Sports_Marketing

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm IJRDM 37,4 Consumer-brand relationships in sport: brand personality and identification Brad D. Carlson John Cook School of Business, Saint Louis University, St Louis, Missouri, USA 370 Received May 2007 Revised October 2007, February 2008 Accepted April 2008 D. Todd Donavan College of Business, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, and Kevin J. Cumiskey William 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 brand personality 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 retail spending as outcomes. Structural equation modeling was used to explore the relationships among constructs. Findings – The two brand personality dimensions of wholesomeness and successfulness are mediated through prestige to predict the consumer’s identification with the team. The two brand personality dimensions of imaginativeness and toughness positively influence identification with the team while successfulness has a negative influence on identification with the team. Once a consumer identifies with the team quasi-brand, retail spending and viewership increase. Practical implications – Sports teams can utilise information gleaned from this study to better promote 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 the influence of the brand personality of an intangible sport brand on consumer identification and retail spending. Keywords Brand identity, Personality, Sports, Consumer behaviour, Buyer-seller relationships Paper type Research paper International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Vol. 37 No. 4, 2009 pp. 370-384 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0959-0552 DOI 10.1108/09590550910948592 Introduction Sports teams and athletes influence product sales in various retail outlets. Nike, a major producer 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 nearly 10 per cent of global sales coming from a single retail partner. In addition, consumers purchase non-sport products such as high-definition televisions, satellite radios, and barbeque grills to enhance their sport consumption experiences. Hence, whether selling tickets and concessions, authentic jerseys and equipment, or non-sport products associated with a sport team or athlete, sports have a considerable impact on retailing. However, the extant literature is relatively void of investigations into the relationships between retailing and sport. Sports teams (e.g. Dallas Cowboys and Manchester United) have become quasi-brands, driving retail sales of products associated with their names and images. Hence, firms often tie their brands to popular teams. By tying a brand to a successful team, firms are hoping to transfer the team’s positive attributes onto the brand. Many of these teams are chosen based on a perceived consumer connection described as identification, or an overlap between the consumer’s schema and the entities schema (Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000). Identification has a significant positive influence on impulsive sport-related purchases (Kwon and Armstrong, 2002). However, a question remains as to what makes consumers connect (i.e. identify) with one team and not another. Donavan et al. (2005a,b) found that individuals’ personality traits influence their identification with a sports entity, while other research suggests that the attraction to a team may also be influenced by the team’s brand personality (Aaker, 1997). Specifically, Aaker suggested that a brand personality often increases the consumer’s connection with the brand. The purpose of this research is to investigate relationships between sport and retailing that have been identified as important research topics (i.e. sporting teams as brands; the role of sports in consumer buying processes; and brand personality and brand-consumer relationships). We do so by applying social identity theory in a sports context to predict retail spending and the number of games watched. Examining brand personality, as it relates to sport teams as quasi-brands, should provide additional insight into brand-consumer relationships that drive retail spending. We tested our model (Figure 1), applied to team quasi-brands, and found that team cognitive identification has a significant impact on games watched and retail spending. Consumer-brand relationships in sport 371 Brand Personality Wholesome Charming Prestige Spending Successful Cognitive Identification Distinctiveness Games Watched Imaginative Tough Figure 1. Conceptual model IJRDM 37,4 372 Identification Researchers have investigated identification as it relates to consumer-company identification (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003), employee identification (Bergami and Bagozzi, 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 or herself as a member of a social entity (Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000). The individual perceives “oneness with or belongingness with an entity” upon realising the similarities and dissimilarities between members of the social in-group and various out-groups (Mael and Ashforth, 1992). This distinction allows the individual to create a social identity (Tajfel, 1978). An identity is a schema, or what is distinctive and central about the individual (Dutton et al., 1994). When an individual identifies strongly with an entity, there is an overlap between their self-schema and the entity’s schema. It is important to recognise that identification is a cognitive measure of the overlap between the individual and an entity, rather than being emotional, behavioral or commitment based. Strong identification has been linked to increases in attendance (Bhattacharya et al., 1995) and spending (Lichtenstein et al., 2004). Social identity theory provides the theoretical foundation that explains identification. One’s social identity derives from the social categories to which he or she belongs, such as a demographic grouping, employment affiliation, or team membership (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Tajfel and Turner, 1985). Perceived membership 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 this similarity may be real (i.e. source with actual-self) or aspirational (i.e. source with ideal-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 distinctiveness The identification literature demonstrates that two characteristics predict a person’s identification: prestige and distinctiveness (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Holt, 1995). Prestige is the entity’s exclusivity, respect, and status (Davies et al., 2004). Consumers express their own identity by associating with prestigious brands (Belk, 1988). In a sports context, consumers bask in reflective glory (BIRG) after the prestige of a team victory (Cialdini et al., 1976). Numerous sports teams possess high levels of prestige including the New York Yankees and the Duke Blue Devils Basketball team. This prestige may encourage consumers