Consumer-brand relationshipsin sport: brand personality

and identificationBrad D. Carlson

John Cook School of Business, Saint Louis University, St Louis, Missouri, USA

D. Todd DonavanCollege of Business, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,

Colorado, USA, and

Kevin J. CumiskeyWilliam S. Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University,

Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationships between the brandpersonality of a sports team and the related consumer outcomes of identification and retail spending.

Design/methodology/approach – A field study was conducted with games watched and retailspending as outcomes. Structural equation modeling was used to explore the relationships amongconstructs.

Findings – The two brand personality dimensions of wholesomeness and successfulness aremediated through prestige to predict the consumer’s identification with the team. The two brandpersonality dimensions of imaginativeness and toughness positively influence identification with theteam while successfulness has a negative influence on identification with the team. Once a consumeridentifies with the team quasi-brand, retail spending and viewership increase.

Practical implications – Sports teams can utilise information gleaned from this study to betterpromote an attractive image, thereby increasing the number of games watched and retail spending.

Originality/value – This paper presents an original twist on personality research by looking at theinfluence of the brand personality of an intangible sport brand on consumer identification and retailspending.

Keywords Brand identity, Personality, Sports, Consumer behaviour, Buyer-seller relationships

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionSports teams and athletes influence product sales in various retail outlets. Nike, a majorproducer of athletic footwear and apparel, sells to 24,000 retailers in the US alone (Nike, Inc.Annual Report, 2006). In 2006, Nike US revenues reached $5.7 billion with nearly10 per cent of global sales coming from a single retail partner. In addition, consumerspurchase non-sport products such as high-definition televisions, satellite radios, andbarbeque grills to enhance their sport consumption experiences. Hence, whether sellingtickets and concessions, authentic jerseys and equipment, or non-sport productsassociated with a sport team or athlete, sports have a considerable impact on retailing.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm

IJRDM37,4

370

Received May 2007Revised October 2007,February 2008Accepted April 2008

International Journal of Retail &Distribution ManagementVol. 37 No. 4, 2009pp. 370-384q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0959-0552DOI 10.1108/09590550910948592

However, the extant literature is relatively void of investigations into the relationshipsbetween retailing and sport.

Sports teams (e.g. Dallas Cowboys and Manchester United) have becomequasi-brands, driving retail sales of products associated with their names andimages. Hence, firms often tie their brands to popular teams. By tying a brand to asuccessful team, firms are hoping to transfer the team’s positive attributes onto thebrand. Many of these teams are chosen based on a perceived consumer connectiondescribed as identification, or an overlap between the consumer’s schema and theentities schema (Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000). Identification has a significant positiveinfluence on impulsive sport-related purchases (Kwon and Armstrong, 2002). However,a question remains as to what makes consumers connect (i.e. identify) with one teamand not another. Donavan et al. (2005a,b) found that individuals’ personality traitsinfluence their identification with a sports entity, while other research suggests that theattraction to a team may also be influenced by the team’s brand personality(Aaker, 1997). Specifically, Aaker suggested that a brand personality often increasesthe consumer’s connection with the brand.

The purpose of this research is to investigate relationships between sport andretailing that have been identified as important research topics (i.e. sporting teams asbrands; the role of sports in consumer buying processes; and brand personality andbrand-consumer relationships). We do so by applying social identity theory in a sportscontext to predict retail spending and the number of games watched. Examining brandpersonality, as it relates to sport teams as quasi-brands, should provide additionalinsight into brand-consumer relationships that drive retail spending. We tested ourmodel (Figure 1), applied to team quasi-brands, and found that team cognitiveidentification has a significant impact on games watched and retail spending.

Figure 1.Conceptual model

Prestige

CognitiveIdentification

SpendingCharming

Wholesome

Successful

ImaginativeDistinctiveness

Tough

Games Watched

Brand Personality

Consumer-brandrelationships

in sport

371

IdentificationResearchers have investigated identification as it relates to consumer-companyidentification (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003), employee identification (Bergami andBagozzi, 2000), and sports fan identification (Donavan et al., 2005a,b; Trail and James,2001). Identification is a cognitive state where the individual comes to view him orherself as a member of a social entity (Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000). The individualperceives “oneness with or belongingness with an entity” upon realising thesimilarities and dissimilarities between members of the social in-group and variousout-groups (Mael and Ashforth, 1992). This distinction allows the individual to create asocial identity (Tajfel, 1978). An identity is a schema, or what is distinctive and centralabout the individual (Dutton et al., 1994). When an individual identifies strongly withan entity, there is an overlap between their self-schema and the entity’s schema. It isimportant to recognise that identification is a cognitive measure of the overlap betweenthe individual and an entity, rather than being emotional, behavioral or commitmentbased. Strong identification has been linked to increases in attendance (Bhattacharyaet al., 1995) and spending (Lichtenstein et al., 2004).

