Masters Thesis: Motor sport and the image of a car brand.

Stijn Vermeulen I160342 August 2007

Acknowledgements
The realization of this work has been thanks to the assistance from my parents, my sister, my uncles and aunts and my cousin. I also acknowledge the invaluable input of my supervisor, Lieven Quintens. I would like to thank anybody else who has enabled me to complete this thesis.

The image that the public gets is whatever they perceive it to be. Everybody has an opinion, everybody has their own vision, so I don't know what my public image is. I have no idea. Lenny Kravitz

Executive Summary
This thesis sets out to investigate the effect of participation in motor sports on the image of a company. The focus in this investigation lies on the effect for companies that participate in Formula 1. The research looks at three different items that can influence the image: brand fit, brand involvement and popularity of the sport. Another factor investigates the moderating effect that the influence of the image of the sport has on the three items under investigation. These issues where investigated using an online questionnaire. The results show that a correct brand fit and a high brand involvement are the issues that will ensure a positive change on the image of a company. In addition, companies need to choose a sport with a positive image in order to create an image transfer regime that is positive for both parties.

Table of contents
Acknowledgements..........................................................................................2 Executive Summary .........................................................................................3 Table of contents .............................................................................................4 Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................................................................5 Chapter 2 Literature Review .......................................................................10 Brand Loyalty..........................................................................................10 Brand Involvement and Brand Fit ...........................................................11 Sports Marketing.....................................................................................14 Towards a model of the perceived image of the brand Model ................17 Marketing in Motor sports .......................................................................21 Brand Fit and the Effect on Company Image ..........................................23 Brand Involvement and the Effect on Company Image...........................25 Popularity of the Sport and the Effect on Company Image .....................26 Image of the Sport and the Effect on Company Image ...........................27 Model......................................................................................................30 Chapter 3 Research Design........................................................................31 Chapter 4 Results .......................................................................................36 Chapter 5 Discussion..................................................................................42 Chapter 6 Conclusion .................................................................................46 Bibliography ...................................................................................................48 Appendix I Questionnaire...............................................................................I Appendix II Demographic Data .................................................................. VII Appendix III Factor Analysis and Reliability Test ......................................... X Appendix IV Paired Sample T-Test............................................................ XL Appendix V Regression Analysis ............................................................ XLIII

Chapter 1 Introduction
The topic of this thesis focuses on participation in sports by a company. More in particularly, we take a close look at the partnership created through sponsorship between a company and a participant on to the next level. Two different types of sport marketing exists, the first deals with the marketing of a sport, the second the marketing of a company via a sport. This second type of sport marketing is the focus of this thesis. A further division of this type of sport marketing can be made: the sponsoring of an event, and the sponsoring of a team through participation. This is something that applies for almost every sport. It could be a tennis racket for a tennis player, shoes for a runner, swimming goggles for a swimmer, skis for a skier or, as will be the case for this thesis, a car for a racing driver. This thesis will therefore look at the advantage that a car company receives from participating in car racing. Although at first sight both investment types (sponsoring and participation) appear to be rather similar, participation is much more expensive, but when a race is won, the possible marketing benefits will also be much higher. Given the high competitive pressure in many of todays markets, this topic is therefore of increasing importance to the business world. But, as already mentioned, this thesis, which is a type case, will focus on the effect for a car manufacturer, although the results will probably be similar in any sports field. The relationship between a manufacturer and the motor sport it functions in is based on four pillars: Popularity of the sport Changing profile of the car manufacturer Changing profile of the car Entry barriers

Firstly, the popularity of the sport, car racing has been popular since the creation of cars. Automobiles have been raced to see which one was the fastest or the most reliable. Today, car racing is still a sport that offers entertainment to people all around the world in many forms and ways such as circuit racing, rallying, off road racing and drag racing. Although the

preference of the audience might not always be the same all around the world, one or more forms of racing are always popular. In Europe, for example, Formula 1 and Rallying is popular, whereas in the United States NASCAR and Indy car racing together with drag racing seem to have the upper hand. This means that any car company can find a sport in which it can participate and sponsor. The second reason is linked to the changing profile of the car manufacturer. During the last couple of years, car companies seem to have different ideas about the effectiveness of motor racing. Not too long ago, the three large Detroit car manufacturers (Ford, General Motors and Chrysler) used Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday as a motto. Currently however, Ford, which was one of the top three Detroit car manufacturers, for example, is pulling out of most of the car racing fields in which it was present. At the same time, however, Renault has become more involved in car racing through the creation of the Renault World Series which features racing cars in many different classes. Another important cause is the change in the profile of the car itself. Cars are becoming more and more a commodity in the current market. This means that car companies have to compete on price which in turn reduces, or in some instances takes it away completely, profits. Car racing at the top level is a very expensive exercise and this thesis will therefore focus on the questions if spending millions of euros is still a worthwhile investment for car manufacturers or if this money could be put to better use within the company. The last motive is the high entry barrier that manufacturers have when entering into motor sports. Due to the high cost involved in motor sports, many car companies only have one chance to be successful because they are only present with a factory sponsored team in one form of motor racing. This is completely different from other types of companies, for example Nike, who are present in many different sports, but also present with many different participants in each sport. In this way, the participation that companies like Nike do resembles sponsoring very closely. Keeping in mind the above factors, it is important for companies to know how effective their presence in motor sport is. Because of the very

limited information that exists and because of the importance for car manufacturers, the thesis has the following research question:

How does the involvement of a car brand in motor sports affect /influence customers brand perception of the brand in question?
To provide an answer to this question, the problem needs to be divided into several, more researchable sub-questions. These sub-questions are the basis for the upcoming hypotheses.

How is motor sports defined by car manufacturers?

Car manufacturers probably have a slightly different definition of motor sports than their customers have, to know their definition will help guiding the research in the right direction so that the right questions are asked.

What are the main differences between actively participating and sponsoring?
The problem that needs to be solved here should take a step towards answering the issue of why a manufacturer should chose for actively participating instead of just sponsoring. The answer to this question should give one a clearer view about the possible rewards in both forms of getting in touch with the target audience.

What are the important aspects of an image for a brand?

To identify if motor sports has an effect on the image of a brand, one needs to know what aspects of an image are important for a brand. If one does not know these, it is impossible to research if motor sports have an effect on the image of a brand. For example, do companies focus on quality, luxury, comfort or the environment when they broadcast their image to potential customers?

 What is the perceived effect of sport on a brands image?

Because very little literature exists on the specific effect of motor sports on a car brands image, a broader view needs to be taken into account, that of sport in general on a non-specific brand. This will help to see if there is an effect and if this effect has changed for motor sports in recent times.

What is the effect of not participating in sports for a brand?

This question will take into account the effect on the image of a brand when a company is not present in sports. While answering this question, the focus will be on how this specifically affects brands that are not present in the form of sports in which their product is used. For example, a brand of tennis rackets not being used by any famous tennis player, a brand of running shoes not being used by any prominent athlete or like the issue Im looking at, a car brand not participating in motor sports.

What is the targeted audience by type of sport at the different levels?

The issue at hand looks at why a company should be present at different levels of a sport. These levels are two fold. On the one side, level could mean the different age, or in motor sports, engine categories. Age would apply to different sports such as soccer, basketball and athletics, where participants are often divided into different teams according to their age. This ensures fair competition; the same is done in motor sport with engine categories, so that the different participants compete with the same advantages and disadvantages. On the other hand, level also means the different championships that range from local over national to world. One of the benefits that companies can take away from this study will be that although the actual cost of participation will not change. Companies who have never participated before will have to deal with the high costs for the first time, companies who are already participating, will still spend the same

amount of money on participating, but might spend it on a sport that fits them better. Companies will be able to see the tradeoffs between participation and non-participation on the perceived image of their company. This will allow them to make decisions on whether to participate and if participation seems viable, in which field they should participate to obtain the best cost-benefit ratio. This thesis will provide companies with an insight on how their image would be perceived whether they are sponsoring teams or if they would be participating in the sport. These results, which are based on the perception of consumers, will allow companies to see the differences of non-participation or wrong participation, compared to the benefits, an area that before has always been difficult to determine. The marketing departments from any company participating in a sport will be able to determine what is important for the customers and who can be influenced by the results their product achieves in the sport. For example, customers who participate in the same sport or whose perceived needs are close to those of participants. The thesis will exist of several sections. First, the limited existing literature will be consulted to find information on the research questions in order for hypothesis to be formed. After this is done, the research design will be explained as well as the data that was collected. The next step will be to analyze and discuss this data so that a conclusion can be found. In the end, the limitations and possibilities for future studies will also be explored.

Chapter 2 Literature Review

Brand Loyalty
The term "marketing" usually conjures images of consumer packaged goods and advertising campaigns (Olivia, 2007) but in reality this is only a very small part of marketing. To ensure full understanding of the topic discussed, a short overview of marketing possibilities will be given. It is generally understood that the more brand loyal customers are, the better the results will be for a firm. High brand loyalty leads to lower marketing costs because the companies do not need to spend money on convincing these customers to purchase their product, they can focus on retention which is a lot cheaper. Chauduri et al (2001) highlight the importance of brand loyalty in the last decades. One of the first to recognize this importance were Howard and Sheth (1969). Since then, many have discussed the role of loyalty in the brand equity process. His findings indicate that brand loyalty could create marketing advantages, in this respect, reduced marketing costs, an increase of new customers and greater trade leverage. Other advantages from loyalty include favorable word of mouth and an increase in the resistance among loyal customers toward competitive strategies (Dick and Basu, 1994). Brand loyalty, however, is not as straight forward as it seems. Chauduri et al (2001) define brand loyalty as a deeply held commitment to re-purchase or re-patronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future, this behavior will cause same-brand or same brand-set buying behavior while ignoring the situational influences and marketing efforts meant to cause switching behavior. This definition, just like many of the previous works on this topic, shows the two different aspects of brand loyalty clearly behavioral and attitudinal. Purchase loyalty, behavioral, is focused on repeated purchases of the brand, attitudinal brand loyalty is more focused on the dispositional commitment with regards to the unique value associated with the brand (Chauduri et al (2001)). This issue, of brand loyalty, is closely linked to any type and area of marketing. Any company that wants to survive needs to ensure that customers keep coming back and keep spending money. This is obviously the case for Business to Consumers (B2C) marketing, but also for Business to 10

Business (B2B) marketing because B2B firms not always have many customers. Some B2B companies even have 70% to 80% of their business from one or two customers (for example, a company producing bumpers for a car usually only does this for one or two different car manufacturers). Two different aspects exist with regard to brand equity from the viewpoint of the firm and that of the consumer. The firm-related side of brand equity emphasizes such brand-related outcomes as relative price and market share, whereas customer based brand equity appears to hinge at its core on psychological associations with the brand (Keller, 1993). In addition to Keller, several authors suggest that psychological associations to a brand name lead to brand equity results such as larger market share or differential consumer responses to marketing-mix variables such as relative price. The findings from Chaukuri (2001) show that brand trust and brand affect can be seen as separate constructs that come together to establish two different types of brand loyalty purchase loyalty and attitudinal loyalty. In turn, these have an influence on outcome-related aspects of brand equity like market share and relative price (Chaukuri et al, 2001). Donvaband (2007) shows similar results in his study, he finds that the ultimate achievement when building brands is what he calls emotional brand loyalty. The result is that consumers who are emotionally branded to a brand will stay loyal, repeat purchase or cross-purchase, recommend the brand to others and only settle for that brand. The results for a company increased sales and lower acquisition costs means a high rate of success. According to Donvaband (2007, p. 36), brand loyalty consists out of four broad categories: shared values, customer care, product quality and simplified decisions. A consumer will use one or several of these categories on the road to becoming brand loyal. This means that companies also need to ensure that the emotional needs of their customers are being met each time an interaction takes place.

Brand Involvement and Brand Fit

Any company doing marketing also needs to keep the following two things in mind: brand involvement and brand fit. Brand involvement meaning the level at which the brand is committed to its marketing contribution. Brand

11

fit showing how well the campaign and the company fit together, in other words, both have to be pushing in the right direction (Music Week, 2006) in order to create a successful pairing. These two issues, brand involvement and fit, are closely linked to brand loyalty. Without the right amount of involvement and the correct fit, companies can never achieve the amount of brand loyalty necessary to increase profit and sales and reduce acquiring costs. Brand involvement is a principle that has steadily increased over the last years, mainly due to an increase of technology. Companies who, in the past, wanted to become involved on the highest levels with, for examples, a music band would find it difficult to use the same band all over the world. The popular bands in most countries used to be local bands only known in one or two countries. Due to the increase of technology, more specifically TV and internet, a company can find a band that is popular world wide in any music genre. Looking at a research conducted by EMR in 2006 and published in Music Weekly, results show that brand involvement is received as positive or very positive by 51% of all consumers. Compared to those consumers who viewed brand involvement as negative, it is four times higher (12%).This number even increases if one looks at consumers under 25 years of age. Teenagers dont just live with it, they embrace it. This group of consumers is also seen as the group which influences family purchases most. All is not as easy as it sounds however, customers do have a preferred choice about which type of involvement companies choose. Not every event that a brand is involved in gives a company the same benefit. It is logical that the reach of being involved in a local event is smaller than when a company is involved in a national or international event. The reach of the event is not the only issue that companies have to keep in mind, however. Companies should also ensure they are spending their precious marketing budget on the right event. For example, in case of the research conducted by EMR, involvement in the branding of a music chart shows a 50% positive reaction, but also a 16% negative reaction. On the other hand, when companies become involved in the branding of live music events, the positive reaction climbs to 64%, while the negative reactions drop to about 8% of the population. This shows that the 12

reaction to a company being involved in any type of event it is received as positive, the finding of EMR show that a lot of brands really take this seriously. They just dont ask themselves the question How does this process work? (Music Weekly, 2006). This means that the benefits of an involvement should not just be assumed but thoroughly investigated. This will often show interesting results that could help save a company time and money while still building a stronger image. This all sounds very appealing, but a successful brand involvement strategy can only be achieved if the brand fit is correct. If customers feel that the link between the brand and the event is not realistic or does absolutely not make any sense, it will not have the desired effect. According to the research by EMR, positive results can always be obtained, no matter what the perceived brand fit is. This sounds contradictory, but looking further the research shows that the required investment is much higher, while the benefits for a companys image are not as high. In other words, the profit gained from the campaign will be lower while the effort is considerably higher. Brand fit is an issue that is important in all types of marketing. In Cause-related marketing (CRM) for example, a study by Pracejus et al (2003) demonstrates the importance of finding the right fit between the brand and the charity. Companies experienced that donations to a high fit charity achieved results that where 5 to 10 times the value than donations to a low fit charity. The drawback in this study is that the value of CRM does not justify the cost in with regards to short-term sales. Both brand involvement and brand fit are two of the most popular topics for research in the marketing field yet the focus of the research does not often seem to fall on the sports marketing field. This is an add occurrence if one knows that sports marketing is an industry worth US$ 250-billion. This includes every type of sports marketing like athlete endorsements, facility construction, sporting goods, licensed merchandise, sports-related advertising and venue signage, event management and marketing services, ticket sales, sponsorship, media broadcast rights, and multimedia including websites, magazines, books and video games. (Wikipedia 2006) This is supported by the continuous growing interest in professional sports. This means that sport is seen as big business, supported by the multi13

million dollar payrolls, new and larger facilities with all possible add-ons, and the costs of sports franchises escalating. Television contracts for any professional sports already run into billions of dollars. (Shannon, 1999) These two examples emphasize the importance sports marketing, with regard to marketing a company, currently has all over the world. Sports marketing opens the doors do new sets of potential customers and creates a long term relationship with these customers. Sports marketing is useful for a company until the customers have become habitual purchasers.

