free Press, 1996.
Aaker JL. Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research 1997; 34(August): 347-356.
Anderson EW. Customer satisfaction and word of mouth, Journal of Service Research 1998; 1(1): 5-17.
Azoulay A, Kapferer J.N. Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality? Brand
Management 2003; 11(2): 143-155.
Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 1988; 16(1): 74-94.
Balmer JMT. Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing: Seeing through the fog.
European Journal of Marketing 2001; 35 (3/4): 248-291.
Beatty SE, Kahle LR. Alternative hierarchies of the attitude-behavior relationship: The impact of brand
commitment and habit, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1988; 16: 1-10.
Belk RW. Possessions and extended self. Journal of Consumer Research 1988, 15(September): 139-168.
Brucks M. 1985. The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior, Journal of
Consumer Research 1985; 12: 1-15.
Carroll BA, Ahuvia, A C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love, Marketing Letters
2006; 17(2):79-89.
Diamantopoulos A, Smith G, Grime I. The impact of brand extensions on brand personality:
experimental evidence. European Journal of Marketing 2005; 39 (1/2): 129-149.
Dobni CB, Luffman GA. Implementing marketing strategy through a market orientation, Journal of
Marketing Management 2000; 16(8): 895-916.
Cliffe SJ, Motion J. Building contemporary brands: A sponsorship-based strategy, Journal of Business
Research 2005; 58: 1068-1077.
Cordell,VV. Consumer knowledge measures as predictors in product evaluation, Psychology &
Marketing1997; 14: 241-260.
Elliott, R. Symbolic meaning and postmodern consumer culture (pp.111-125), In Brownlie D, Saren M,
Wensley R, Whittington R (Eds.), Rethinking Marketing: Towards Critical Marketing
Accountings, London: Sage,1999.
Elliott R, Wattanasuwan K. (1998). Brands as resources for the symbolic construction of identity,
International Journal of Advertising 1998; 17(2): 131-44.
Farrelly F, Quester P, Greyser S.A. Defending the co-branding benefits of sponsorship B2B
partnerships: The case of ambush marketing, Journal of Advertising Research 2005; September: 339348.
Fedorikhin A, Park WC, Thomson M. Beyond fit and attitude: The effect of emotional attachment on
consumer responses to brand extensions, Journal of Consumer Psychology 2008; 18: 281-291. Fornell
C, Larcker, D. F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research 1981; 28: 39-50.
Grnroos C. Service management and marketing: A customer relationship management approach, New
York, NY, Wiley, 2000.
Gwinner K, Swanson, S. A model of fan identification: Antecedents and sponsorship outcomes. Journal
of Services Marketing 2003; 17: 275-294.
Gwinner KP, Eaton J. Building brand image through event sponsorship: The role of image transfer.
Journal of Advertising 1999; 28(4): 47-57.
9

Hadjicharalambous C. A typology of brand extensions: Positioning cobranding as a sub-case of brand

extensions, The Journal of the American Academy of Business 2006; 10(1): 372-377.
Helmig B, Huber J-A, Leeflang PSH. Co-branding: The state of the art, Schmalenbach Business Review
2008; 60(October):359-377.
Higie RA, Feick LF. Enduring involvement: Conceptual and methodological issues. In Srull T (Ed)
Advances in Consumer Research 1988; 16: 690-696.
Hillyer C, Tikoo S. Effect of cobranding on consumer product evaluations, Advances in Consumer
Research 1995; 22: 123-127.
James J, Ross S. The motives of sports consumers: A comparison of major and minor league baseball,
International Journal of Sport Management 2002; 3(3): 180-198.
Kahuni AT., Rowley J, Bisardi A. Guilty by association: Image spill-over in corporate co-branding.
Corporate Reputation Review 2009; 12(1): 52-63.
Keller LL, Aperia T, Georgson M. Strategic brand management: A European perspective, Pearson
Education Limited, 2008.
Keller LL. Strategic Brand Management, (2nd Ed.), Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2003.
Keller KL. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity, Journal of
Marketing Research 1993; 29: 1-22.
Kent RJ, Allen CT. Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for advertising: The role of
brand familiarity, Journal of Marketing 1994; 58: 97-105.
Krishnan HS. 1996. Characteristics of memory associations: A consumer-based brand equity
perspective, International Journal of Research in Marketing 1996; 13(4): 389-405.
Krosnick JA, Petty RE. Attitude strength: An overview. In R. E. Petty and J. A. Krosnick (Eds.),
Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1995.
Kumar P. The impact of cobranding on customer evaluation of brand counterextensions, Journal of
Markeitng 2005; 69(July): 1-18.
Laczniak RN, DeCarlo TE, Ramaswami S. (2001), Consumers responses to negative word-of-mouth
communication: An attribution theory perspective, Journal of Consumer Psychology 2001;11(1): 57-73.