Social identity theory provides the theoretical foundation that explainsidentification. One’s social identity derives from the social categories to which he orshe belongs, such as a demographic grouping, employment affiliation, or teammembership (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Tajfel and Turner, 1985). Perceivedmembership in a social category contributes to one’s social identity (Hogg et al.,1995). Consumers are drawn to teams that have a strong “similarity” to them, and thissimilarity may be real (i.e. source with actual-self) or aspirational (i.e. source withideal-self). Identification is a means to acknowledge commonality with the “in-group,”while at the same time acknowledging differentiation from an “out-group.”

Prestige and distinctivenessThe identification literature demonstrates that two characteristics predict a person’sidentification: prestige and distinctiveness (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Holt, 1995).Prestige is the entity’s exclusivity, respect, and status (Davies et al., 2004). Consumersexpress their own identity by associating with prestigious brands (Belk, 1988). In asports context, consumers bask in reflective glory (BIRG) after the prestige of a teamvictory (Cialdini et al., 1976). Numerous sports teams possess high levels of prestigeincluding the New York Yankees and the Duke Blue Devils Basketball team. Thisprestige may encourage consumers to spend more on retail purchases of the brand.

Distinctiveness relates to how the entity is different from competitors. Consumerscreate a salient identity by belonging to a group (i.e. in-group) that is unique comparedto another group (i.e. out-group; Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Mael and Ashforth, 1992).The social categories of in-group and out-group are both relational and comparative.They demonstrate one’s relationships with those found attractive and offer acomparison to those viewed as different (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Brewer, 1991).Harley Davidson motorcycles are seen as distinctive due to the “outlaw” imageassociated with the brand. In sports, the Oakland Raiders have also maintained anoutlaw image.

When consumers gravitate toward an entity that is prestigious and/or distinctive theyare transferring these positive traits back on themselves. However, a question remainsas to how an entity (e.g. a sports team) gains a level of prestige and/or distinctiveness.

IJRDM37,4

372

To consider this question, we adopt the perspective of sport teams as quasi-brands thathave unique personalities.

Brand personalityA brand allows the consumer to express his or her own self (Belk, 1988), throughassociating oneself with the brand personality (Aaker, 1997). Consumers often acquirerelationships with brands similar to forming a relationship with other people and thepersonality traits of each partner affect the relationship (Aaker et al., 2004; Fournier,1998). Research proposes that consumers consider brands as having variouspersonalities, such as Absolute Vodka being hip and cool (Aaker, 1997). Numeroussports teams are notorious for their brand personality. The NFL’s OaklandRaiders personify a tough, outlaw personality. Another example is the once titled“America’s Team,” the Dallas Cowboys that carried a wholesome, All-Americanpersonality for many decades.

Brand personality is “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand”(Aaker, 1997, p. 347). Aaker’s research identified five dimensions of brand personalitywith multiple facets. Sincerity is viewed as down-to-earth, honest, and wholesome.Brands such as Hallmark, Coca-Cola, and Disney rate high on this trait. Excitement isdefined as daring, spirited, imaginative, and up-to-date as demonstrated by Targetwith its high-energy advertising campaign. Competence is defined as reliable,intelligent, and successful. The Wall Street Journal is a brand that rates high oncompetence. Sophistication is seen as upper class and charming. BMW and Lexus aretwo luxury car brands that rate high on sophistication. Finally, ruggedness isoutdoorsy and tough. Brands such as hummer and jeep rate high on ruggedness.

The Aaker (1997) brand personality dimensions, comprised of multiple facets, wereoriginally developed to apply to traditional, tangible brands. However, a sports team isan intangible, quasi-brand to which the multi-faceted dimensions of brand personalitymay not directly apply. Consequently, we investigate the facets of each dimension thatare most applicable in a sports context: wholesome, imaginative, successful, charming,and tough.

Theoretical developmentIndividuals may have psychological reasons for being attracted to various brandpersonalities. For instance, Aaker (1997) suggests that both sophistication andruggedness personality traits are associated with an individual’s aspirational goals.Individuals may gravitate towards such brands as Mercedes to gain status(i.e. sophistication) or Marlboro to associate with toughness (i.e. ruggedness).Similarly, sport fans may gravitate toward teams to be associated with their definingpersonality characteristics. For example, many NBA fans are drawn to the San AntonioSpurs because they perceive the team to be successful (i.e. competence) and wholesome(i.e. sincerity).

