Westberg, K., Stavros, C.,
Wilson, B. (2008) ‘An examination
of the impact of player transgressions on sponsorship b2b
relationships’,
International Journal of
Sports Marketing and Sponsorship: 125—134
[NB b2b means business to business.The actual analysis isn’t very gripping, but
there is a good discussion on semi structured interviews]
There is some speculation about the
effects on sponsors when
players transgress.This study
interviewed executives of Australian team based sporting organisations
in order
to develop a model.The model isolates
the key factors that affect responses, and these include ‘the nature of
the
incident, sponsor’s type of business and existing relationship between
parties.Media response is also a key
factor.Further research might investigate
‘the
attribution of blame; the relative impact of different types of
transgression;
consideration of the impact of transgressions on various customer
segments; and
the impact of incidents at various stages of the relationship’ (126).It is also possible that transgressions can
even produce ‘a positive impact for stakeholders’ (126).
A number of recent transgressions are
listed, including
sexual assault, drug use and violence.The background to the growth of sponsorship of
sports is also
discussed.There is a discussion in
marketing literature suggesting that transgressions can harm sponsors,
especially if they are ‘violate the rules guiding relationship, team
and
societal standards’.Particular
transgressions can trigger stronger reactions.Stakeholder response can be one result.Images becoming particularly important in spectator
support.Sponsors want to link their brand
with a
particular event or organisation positively, to create ‘brand choice
and
customer loyalty’ (127).
‘Semi structured in depth interviews’
with senior executives
were conducted.The sample is defined by
a convenience and also the notion of ‘theoretical saturation for the
researcher’
(128).Prompt questions were derived
from major issues in the literature.Respondents could expand.Interviews were taped and transcribed and then coded
for themes.Finally, ‘relationships among
variables were
noted and a logical chain of evidence to support the propositions
developed’
(128).
Transgressions that took place on and
off the field were
distinguished.On field transgressions
were seen as easier to control, as being more to do with reactions in a
game.Off the field transgressions
attract more attention and were more difficult to deal with.Particular transgressions can be particularly
sensitive depending on the type of business—for example sexual assault
allegations are damaging if women are major clients, while financial
irregularities clearly will affect the business of Financial Services
sponsors,
or criminal action will affect state bodies who might sponsor.Much will depend on the strengths of the
relationship. Key sponsors have to be nurtured over time, and a good
relationship can survive specific crises.Sponsors need to be fully informed, however.They might also need help in developing
realistic expectations of players.Increased media scrutiny is a growing problem, and
more both
transgressions are being reported.Some
sponsors feel that any transgressions in any sport have a negative
effect on
sport in general.
Although transgressions were
discussed, ‘there were no
instances noted in the interviews of sponsors withdrawing their
sponsorship’ as
a result (129).Reassurance by the
sports organisation that the issue is being dealt with seems crucial.New sponsors might be put off, however.
The findings are summarised in a model
on page 130 [usual
jobby -- boxes with arrows, with slightly more detail of the factors
already
mentioned].Some pretty obvious
propositions follow, for example the response by sponsors depends on
the ‘nature,
severity and frequency of the transgression’, that responses can be
mediated by
a good relationship and the success of the sporting organisation, and
weakened
by extensive negative media attention.Thus a transgression ‘that develops quickly and has
media attention is
the most concerning’ (131).Further
research might investigate which customer segments react most strongly.Managers might anticipate the results by
developing a more ‘proactive scenario style studies’ (131).Business partners might also experiments with
forgiving or tolerating transgressions.Other work has examined the levels of commitment
which sponsors exhibit—‘relationship
quality theory’ (132), and apparently, quality is affected by factors
such as ‘brand
partner quality, love and passion, intimacy, self connection, nostalgic
connection, interdependence and commitment’ (132)..It might even then be possible to model
relationships mathematically.