Sports Marketing
As mentioned earlier, sports marketing applies to two different areas, marketing a sport, or marketing anything else through the use of sport. The focus of this thesis is on the latter part, using sport as a means to market an event, a company, a product or service. Just like normal marketing, sports marketing wants to ensure that a company increases its profit; this can be achieved in many ways. The obvious way is by increasing direct sales of one particular product as a result of the campaign, but often companies prefer to build a long term partnership to increase brand awareness, which will result in an increased sales of the entire product range. Perhaps the most notable distinction that sport has is in the relationship it has with its consumers (Whannel, 1992). One cannot deny that watching sport offers aesthetic pleasures, but the real attraction when watching a sport is being able to identify with an individual or team as they battle to win. (Whannel, 1992) This occurrence has helped to make sport the big business that is today, as well as making sport an ideal tool to promote corporate interests. When professional team sport emerged in the nineteenth century, the relationship between sports teams and fans was sustained by reliance upon community ownership and involvement (Taylor, 1992). With the increasing company involvement in sports, this idea is changing to that of private ownership which means that it has repercussions for many leagues (Nauright and Philips, 1997) (Mason, 1999). Very simply put, sports marketing is marketing that only uses sport players, sport teams, sport events or the sport itself to achieve the predetermined goals of a company. In other words, sports marketing is the

14

use of marketing ideology and methods applied to sport products and the marketing of non-sports products, but by association with sport (Wikipedia, 2006). Using sport players is a common practice in every type of sport. David Beckham with Gillette is one of many well known examples. This type of sponsorship is purely for the benefit of Beckham and Gillette and can continue, even when Beckham changes soccer team. Other examples are Michael Schumacher and Omega Watches, who continue to pair up even after the retirement of Schumacher from Formula 1. This allows companies to create a long term relationship with the one player they see as the best fit with their product, without having to pull along a whole team. Sport sponsorship is different from sports participation, although the effect on the target market is the same; the way a company looks at it is different. Companies view sponsorship as a way to show off how much they care about the supporters, more than how involved they are with the team. In addition, sponsorships are being used strategically inside companies to motivate employees or facilitate a major structural change, such as a merger. (Farrelly and Greyser, 2007).

Sports marketing and Sport events

Sports marketing through the use of sport events is another large part of the marketing pie. One often hears about it when the events are large, like the World Cup Soccer or the Olympic Games, but in reality one can safely say that every sport event has a title sponsor. Every national soccer series has a sponsor, every tennis game has a sponsor, every Formula 1 race has a sponsor and for so many other sports like golf, swimming or athletics the same applies. A few examples are Omega sponsoring the Olympic games, IBM and the Wimbledon tennis tournament and even in fairly new markets like China this practice is already widely spread, with the Formula 1 and Moto GP races being names the Sinopec Chinese Grand Prix and the Sinopec Great Wall Lubricants Grand Prix of China. The Sinopec Great Wall Lubricants Grand Prix of China is at the same time a good example of how companies need to be careful when using this form of marketing because too many

15

sponsors will just result in confusion amongst the spectators and an unofficial rename to the Grand Prix of China. Richard Shannon (1999) states that sports marketing is a large and growing industry, both in the USA and throughout the world. The Super Bowl, for example, is an event which has always attracted a large amount of attention, both from spectators and companies. Companies often use is as a marketing tool on a domestic level, while other use the Super Bowl to start off major ad campaigns. The main reason that this is possible, is because of the size and concentration of the market around the Super Bowl. Because of the money that companies invest in other events, they are quickly becoming as big or even bigger. The Olympics, if we look at overall attendance at, participation in, and viewership of, will easily surpass the Super Bowl. (Shannon, 1999) The popularity of the Super Bowl in the United States, is surpassed by the worldwide popularity of the World Cup soccer. The increased popularity of soccer in the USA means that this event is also growing larger in the US market, which will increase its marketing popularity for companies looking to operate world wide. Other large scale event, like NASCAR racing, golf tournaments, and many other professional sports are attracting large audiences continuously, both in person and on television. Literally millions of fans now attend NASCAR races annually, and hundreds of millions more watch these races on television. These are, indeed, tremendous marketing opportunities. (Shannon, 1999)

Sports marketing and a Team

Another area that falls under sports marketing is sponsoring the sport itself. This is the case when one sponsor does not take an interest in one particular party involved, but rather sponsors the sport as a whole. This is often done in running races or during sport championship at lower levels. For example Hotel Lika who sponsors every Rally cross race in Belgium, or Ethias who sponsors the Belgium Basketball by providing the referees with the necessary equipment. The last part of sports marketing is the involvement with a team. This is the option with the broadest possibilities for sponsors, while it also allows sponsors who do not have anything to do with sports to create a sporting

16

image. The biggest advantage created when getting involved with a sports team, any sports team, is that different packages are available and a company can sponsor on different levels depending on how much they want to spend and the goals they want to achieve with their participation. If one, for example, looks at a popular sport like soccer, which is played at many different levels, local companies can relatively cheaply sponsor a team at a low level. Another option would be to become a smaller sponsor in a higher ranked team. This applies for any sport, giving companies access to many different markets and allowing for many different sponsors to be present in sports marketing. The way that sports leagues organize themselves to produce and sell the products linked to their league, show that sports marketers have to know the unique nature and the potential of professional sports products. (Mason, 1999) Another possibility when becoming involved with team sports is to own a team. Both the costs and the risks are much higher than through regular sponsoring, but the rewards are also much higher. A company that just sponsors a team can terminate the contract fairly easily when something goes wrong (like corruption) without too much image damage. This, however, is not the case when a company is involved in ownership. If a negative event would take place, the owning company will have a much harder time combating the results of a worsened image. They cannot pretend not knowing what was going on, because they are the owners and carry ultimate responsibility. When everything happens according to plan and a team wins, the reward for the company is much higher than with regular sponsoring. Potential customers directly make a link between the win and the company. This link becomes even stronger when a company owns a team that is in line with the business, in other words, companies that own a team that can use experience from their daily business practice. These pairings can most often be found in the motorized sports such as Formula 1, Rally, MotoGP and so many others forms of motorized sports that exist all over the world.

Towards a model of the perceived image of the brand Model

The way a company image is perceived cannot easily be determined. Company image has many factors that together create the perceived

17

company image. According to Kapferer (1997), companies seek to better fulfill the expectations of specific customers; they concentrate on providing the latter, consistently and repeatedly with the ideal combination of attributes tangible and intangible, functional and hedonistic, visible and invisible under viable economic conditions for their business. The main goal for companies is to put their mark on the different sectors they are present in as well put their imprint on their products. Customers view a brand as being the collection of the different products providing a long-lasting and stable reference while at the same time providing a future. It is for this reason that a brand cannot be seen as a static reality, consumers that buy a product do this because of the brand. The larger and important brands communicate what they mean, what they are made of and in which direction they are heading. This is especially important for hi-tech goods, it shows that consumers the direction the company is heading into with regards to research, innovation and overall efforts. (Kapferer, 1997)

Model 1 Company Image

Brands are not just regarded as a product or a service but also as a symbol or a person. A strong symbol can provide a structure to the brand identity and make it more recognizable to people. According to Kapferer (1997), a conceptual model of how the company image is formed looks like model 1. This model applies to this case because sport is one of the areas in which everybody wants to come with the latest scoop. These scoops are often totally incorrect, but once the consumers have heard the information, it will start to live a life of its own, with no stopping it. This model clearly shows the different steps and where a company would need to focus on in order to combat false scoops and other incorrect information that is spread around by competitors and media.

18

This model shows the different aspects that create a company image. The first aspect is the way people perceive the different products that a company creates and the image that these products send out to the world. This means that every product that is created by a company needs to belong to the same image in order not to confuse customers. Companies like Procter & Gamble have solved this problem by creating different brands which allow them to sell the same product type at different prices without creating confusion. This concept is also used by car manufacturers. The Volkswagen group is a good example. Brands belonging to this group are Skoda, Seat, Volkswagen, Audi, Bentley, Bugatti and Lamborghini. These brands allow Volkswagen to build and sell to different customers without the need to work under one central image. The same is done by Ford, Fiat, BMW, MercedesBenz, Chrysler, General Motors and so many others. The other part that builds up the sender area of model 1 is called other sources. Not really a clear concept name, but that is simply because it is impossible to give a clear name to this concept. The other sources that create a company image are stock prices, product quality, customer service, world wide presence and so on. This is often forgotten by companies as they tend to focus on the identity of the different products rather than on what else can influence the image. These other concepts are equally important as the actual identity. Also included in the other sources concept are those sources which are not linked to the company, but report about the company and its products. Magazines, newspapers, the Internet, television and consumer reporting agencies all have their own way of communicating what they think about the brand and the products and what they think you should do with that information. This means that a company can only control a small part of the image building that happens in the mind of customers. To ensure that the company controlled signals are successful, they need to choose the appropriate medium of communication. For many companies the medium of choice will be the classic ways such as radio, newspapers and magazines, television and some in store publicity and sponsoring. Few companies spend the majority of the media budget on sponsoring and communicate only the necessary info via 19

the traditional ways. Volvo, for example, sponsors sailing races all over the world, but only uses the classic communication ways during the launch of a new model or when special discounts are given. For Volvo, this way of creating a brand image seems to work very well if one looks at the increased sales figures and the changing image of Volvo from being a car for a ore mature public into a car that is now also for hip, young consumers. Another example is Ferrari who only communicates through motor sports sponsorship and participation. They hardly ever use advertising in the classical way. In addition, Ferrari uses a large assortment of merchandising product ranging from key chains to laptops. This indirect form of image transferal is extremely successful if one looks at the sales figures and popularity of these gadgets. The signals transmitted comes also from sources that companies cannot control. Although some companies find that there is no such thing as negative press, many consumers disagree, especially in the short run. The Mercedes A-class which flipped over during the moose test (The moose test, also known as the Elk test, has been used in Sweden for decades to test how a certain vehicle, usually an automobile, acts when avoiding a sudden danger, such as a moose. Wikipedia, 2007) did not hinder it from selling one million vehicles in six years after rectifying the problem (baby-benz.com, 2004). This shows a company can still turn around negative press to become successful in the long run. This change is indeed easier to achieve when product problems occur once. The image problems are only problematic in the long run when they occur with a few of the companys products in a short timeframe. For example, if the failing of the moose test had also occurred with the new M-Class and new C-Class instead of just with the A-Class, Mercedes would have had image problems and a reduced sale instead of a range of successful products. Because of the once-off problem at Mercedes, press and customers soon forgot about the moose test and went on buying the car. The next part in the model is with regard to the filter that exists between the signal and the receiver. This filter is present because of the large amount of information sent to customers at any given point of the day. For example, if BMW would have sent out a recall of all 3-series on the same day than the reports about the failed moose test of the Mercedes A-Class, customers 20

would not have been aware that this problem existed. Unfortunately, the same is also true if something positive would have happened, like BMW winning an important race. Other filters that come up often do not interfere with the company or the field it is present in. Any news that is seen as more important will halt the flow of the signal to the receiver for whom it is intended. The last part of the model is that of the receiver. The receiver is the intended target group of a company. With all the information that a receiver absorbs, an image is formed about the brand and company.