Higher levels of the brand personality facets should enhance the brand’s prestigeand distinctiveness. That is, as a brand develops a more complex personality,comprised of higher levels of the facets wholesome, imaginative, successful, charming,and tough, the brand becomes more prestigious and distinctive. For instance, withincreased success, the status of a team should be elevated and its distinction from otherteams should be amplified. Similarly, we anticipate that enhancing the perceptions that

Consumer-brandrelationships

in sport

373

a team is wholesome, imaginative, charming, and/or tough should thereby enhance thestatus and distinction of the team. Thus, the brand personality facets represent specificcharacteristics of a team that serve to differentiate the brand (i.e. enhancedistinctiveness) and elevate the exclusivity, respect, and status of the brand(i.e. prestige).

The relationships between brand personality and prestige and distinctiveness havenot been explored conceptually or empirically in previous research. Moreover, thefacets of brand personality are far more contextually specific than more general groupcharacteristics such as prestige and distinctiveness. In other words, while prestige anddistinctiveness should exert a positive influence on an individual’s identification withany number of entities (e.g. an organisation, brand, or social group), the specific facetsof brand personality that influence prestige and distinctiveness will likely vary acrosscontexts. For example, while being imaginative and charming may enhance theprestige of a small fashion boutique, the same facets may have less influence onthe prestige of a neighborhood drugstore. Therefore, even though we anticipate thebrand personality facets to have a positive influence on prestige and distinctiveness,our investigation of these relationships is largely exploratory in nature. This leads tothe following hypotheses:

H1. Brand personality has a positive effect on prestige. Specifically, (a) wholesome;(b) imaginative; (c) successful; (d) charming; and (e) tough will have a positiveeffect on prestige.

H2. Brand personality has a positive effect on distinctiveness. Specifically,(a) wholesome; (b) imaginative; (c) successful; (d) charming; and (e) tough willhave a positive effect on distinctiveness.

From a social identity theory perspective (Tajfel and Turner, 1985), individuals mayassociate brand characteristics with positive aspirational goals. Fans often transfer thesuccess of sports teams on to themselves (Cialdini et al., 1976). By associating with ateam, individuals demonstrate membership in a particular social category, thusreinforcing a desired social identity. Consumers may be particularly attracted to teamsthat are viewed as being prestigious and distinctive. As discussed, both prestige anddistinctiveness lead to higher levels of identification (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Holt,1995). Consumers want to elevate their own self-esteem, so they select groups thatpossess desirable characteristics such as being viewed as prestigious and distinctive.With regards to a prestigious team, a consumer may identify with the team to transfersuch prestige to his or her self-image. Additionally, social identity theory suggests thatindividuals tend to gravitate toward groups that are clearly differentiated from others.Thus, consumers should perceive a stronger identification with more distinctive teamsthan less distinctive teams. This leads to the following hypotheses:

H3. Prestige has a positive effect on team cognitive identification.

H4. Distinctiveness has a positive effect on team cognitive identification.

The image congruence hypothesis suggests that consumption behavior is gearedtoward enhancing the self-concept through the consumption of products that providesymbolic meanings (Grubb and Grathwol, 1967). Once individuals identify with a team,the desire to associate with them takes on behavioral consequences. Consumers often

IJRDM37,4

374

buy items to give to others that are associated with the entity (i.e. symbol passing) aswell as buy items for themselves (i.e. symbol collecting) to demonstrate theirrelationship with the team (Donavan et al., 2006). Moreover, perceived membership in agroup (e.g. I am a Chicago Cubs fan) motivates individuals to exhibit behaviors andintentions that are consistent with group norms (McAlexander et al., 2002), such asregularly watching the team compete. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:

H5. Team cognitive identification has a positive effect on the number of gameswatched.

H6. Team cognitive identification has a positive effect on team-related retailspending.

MethodologyOne-hundred and sixty-two university students (83 females and 79 males) participatedin this study. Students were selected from sports marketing classes due to their interestin the topic and the focal basketball team. The team has a premier facility and a longhistory of success with over a decade of sell-out crowds and being ranked among thetop 25 in the country. On average, respondents reported that they had been watchingthe team for at least seven years, and had considered themselves to be fans of the teamfor at least six years. A student sample was chosen for this study as they have easyaccess to sports information on a regular basis. Additionally, student samples havebeen shown to be acceptable for studies involving theory testing due to thehomogeneity of the sample (Calder et al., 1981). The average age was 22 years old.Respondents evaluated the university’s nationally-known basketball team on thevarious constructs of interest. The authors developed a questionnaire to capturethe respondent’s evaluations of brand personality, team prestige and distinctiveness,team identification, retail spending (amount spent on team merchandise in the lastyear), and the number of games watched during the most recent season.