Madrigal R. Social identity effects in a belief-attitude-intentions hierarchy: Implications for corporate

sponsorship, Psychology & Marketing 2001; 18: 145-165.
Mano H, Oliver RL. Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption experience:
Evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research 1993; 20 (December): 451-466.
Martinez E,de Chernatony L. The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image, Journal of
Consumer Marketing 2004; 21 (1): 39-50
McDonald MHB, de Chernatony L, Harris F. Corporate marketing and service brands - moving beyond
the fast-moving consumer goods model, European Journal of Marketing 2001; 35 (3/4): 335-52.
Meenaghan T. Understanding sponsorship effects, Psychology & Marketing 2001; 18(2): 95-122.
Motion J, Leitch S, Brodie RJ. Equity in corporate co-branding: The case of adidas and the all blacks,
European Journal of Marketing 2003; 37(7/8): 1080-1094.
van Osselaer SMJ, Joseph W. Alba JW. Consumer learning and brand equity, Journal of Consumer
Research 200; 27(June): 1-16.
Park WC, MacInnis D J, Priester J. Brand attachment: Construct, consequences, and causes, Foundation
and Trends in Marketing 2006; 1(3): 191-230.
Park CW, Mothersbaugh DL, Feick L. 1994. Consumer knowledge assessment. Journal of Consumer
Research 1994; 21: 71-82.
Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. New York: Academic Press,
1986.
10

Piacentini M, Mailer G. Symbolic consumption in teenagers clothing choices. Journal of Consumer

Behavior 2004; 3: 251-262.
Roux E, Boush DM. The role of familiarity and expertise in luxury brand extension evaluation, EMAC
Conference Proceedings 1996; Budapest, Hungary.
Simonin BL, Ruth JA. Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of
brand alliances on consumer brand attitude. Journal of Marketing Research 1998; 35: 30-42.
Venable B T, Rose GM, Bush VD, Gilbert FW. The role of brand personality in charitable giving: An
assessment and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2005; 33(3):295-312.
Wachburn JH, Till BD, Priluck R. Brand alliance and customer-based brand-equity effects, Psychology
& Marketing 2004; 21(7): 487-508.
Wachburn JH, Till BD, Priluck R. Co-branding: Brand equity and trial effects, Journal of Consumer
Marketing 2000; 17(7): 591-604.
Wallendorf M, Arnould EJ. My favorite things: a cross-cultural inquiry into object attachment, Journal
of Consumer Research 1988; 14(March): 531-47.
Wattanasuwan K. The self and symbolic consumption. The Journal of American Academy of Business
2005; March: 65-88.
Yoo S, Chung S, Kan J. A durable replacement model for symbolic versus utilitarian consumption: An
integrated cultural and socio-economic perspective. Global Economic Review 2006; 35: 193 -206.
Zaichkowsky J L. Measuring the involvement construct, Journal of Consumer Research 1985; 12: 341352.
Zaichkowsky J L. The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, revision and application to
advertising, Journal of Advertising 1994; 13(4): 59-70.
Zeithaml VA, Berry LL, Parasuraman A. The behavioral consequences of service quality, Journal of
Marketing 1996; 60: 31-46..

11

Table 1
Measurement model and confirmatory factor analysis results
Exogenous Variables
Loading
AVE**
____________________________________________________________________________________
BRAND INVOLVEMENT (a=0.80, CR = 0.71)**
0.84
Importance
(BINV1)
0.70*
Hedonic
(BINV2)
0.96*
BRAND SELF-EXPRESSION ( = 0.86, CR = 0.75)**
0.87
Inner Self (BSEX1)
0.83*
Social Self (BSEX2)
0.90*
____________________________________________________________________________________
Endogenous Variables
Loading
AVE**
____________________________________________________________________________________
BRAND ATTACHMENT ( = 0.81, CR = 0.57)**
0.76
I feel like the team as my team (BAT1)
0.77*
I feel like I am a member of the team (BAT2)
0.83*
It is important for me to be a fan of my team (BAT3)
0.66*
SPONSOR PERSONALITY ( = 0.87, CR = 0.80)**
Sincerity (SPP1)
Excitement (SPP2)

0.89
0.93*
0.85*

SPONSOR FAMILIARITY ( = 0.86, CR = 0.76)**

I have experience with the sponsors products (SPF1)
I have good knowledge about the sponsors products (SPF2)

0.87
0.94*
0.80*

SPONSOR IMAGE ( = 0.73, CR = 0.59)**

The products of the teams sponsor have good value for money (SPI1)
The sponsor of the teams and its products have personality (SPI2)

0.84*
0.69*

0.77

WORD OF MOUTH (=0.82, CR = 0.60)**

0.78
I say positive things about the products of the sponsor (WOM11)
0.80*
I encourage my friends and relatives
to buy sponsors products (WOM2)
0.77*
I recommend the products of the sponsor
to someone who seeks my advice (WOM3)
0.76*
__________________________________________________________________________________
Chi square = 197.76 (p=0.01) with 81 degrees of freedom, RMSEA = 0.07, GFI = 0.92, NFI = 0.92, CFI
= 0.95
__________________________________________________________________________________ *
significant at the 0.05 level
** r = Pearson Correlations, CR = Composite Reliabilities, = Cronbach alpha, AVE = Average
Variance Extracted estimate
12

13

CORPORATE BRAND (SPORT TEAM)

RELATIONSHIPS

Brand
Involveme
nt
R2=26

ASSOCIATIVE LEARNING
IN COBRANDING

.19*

H2
.41*

.32*

CORPORATE BRAND EQUITY

(CORPORATE SPONSOR)

Sponsor

H5
.76*

Familiarit
y
R2=23
Brand
Attachme
nt
R2=64

H3
.39*

Sponsor
Image
R2=86

.17*

H7
.29*

Word of
Mouth
R2=42

H6
.32*
Brand
Self
Expressi
on
R2=25

H1
.47*
.33*

.43*
H4
.33*

Sponsor
Personality
R2=31

Fig. 1. Conceptual and structural model of corporate co-branding

Indicates added path
Indicates reciprocal paths
* Significant path at the .05 level

14