Marketing in Motor sports

This part of the thesis will deal with the first two sub-questions, how is motor sports defined by car manufacturers? and what are the main differences between actively participating and sponsoring? After discussing the definition of sports marketing and the importance of loyalty, the main issue of this thesis will be discussed, marketing in motor sports. This will focus on sports marketing that want to sell a company or product, rather than the sport itself. If one puts all the information together, one can see that due to the special nature of the relationship and the lack of previous research between sports participation and the effect it has on the image of a company, there is need for further research. This is a strange occurrence when one considers the importance of sports marketing. The lack of previous research means that an investigation pertaining to sports participation is necessary to clarify certain issues in the sports marketing field. This lack of previous knowledge uncovers a new problem: the lack of a benchmark that can be used as a comparison. An additional issue is the difficulty in finding research that can be used as a stepping stone to start investigating the effect of sports participation by a car brand in motor sports on the customers brand perception. According to Renault executives, the companys participation in Formula 1 is to turn this success [winning the world title] into a tool for enhancing the image and awareness of the Renault brand. (Automotive Industries, 2005) If this statement is compared to the press releases from

21

other car manufacturers in Formula 1 (BMW, Mercedes, Ferrari, Spyker, Honda and Toyota) and press releases relating to other motor sports, very similar participation goals come forward, most having to do with either brand awareness or brand image and perception. According to recent figures, U.S. companies spent $10.52 billion on sponsorship, of which 69% is categorized as sport sponsorship (Stotlar, David, 2004). This shows that despite changes in the overall economic environment, a sport is still seen as the best way to showcase a company to potential customers. In Formula 1, a similar trend can be seen, although the amount of teams has been reduced steadily over the past decade, more manufacturers have entered, or re-entered Formula 1. A good example is Spyker, a relatively unknown and small Dutch car company that has recently committed to Formula 1, not just by supplying a chassis or engine, but by purchasing a whole team. Though this is not their first endeavor into motor sports, the participation in Formula 1 brings them onto a whole new level. Since they have branched out into motor sports, they have become a profitable company rather than a small brand that is only known by some car specialists. Similar actions to that of Spyker have been undertaken by both Honda and Toyota in the past five years with both companies building their own teams. Mercedes ownership in McLaren seems to increase every year turning two companies from working together as equal partners to Mercedes owing the majority share of McLaren. BMW has left behind a very successful partnership with the Williams team because it could takeover the Sauber team. This has allowed BMW to run its own team and be involved with the whole package as opposed to just supplying the engines. Looking at the above examples, one can only assume that life in the motor sport arena is good. Although stories of failure can easily be found, these examples illustrate that when a company wants to be successful in racing, they can do so, even if their name or budget does not match up to the best teams. One has to question whether the increase in manufacturer supported teams is not just fueled by looking at the advancement of competitors, rather than changes that provide a beneficial transformation of the image. To 22

investigate this, it is best to use the sponsorship evaluation model as proposed by Stotlar (2004). If one compares these goals of participation to the goals set by many companies when it comes to sponsorship, as shown by Stotlar (2004) in his Sponsorship Evaluation Model, it becomes clear that the end result for the potential customers is the same. In other words, both sponsorship and participation (having an own team) want to achieve an increased positive or more fitting brand image. It can be assumed, therefore, that if both sponsorship and participation want to achieve alike result, testing if these results have been achieved can also occur in a similar manner, in the same way that the data that applies to sport sponsorship can also be used for the topic of sport participation.

Brand Fit and the Effect on Company Image

This part of the thesis is closely linked to the third sub-question, What are the important aspects of an image for a brand? The model (Model 2) has four main parts that every company has to evaluate in order to move forward in its objectives. Step 1: Input step Step 2: Filter step Step 3: Activated Components Step Step 4: Evaluation Protocol Step

This model is also used as the basis for the model used in this thesis. The model presented by Stotlar (2004) shows the different steps needed to evaluated the sponsorship. Because the idea of this thesis is to evaluate the participation of a company, several parts of this model can be applied to the participation model. Although the model for this thesis is not a stepwise model, the theories included in the Stotlar (2004) steps can also be applied in the participation model. Especially the filter step and the evaluation protocol step are of importance. It begins with the Input step, what the company wants to achieve. In the case of motor sport participation, one can safely assume from the statements given by many of the participants, it is to increase the awareness of the brand which would lead to a more positive image for the company. This

23

positive image can cover a large range of aspects; some companies go for a luxury image, others might prefer a reliable image.

Model 2: Sponsorship Evaluation Model (Stotlar, 2004)

The second step is the Filter and the third step is the Activated Components, the Filter section of the model consists of the inventory that the sport property has to offer through which the sponsor objectives may be realized while the Activated Components in any sponsorship would be ultimately determined by the corporate inputs and the propertys filter of viable inventory (Stotlar, 2004). In the case of participating in motor sports this will be target market access and media coverage. These will be the two main points of contact between the sport and the potential customers that need to be influenced. While the past three steps are pretty clear in motor sport, it is the last step that should help companies determine if they are really creating maximum benefits from the marketing tools they have at their disposal. This step is the Evaluation Protocol. In this step one has to measure the reaction of the public on ones efforts in motor sport.

24

This model is mainly used to find the best way for a company to show its presence in the (sports) market. The need for such a model means that a companys marketing campaign is more effective if it is directed towards the right market, in this case the sports market, in other words, the fit connection between the participation and the company. Although everybody with enough money can become the owner of a (motor) sport team, the connection between the owner and the sport should be clear. If this is not the case, the message will be totally lost. The previously mentioned example by Pracejus et al shows that in the case of charity, a fit needs to be seen between the company and the charity. For example, if makes more sense to consumers if a dog food manufacturer creates a campaign to support the local animal shelter as opposed to the local orphanage. Looking at what this means in this investigation leads to the first hypothesis:

H1: A better brand fit positively influences the effects on image

Brand Involvement and the Effect on Company Image

This section of the research will focus on the fourth and fifth subquestion, What is the perceived effect of sport on a brands image? and What is the effect of not participating in sports for a brand? The next issue that is particularly applicable to sport sponsorship is the level of commitment, in other words, the brand involvement of a company. As mentioned before, the car manufacturers that are present in the Formula 1 at this moment in time are moving away from being suppliers and are going towards becoming owners. This would suggest that being more involved is more beneficial to brands. With regards to the brand involvement of a company, Cornwell et al (2001) found that anything that causes the consumer to experience or be exposed to the brand has the potential to increase familiarity and awareness. This seems to be somewhat contradictory to the current marketing strategies of many companies sponsoring or participating in sports. AIG, for example, has spent the highest amount of money in soccer to become the main sponsor of Manchester United. This, combined with the above examples from Formula 1 would suggest that anything is not good enough anymore to really

25

make an impact on consumers. Consumers are bombarded with an infinite amount of messages every day so the only way to be noticed is to stand above the competition. Previous studies by Cobb-Walgren et al (1995) found that companies with larger advertising budgets accomplish higher levels of brand awareness and brand image. Cornwell et al (2001) investigated this issue by questioning corporate sponsorship managers on their views. Cornwell (2001) only found partial support for this issue (although the main reason that this hypothesis was not fully accepted was that the respondents had to choose between two areas in which high sponsorship leverage could be important: for either brand equity elements or by adding financial value to the brand). This clear divide in the marketing papers means that it is not redundant to test the following hypothesis:

H2: A higher brand involvement positively influences the effects on image

Popularity of the Sport and the Effect on Company Image

This piece of the research deals with the last sub-question What is the targeted audience by type of sport at the different levels? Formula 1 is a sport that is popular all around the world, with the exception of the United States of America. This seems quite obvious looking at the sponsors and brands present in Formula 1; the majority is nonAmerican. The recent change in tobacco advertising legislation after which tobacco companies withdrew from sporting events in Europe is still fresh in peoples minds. The United States, however, has had a similar law in place for many years, in which a tobacco company could only sponsor one major sporting event/team a year. This rule showed how unpopular Formula 1 was in the United States, because many Formula 1 teams had to remove tobacco advertising from their cars and uniforms during the United States Grand Prix only. Tobacco companies preferred to sponsor different sports than Formula 1 in the US sports market. The sports fans in the United States have always preferred NASCAR or Indy car racing. Although this last form of racing has lost some popularity

26

recently with more and more fans turning up at the NASCAR race events. During the 2003 season, NASCARs different divisions accounted for 2200 races. These races attracted a mind boggling thirteen million tickets sold. The larger events that fall under the NASCAR flag, attract nearly 190 000 visitors. In 2003, NASCAR had become the second most popular sport in terms of sports-viewing size, right behind the NFL. (Amato et al, 2005) Any sport and sponsor or participant can be satisfied with this amount of attention from fans, but this does not necessarily mean that these fans will become customers. Recent study in the NASCAR field showed that 72% of racing fans report they consciously purchase NASCAR sponsors products, and 40% say they would switch to brand that become official promoters (Amato 2005), while other studies have shown that fans are three times as likely to try and purchase NASCAR sponsors products and services than those of non-sponsor (Parry, 2005) simply because of their changed image since they began to sponsor. This shows how important the choice is to participate in the correct sport. If the sport chosen has similar numbers compared to NASCAR, almost any company will be successful when they sponsor or participate in it. These numbers came from all sponsors put together, but it stands to reason that the sponsors present in NASCAR which are linked to cars can achieve even higher numbers. Brands should therefore always look at sport familiarity and sport popularity before deciding on which sport to spend money. This means that to actively participate in a sport, the best choice is the most popular one, therefore:

H3: A more popular sport positively influences the effects on image

Image of the Sport and the Effect on Company Image

When talking about sponsorship and participation, two fit related issues come to mind. The first is that of functional fit, this describes the thematic relatedness between a sponsor and an event (Grohs et al, 2004). The second fit, however is an image related fit. This encompasses the attributes associated with a sponsor and a sponsored event (Grohs et al, 2004). This means that sponsorship and participation will be more effective

27

when the sport is perceived to fit the company better. In other words, it makes more sense for Nissan to participate in Paris-Dakar than it does for Lancia. Grohs et al (2004) tested this effect and found that it is significant. Looking at the above two fit related issues, one immediately comes up with a third issue: that of image fit. Looking in the world of sport marketing it is obvious that some sports are more popular than others, but this does not necessarily mean that this sport has a positive image. While Formula 1 or the World Rally Championship (WRC) attracts many of the top companies to sponsor or participate, the same can not be said for a race like the Gumball 3000. Both Formula 1 and the Gumball 3000 attract a large amount of spectators from all over the world, yet those companies sponsoring the Gumball 3000 are not present in any other motor sports. The main difference between these two categories is image. Although the Gumball is portrayed as an official long distance rally, it has an aura of illegality around it, enforced by the many accidents and arrests. Although it would be cheaper and easier to sponsor a race like the Gumball, few companies want to be associated with this rally due to its negative image in the media and in the minds of the majority of the consumers. If this is the case then:

H4a: A positive image of the sports event moderates the influences of brand fit on the image of the brand. Another issue with regards to image is the image transfer between the sport and the brand. This transfer will depend on the involvement level of the brand within the sport. According to Grohs (2004) image transfer in sports is defined as the transfer of associations attributed to the activity to the brand. The main goal is to create positive feelings and attitudes by ensuring a close link between the sponsor and the event. This will especially be effective if it is an event that the customer values highly. To put it simply, the image of the event should transfer to that of the sponsors. (Grohs, 2004) This needs to be evaluated to ensure that the investment by the brand was worth it. This can be tested by looking at how the image of the brand has changed over the course of the event. Grohs et all (2004) explored this issue and found that event

28

image had a significant influence on the post-event sponsor image. For this study, it means the following should be tested:

H4b: A positive image of the sports event moderates the influences of brand involvement on the image of the brand According to Willins (2004) sports like baseball and football are traditional, but racing among todays youth is catching fire. This means that in order to create a positive image of a brand, being present in the right sport is crucial. In order to create a familiarity with a sport, families should be able to experience the sport as soon as possible. This is often the case with ball sports like basketball or football, due to the easy access to these sports. If one can offer easy access to families to something that seems far away like motor sport events, the impact of a marketing campaign in more advanced racing series will be higher. If one looks at the demographics of racing, it shows that one in four of the racers is between 10 and 21 years old, while more than one in two is between 22 and 35 years old (Willins, 2004), it is clear that this is a very large group of potential customers. Although many people may assume many of these racers are professional racing drivers, this is not the case. For the most part, these participants see it as their hobby. If one combines this information with the conclusions from Willins that families need to be introduced to the racing sport as swift as possible, it is clear that the sooner and the more familiar consumers become with the sporting event, the larger the impact. It will also help to bring families close together around the sport if everybody views the sport in a positive light. In other words, if the sport has a positive image, more people will be familiar with it, or will do their best to familiarize themselves with the sport. The best way to familiarize customers is by allowing them to participate, therefore:

H4c: A positive image of the sports event moderates the influence of sports familiarity on the image of the brand

29

Model
Creating a model of these hypotheses shows the relationship between the different aspects such as brand fit, brand involvement, sport familiarity and image of the sport. The model illustrates the direct effects that brand fit, brand involvement and familiarity of the sport have on the effects of participating in sports on the brand perception of a company. This model also shows the moderating aspects that the image of the sport has on the relationship between brand fit, brand involvement and sports familiarity respectively on the effects of participating in sports on the brand perception of a company.

Model 3

30

Chapter 3 Research Design

To test the hypotheses, thorough research needs to be done. This survey should follow several steps. The first step is to determine the sample needed for the study. The main idea behind sampling is that by choosing a small part of the total population, conclusions can be made about the entire population. The population is the subject that is used to take the measurement. It is the unit of study A population is the total collection of elements about which we wish to make some inferences. (Blumberg et al, 2005) For this research, a simple random sample will be used. The next step is to determine which tool should be used to conduct the survey. Many options are available ranging from face-to-face, via telephone and arriving at internet based surveys. Because this research should be set up in such a way that a large number of potential respondents are contacted in a short time period, it is best to use a questionnaire based research. Using this type of survey also gives the added advantage of being able to use the NetQuestionnaire community that exists at the Universiteit Maastricht. This online questionnaire tool allows collecting data from several different groups without having to take the time to travel and visit them personally. This means that the results will represent the entire market as opposed to one province or country. Using an online questionnaire also makes collecting the data considerably cheaper and faster. Respondents can fill out the research when they find the time to complete it, as opposed to when a researcher contacts them in person. According to Coomber (1997), the Internet and electronic mail has allowed an easier form of communication, especially among different people investigating the same thing. The electronic communication methods have allowed people to discuss from different areas of the world while continuing to work in their areas of expertise. Another important aspect of electronic communications is that one can reach individual research subjects. In particular, there may be significant research benefits to be learned where the group being researched is normally difficult to reach and/or the issues being researched are of a particularly sensitive nature (Coomber, 1997).