Survey measuresBrand personality was measured using single items representing facets from each ofthe five dimensions of Aaker’s (1997) scale. Items were chosen based on a pre-testevaluating their appropriateness for measuring sport-related team personalitycharacteristics. Fifteen items representing the five dimensions were originally usedin the pretest. However, for each dimension only one item was identified byrespondents as being highly relevant in describing a basketball team. For example, thebrand personality dimension of “ruggedness” originally included assessments of bothtough and outdoorsy. However, “tough” was found to be an appropriate descriptor of abasketball team while “outdoorsy” was less appropriate. The final items selected forinclusion in the main study demonstrated strong face validity. In the current study,respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed (i.e. 7) or disagreed(i.e. 1) that the five brand personality facets of toughness, charm, wholesomeness,imaginativeness, and successfulness applied to the focal team.

The use of single-item indicators, when appropriate, has been recommended byprevious researchers for their simplicity, ease of use, and increased face validity andflexibility (Kwon and Trail, 2005; Poon et al., 2002; Nagy, 2002; Nunnally andBernstein, 1994). For instance, single-items may be appropriate when “the domain of

Consumer-brandrelationships

in sport

375

related variables is so small that any one of the few observable variables in the domainwill suffice to measure the construct” (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994, pp. 85-6).Additionally, the use of single-item indicators for affective, cognitive, and conativeresponses has been commonly accepted when investigating both sport and non-sportcontexts (Fink et al., 2002; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2007; Madrigal, 1995).

Team prestige was measured on a three-item, seven-point Likert scale (Mael andAshforth, 1992). The items were framed as statements about the team’s publicreputation and status. To measure team distinctiveness, we used three items adaptedfrom Donavan et al. (2005a,b). These items were also seven-point Likert scales.

Team cognitive identification (team CID) was measured using the Bergami andBagozzi (2000) two-item measure of cognitive identification. While a number of teamidentification scales are available (Wann and Branscombe, 1993; Trail and James,2001), these scales incorporate more than simply an awareness of one’s cognitiveidentification with an entity. For instance, the Wann and Branscombe (1993) scaleincludes the item “during the season, how closely do you follow the KU basketball teamvia any of the following: (a) in person or on television, (b) on the radio, or (c) televisionnews or a newspaper?” Clearly, this behavior-based item captures an outcome ofidentification rather than the cognitive element of identification. The Trail and Jamesscale includes the item “I would experience a loss if I had to stop being a fan of the[team name] team.” This item captures the emotional attachment to the team ratherthan the cognitive element. Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) argue that the cognitive,emotional (i.e. affective commitment), and behavioral components of identificationshould be treated separately and their empirical results support this claim.Consequently, we chose to utilise the unidimensional Bergami and Bagozzi (2000)scale to capture cognitive identification.

Single-item indicators were developed to assess the number of games watched andteam-related retail spending (Appendix for items).

ResultsThe analysis was conducted using AMOS 7.0 (Arbuckle, 1997). We began with the twostep approach suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). A confirmatory factoranalysis (CFA) was conducted on the ten scales: tough, wholesome, charming,imaginative, successful, prestige, distinctiveness, team ID, games watched, and retailspending. The error terms and paths on each of the single item latent constructs werefixed as recommended by Joreskog and Sorbom (1993). When using single itemindicators the authors suggest a reliability of 0.85 which corresponds to a pathcoefficient of 0.92. The error terms are then set with the formula: item variance *

(1 2 0.85). The CFA provided acceptable model fit indices: (x 2 ¼ 40.94, df ¼ 39;p . 0.10); comparative fit index (CFI) ¼ 0.99; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) ¼ 0.99; androot mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ¼ 0.02.

The measurement model provided evidence of reliability, convergent validity, anddiscriminant validity. All indicators loaded on the appropriate latent factor whichprovided evidence of convergent validity (Appendix for betas and standard errors).Composite reliability ranged from 0.72 to 0.91, indicating acceptable reliability.All constructs met criteria suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981) regarding theaverage variance extracted (AVE), indicating adequate discriminant validity between

IJRDM37,4

376

the constructs. Table I presents the descriptive statistics including means, correlations,reliabilities, and AVEs.

