Study Links NFL Sponsorship and Purchasing Decisions. Does it apply to Cause Marketing?

A study from Kirk Wakefield, Ph.D. of Baylor University released Monday finds strong linkage between official NFL sponsors and purchase decisions, especially among fans.

Called “The Effect of Fan Passion and Official League Sponsorship on Brand Metrics: A Longitudinal Study of Official NFL Sponsors and ROO,” the study was co-authored by Anne Rivers of the New York City firm Brand Asset Consulting.

The study compared official NFL sponsors to non-official sponsors in banking, beer, credit cards, pizza and telecommunications over the three year period between 2008 and 2010. Then they measured public opinion of the official brand in each category against 2 competing brands in the same category that weren’t official sponsors. So in the pizza category Papa John’s, the official sponsor, was measured against two non-official sponsors; Pizza Hut and Domino’s.

Says Professor Wakefield, “Companies with official sponsorship of the NFL receive a significant lift among NFL fans compared to non-fans.”

The study also found that:

“Passionate fans—those who watch or attend and prefer the NFL as an entertainment alternative—have more positive attitudes toward the official sponsors of the NFL than do less passionate fans."

“Over time, the official sponsors of the NFL improve their brand positioning vis-à-vis competitors."

“If the consumer is coming to “know” a brand more through its NFL relationship, they are picking up many of the NFL’s positive brand attributes. This works both ways (e.g., when leagues are in trouble)."

“Esteem is the key pillar to identify a fan of a team or a league. Esteem rubs off on the sponsoring brand, thereby helping reduce churn through increased loyalty. Consumers are often willing to forgive transgressions or setbacks of an esteemed brand compared to one that is less esteemed.”

It’s when Wakefield and Rivers get to the theory of brand esteem where I think there is application to cause marketing. As the flowchart shows above, their theory is that for fans an official sponsor is more likely to move to the top of mind as they see the sponsor during games and via media inside and outside of the stadium. That sponsorship works on them and they gain knowledge about the brand. As they do so the brand is differentiated from competing brands. Fans feel brand loyalty and are more likely to purchase the official brand.

The theory’s not seamless in my opinion. I think it strains credulity that most fans, especially those watching the NFL on TV, are able to readily distinguish between Sprint, the official sponsor and AT&T and Verizon, both of which also advertise actively during NFL games but aren’t official sponsors. But as a working theory I like it.

I think you could make an argument that cause marketing works similarly. If I support St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital at Auto Zone during a promotion, the chances are high that I will notice and esteem Auto Zone in a way that I don't O'Reilly's.

Another key finding that I expect also holds true for cause marketing is that as the official sponsorship continued over time, the effects of it improved for sponsors.

Cause Marketing: The All Packaging Edition

One way to activate a cause marketing campaign when the sponsor sells a physical product is on the packaging. I started my career in cause marketing on the charity side and I can tell you that back in the day we were thrilled to get a logo on pack of a consumer packaged good (CPG) or even just a mention. Since then, there’s been a welcome evolution of what sponsors are willing and able to do with their packaging in order to activate their cause sponsorships. That said, even today some sponsors don’t seem to have gotten the memo that when it comes to explaining your cause campaign, more really is more, even on something as small as a can or bottle. The savviest sponsors realize that their only guaranteed means of reaching actual customers with a cause marketing message is by putting it on packaging. And the reach and frequency of the media on packaging for certain high-volume CPG items is almost certainly greater than radio, print or outdoor advertising, and, in many cases, TV. More to

Why Even Absurd Cause-Related Marketing Has its Place

Buy a Bikini, Help Cure Cancer New York City (small-d) fashion designer Shoshonna Lonstein Gruss may have one of the more absurd cause-related marketing campaigns I’ve come across lately. When you buy the bikini or girls one-piece swimsuit at Bergdorf-Goodman in New York shown at the left all sales “proceeds” benefit Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center . Look past the weak ‘ proceeds ’ language, which I always decry, and think for a moment about the incongruities of the sales of swimsuits benefiting the legendary Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Cancer has nothing to do swimming or swimsuits or summering in The Hamptons for that matter. And it’s not clear from her website why Shoshanna, the comely lass who once adorned the arm of comedian Jerry Seinfeld, has chosen the esteemed cancer center to bestow her gifts, although a web search shows that she’s supported its events for years. Lesser critics would say that the ridiculousness of it all is a sign that cause-related marketing is

A Clever Cause Marketing Campaign from Snickers and Feeding America

Back in August I bought this cause-marketed Snickers bar during my fourth trip of the day to Home Depot. (Is it even possible to do home repairs and take care of all your needs with just one trip to Home Depot / Lowes ?) Here’s how it works: Snickers is donating the cost of 2.5 million meals to Feeding America, the nation’s leading hunger-relief charity. On the inside of the wrapper is a code. Text that code to 45495… or enter it at snickers.com… and Snickers will donate the cost of one meal to Feeding America, up to one million additional meals. The Feeding America website says that each dollar you donate provides seven meals. So Snickers donation might be something like $500,000. But I like that Snickers quantified its donations in terms of meals made available, rather than dollars. That’s much more concrete. It doesn’t hurt that 3.5 million is a much bigger number than $500,000. I also like the way they structured the donation. By guaranteeing 2.5 million meals, the risk of a poor

Cause Marketing

Search This Blog