31

One drawback when using an experienced panel of respondents is that responding becomes a routine. One can assume this is not the case for this research due to its special topic. The market that is targeted by constructors when they participate in a race series is anybody, male and female, from a very young age. It is however, not feasible to contact this group, due to the type of questions being asked about their personal opinion and perception. These questions are difficult to answer by minors children because they require some experience with different car brands. This means a sample should be created. When using random sampling, or probability sampling, every combination of items from the population can occur, but the chance of them occurring is not equal for all the items. The problem when using any type of sampling is that there is a risk the sample does not represent the population properly. The advantage of random sampling is that it is been used and researched a lot before, which means that it is easy to choose the correct sample size. In addition, as soon as the sample has been taken, the sampling error can be calculated. This is not the case for non-random sampling. While the latter method may be cheaper, it does not offer any way to determine the quality of the results. (Wikipedia, 2007) A simple random sample is described by Blumberg et al (2005) as a sample in which each population element has an equal chance of being selected into the sample. This research therefore focuses on a sample of respondents that are both male and female, with an age between 18 and 65. This age group is chosen because it can be assumed that this is the age group that at some point in their lives they will purchase a car. The respondents should also live in a market in which Formula 1 is broadcasted, as well as in a sales market for Fiat and Renault. It was not necessary to only contact specialists in the field to complete this research, because they only make up a small percentage of the target market of the constructors. Constructors also want to make an impact on those consumers that are not necessarily specialists or full-time fans. The non-specialist group is a much larger potential customer group. The respondents are chosen according to a random sample of participants in NetQuestionnaire. The actual number of respondents contacted is not available due to the fact that this is chosen by the NetQuestionnaire 32

crew. The respondents received an e-mail in the first half of 2007 and had a week to complete the questionnaire. From all the respondents contacted, 43 choose to start the questionnaire and 37 completed the questionnaire. These 37 respondents finished the questionnaire completely without omitting any questions. This low number of respondents can be explained by the busy period that people experience right before the start of the holidays. The questionnaire consisted of 13 questions, the first ten with regards to testing the hypotheses, the next three gathered demographic information from the respondents with regards to age, nationality and gender. Due to the unconventional topic of this research, it was not always possible to use standardized questions. The questions with regard to the popularity of motor sports (Hypothesis 3) and those with regard to the image of Formula 1 (Hypothesis 4a, 4b and 4c) were tested by using eight dimensions on a seven point Likert scale as well as by testing four statements that needed to be evaluated on a seven point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. The four questions that where used in addition to test hypotheses 3, 4a, 4b and 4c are an adoption of questions that are linked to image and trust. The eight dimensions come from a list of 34 dimensions (Bruner et al, 2001) that have been successfully used in a wide range of different questionnaires. A wide variety of bipolar adjectives has been used over the years to measure brand attitude. No one set of items has been declared the optimal scale. Respondents typically complete the scale as part of a longer instrument administered in a survey or experimental context. Subjects are asked to evaluate a specific good or service using some set of bi-polar adjectives and marking the scales appropriately. The overwhelming majority of scales have employed seven-point response alternatives. Scores on the overall scale can be calculated as the sum or the mean of numeric responses to the individual items. (Bruner et al, 2001) The next set of questions that appeared on the questionnaire was in relation to hypothesis 1. This hypothesis tests the brand fit between the brand and the sport. In the case of this questionnaire, Fiat and Renault where taken as examples and Formula 1 was the sport that was used in this example. To 33

test this hypothesis a set of questions from Sengupta et al (1997) was used. Sengupta, Goodstein and Boninger (1997) proposed that different kinds of low-involvement cues lead to varying degrees or attitude persistence. As noted, endorser/product fit was measured in a pretest before the second main study as a manipulation check, namely to confirm that the target population viewed one endorser as being significantly more related to a product than another. (Bruner et al, 2001) The questions where changed in such a way that the essence of the question remained, but the wording was more applicable for this research. The questions had to be rated on a seven point Liker scale. The next questions that needed to be completed in the questionnaire were asked to test hypothesis 2 which asks for the level of brand involvement. To test this, respondents had to answer four questions per brand (Renault and Fiat) by rating them on a seven point Likert scale. The questions asked found their basis in a previously tested questionnaire that looked for a personal opinion on product involvement. The last questions that needed to be answered in order to be able to test all the hypotheses were questions that asked for the opinion respondents had on Renault and Fiat as companies. These questions needed to be rated, just like all the others, on a seven point Likert scale by the respondents. For the complete questionnaire, please refer to Appendix 1. Due to the similar nature of the questions (all scaled on a seven point Likert scale), the way they are tested will also be similar. The questions will be tested by using factor analysis, the analysis of the Cronbachs alpha and through using a regression analysis. A factor analysis is a group name for several computational techniques. These techniques are created to reduce the collected data to a more manageable number of variables that are linked together by having overlapping characteristics. The predictor-criterion relationship that was found in the dependence situation is replaced by a matrix of intercorrelations among several variables, none of which is viewed as being dependent on another. For example, one may have data on 100 employees with scores on six attitude scale items. (Blumberg et al, 2005)

34

The main reason for using a Cronbachs alpha analysis is that reliability measures, such as Cronbachs alpha, do not ensure unidimensionality, but they do detect whether the indicators of a construct have an acceptable fit on a single factor model. (Blumberg et al, 2005) A regression analysis is a statistical technique for investigating and modeling the relationship between variables. A regression analysis investigates the relationship of the dependent variable to specified independent variables. The result of this mathematical model of the relationship is called the regression equation. The dependent variable is reproduced as a random variable due to the uncertainty of the value. The regression equation is build up out of at least one regression parameters, which quantitatively link the dependent and independent variables. Uses of regression include prediction, modeling of causal relationships, and testing scientific hypotheses about relationships between variables. Once a regression model has been constructed it is important to confirm the goodness of fit of the model and the statistical significance of the estimated parameters. Commonly used checks of goodness of fit include R-squared, analysis of the pattern of residuals and construction of an ANOVA table. Statistical significance is checked by an F-test of the overall fit, followed by ttests of individual parameters. (Wikipedia, 2007)

35

Chapter 4 Results
The respondents of this research were mostly male (59,5%) and 50% of the respondents were 30 years or younger. The youngest respondent was 18 and the oldest respondent being 64 years old. The majority of the respondents have the Belgian nationality, followed by the Dutch and the German. A more detailed break down of the demographic data can be found in appendix 2.
Table 1: Item-Total Statistics question 1 Popularity of the sport Scale Mean if Item Deleted 29,43 29,32 29,81 29,27 29,24 29,00 29,00 Scale Variance if Item Deleted 145,308 141,392 150,380 159,592 145,078 142,167 140,444 Corrected Item-Total Correlation ,854 ,893 ,877 ,711 ,920 ,910 ,922 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted ,965 ,963 ,964 ,972 ,961 ,962 ,961 ,961 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted ,964 ,962 ,969 ,978 ,962 ,963 ,962 ,963

Q1 A - Dislike Q1 B - Unpleasant Q1 C - Foolish Q1 D - Common Q1 E - Unlikable Q1 F - Unattractive Q1 G - Unenjoyable Q1 H - Unappealing

29,32 141,114 ,921 Table 2: Item-Total Statistics question 3 Image of the sport event Scale Mean if Item Deleted 28,97 28,81 29,27 28,54 28,86 28,70 28,65 28,81 Scale Variance if Item Deleted 161,083 161,435 171,925 181,866 161,953 160,548 160,790 159,880 Corrected Item-Total Correlation ,905 ,941 ,811 ,624 ,951 ,931 ,936 ,926

Q3 A - Dislike Q3 B - Unpleasant Q3 C - Foolish Q3 D - Common Q3 E - Unlikable Q3 F - Unattractive Q3 G - Unenjoyable Q3 H - Unappealing

The next step in the research was to ensure the reliability of the data. This is best done by a combination of a factor analysis and reliability test. The results of these calculations showed that in the case of four questions, a higher Cronbachs Alpha can be achieved if certain sub-questions where not used in further calculations. For the question linked to the popularity of the sport (Question 1), Cronbachs Alpha is 0,968, proving a high reliability. An increase of the Cronbachs Alpha would be possible, but due to the already high value it is not necessary anymore. This would be more useful if the Cronbachs Alpha was around 6 or 7. Full Cronbachs Alpha result are shown in table 1.

36

The results for the issue with regards to the image of the sport event (Question 3), showed a similar trend, achieving a Cronbachs Alpha of 0,970 if all the items are included. After the omission of item D, common-uncommon, the value increased to 0,978 (as is shown in table 2). Hypothesis 1 (question 5 and 6) which deals with the issue of brand fit, a similar result was found when the reliability was calculated. When the respondents were asked about their opinion on the sponsorship of Fiat towards Ferrari, the original Cronbrachs Alpha was 0,831, which would increase to 0,875 if the results from sub-question A were not included (table 3). When the opinion of the participation from Renault in Formula 1 was asked, the answers resulted in a Cronbachs Alpha of 0,909, increasing to 0,928 when sub-question A was discarded (table 4). For full results including all the other questions, please refer to appendix 3.
Table 3: Item-Total Statistics question 5 Brand fit Scale Mean if Item Deleted Q5 A - Fiat sponsor F1 Sport category Q5 B - Fiat sponsor F1 Fit Q5 C - Fiat sponsor F1 Relevant Q5 D - Fiat sponsor F1 Appropriate 12,19 11,65 11,46 11,16 Scale Variance if Item Deleted 21,602 18,790 18,866 22,417 Corrected Item-Total Correlation ,479 ,759 ,814 ,631 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted ,875 ,740 ,716 ,802

Table 4: Item-Total Statistics question 6 Brand fit Scale Mean if Item Deleted Q6 A - Renault sponsor F1 Sport category Q6 B - Renault sponsor F1 Fit Q6 C - Renault sponsor F1 Relevant Q6 D - Renault sponsor F1 Appropriate 13,81 13,92 13,81 13,59 Scale Variance if Item Deleted 20,880 20,188 20,380 21,914 Corrected Item-Total Correlation ,682 ,825 ,882 ,817 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted ,928 ,872 ,853 ,878

In all four the cases it was not absolutely necessary to discard the subquestions because they all had an extraction value that was higher than 0,5. The sub-questions were not used in the mean calculation because enough other items were available after the removal to still ensure a conclusion that is based on enough different items. In other words, not using these four items does not mean that the results of this thesis are based on only one item.

37

After all the questions were tested, a factor analysis and reliability test was run using all the different sub-questions. The results show that the Cronbachs Alpha of 0,976 would only decrease if any of the items were taken out of the calculation. It also showed that in the case of the dependent variable (question 9 and 10), the effect on the image of a car manufacturer, the Cronbachs Alpha would remain the same when these items were deleted. This shows that these items make up the dependent variable and do not interfere with the model itself.
Table 5: Paired Samples Correlations N Pair 1 Pair 2 Pair 3 Pair 4 Pair 5 Pair 6 Pair 7 Popularity of the sport & Popularity of the sport Sport event & Sport event Brand fit & Brand fit Brand involvement & Brand involvement Image of a company & Image of a company Popularity of the sport & Sport event Popularity of the sport & Sport event 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Correlation ,853 ,870 ,522 ,673 ,454 ,840 ,896 Sig. ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,005 ,000 ,000

In addition to the Cronbachs Alpha, a t-test was conducted. Although this was not really necessary because of the good Cronbachs Alpha results, it was run just to be sure. To run the test, the questions used to measure each hypothesis and the independent factor were paired. For example, the two questions dealing with motor sports (question 1 and 2) because together they are used to test hypothesis 3. The results of these tests show that the view of the respondents across the paired questions remains the same, while the standard deviation is comparable as well. This means that the answers to the questions are similar, with a maximum difference of 0,5 between answers, showing that the questions measure the same thing. Even in the case of a ttest on two similar questions that dealt with motor sports and Formula 1 (question 1 and 3 and question 2 and 4) the results show no significant difference in the answers or standard deviation. Furthermore, the results of the t-test show that there is no significant correlation between the paired questions (table 5). More in-depth results can be found in appendix 4.

38

The next step in the research is hypothesis testing which is done through a regression analysis. All six hypotheses were tested in a regression analysis, as a dependent variable the data collected with regards to the personal opinion of respondents on Renault and Fiat as companies (question 9 and 10) is used (Image of a Company, Table 6). For full regression analysis results, please refer to Appendix 5. The hypothesis dealing with brand fit (Hypothesis 1: A better brand fit positively influences the effects on image) is accepted. This is the case because the t-value of 2,173 combined with a significance level of 95%. (Table 9: Coefficients) Hypothesis 2, A higher brand involvement positively influences the effects on image, concerning with brand involvement illustrates a high absolute t-value, the significance level of brand involvement is 90% meaning that this hypothesis is accepted. (Table 9: Coefficients) Popularity of the sport was the topic of hypothesis 3, A more popular sport positively influences the effects on image. The low t-value of 1 combined with a significance level of less than 70% means that this hypothesis will be rejected. (Table 9: Coefficients) The next three hypotheses test a moderating effect. Hypothesis 4a, A positive image of the sports event moderates the influences of brand fit on the image of the brand, which looks at the connection between sport event and brand fit, yields a high absolute t-value and has a significance level of 90%, this means that hypothesis 4a is accepted. (Table 9: Coefficients) The moderating effect of sporting event on brand involvement is hypothesis 4b, A positive image of the sports event moderates the influences of brand involvement on the image of the brand. The results show a t-value of 2,658 and a significance level of 95% meaning that this hypothesis should be accepted. (Table 9: Coefficients) The last moderating hypothesis, 4c, A positive image of the sports event moderates the influences of brand involvement on the image of the brand, dealt with the link between sport event and the popularity of the sport. A low t-value and a significance level of less than 75% leads to a rejection of this hypothesis. (Table 9: Coefficients)

39

In addition to being able to control for acceptation or rejection of hypothesis, a regression analysis also shows the performance of the entire model. Table 7 shows that the adjusted R squared value is 0,225. This means that 22,5% of all the cases can be explained by this model. Although this is not extremely high, it is enough to accept this model as having significance in the market.
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics Image of a Company Brand Fit Brand Involvement Popularity of the Sport Sport event - Brand fit Sport event - Brand Involvement Sport event - popularity of the sport Table 7: Model Summary(b) Model 1 R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Mean 3,6486 4,3333 3,1014 3,8880 18,7121 13,9896 18,0597 Std. Deviation 1,17476 1,34026 1,27334 1,65993 12,12106 10,34150 13,25764 N 37 37 37 37 37 37 37

,595(a) ,354 ,225 1,03444 a Predictors: (Constant), Sport event - popularity of the sport, Brand Fit, Brand Involvement, Popularity of the Sport, Sport event - Brand fit, Sport event - Brand Involvement b Dependent Variable: Image of a Company Table 8: ANOVA(b) Model 1 Sum of Squares 17,580 32,102 df 6 30 Mean Square 2,930 1,070 F 2,738 Sig. ,030(a)

Regression Residual Total

49,682 36 a Predictors: (Constant), Sport event - popularity of the sport, Brand Fit, Brand Involvement, Popularity of the Sport, Sport event - Brand fit, Sport event - Brand Involvement b Dependent Variable: Image of a Company Table 9: Coefficients(a) Model Unstandardized Coefficients B 2,387 ,803 -1,259 ,357 -,164 ,364 -,096 Std. Error ,799 ,370 ,621 ,356 ,086 ,137 ,086 Standardized Coefficients Beta 2,987 ,916 -1,365 ,504 -1,688 3,207 -1,084 2,173 -2,029 1,001 -1,898 2,658 -1,118 ,006 ,038 ,051 ,325 ,067 ,012 ,273 t Sig.