The structural model was estimated based on the proposed hypotheses (Figure 1).Although we do not theoretically predict a causal relationship, watching games andpurchasing team-related merchandise should be related. Therefore, our analysisincluded correlating the error terms between these two variables. The fit indices for thestructural model appeared satisfactory: x 2 ¼ 79.6; df ¼ 59; p , 0.00; CFI ¼ 0.98;TLI ¼ 0.97; and RMSEA ¼ 0.05 (Table II).

H1 suggests that brand personality will have a positive influence on prestige.Wholesomeness positively influenced prestige (H1a) as did successfulness (H1c). Theinfluence of imaginativeness, charm, and toughness on prestige was not significant:Imaginative ! Prestige (H1b); Charm ! Prestige (H1d ); and Tough ! Prestige(H1e). This evidence partially supports H1 (Table II for standardised path coefficientsand t-values).

The next set of hypotheses, relating to the influence of brand personality ondistinctiveness, was partially supported. H2b and H2e were supported: Imaginative! Distinctiveness (H2b); and Tough ! Distinctiveness (H2e). H2c was supported;however, the relationship was significant in a negative direction: Successful !

Distinctiveness (H2c). H2a and H2d were not supported: Wholesome !

Distinctiveness (H2a); and Charming ! Distinctiveness (H2d ).H3 and H4 proposed that prestige and distinctiveness would exert a positive

influence on team CID. The results support both of these hypotheses: Prestige !

Team CID (H3); and Distinctiveness ! Team CID (H4). H5 and H6 proposed thatteam CID would have a positive impact on games watched and retail spending. Both ofthese hypotheses were supported: Team CID ! Games Watched (H5); and Team CID! Retail Spending (H6). To investigate the impact of team CID, we reviewed theamount of variance explained in the model (Figure 2). The model demonstrates that 47per cent of the variance (i.e. R 2) in team CID is explained, 24 per cent of the variance is

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Tougha 1.002. Wholesomea 0.75 1.003. Charminga 0.69 0.70 1.004. Imaginative a 0.76 0.70 0.79 1.005. Successfula 0.49 0.45 0.44 0.55 1.006. Prestige 0.62 0.74 0.49 0.65 0.73 1.007. Distinctiveness 0.71 0.65 0.65 0.74 0.31 0.49 1.008. Team CID 0.53 0.52 0.46 0.55 0.33 0.49 0.66 1.009. Games watcheda 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.27 0.16 0.24 0.32 0.49 1.00

10. Retail spendinga 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.13 0.19 0.25 0.39 0.55 1.00Mean (M) 4.91 4.67 4.01 4.56 5.65 5.48 4.22 2.67 3.68 1.98SD 1.63 1.34 1.71 1.41 1.23 1.06 1.46 1.42 1.75 1.89CR – – – – – 0.72 0.91 0.83 – –AVE – – – – – 0.57 0.77 0.72 – –

Notes: aVariable was measured with a single item. Therefore, composite reliability (CR) and averagevariance extracted (AVE) were not estimated

Table I.Descriptive statistics and

correlations

Consumer-brandrelationships

in sport

377

explained in games watched, and 15 per cent of the variance in retail spending isexplained.

To further investigate the appropriateness of the overall model, we used a “nested”model approach to examine the direct impact of the brand personality variables,distinctiveness, and prestige on games watched and retail spending. In the nested

Structural model statistics Modelx 2 79.6df 59

CFI 0.98TLI 0.97

RMSEA 0.05Path Path estimate t-valueWholesome ! Prestige H1a 0.59 3.75 *

Imaginative ! Prestige H1b 0.21 1.11Successful ! Prestige H1c 0.48 4.74 *

Charming ! Prestige H1d 20.28 2 1.78Tough ! Prestige H1e 2 0.02 2 0.14Wholesome ! Distinctiveness H2a 0.15 1.91Imaginative ! Distinctiveness H2b 0.48 2.94 * *

Successful ! Distinctiveness H2c 2 0.18 22.19 * * *

Charming ! Distinctiveness H2d 0.04 0.27Tough ! Distinctiveness H2e 0.25 2.21 * * *

Prestige ! Team CID H3 0.22 2.37 * * *

Distinctiveness ! Team CID H4 0.55 6.01 *

Team CID ! Games Watched H5 0.49 5.50 *

Team CID ! Retail Spending H6 0.39 4.37 *

Notes:n ¼ 162; *p ¼ 0.001; * *p ¼ 0.01; * * *p ¼ 0.05 (two-tail tests); standardized path estimates shown