(Constant) Brand Fit Brand Involvement Popularity of the Sport Sport event - Brand fit Sport event - Brand Involvement Sport event - popularity of the sport a Dependent Variable: Image of a Company

40

Table 10: Residuals Statistics(a) Predicted Value Residual Std. Predicted Value Std. Residual Minimum 2,5086 -1,89985 -1,631 Maximum 5,9085 2,20717 3,234 Mean 3,6486 ,00000 ,000 ,000 Std. Deviation ,69881 ,94431 1,000 ,913 N 37 37 37 37

-1,837 2,134 a Dependent Variable: Image of a Company

41

Chapter 5 Discussion
The general line of the findings is that image and fit are the areas which have the highest impact on the image of a company. In other words, the items that a company should focus on when deciding in which sport they want to participate. Brand fit, an area which has always been seen as very important when it comes to marketing a company, seems to have the same level of importance for motor sports marketing. The hypothesis was set out to prove that to participate in motor sports and to have a positive effect on your image, a company needed to select its field carefully. In other words, companies dealing with bicycles should focus on cycling races, car manufacturers should focus on car races, boat manufacturers on boat races and so on. These results with regard to brand fit (Hypothesis 1) are in line with what is usually established in marketing research. EMR (2004) and Prajecus et al (2003) found similar results in their respective research. Their research shows that the benefits for a company using its marketing budget to sponsor events or activities that fall within its natural scope of business will receive much higher benefits. This result is contradictory to what has been previously witnessed in motor sports. For example, British American Tobacco (BAT) which is different from the other tobacco companies present in the Formula 1 because it is an owner of the British American Racing team. BAT had to make sure, however, that its other presence in motor sport, Reynard Racing Cars, was not forgotten. That is the main reason why BAT named the Formula 1 team British American Racing, rather than sticking to Reynard, and the created a logo that was very close to BATs logo. (Carlyle et al, 2004) The next hypothesis, dealing with brand involvement finds that the higher the brand involvement, the more positive the effect on the image of a participating company. This means that taking the step from sponsoring to ownership of a team is not just something that is done to create a good moral in the company, taking the step from sponsoring to ownership and active participation will positively influence a companys image.

42

This result explains why many teams in motor sports have gone from being a private team to a factory team. Usually, a company will first become a sponsor, than a supplier and move gradually to full ownership to reap the full benefits of being present in the sport. Some exceptions exist, however, such as Spyker, the Dutch sports car manufacturer, who has skipped every step in between and has straight gone from no activity in Formula 1, and nearly no activity in motor sports in general to owning a Formula 1 team. This is a finding that is supported by most of the research that is done in the marketing field. EMR (2004) has found that the same result is found in view of music events: the larger the event, the higher the impact on the image of the company. This is also supported by previous research in the motoring industry. For example, the Land Rover expeditions that are exclusively for Land Rover owners received positive feedback from the participants. Land Rover could also report that the popularity of this event continued to stay high, even after it was organized several times. The third hypothesis deals with the popularity of the sport. This hypothesis was rejected and therefore shows that companies do not always need to focus on the highest level of a sport in order to gain positive results taking into account a changing company image. A popular sport, like Formula 1, which is known all over the world, every race watched by millions of people and with drivers from many different nationalities usually has one drawback: price. Although Formula 1, for example, seems to be a near perfect fit as a sport for any company searching for a activity with a high brand involvement, the biggest problem with this perfect solution is that the costs involved are extremely high. Cost is the one factor that keeps most companies from getting involved in motor sports. This research shows that cost does not necessarily have to be a limiting factor anymore, companies can choose a sport that falls within their budget while still having a beneficial result. To go back to the British American Racing example, they have not produced a competitive car until the 2004 season, yet, BAT was already satisfied with the effect BAR had on the key brands and adult smokers under 30. At the same time, BAT also was able to create a world wide appeal of the main brands by using the broadcast media coverage of Formula 1 that was 43

directed at young people. In addition, they also used merchandising proposals and activities that where aimed at children and young people and increased their race sponsorships in the emerging markets of Asia. (Carlyle et al, 2004) The idea of continuing to be present on television via Formula 1 after the advertising bans was the biggest attraction for BAT. This allowed BAT to develop Lucky Strike and State Express 555 as global brands. Formula 1 was seen as particularly valuable because TV coverage is massive around the world for each of the sixteen races and there is a genuine association with the team, vital for image building (Carlyle et al, 2004). Although this result only shows the effects of Formula 1, BAT was simultaneously also active in rallying, MotoGP and other forms of motor sports. It is therefore impossible to conclude that the benefits for BAT only came from participation in Formula 1. The last hypothesis tested in this research looked at the moderating effect of the image of the sports event on the image of the brand and was split in to three parts. The hypothesis that deals with the moderating effect of a sporting event on brand fit and the hypothesis that looks at the effect of a sporting event on brand involvement were accepted. The third part of the hypothesis, with regards to the effect of the sport event on the popularity of a sport, the hypothesis was rejected. These results mean that a company wanting to start in motor sports marketing has to also look at the image of the sport. Companies should be aware of the responsibilities and risks involved with the effect the image of the sports event has. If anything goes wrong, the participating companies will also suffer with regards to their companys image. According to Grohs et al (2004) recent surveys find that while managers favored issues of media coverage not more than ten years ago, now they rate sponsor awareness and image transfer from the sponsored event to the sponsor as the main reasons for engaging in sport C. Further study by Grohs et al (2004) shows that this holds true for all sponsors, no matter what type of industry they are present in. The results of this research show that one factor is extremely important in motor sports marketing: perception. The perception people have of the image of the sport, the perception people have with regards to the brand fit and the perception people have on what a high brand involvement entails will

44

have a high impact on how people perceive your company and thus which image they will form of your company. Sports in an ideal marketing tool to create a better image for a company. Motor sports in particular has certain special aspects that result in a stronger image for the brand. The whole world of motor sports is based upon the image it portrays. Motor sports like to keep people guessing about how it works and what it entails. From this research, it is clear that the higher and more important people view a sport to be, the higher the impact on your brand. Motor sports create the same feeling by charging people a very high amount of money for attending. And when they attend an event, they cannot freely walk around and view everything, spectators are restricted to public areas without being able to come close to the drivers and the cars. This keeps the special image of motor sports alive and creates a transfer of this image to the companies involved. In the case of British American Tobacco, it was particularly important to be able to project a particularly dynamic, young and international imagery, especially with a larger presence in Formula One. During the 1985 season, the presence of one driver, Ayrton Senna, who drove the Lotus John Player Special, revitalized that brand in Brazil. Research confirms that it has a younger image than before, is more dynamic, more human and credible and quite clearly international (Carlyle et al, 2004). Furthermore, Formula 1 would allow BAT to build corporate goodwill, as teams and organisers have generally displayed few qualms about receiving money from tobacco companies. The role of BAT as a race host has helped them in creating a relationship with many important decision makers. A Formula 1 race provides the perfect setting to build relationships, close deals and generate goodwill for the company. (Carlyle et al, 2004)

45

Chapter 6 Conclusion
From this study we can conclude that motor sports marketing is not so different from any other type of marketing. A company needs to ensure a good brand fit and a high brand involvement in order to have a positive effect on the image. A company, furthermore, needs to ensure that, whichever sport they choose, a sport with a positive image is chosen. These factors together will ensure a positive change on the image of a company. For companies looking to enter into motor sports marketing through ownership of a team this research will help in making the decisions necessary to be successful. Management now knows that image transfer is an important area and something that needs to be taken into consideration. Also the difference that can be found when companies participate at different levels of motor sports is important. This is an issue that is closely linked to commitment from a company. If a company wants to be present in the motor sports for many years, it would probably be good to progress from a lower level to a higher level in order to learn the way things are done in motor sports. Furthermore, this research shows that a company to get the best image transfer should go to the highest possible level of the most popular sport with the best image. It is clear that not every company has the resources to buy a Formula 1 team, and that is understandable. A company needs to take the findings of this research and merge them with what they want to achieve. A national company does not need to sponsor an international event because the majority of the viewers will not be potential customers. One of the limitations of this research is the few respondents that found time to complete the questionnaire. If more respondents had completed the questionnaire, the results would carry a higher importance. Although more respondents would probably give a very similar result, it would probably have assisted in increasing the level of significance for certain hypotheses. This research also does not look at the geographic differences that exist in the market. Certain countries, like the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy are well known for their racing heritage, while other countries like

46

Belgium and to a certain extent the Netherlands are not considered to be racing crazed countries. This is a limitation, but also a possibility for future research to determine if companies need to look at the geographical possibilities of a motor sports. If a similar research is conducted in the future, it would probably be wise to test the long term effect that participation has on the image of a company. Why does, for example, BMW have an image that reflects their racing past, while Mercedes, who started racing much earlier, has an image that is more focused on comfort? Another area that could be tested is the effect participation has on the image of a company if the company has nothing to do with technology used in the sport, like Red Bull who currently own two Formula 1 teams. Another possibility for future research would be to not make the link between a car brand and the sport they participate in, but rather only give the respondent a car brand and see the recall they have to the sport. Two additional questions that companies need to ask when they want to look into this topic further is firstly what companies can do to leverage the image of the sports. Secondly, how can one increase the impact on the general public of the sport?

47

Bibliography
Aaker, David A, (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, New York: The Free Press Amato, Christie H., Peters, Cara Lee Okleshen, Shao, Alan T., (2005), An Exploratory Investigation into NASCAR Fan Culture, Sports Marketing Quarterly, Volume 14 Issue 2, 71 83 Baby-benz.com, (2004), Production milestone reached less than six years after market introduction, A Class Owners Club Baby Benz, <http://www.baby-benz.com/portal/a-class-w168-/production-milestonereached-less-than-six-years-after-market-introdu-2.html> Last viewed on 18 July 2007 Blumberg, Boris, Cooper, Donald R., Schindler, Pamela S., (2005), Business Research Methods, McGraw-Hill Education, Bershire Bruner, Gordon C. II, James, Karen E., Hensel, Paul J, Marketing Scales Handbook, A Compilation of Multi-Item Measures, Volume III, AMA, 2001 Carlyly, Joshua, Collin, Jeff, Muggli, Monique E, Hurt, Richard D, (2004), British American Tobacco and Formula One motor racing, BMJ.com, Issue 329, 104 106 Charles, Gemma, (2002), F1 finds sponsors thin on the ground, Marketing Week February, Volume 25 Issue 7, 16 17 Chauduri, Arjun, Holbrook, Morris B., (2001) The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty, Journal of Marketing, Volume 65 Issue April 2001, 81 - 93 Cobb-Walgren, Cathy J., Ruble, Cynthia A., Donthu, Naveen (1995), Brand Equity, Brand Preference, and Purchase Intent, Journal of Advertising, 24 (Fall), 25-40 Coomber, Ross, (1997), Using the Internet for Survey Research, Sociological Research Online, Volume 2 Issue 2, <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/2/2.html> Cornwell, T. Bettina, Roy, Donald P., Steinard, Edward A. II,(2001) Exploring Managers Perceptions of the Impact of Sponsorship on Brand Equity, Journal of Advertising, Volume XXX (Summer) Issue 2, 41 51 Dick, Alan S. and Basu, Kunal, (1994), Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Volume 22 Issue Spring, 99 - 113

48

Donvaband, Roger, (2007) Brands need to get emotional, Brand Strategy, June 2007 Issue 137, 36 - 37 Farrelly, Francis J. and Greyser, Stephen A., (2007), Sports Sponsorship to Rally the Home Team, Harvard Business Review, September 2007, Volume 85 Issue 9, 22-24 Grahs, Reinhard, Wagner, Udo, Vsetecka, Sabine, (2004), Assessing the Effectiveness of Sport Sponsorships An Empirical Examination, Schmalenbach Business Review, Volume 56 Issue 2, 119 138 Grohs, Reinhard, Wagner, Udo, Vsetecka, Sabine, (2004), Assessing the Effectiveness of Sport Sponsorship An Imperical Examination, Schmalenbach Business Review, Volume 56, Issue April 2004, 119 - 138 Heap, Richard, (2006), Brands and music: are consumers lovin it?, Music Weekly, 29/07/2006, p10-11 Howard, John and Sheth, Jagdish, (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior, New York: John Wiley & Sons Kapferer, Jean Noel, (1997), Strategic Brand Management, New York: Free Press Keller, Kevin L., (1993), Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, Journal of Marketing, Volume 57 Issue January, 1 - 22 Mason, Daniel S., (1999), What is the sports product and who buys it? The marketing of professional sports leagues, European Journal of Marketing, Volume 33 Issue 3/4, 402 418 Nauright, J. and Philips, M.G., (1997), Us and them: Australian professional sport and resistance to North American ownership and marketing methods, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Volume 6 Issue 1, 33 - 39 Olivia, Ralph, (2007), Business-to-Business Marketing Overview, Marketingpower.com, <http://www.marketingpower.com/content1488.php>, last viewed on 20 June 2007 Parry Tim, (2005) Perfect Circle, Promo, Volume 18 Issue 7, 16 17 Prajecus, John W., Olson, Douglas G., (2003), The Role of Brand/Cause fit in the Effectiveness of Cause-Related Marketing Campaigns, Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 30 Issue 1, 381 Richardson, Ed., (2005) Renault Powering sales with Formula 1 victories, Automotive Industries, Volume 185 Issue 6, 32-33

49

Shannon, Richard J., (1999), Sports marketing: an examination of academic marketing publication, Journal of Services Marketing, Volume 13 Issue 6, 517 535 Stotlar, David K., (2004) Sponsorship Evaluation: Moving from Theory to Practice, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Volume 13 Issue 1, 61 64 Taylor, R. (1992), Football and its Fans: Supporters and their Relations with the Game, Leicester: Leicester University Press Wikipedia, (2007), Moose Test, wikipadia.org, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_test>, last viewed on 20 July 2007 Wikipedia, (2007), Regression analysis, wikipadia.org, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis>, last viewed on 27 June 2007 Wikipedia, (2006), Sports Marketing, wikipadia.org, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_marketing>, last viewed on 27 June 2007 Whannel, G. (1992), Fields in Vision: Television Sport and Cultural Transformation, London: Routledge

50

Appendix I Questionnaire
I am a marketing student at the Universiteit Maastricht and I would like your cooperation for a research that I am conducting in connection with my thesis. This research is solely used for academic purposes and will not be made public. I would appreciate 10 minutes of your time to help me by completing this questionnaire.