Table II.Results of structuralequations analyses

Figure 2.A model of teamidentification

Brand Personality

Prestige

CognitiveIdentification

Spending

Distinctiveness Games Watched

(−)

χ2 = 79.6 df = 59 n = 62

CFI = 0.98 TLI = 0.97 RMSEA = 0.05

Charming

Wholesome

Successful

Imaginative

Tough

IJRDM37,4

378

model we added paths from each brand personality facet, prestige, and distinctivenessto games watched and retail spending. The fit indices for the model were as follows:(x 2 ¼ 76.80, df ¼ 44; p , 0.00); CFI ¼ 0.96; TLI ¼ 0.98; RMSEA ¼ 0.06. Thenon-significant chi-squared difference test (Dx 2 ¼ 2.8, Ddf ¼ 15) reveals that there isnot a meaningful statistical difference between the theoretical model and thealternative model. However, the theoretical model is more parsimonious andtheoretically driven, which makes it the preferred model. Thus, the effects of thepersonality traits, prestige and distinctiveness are mediated through cognitiveidentification in the model.

DiscussionWe investigated the influence of brand personality on team-related outcomes via teamidentification. The findings suggest that consumers may see sports team quasi-brandsas having unique personalities that may influence their level of cognitive identificationwith the team. Additionally, team CID has a significant, positive influence on thenumber of games that fans watched and the amount of money spent on team-relatedretail purchases.

Our findings reveal that team prestige and distinctiveness are positively influencedby both shared and unique facets of brand personality. Specifically, wholesomenessand success contribute to team prestige. Thus, it appears that fans attribute provensuccess and a wholesome image with a prestigious team. The brand personality traitsof imaginativeness and toughness may add to the team aura by differentiating theteam from others. A team that is perceived to be imaginative may provide moreentertainment value to fans than other teams by calling plays and adopting strategiesthat are more creative and unique than other teams. Thus, the team’s imaginativenesscontributes to its distinctiveness. Additionally, toughness had a direct influence ondistinctiveness. Hence, comments from commentators and fans about a team oftenrefer to the “toughness” of a team as a distinguishing characteristic.

Surprisingly, success had a negative influence on perceptions of teamdistinctiveness. One possible explanation for this finding may be that sport fans,particularly those of successful teams, may be more familiar with successful teamsbecause those teams receive more media coverage. As a result, it may be a fairlycommon perception among fans of a successful team that many, and possibly most,teams are successful. Therefore, less successful teams are perceived to be more uniquethan highly successful teams. Further investigation of this relationship in futureresearch would be valuable. An additional unexpected result was the non-significantinfluence of charm on both prestige and distinctiveness. While many individualsbecome captivated by men and women who are charming, it appears that such aquality may be less relevant in some sports contexts.

Managerial implicationsIt appears that having a team image that fans want to identify with may result in fansdevoting more time and retail spending on the team and its related products. Teamsshould work to enhance the distinctiveness and prestige of the team. Given the resultsof our study, it may be beneficial to focus certain marketing efforts on communicatingthe unique facets of the team’s personality. To enhance perceptions of team prestige,conveying a wholesome and successful image may be encouraged. For example,

Consumer-brandrelationships

in sport

379

promoting the team’s involvement with local charities and organisations and thesuccess of the team and its players both on and off the court may prove effective. Ourresults suggest that team distinctiveness may be enhanced through communicating animaginative and tough image. For example, advertisements promoting the team thatinclude images of the team and its players performing exciting and unexpected playswhile also highlighting the physical intensity of the team may be beneficial. Effectivelycommunicating the prestige and distinctiveness of the team may result in fansdeveloping a stronger sense of identification with the team, thereby increasing retailspending and game attendance.

The stronger path coefficient from distinctiveness to identification versus prestigeto identification may indicate that distinctiveness could be more influential, in certainsituations, in terms of strengthening fans’ levels of identifying with the team. Perhaps,fans are more intrigued with the entertainment value, mystique, and amount of funthey associate with a team than the anticipated excellence or superiority of the team.If a sport team is deemed to have a brand personality that does not inherently drivemedia and merchandise consumptions, they may benefit from promotional activitiesthat highlight their distinction from other teams and sporting events. For example,promotional messages should focus attention on an arena with a rich history, uniquefan rituals and traditions at home games, or exclusive in-game promotional giveaways.