1. Please rate the following statements, relating to Motorsport, on a 1-7 scale. A. Dislike 1 B. Unpleasant 1 C. Foolish 1 D. Common 1 E. Unlikable 1 F. Unattractive 1 G. Unenjoyable 1 H. Unappealing 1 Like 7 Pleasant 7 Wise 7 Distinctive 7 Likable 7 Attractive 7 Enjoyable 7 Appealing 7

2. Please rate the following statements, relating to motor sport, on a 1-7 scale, 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree A. I always have a favorable impression of motor sport Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 7

B. Motor sport projects a better image than other sports branches Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 7

C. Motor sport is a sport branch that I trust Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

D. Motor sport offers high quality events Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

3. Please rate the following statements, relating to Formula 1, on a 1-7 scale. A. Dislike 1 B. Unpleasant 1 C. Foolish 1 D. Common 1 E. Unlikable 1 F. Unattractive 1 G. Unenjoyable 1 H. Unappealing 1 Like 7 Pleasant 7 Wise 7 Distinctive 7 Likable 7 Attractive 7 Enjoyable 7 Appealing 7

4. Please rate the following statements, relating to Formula 1, on a 1-7 scale, 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree A. I always have a favorable impression of formula 1 Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 7

B. Formula 1 projects a better image than other sports Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 7

II

C. Formula 1 is a sport that I trust Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

D. Formula 1 offers high quality events Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

5. Please rate the following statements with regard to Fiats sponsorship of the Ferrari team in Formula 1 by rating the following statement on a 1-7 scale, 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree A. When I think of Fiat as a sponsor in motor sports, Formula 1 is one of the first sport categories I think about Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 7

B. The idea of Fiat sponsoring Ferrari in Formula 1 represents a very good fit Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

C. I think Fiat is a relevant sponsor in Formula 1 Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

D. I think Fiat is an appropriate sponsor in Formula 1 Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 7

6. Please rate the following statements with regard to Renaults participation in Formula 1 by rating the following statement on a 1-7 scale, 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree A. When I think of Renault as a participant in motor sports, Formula 1 is one of the first sport categories I think about Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 7

B. The idea of Renault participating in Formula 1 represents a very good fit Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 7

III

C. I think Renault is a relevant participant in Formula 1 Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

D. I think Renault is an appropriate participant in Formula 1 Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

7. Please rate the following statements with regard to Fiat by rating the following statement on a 1-7 scale, 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree A. Fiats image as a car manufacturer is largely dependent on the participation in motor sport. Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

B. For Fiat it is important that they participate in circuit racing. Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 7

C. When I think of motor sport, Fiat comes to mind. Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 7

D. Motor sport without Fiat would make for a less interesting sport. Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

8. Please rate the following statements with regard to Renault by rating the following statement on a 1-7 scale, 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree A. Renaults image as a car manufacturer is largely dependent on the participation in motor sport. Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 7

B. For Renault it is important that they participate in circuit racing. Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 7

IV

C. When I think of motor sport, Renault comes to mind. Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

D. Motor sport without Renault would make for a less interesting sport. Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

9. Please rate the following statements with regard to Renault by rating the following statement on a 1-7 scale, 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree A. I always have a favorable impression of Renault. Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

B. Renault projects a better image than its competition. Strongly disagree 1 2 C. Renault is a company I trust. Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 7 Strongly agree 7

D. Renault offers high quality products. Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

10. Please rate the following statements with regard to Fiat by rating the following statement on a 1-7 scale, 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree A. I always have a favorable impression of Fiat. Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

B. Fiat projects a better image than its competition. Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

C. Fiat is a company I trust. Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

D. Fiat offers high quality products. Strongly disagree 1 2 Strongly agree 6 7

Please complete the following questions.

11. How old are you? _________________ 12. What is your gender (please circle the correct one)? Male Female

13. What nationality do you have? o Belgian o Dutch o German o Other ________________________

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me.

VI

Appendix II Demographic Data

How old are you? Frequency 1 5 1 3 3 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 36 1 37 Percent 2,7 13,5 2,7 8,1 8,1 5,4 2,7 5,4 2,7 2,7 8,1 2,7 2,7 5,4 2,7 2,7 2,7 2,7 2,7 8,1 2,7 97,3 2,7 100,0 Valid Percent 2,8 13,9 2,8 8,3 8,3 5,6 2,8 5,6 2,8 2,8 8,3 2,8 2,8 5,6 2,8 2,8 2,8 2,8 2,8 8,3 2,8 100,0 Cumulative Percent 2,8 16,7 19,4 27,8 36,1 41,7 44,4 50,0 52,8 55,6 63,9 66,7 69,4 75,0 77,8 80,6 83,3 86,1 88,9 97,2 100,0

Valid

18 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 47 48 51 53 55 58 61 62 64 Total

Missing Total

9999999

How old are you?

Frequency

0 18 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 47 48 51 53 55 58 61 62 64

Age

VII

What nationality do you have? Frequency Valid Belgian Botswana Dutch German South African Total 17 2 13 4 1 37 Percent 45,9 5,4 35,1 10,8 2,7 100,0 Valid Percent 45,9 5,4 35,1 10,8 2,7 100,0 Cumulative Percent 45,9 51,4 86,5 97,3 100,0

What nationality do you have?

Belgian Botswana Dutch German South African

VIII

What is your gender? Frequency Valid Male Female Total 22 15 37 Percent 59,5 40,5 100,0 Valid Percent 59,5 40,5 100,0 Cumulative Percent 59,5 100,0

What is your gender?

60

50

40

Percent

30

20

10

0 Male Female

Gender

IX

Appendix III Factor Analysis and Reliability Test

Factor Analysis Motor sport (Q1)

Component Matrix(a)

Communalities

Q1 A - Dislike ,846 ,822 ,591 ,882 ,869 ,887 Q1 A - Dislike Q1 B - Unpleasant Q1 C - Foolish Q1 D - Common Q1 E - Unlikable Q1 F - Unattractive Q1 G - Unenjoyable Total Variance Explained Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total 6,570 % of Variance 82,123 Cumulative % 82,123 Cumulative % 82,123 88,835 93,298 95,761 97,826 98,888 99,717 100,000 Q1 H - Unappealing

Initial 1,000

Extraction ,789

Q1 B - Unpleasant

Component 1 ,888 ,920 ,907 ,769 ,939 ,932 ,942 ,940 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a 1 components extracted.

1,000

Q1 C - Foolish

1,000

Q1 D - Common

1,000

Q1 E - Unlikable

1,000

Q1 F - Unattractive

1,000

Q1 G - Unenjoyable

1,000

1,000 ,884 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Q1 H - Unappealing

Initial Eigenvalues

Component 1

Total 6,570

% of Variance 82,123

,537

6,712

,357

4,464

,197

2,463

,165

2,065

,085

1,062

,066

,829

,023 ,283 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Reliability Test Motor sport (Q1)

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha ,968

N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

Q1 A - Dislike 141,392 150,380 159,592 145,078 142,167 140,444 141,114 ,921 ,961 ,922 ,961 ,910 ,962 ,920 ,961 ,711 ,972 ,877 ,964 ,893 ,963

Scale Mean if Item Deleted 29,43

Scale Variance if Item Deleted 145,308

Corrected Item-Total Correlation ,854

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted ,965

Q1 B - Unpleasant

29,32

Q1 C - Foolish

29,81

Q1 D - Common

29,27

Q1 E - Unlikable

29,24

Q1 F - Unattractive

29,00

Q1 G - Unenjoyable

29,00

Q1 H - Unappealing

29,32

XI

Factor Analysis Motor sports (Q2)

Communalities

Initial ,791 ,711 ,800 ,797

Extraction

Q2 A - Favorable

1,000

Q2 B - Image

1,000

Q2 C - Trust

1,000

Q2 D - Quality events

1,000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Total Variance Explained Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total 3,099 % of Variance 77,480 Cumulative % 77,480

Initial Eigenvalues Cumulative % 77,480 87,313 94,663 100,000

Component 1

Total 3,099

% of Variance 77,480

,393

9,833

,294

7,350

,213 5,337 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrix(a)

Component

Q2 A - Favorable

,889

Q2 B - Image

,843

Q2 C - Trust

,894

,893 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a 1 components extracted.

Q2 D - Quality events

XII

Reliability Test Motor sports (Q2)

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha ,903

N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

Q2 A - Favorable 27,200 24,021 24,432 ,803 ,867 ,805 ,866 ,728 ,894

Scale Mean if Item Deleted 10,65

Scale Variance if Item Deleted 24,790

Corrected Item-Total Correlation ,797

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted ,869

Q2 B - Image

11,46

Q2 C - Trust

10,92

Q2 D - Quality events

10,11

XIII

Factor Analysis Sport Event (Q3)

Component Matrix(a)

Communalities

Initial ,865 ,915 ,723 ,470 ,932 ,903 ,911 ,898 Q3 C - Foolish Q3 D - Common Q3 E - Unlikable Q3 F - Unattractive Q3 G - Unenjoyable Q3 H - Unappealing Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total 6,617 % of Variance 82,714 Cumulative % 82,714 Cumulative % 82,714 91,259 94,870 97,908 98,824 99,330 99,716 100,000 Q3 B - Unpleasant Q3 A - Dislike 1

Extraction

Q3 A - Dislike

1,000

Q3 B - Unpleasant

1,000

Component

Q3 C - Foolish

1,000

Q3 D - Common

1,000

Q3 E - Unlikable

1,000

,930 ,957 ,851 ,685 ,965 ,950 ,954 ,948

Q3 F - Unattractive

1,000

Q3 G - Unenjoyable

1,000

Q3 H - Unappealing

1,000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues

Component 1

Total 6,617

% of Variance 82,714

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a 1 components extracted.

,684

8,545

,289

3,611

,243

3,038

,073

,916

,041

,506

,031

,386

,023 ,284 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

XIV

Reliability Test Sport Event (Q3)

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha ,970

N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

Q3 A - Dislike 161,435 171,925 181,866 161,953 160,548 160,790 159,880 ,926 ,963 ,936 ,962 ,931 ,963 ,951 ,962 ,624 ,978 ,811 ,969 ,941 ,962

Scale Mean if Item Deleted 28,97

Scale Variance if Item Deleted 161,083

Corrected Item-Total Correlation ,905

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted ,964

Q3 B - Unpleasant

28,81

Q3 C - Foolish

29,27

Q3 D - Common

28,54

Q3 E - Unlikable

28,86

Q3 F - Unattractive

28,70

Q3 G - Unenjoyable

28,65

Q3 H - Unappealing

28,81

XV

Factor Analysis Sport Event (Q4)

Communalities

Initial ,817 ,822 ,909 ,812

Extraction

Q4 A - Favorable

1,000

Q4 B - Image

1,000

Q4 C - Trust

1,000

Q4 D - Quality events

1,000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Total Variance Explained Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total 3,360 % of Variance 84,005 Cumulative % 84,005

Initial Eigenvalues Cumulative % 84,005 90,762 96,896 100,000

Component 1

Total 3,360

% of Variance 84,005

,270

6,757

,245

6,133

,124 3,104 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrix(a)

Component

Q4 A - Favorable

,904

Q4 B - Image

,907

Q4 C - Trust

,953

,901 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a 1 components extracted.

Q4 D - Quality events

XVI

Reliability Test Sport Event (Q4)

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha ,936

N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

Q4 A - Favorable 31,910 30,667 32,027 ,824 ,925 ,912 ,896 ,833 ,922

Scale Mean if Item Deleted 11,68

Scale Variance if Item Deleted 31,725

Corrected Item-Total Correlation ,829

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted ,923

Q4 B - Image

11,92

Q4 C - Trust

12,00

Q4 D - Quality events

11,03

XVII

Factor Analysis Brand Fit Fiat (Q5)

Extraction ,427 ,800 ,850 ,645

Communalities

Initial 1,000 1,000 1,000

Q5 A - Fiat sponsor F1 Sport category

Q5 B - Fiat sponsor F1 Fit

Q5 C - Fiat sponsor F1 Relevant

Q5 D - Fiat sponsor F1 Appropriate 1,000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Total Variance Explained Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total 2,722 68,046 68,046 % of Variance Cumulative % 68,046 85,261 95,918 100,000 Cumulative %

Initial Eigenvalues

Component 1

Total

% of Variance

2,722

68,046

,689

17,216

,426

10,657

,163

4,082

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrix(a) Component 1 ,653 ,895 ,922 ,803

Q5 A - Fiat sponsor F1 Sport category

Q5 B - Fiat sponsor F1 Fit

Q5 C - Fiat sponsor F1 Relevant

Q5 D - Fiat sponsor F1 Appropriate Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a 1 components extracted.

XVIII

Reliability Test Brand Fit Fiat (Q5)

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha ,831

N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Deleted 21,602 18,790 18,866 22,417 ,631 ,802 ,814 ,716 ,759 ,740 ,479 ,875

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

Q5 A - Fiat sponsor F1 Sport category

12,19

Q5 B - Fiat sponsor F1 Fit

11,65

Q5 C - Fiat sponsor F1 Relevant

11,46

Q5 D - Fiat sponsor F1 Appropriate

11,16

XIX

Factor Analysis Brand Fit Renault (Q6)

Initial 1,000 1,000 1,000 ,828 ,886 ,828 ,646 Extraction

Communalities

Q6 A - Renault sponsor F1 Sport category

Q6 B - Renault sponsor F1 Fit

Q6 C - Renault sponsor F1 Relevant

Q6 D - Renault sponsor F1 Appropriate 1,000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Total Variance Explained Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total 3,188 % of Variance 79,704 Cumulative % 79,704 Cumulative % 79,704 91,762 97,480 100,000

Initial Eigenvalues

Component 1

Total 3,188

% of Variance 79,704

,482

12,058

,229

5,718

,101 2,520 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrix(a) Component 1 ,804 ,910 ,941 ,910

Q6 A - Renault sponsor F1 Sport category

Q6 B - Renault sponsor F1 Fit

Q6 C - Renault sponsor F1 Relevant

Q6 D - Renault sponsor F1 Appropriate Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a 1 components extracted.

XX

Reliability Test Brand Fit Renault (Q6)

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha ,909

N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Deleted 20,880 20,188 20,380 21,914 ,817 ,878 ,882 ,853 ,825 ,872 ,682 ,928

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

Q6 A - Renault sponsor F1 Sport category

13,81

Q6 B - Renault sponsor F1 Fit

13,92

Q6 C - Renault sponsor F1 Relevant

13,81

Q6 D - Renault sponsor F1 Appropriate

13,59

XXI

Factor Analysis Brand Involvement Fiat (Q7)

Initial 1,000 1,000 ,737 ,603 ,668 Extraction ,758

Communalities

Q7 A - Fiat image

Q7 B - Fiat important participate

1,000 Q7 D - Fiat less interesting sport 1,000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Total Variance Explained Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total 2,766 69,152 69,152 % of Variance Cumulative % 69,152 82,713 94,340 100,000 Cumulative %

Q7 C - Fiat motor sport

Initial Eigenvalues

Component 1

Total

% of Variance

2,766

69,152

,542

13,561

,465

11,627

,226

5,660

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrix(a) Component 1 ,871 ,817 ,858 ,777

Q7 A - Fiat image

Q7 B - Fiat important participate

Q7 C - Fiat motor sport

Q7 D - Fiat less interesting sport

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a 1 components extracted.

XXII

Reliability Test Brand Involvement Fiat Q7

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha ,845

N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

Q7 A - Fiat image 18,077 17,305 17,841 ,624 ,832 ,722 ,786 ,663 ,812

Scale Mean if Item Deleted 8,89

Scale Variance if Item Deleted 19,266

Corrected Item-Total Correlation ,742

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted ,786

Q7 B - Fiat important participate

8,08

Q7 C - Fiat motor sport

9,03

Q7 D - Fiat less interesting sport

8,78

XXIII

Factor Analysis Brand Involvement Renault (Q8)

Initial 1,000 1,000 1,000 ,678 ,773 ,632 Extraction ,782

Communalities

Q8 A - Renault image

Q8 B - Renault important participate

Q8 C - Renault motor sport

Q8 D - Renault less interesting sport 1,000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Total Variance Explained Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total 2,865 71,618 71,618 % of Variance Cumulative % 71,618 87,106 93,922 100,000 Cumulative %

Initial Eigenvalues

Component 1

Total

% of Variance

2,865

71,618

,620

15,488

,273

6,816

,243

6,078

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrix(a) Component 1 ,884 ,795 ,879 ,824

Q8 A - Renault image

Q8 B - Renault important participate

Q8 C - Renault motor sport

Q8 D - Renault less interesting sport Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a 1 components extracted.

XXIV

Reliability Test Brand Involvement Renault (Q8)

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha ,867

N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

Q8 A - Renault image 18,790 17,743 19,530 ,680 ,844 ,765 ,810 ,648 ,858

Scale Mean if Item Deleted 9,95

Scale Variance if Item Deleted 17,719

Corrected Item-Total Correlation ,781

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted ,803

Q8 B - Renault important participate

9,35

Q8 C - Renault motor sport

9,92

Q8 D - Renault less interesting sport

10,43

XXV

Factor Analysis Company Image Fiat (Q9)

Communalities

Initial ,855 ,836 ,893

Extraction

Q9 A - Fiat favorable

1,000

Q9 B - Fiat image competition

1,000

Q9 C - Fiat trust

1,000

1,000 ,832 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Total Variance Explained Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total 3,416 % of Variance 85,391 Cumulative % 85,391

Q9 D - Fiat quality

Initial Eigenvalues Cumulative % 85,391 91,153 96,530 100,000

Component 1

Total 3,416

% of Variance 85,391

,230

5,762

,215

5,377

,139 3,470 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrix(a)

Component

Q9 A - Fiat favorable

,925

Q9 B - Fiat image competition

,914

Q9 C - Fiat trust

,945

,912 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a 1 components extracted.

Q9 D - Fiat quality

XXVI

Reliability Test Company Image Fiat (Q9)

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha ,943

N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

Q9 A - Fiat favorable 21,971 20,422 21,477 ,844 ,931 ,898 ,914 ,848 ,929

Scale Mean if Item Deleted 10,78

Scale Variance if Item Deleted 22,230

Corrected Item-Total Correlation ,865

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted ,925

Q9 B - Fiat image competition

11,03

Q9 C - Fiat trust

10,54

Q9 D - Fiat quality

10,54

XXVII

Factor Analysis Company Image Renault (Q10)

Extraction ,790 ,781 ,855

Communalities

Initial

Q10 A - Renault favorable

1,000

Q10 B - Renault image competition

1,000

Q10 C - Renault trust

1,000

1,000 ,711 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Total Variance Explained Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total 3,136 % of Variance 78,412 Cumulative % 78,412

Q10 D - Renault quality

Initial Eigenvalues Cumulative % 78,412 88,817 95,147 100,000

Component 1

Total 3,136

% of Variance 78,412

,416

10,404

,253

6,331

,194 4,853 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrix(a)

Component

Q10 A - Renault favorable

,889

Q10 B - Renault image competition

,884

Q10 C - Renault trust

,925

,843 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a 1 components extracted.

Q10 D - Renault quality

XXVIII

Reliability Test Company Image Renault (Q10)

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha ,907

N of Items

Item-Total Statistics

Q10 A - Renault favorable 13,811 12,880 15,314 ,729 ,902 ,855 ,856 ,792 ,879

Scale Mean if Item Deleted 11,30

Scale Variance if Item Deleted 12,992

Corrected Item-Total Correlation ,799

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted ,878

Q10 B - Renault image competition

11,46

Q10 C - Renault trust

11,19

Q10 D - Renault quality

10,73

XXIX

Factor Analysis

Communalities Extraction ,896 ,846 ,908 ,876 ,909 ,939 ,949 ,926 ,888 ,695 ,784 ,894 ,911 ,914 ,908 ,772 ,959 ,945 ,962 ,960 ,953 ,896 ,907 ,898

Initial

Q1 A - Dislike

1,000

Q1 B - Unpleasant

1,000

Q1 C - Foolish

1,000

Q1 D - Common

1,000

Q1 E - Unlikable

1,000

Q1 F - Unattractive

1,000

Q1 G - Unenjoyable

1,000

Q1 H - Unappealing

1,000

Q2 A - Favorable

1,000

Q2 B - Image

1,000

Q2 C - Trust

1,000

Q2 D - Quality events

1,000

Q3 A - Dislike

1,000

Q3 B - Unpleasant

1,000

Q3 C - Foolish

1,000

Q3 D - Common

1,000

Q3 E - Unlikable

1,000

Q3 F - Unattractive

1,000

Q3 G - Unenjoyable

1,000

Q3 H - Unappealing

1,000

Q4 A - Favorable

1,000

Q4 B - Image

1,000

Q4 C - Trust

1,000

Q4 D - Quality events

1,000

XXX

Q5 A - Fiat sponsor F1 Sport category ,809 ,860 ,900 ,825 ,829 ,894 ,901 ,876 ,869 ,941 ,841 ,839 ,835 ,883 ,881 ,779 ,902 ,866 ,915 ,888

1,000

Q5 B - Fiat sponsor F1 Fit

1,000

Q5 C - Fiat sponsor F1 Relevant

1,000

Q5 D - Fiat sponsor F1 Appropriate

1,000

Q6 A - Renault sponsor F1 Sport category

1,000

Q6 B - Renault sponsor F1 Fit

1,000

Q6 C - Renault sponsor F1 Relevant

1,000

Q6 D - Renault sponsor F1 Appropriate

1,000

Q7 A - Fiat image

1,000

Q7 B - Fiat important participate

1,000

Q7 C - Fiat motor sport

1,000

Q7 D - Fiat less interesting sport

1,000

Q8 A - Renault image

1,000

Q8 B - Renault important participate

1,000

Q8 C - Renault motor sport

1,000

Q8 D - Renault less interesting sport

1,000

Q9 A - Fiat favorable

1,000

Q9 B - Fiat image competition

1,000

Q9 C - Fiat trust

1,000

Q9 D - Fiat quality

1,000

XXXI

Q10 A - Renault favorable ,859 ,850 ,900

1,000

Q10 B - Renault image competition

1,000

Q10 C - Renault trust

1,000

1,000 ,739 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Total Variance Explained Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total 23,206 4,833 3,003 2,615 2,389 2,034 1,671 1,305 1,120 2,334 2,719 85,534 87,867 3,480 82,814 4,238 79,334 4,977 75,096 5,447 70,119 3,634 3,559 3,521 3,253 3,076 2,626 6,256 64,672 3,748 10,069 58,416 4,276 % of Variance 48,347 Cumulative % 48,347 Total 14,483 Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings % of Variance 30,174 8,909 7,809 7,571 7,414 7,336 6,776 6,408 5,471 Cumulative % 30,174 39,083 46,892 54,463 61,877 69,213 75,989 82,397 87,867

Q10 D - Renault quality

Initial Eigenvalues Cumulative % 48,347 58,416 64,672 70,119 75,096 79,334 82,814 85,534 87,867 89,485 90,856 92,083 93,226 94,180 95,025 95,807 96,542 97,071 97,489 97,896 98,275

Component 1

Total 23,206

% of Variance 48,347

4,833

10,069

3,003

6,256

2,615

5,447

2,389

4,977

2,034

4,238

1,671

3,480

1,305

2,719

1,120

2,334

10

,776

1,617

11

,658

1,371

12

,589

1,227

13

,549

1,143

14

,458

,954

15

,405

,845

16

,375

,782

17

,353

,735

18

,254

,529

19

,201

,418

20

,196

,407

21

,182

,379

XXXII

22 98,608 98,875 99,086 99,253 99,399 99,526 99,635 99,730 99,812 99,868 99,919 99,954 99,975 99,990 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

,160

,332

23

,128

,267

24

,101

,211

25

,080

,167

26

,070

,146

27

,061

,127

28

,052

,109

29

,046

,095

30

,039

,082

31

,027

,056

32

,024

,050

33

,017

,035

34

,010

,021

35

,007

,016

36

,005

,010

37

1,271E-15

2,647E-15

38

6,688E-16

1,393E-15

39

4,465E-16

9,301E-16

40

3,826E-16

7,970E-16

41

9,194E-17

1,915E-16

42

5,092E-17

1,061E-16

43

7,861E-18

1,638E-17

44

-9,753E-17

-2,032E-16

45

-1,770E-16

-3,687E-16

46

-3,040E-16

-6,334E-16

47

-4,342E-16

-9,045E-16

-9,426E-16 -1,964E-15 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

48

XXXIII

Component Matrix(a)

Component 4 ,085 -,055 -,170 -,194 -,169 -,094 -,174 -,140 -,098 ,041 ,075 ,108 ,287 ,225 -,106 -,108 ,151 ,163 ,100 ,099 ,148 ,037 ,122 ,165 -,160 -,215 -,177 -,208 -,127 -,390 -,257 -,043 -,057 ,093 ,008 ,103 ,077 ,073 -,129 -,366 ,243 ,193 ,243 ,257 ,159 -,203 -,034 -,290 -,002 -,445 -,133 -,116 -,013 -,157 ,152 ,025 -,002 ,064 ,221 ,264 -,062 -,069 -,073 ,099 -,113 -,253 -,152 -,065 -,021 ,158 ,207 ,263 ,105 ,003 -,217 ,156 ,058 -,209 ,011 -,039 -,208 ,248 -,052 -,155 ,068 -,095 ,003 -,037 -,067 -,004 -,024 ,012 ,016 ,018 -,234 ,098 ,007 -,058 ,002 -,016 -,016 ,026 ,060 ,040 ,068 -,528 ,097 ,169 ,166 -,178 ,056 -,039 ,216 -,209 -,069 ,008 ,345 ,037 ,098 -,191 -,255 -,094 -,035 -,155 -,069 ,017 -,077 ,161 ,107 ,139 ,024 -,024 -,124 ,004 ,056 ,020 ,070 ,143 ,119 ,233 ,292 ,267 5 7 8 2 -,100 -,070 -,096 ,091 -,071 -,216 -,126 -,063 -,206 ,031 -,086 -,051 -,261 -,307 -,202 -6,094E-05 -,295 -,267 -,267 -,290 -,310 -,055 -,120 -,126 -,136 -,009 ,115 -,053 -,170 -,167 -,161 -,108 ,087 -,037 ,039 -,003 -,202 -,012 ,101 -,203 -,331 -,377 -,212 -,315 -,210 -,073 -,129 3 -,108 6 -,061 9 -,154