Limitations and future researchThe limitations of this study should provide some guidance for future research. Ourstudy investigated a single team within a single sport. It would be interesting to testour model of relationships using multiple teams and multiple sports simultaneously.Additionally, we examined five facets of brand personality, but additional facets maysignificantly influence prestige and distinctiveness. It may be that different facets ofbrand personality are more or less appropriate for team quasi-brands depending on thesport. The relationships outlined in our conceptual model, excluding the paths from thebrand personality facets to prestige and distinctiveness, are strongly based onempirical work applying social identity theory and should be relatively consistentacross various team and sport contexts. However, our investigation into therelationships between the brand personality variables and prestige and distinctivenesswas largely exploratory. It is likely that significant paths between these variables inour final model may be team and/or sport specific. Future studies employing thisconceptual model may find that different facets of brand personality are significantpredictors of prestige and distinctiveness for different teams and different sports.It should be noted that what we present here is a conceptual framework and not theonly conceptual framework.

Because this study is based upon a single sports team, the generalizability of ourfindings to other contexts warrants additional investigation. For instance, can weexpect a similar set of relationships to exist when investigating other intangible brandssuch as insurance, airlines, movies, music, and education? A number of intangiblebrands have created a unique personality, such as Virgin Airlines with its image ofirreverence, rebellion, and fun; James Bond movies with their combination of actionand sophistication; the Rolling Stones with their image of unkempt and surly youth;and Harvard with its high prestige brand. The model used in this study may be used asa framework for developing additional studies that further explore consumer

IJRDM37,4

380

relationships with retail brands in multiple contexts. By understanding the psychologyof what makes consumers identify with a brand, firms may be able to enhance thebrand experience and increase consumer spending on retail offerings.

ConclusionSport has a powerful impact on retailing. Our findings suggest that studying theantecedents of cognitive identification with teams may be useful for understanding thisrelationship. Additionally, the findings underscore and extend the work of Aaker(1997) by demonstrating that intangible quasi-brands, as well as more traditionaltangible brands, have a personality. Moreover, brand personality influences theprestige and distinctiveness of the brand, thereby influencing identification, andultimately team viewership and retail spending. Specifically, success, wholesomeness,imaginativeness, and toughness are brand personality facets important in predictingteam cognitive identification.

The sports industry is rapidly growing with consumers spending an increasingamount of money on retail purchases that enhance the sport consumption experience.As such, the sports world offers a plethora of opportunities for marketers and retailersas sport fans often spend large sums of money on team merchandise, apparel, andevents, as well as non-sport products such as high-definition TVs and home theatersystems. We found that the stronger a consumer identifies with a team, the more timeand money the consumer will spend to support and thereby demonstrate affiliationwith the team. As new factors that influence consumer relationships with sportquasi-brands are identified, managers will be able to develop strong brands thatconnect with consumers, resulting in long-lasting and profitable consumer-brandrelationships and increased retail spending.

References

Aaker, J. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34,August, pp. 347-56.

Aaker, J., Fournier, S. and Brasel, S.A. (2004), “When good brands do bad”, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 31, June, pp. 1-16.

Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review andrecommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.

Arbuckle, J.L. (1997), AMOS 7.0, Smallwaters Corporation, Chicago, IL.

Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.

Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15No. 2, pp. 139-68.

Bergami, M. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2000), “Self-categorization, affective commitment and groupself-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization”, British Journal ofSocial Psychology, Vol. 39, pp. 555-77.

Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company identification: a framework forunderstanding consumer’s relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67,April, pp. 76-88.

Consumer-brandrelationships

in sport

381

Bhattacharya, C.B., Rao, H. and Glynn, M.A. (1995), “Understanding the bond of identification: aninvestigation of its correlates among art museum members”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59,October, pp. 46-57.

Brewer, M.B. (1991), “The social self: on being the same and different at the same time”,Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 475-82.

Calder, B.J., Phillips, L.W. and Tybout, A.M. (1981), “Designing research for application”, Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 8, pp. 197-207.

Cialdini, R.B., Borden, R.J., Thorne, A., Walker, M.R., Freeman, S. and Sloan, L.R. (1976),“Basking in reflected glory: three (football) field studies”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 366-75.

Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R.V. and Roper, S. (2004), “A corporate character scale to assessemployee and customer views of organisation reputation”, Corporate Reputation Review,Vol. 7, pp. 125-46.

Donavan, D.T., Carlson, B. and Zimmerman, M. (2005a), “Personality influences on spectatorneed for affiliation and identification”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 31-42.

Donavan, D.T., Janda, S. and Maxham, J.G (2005b), “The impact of brand connection andintimacy on identification and spending”, Proceedings of the American MarketingAssociation Summer Educator’s Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Donavan, D.T., Janda, S. and Suh, J. (2006), “Environmental influences in corporate brandidentification and outcomes”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 125-36.

Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994), “Organisational images and memberidentification”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 239-63.

Fink, J.S., Trail, G.T. and Anderson, D.F. (2002), “Environmental factors associated withspectator attendance and sport consumption behavior: gender and team differences”, SportMarketing Quarterly, Vol. 11, pp. 8-19.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, February,pp. 39-50.

Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumer and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumerresearch”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-73.

Grubb, E.L. and Grathwol, H.L. (1967), “Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behavior:a theoretical approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, October, pp. 22-7.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Henning, V. and Henrik, S. (2007), “Consumer file sharing of motionpictures”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 1-18.

Hogg, M.A., Terry, D.J. and White, K.M. (1995), “A tale of two theories: a critical comparison ofidentity theory and social identity theory”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 58, December,pp. 255-69.

Holt, D.B. (1995), “How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices”, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 22, June, pp. 1-16.

Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLISCommand Language, Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL.

Kwon, H.H. and Armstrong, K.L. (2002), “Factors influencing impulse buying of sport teamlicensed merchandise”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 151-63.

Kwon, H. and Trail, G. (2005), “The feasibility of single-item measures in sport loyalty research”,Sport Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 69-88.

IJRDM37,4

382

Lichtenstein, D.R., Drumwright, M.E. and Braig, B.M. (2004), “The effect of corporate socialresponsibility on consumer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 16-32.

McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F. (2002), “Building brand community”, Journalof Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 38-54.

Madrigal, R. (1995), “Cognitive and affective determinants of fan satisfaction with sporting eventattendance”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 205-27.

Mael, F.A. and Ashforth, B.E. (1992), “Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of thereformulated model of organisational identification”, Journal of Organisational Behavior,Vol. 13, pp. 103-23.

Nagy, M.S. (2002), “Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction”, Journal ofOccupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 77-86.

Nike, Inc. Annual Report (2006), nikebiz.com, available at: www.nike.com/nikebiz/nikebiz.jhtml?page ¼ 18 (accessed May 8, 2007).

Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Poon, W.Y., Leung, K. and Lee, S.Y. (2002), “The comparison of single item constructs by relativemean and relative variance”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 5, pp. 275-98.

Tajfel, H. (1978), “The achievement of group differentiation”, in Tajfel, H. (Ed.), DifferentiationBetween Social Group: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, AcademicPress, London.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1985), “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior”, in Worchel,S. and Austin, W.G. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL,pp. 7-24.

Trail, G.T. and James, J.D. (2001), “The motivation scale for sport consumption: assessment of thescale’s psychometric properties”, Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 24, pp. 108-27.

Wann, D.L. and Branscombe, N.R. (1993), “Sports fans: measuring degree of identification withtheir team”, International Journal of Sport Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 1-17.

Further reading

Aaker, D. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, Free Press, New York, NY.

Appendix(The Appendix Figure follows overleaf.)

Consumer-brandrelationships

in sport

383

Corresponding authorBrad D. Carlson can be contacted at: bcarlso8@slu.edu

Figure A1.Measures

(SE)βBrand Personality (7-point bi-polar)Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.XYZ basketball is ……….

WholesomeImaginativeSuccessfulCharmingTough

0.92 0.150.92 0.150.92 0.150.92 0.150.92 0.15

Prestige (7-point: strongly disagree – strongly agree)XYZ basketball has a good reputation with the general public.XYZ basketball is highly respected.It is considered prestigious to be an XYZ basketball fan.

0.80 0.440.70 0.12Item

droppedItem

dropped

Distinctiveness (7-point: strongly disagree – strongly agree)I believe XYZ basketball is very unique as compared to other teams.I feel XYZ basketball is unlike any other basketball team.XYZ basketball is a rare entity.

0.82 0.100.90 0.090.92 0.09

Retail SpendingApproximately how much did you spend on merchandise related to XYZ basketball thisyear?

0.92 0.15

Games WatchedDuring this season, approximately how many XYZ basketball games did you watch on TV and/or in person?

0.92 0.15

Cognitive Identification(Item 1) Please indicate which case (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, or H) best describes the level of overlap between your own and (team’s) identities.

(Item 2) Please indicate to what degree your self-image overlaps with the image of the team.

0.91

0.78

0.19

0.16

Team’sIdentity

MyIdentity

A Far ApartClose Together butSeperateVery Small Overlap

Small Overlap

Moderate Overlap

Large Overlap

Very Large Overlap

Complete Overlap

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

IJRDM37,4

384