Q1 A - Dislike

,842

Q1 B - Unpleasant

,830

Q1 C - Foolish

,858

Q1 D - Common

,675

Q1 E - Unlikable

,826

Q1 F - Unattractive

,872

Q1 G - Unenjoyable

,828

Q1 H - Unappealing

,856

Q2 A - Favorable

,872

Q2 B - Image

,792

Q2 C - Trust

,824

Q2 D - Quality events

,743

Q3 A - Dislike

,860

Q3 B - Unpleasant

,870

Q3 C - Foolish

,868

Q3 D - Common

,772

Q3 E - Unlikable

,859

Q3 F - Unattractive

,818

Q3 G - Unenjoyable

,857

Q3 H - Unappealing

,838

Q4 A - Favorable

,881

Q4 B - Image

,778

Q4 C - Trust

,824

Q4 D - Quality events

,780

XXXIV

Q5 A - Fiat sponsor F1 Sport category -,014 ,318 ,211 ,245 -,082 ,111 -,004 ,065 ,281 ,454 ,240 ,234 ,101 ,174 -,159 -,011 ,704 ,739 ,682 ,655 -,282 -,279 -,313 -,251 -,124 -,152 -,278 -,351 ,337 ,107 ,225 ,241 -,105 -,265 -,242 -,207 -,283 -,403 ,223 -,045 ,165 ,258 ,214 -,066 ,437 -,245 -,123 -,370 -,106 ,196 ,287 ,196 -,012 ,095 ,257 -,048 ,420 ,300 -,311 -,055 ,379 -,109 -,123 -,003 ,147 ,019 -,545 ,048 -,087 ,062 -,356 -,264 ,228 ,271 ,110 ,066 -,228 -,035 ,031 ,001 ,075 -,416 ,266 ,335 ,190 ,184 -,371 ,218 ,393 ,110 ,230 ,053 -,215 -,515 ,035 ,141 -,234 -,446 ,074 ,271 ,170 ,072 ,176 -,051 ,092 -,447 ,132 ,304 ,318 -,155 ,352 -,424 ,054 ,171 ,344 ,344 -,117 ,037 -,073 ,182 -,175 -,065 -,164 -,073 -,194 ,055 -,335 -,154 -,021 ,149 -,049 -,010 ,211 ,002 ,300 ,114 -,401 ,076 ,437 ,543 -,114 ,341 -,117 -,386 ,051 ,085 ,417 -,134 ,342 -,139 -,216 -,180 ,170 ,609 ,226 -,061 -,059 ,082 ,376 ,044

,479

Q5 B - Fiat sponsor F1 Fit

,567

Q5 C - Fiat sponsor F1 Relevant

,509

Q5 D - Fiat sponsor F1 Appropriate

,510

Q6 A - Renault sponsor F1 Sport category

,486

Q6 B - Renault sponsor F1 Fit

,661

Q6 C - Renault sponsor F1 Relevant

,676

Q6 D - Renault sponsor F1 Appropriate

,662

Q7 A - Fiat image

,620

Q7 B - Fiat important participate

,539

Q7 C - Fiat motor sport

,512

Q7 D - Fiat less interesting sport

,535

Q8 A - Renault image

,743

Q8 B - Renault important participate

,678

Q8 C - Renault motor sport

,724

Q8 D - Renault less interesting sport

,666

Q9 A - Fiat favorable

,433

Q9 B - Fiat image competition

,345

Q9 C - Fiat trust

,339

Q9 D - Fiat quality

,298

XXXV

Q10 A - Renault favorable ,524 ,595 ,648 -,217 ,318 ,196 -,109 ,203 -,007 -,095 -,181 ,507 ,256 ,089 ,164 ,182 ,030 ,015 ,492 ,300 ,197 ,046 -,118 ,109 -,173 ,490 ,328 ,105 ,019 ,104 -,223

,367

Q10 B - Renault image competition

,311

Q10 C - Renault trust

,237

,371 ,594 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a 9 components extracted.

Q10 D - Renault quality

XXXVI

Reliability Test

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha ,976

N of Items

48

Item-Total Statistics

Q1 A - Dislike 3308,608 3338,977 3384,222 3329,805 3307,703 3311,647 3306,219 3318,757 3345,659 3319,745 3342,441 3296,689 3303,021 3323,366 3347,602 3309,342 3310,138 3302,521 ,755 ,827 ,784 ,825 ,835 ,838 ,830 ,715 ,802 ,975 ,975 ,975 ,974 ,975 ,975 ,975 ,975 ,975 ,780 ,975 ,839 ,975 ,834 ,975 ,798 ,975 ,838 ,974 ,801 ,975 ,660 ,975 ,834 ,975 ,806 ,975

Scale Mean if Item Deleted 180,16

Scale Variance if Item Deleted 3315,529

Corrected Item-Total Correlation ,820

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted ,975

Q1 B - Unpleasant

180,05

Q1 C - Foolish

180,54

Q1 D - Common

180,00

Q1 E - Unlikable

179,97

Q1 F - Unattractive

179,73

Q1 G - Unenjoyable

179,73

Q1 H - Unappealing

180,05

Q2 A - Favorable

180,49

Q2 B - Image

181,30

Q2 C - Trust

180,76

Q2 D - Quality events

179,95

Q3 A - Dislike

180,24

Q3 B - Unpleasant

180,08

Q3 C - Foolish

180,54

Q3 D - Common

179,81

Q3 E - Unlikable

180,14

Q3 F - Unattractive

179,97

Q3 G - Unenjoyable

179,92

XXXVII

Q3 H - Unappealing 3302,132 3300,734 3322,970 3314,281 3324,604 3392,465 3377,908 3397,269 3406,599 3400,068 3370,967 3376,623 3386,197 3397,868 3391,826 3397,568 3388,303 3360,108 3367,456 3364,965 3382,252 ,699 ,655 ,670 ,733 ,534 ,515 ,975 ,975 ,975 ,975 ,975 ,975 ,549 ,975 ,624 ,975 ,649 ,975 ,661 ,975 ,649 ,975 ,462 ,976 ,514 ,975 ,507 ,975 ,571 ,975 ,466 ,976 ,752 ,975 ,803 ,975 ,761 ,975 ,848 ,974 ,804 ,975

180,08

Q4 A - Favorable

180,35

Q4 B - Image

180,59

Q4 C - Trust

180,68

Q4 D - Quality events

179,70

Q5 A - Fiat sponsor F1 Sport category

180,92

Q5 B - Fiat sponsor F1 Fit

180,38

Q5 C - Fiat sponsor F1 Relevant

180,19

Q5 D - Fiat sponsor F1 Appropriate

179,89

Q6 A - Renault sponsor F1 Sport category

179,65

Q6 B - Renault sponsor F1 Fit

179,76

Q6 C - Renault sponsor F1 Relevant

179,65

Q6 D - Renault sponsor F1 Appropriate

179,43

Q7 A - Fiat image

181,51

Q7 B - Fiat important participate

180,70

Q7 C - Fiat motor sport

181,65

Q7 D - Fiat less interesting sport

181,41

Q8 A - Renault image

180,95

Q8 B - Renault important participate

180,35

Q8 C - Renault motor sport

180,92

Q8 D - Renault less interesting sport

181,43

XXXVIII

Q9 A - Fiat favorable 3415,937 3429,775 3426,700 3438,033 3435,353 3448,452 3457,590 3446,830 ,391 ,976 ,264 ,976 ,335 ,976 ,383 ,976 ,319 ,976 ,365 ,976 ,376 ,976 ,465 ,976

180,70

Q9 B - Fiat image competition

180,95

Q9 C - Fiat trust

180,46

Q9 D - Fiat quality

180,46

Q10 A - Renault favorable

180,62

Q10 B - Renault image competition

180,78

Q10 C - Renault trust

180,51

Q10 D - Renault quality

180,05

XXXIX

Appendix IV Paired Sample T-Test

N 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 1,85367 ,30474 1,64396 ,27027 1,92654 ,31672 1,80471 ,29669 1,21733 ,20013 1,53191 ,25184 1,40081 ,23029 1,38376 ,22749 1,52315 ,25040 1,54927 ,25470 1,85367 ,30474 1,92654 ,31672 1,64396 ,27027 1,80471 ,29669 Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean

Pair 1

4,1815

3,5946

Pair 2

Popularity of the sport Popularity of the sport Sport event

4,0772

Sport event

3,8851

Pair 3

Brand fit

4,0631

Brand fit

4,6036

Pair 4

2,8986

3,3041

Pair 5

3,5743

3,7230

Pair 6

Brand involvement Brand involvement Image of a company Image of a company Popularity of the sport Sport event

4,1815

4,0772

Pair 7

Popularity of the sport Sport event

3,5946

3,8851

XL

Paired Samples Correlations N 37 37 37 37 ,673 ,000 ,522 ,001 ,870 ,000 ,853 ,000 Correlation Sig.

Pair 1

Pair 2

Pair 3

Pair 4

Pair 5 37 ,454 ,005

Pair 6 37 37 ,896 ,000 ,840 ,000

Pair 7

Popularity of the sport & Popularity of the sport Sport event & Sport event Brand fit & Brand fit Brand involvement & Brand involvement Image of a company & Image of a company Popularity of the sport & Sport event Popularity of the sport & Sport event

XLI

Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Std. Deviation Lower ,27098 -,12962 -1,04125 -,78094 -,02987 -2,189 -,03983 -2,189 36 36 ,51379 1,211 36 ,90276 3,768 36 ,001 ,234 ,035 ,035 Upper ,94744 ,96489 1,50175 1,12631 ,18516 ,24689 ,15863 ,15576 Std. Error Mean t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean

Pair 1

,58687

Pair 2

,19208

Pair 3

-,54054

Pair 4

-,40541

Pair 5 1,46185 ,24033 -,63605 ,33876

-,14865

-,619

36

,540

Pair 6 1,06141 ,82182 ,13511 -,56455 ,17449 -,24964 ,45814 -,01653

,10425

,597 -2,150

36 36

,554 ,038

Pair 7

Popularity of the sport Popularity of the sport Sport event Sport event Brand fit - Brand fit Brand involvement Brand involvement Image of a company Image of a company Popularity of the sport - Sport event Popularity of the sport - Sport event

-,29054

XLII

Appendix V Regression Analysis

N 37 37 37 37 37 37 37

Descriptive Statistics

Image of a Company 1,34026 1,27334 1,65993 12,12106 10,34150 13,25764

Mean 3,6486

Std. Deviation 1,17476

Brand Fit

4,3333

Brand Involvement

3,1014

Popularity of the Sport

3,8880

Sport event - Brand fit

18,7121

Sport event - Brand Involvement

13,9896

Sport event - popularity of the sport

18,0597

XLIII

Correlations

Pearson Correlation ,368 ,426 ,344 ,353 ,433 ,338 . ,012 ,004 ,019 ,016 ,004 ,020 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 . ,000 . ,000 . ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 . ,000 ,000 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 ,012 ,004 ,019 ,016 ,618 ,710 ,931 ,938 ,629 ,899 ,813 ,913 1,000 ,917 ,004 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 . ,000 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 ,782 ,745 ,856 1,000 ,913 ,643 ,662 1,000 ,856 ,813 ,659 1,000 ,662 ,745 ,899 1,000 ,659 ,643 ,782 ,629

Image of a Company

Image of a Company 1,000 Brand Fit ,368 ,618 ,710 ,931 ,938 ,917 1,000 ,020 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 . 37 37 37 37 37 37 37

Brand Involvement ,426

Popularity of the Sport ,344

Sport event - Brand fit ,353

Sport event Brand Involvement ,433

Sport event popularity of the sport ,338

Brand Fit

Brand Involvement

Popularity of the Sport

Sport event - Brand fit

Sport event - Brand Involvement

Sport event popularity of the sport

Sig. (1-tailed)

Image of a Company

Brand Fit

Brand Involvement

Popularity of the Sport

Sport event - Brand fit

Sport event - Brand Involvement

Sport event popularity of the sport

Image of a Company

Brand Fit

Brand Involvement

Popularity of the Sport

Sport event - Brand fit

Sport event - Brand Involvement

Sport event popularity of the sport

XLIV

Variables Entered/Removed(b) Variables Removed Method

Model 1

Variables Entered

Sport event - popularity of the sport, Brand Fit, Brand Involvement, Popularity of the Sport, Sport event - Brand fit, Sport event - Brand Involvement(a) . Enter

a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: Image of a Company

Model Summary(b)

Model 1

R Square

,595(a)

,354

Adjusted R Square ,225

Std. Error of the Estimate 1,03444

a Predictors: (Constant), Sport event - popularity of the sport, Brand Fit, Brand Involvement, Popularity of the Sport, Sport event - Brand fit, Sport event - Brand Involvement b Dependent Variable: Image of a Company ANOVA(b) df 6 30 1,070

Model 1

Regression

Sum of Squares 17,580 Mean Square 2,930 F 2,738 Sig. ,030(a)

Residual

32,102

49,682 36 a Predictors: (Constant), Sport event - popularity of the sport, Brand Fit, Brand Involvement, Popularity of the Sport, Sport event - Brand fit, Sport event - Brand Involvement b Dependent Variable: Image of a Company

Total

XLV

Coefficients(a) Unstandardized Coefficients t Sig. Beta 2,987 ,916 -1,365 ,504 -1,688 3,207 -1,084 -1,118 ,273 2,658 ,012 -1,898 ,067 1,001 ,325 -2,029 ,051 2,173 ,038 ,006 Standardized Coefficients

Model

1 ,803 -1,259 ,357 -,164 ,364 -,096 ,086 ,137 ,086 ,356 ,621 ,370

(Constant)

B 2,387

Std. Error ,799

Brand Fit

Brand Involvement

Popularity of the Sport

Sport event - Brand fit

Sport event - Brand Involvement

Sport event - popularity of the sport

a Dependent Variable: Image of a Company

Residuals Statistics(a) N 37 37 37 37 Mean 3,6486 ,00000 ,000 ,000 ,913 1,000 ,94431 Std. Deviation ,69881

Predicted Value 3,234

Minimum 2,5086

Maximum 5,9085

Residual

-1,89985

2,20717

Std. Predicted Value

-1,631

-1,837 2,134 a Dependent Variable: Image of a Company

Std. Residual

XLVI

Chart
Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual

Histogram

Dependent Variable: Image of a Company

1,0

Dependent Variable: Image of a Company

12 0,8

10

0,6

Frequency

0,4

Expected Cum Prob

0,2 Mean = 2,46E-16 Std. Dev. = 0,913 N = 37 2 3 0,0 0,0

-2

-1

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

Regression Standardized Residual

Observed Cum Prob

XLVII

48