to spend more on retail purchases of the brand. Distinctiveness relates to how the entity is different from competitors. Consumers create a salient identity by belonging to a group (i.e. in-group) that is unique compared to 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 a comparison to those viewed as different (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Brewer, 1991). Harley Davidson motorcycles are seen as distinctive due to the “outlaw” image associated with the brand. In sports, the Oakland Raiders have also maintained an outlaw image. When consumers gravitate toward an entity that is prestigious and/or distinctive they are transferring these positive traits back on themselves. However, a question remains as to how an entity (e.g. a sports team) gains a level of prestige and/or distinctiveness. To consider this question, we adopt the perspective of sport teams as quasi-brands that have unique personalities. Brand personality A brand allows the consumer to express his or her own self (Belk, 1988), through associating oneself with the brand personality (Aaker, 1997). Consumers often acquire relationships with brands similar to forming a relationship with other people and the personality traits of each partner affect the relationship (Aaker et al., 2004; Fournier, 1998). Research proposes that consumers consider brands as having various personalities, such as Absolute Vodka being hip and cool (Aaker, 1997). Numerous sports teams are notorious for their brand personality. The NFL’s Oakland Raiders personify a tough, outlaw personality. Another example is the once titled “America’s Team,” the Dallas Cowboys that carried a wholesome, All-American personality 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 personality with 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 is defined as daring, spirited, imaginative, and up-to-date as demonstrated by Target with its high-energy advertising campaign. Competence is defined as reliable, intelligent, and successful. The Wall Street Journal is a brand that rates high on competence. Sophistication is seen as upper class and charming. BMW and Lexus are two luxury car brands that rate high on sophistication. Finally, ruggedness is outdoorsy and tough. Brands such as hummer and jeep rate high on ruggedness. The Aaker (1997) brand personality dimensions, comprised of multiple facets, were originally developed to apply to traditional, tangible brands. However, a sports team is an intangible, quasi-brand to which the multi-faceted dimensions of brand personality may not directly apply. Consequently, we investigate the facets of each dimension that are most applicable in a sports context: wholesome, imaginative, successful, charming, and tough. Theoretical development Individuals may have psychological reasons for being attracted to various brand personalities. For instance, Aaker (1997) suggests that both sophistication and ruggedness 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 defining personality characteristics. For example, many NBA fans are drawn to the San Antonio Spurs 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 prestige and 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, with increased success, the status of a team should be elevated and its distinction from other teams should be amplified. Similarly, we anticipate that enhancing the perceptions that Consumer-brand relationships in sport 373 IJRDM 37,4 374 a team is wholesome, imaginative, charming, and/or tough should thereby enhance the status and distinction of the team. Thus, the brand personality facets represent specific characteristics of a team that serve to differentiate the brand (i.e. enhance distinctiveness) and elevate the exclusivity, respect, and status of the brand (i.e. prestige). The relationships between brand personality and prestige and distinctiveness have not been explored conceptually or empirically in previous research. Moreover, the facets of brand personality are far more contextually specific than more general group characteristics such as prestige and distinctiveness. In other words, while prestige and distinctiveness should exert a positive influence on an individual’s identification with any number of entities (e.g. an organisation, brand, or social group), the specific facets of brand personality that influence prestige and distinctiveness will likely vary across contexts. For example, while being imaginative and charming may enhance the prestige of a small fashion boutique, the same facets may have less influence on the prestige of a neighborhood drugstore. Therefore, even though we anticipate the brand personality facets to have a positive influence on prestige and distinctiveness, our investigation of these relationships is largely exploratory in nature. This leads to the 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 positive effect on prestige. H2. Brand personality has a positive effect on distinctiveness. Specifically, (a) wholesome; (b) imaginative; (c) successful; (d) charming; and (e) tough will have a positive effect on distinctiveness. From a social identity theory perspective (Tajfel and Turner, 1985), individuals may associate brand characteristics with positive aspirational goals. Fans often transfer the success of sports teams on to themselves (Cialdini et al., 1976). By associating with a team, individuals demonstrate membership in a particular social category, thus reinforcing a desired social identity. Consumers may be particularly attracted to teams that are viewed as being prestigious and distinctive. As discussed, both prestige and distinctiveness lead to higher levels of identification (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Holt, 1995). Consumers want to elevate their own self-esteem, so they select groups that possess desirable characteristics such as being viewed as prestigious and distinctive. With regards to a prestigious team, a consumer may identify with the team to transfer such prestige to his or her self-image. Additionally, social identity theory suggests that individuals tend to gravitate toward groups that are clearly differentiated from others. Thus, consumers should perceive a stronger identification with more distinctive teams than 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 geared toward enhancing the self-concept through the consumption of products that provide symbolic meanings (Grubb and Grathwol, 1967). Once individuals identify with a team, the desire to associate with them takes on behavioral consequences. Consumers often buy items to give to others that are associated with the entity (i.e. symbol passing) as well as buy items for themselves (i.e. symbol collecting) to demonstrate their relationship with the team (Donavan et al., 2006). Moreover, perceived membership in a group (e.g. I am a Chicago Cubs fan) motivates individuals to exhibit behaviors and intentions that are consistent with group norms (McAlexander et al., 2002), such as regularly watching the team compete. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses: H5. Team cognitive identification has a positive effect on the number of games watched. H6. Team cognitive identification has a positive effect on team-related retail spending. Methodology One-hundred and sixty-two university students (83 females and 79 males) participated in this study. Students were selected from sports marketing classes due to their interest in the topic and the focal basketball team. The team has a premier facility and a long history of success with over a decade of sell-out crowds and being ranked among the top 25 in the country. On average, respondents reported that they had been watching the team for at least seven years, and had considered themselves to be fans of the team for at least six years. A student sample was chosen for this study as they have easy access to sports information on a regular basis. Additionally, student samples have been shown to be acceptable for studies involving theory testing due to the homogeneity of the sample (Calder et al., 1981). The average age was 22 years old. Respondents evaluated the university’s nationally-known basketball team on the various constructs of interest. The authors developed a questionnaire to capture the respondent’s evaluations of brand personality, team prestige and distinctiveness, team identification, retail spending (amount spent on team merchandise in the last year), and the number of games watched during the most recent season. Survey measures Brand personality was measured using single items representing facets from each of the five dimensions of Aaker’s (1997) scale. Items were chosen based on a pre-test evaluating their appropriateness for measuring sport-related team personality characteristics. Fifteen items representing the five dimensions were originally used in the pretest. However, for each dimension only one item was identified by respondents as being highly relevant in describing a basketball team. For example, the brand personality dimension of “ruggedness” originally included assessments of both tough and outdoorsy. However, “tough” was found to be an appropriate descriptor of a basketball team while “outdoorsy” was less appropriate. The final items selected for inclusion 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 by previous researchers for their simplicity, ease of use, and increased face validity and flexibility (Kwon and Trail, 2005; Poon et al., 2002; Nagy, 2002; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). For instance, single-items may be appropriate when “the domain of Consumer-brand relationships in sport 375 IJRDM 37,4 376 related variables is so small that any one of the few observable variables in the domain will suffice to measure the construct” (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994, pp. 85-6). Additionally, the use of single-item indicators for affective, cognitive, and conative responses has been commonly accepted when investigating both sport and non-sport contexts (Fink et al., 2002; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2007; Madrigal, 1995). Team prestige was measured on a three-item, seven-point Likert scale (Mael and Ashforth, 1992). The items were framed as statements about the team’s public reputation and status. To measure team distinctiveness, we used three items adapted from Donavan et al. (2005a,b). These items were also seven-point Likert scales. Team cognitive identification (team CID) was measured using the Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) two-item measure of cognitive identification. While a number of team identification scales are available (Wann and Branscombe, 1993; Trail and James, 2001), these scales incorporate more than simply an awareness of one’s cognitive identification with an entity. For instance, the Wann and Branscombe (1993) scale includes the item “during the season, how closely do you follow the KU basketball team via any of the following: (a) in person or on television, (b) on the radio, or (c) television news or a newspaper'” Clearly, this behavior-based item captures an outcome of identification rather than the cognitive element of identification. The Trail and James scale 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 rather than the cognitive element. Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) argue that the cognitive, emotional (i.e. affective commitment), and behavioral components of identification should 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 and team-related retail spending (Appendix for items). Results The analysis was conducted using AMOS 7.0 (Arbuckle, 1997). We began with the two step approach suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the ten scales: tough, wholesome, charming, imaginative, successful, prestige, distinctiveness, team ID, games watched, and retail spending. The error terms and paths on each of the single item latent constructs were fixed as recommended by Joreskog and Sorbom (1993). When using single item indicators the authors suggest a reliability of 0.85 which corresponds to a path coefficient 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; and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ¼ 0.02. The measurement model provided evidence of reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. All indicators loaded on the appropriate latent factor which provided 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 the average variance extracted (AVE), indicating adequate discriminant validity between 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 and purchasing team-related merchandise should be related. Therefore, our analysis included correlating the error terms between these two variables. The fit indices for the structural 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). The influence 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 coefficients and t-values). The next set of hypotheses, relating to the influence of brand personality on distinctiveness, 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 that team CID would have a positive impact on games watched and retail spending. Both of these hypotheses were supported: Team CID ! Games Watched (H5); and Team CID ! Retail Spending (H6). To investigate the impact of team CID, we reviewed the amount of variance explained in the model (Figure 2). The model demonstrates that 47 per cent of the variance (i.e. R 2) in team CID is explained, 24 per cent of the variance is Variable 1. Tougha 2. Wholesomea 3. Charminga 4. Imaginative a 5. Successfula 6. Prestige 7. Distinctiveness 8. Team CID 9. Games watcheda 10. Retail spendinga Mean (M) SD CR AVE 1 1.00 0.75 0.69 0.76 0.49 0.62 0.71 0.53 0.26 0.20 4.91 1.63 – – 2 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.45 0.74 0.65 0.52 0.25 0.20 4.67 1.34 – – 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Consumer-brand relationships in sport 377 1.00 0.79 0.44 0.49 0.65 0.46 0.23 0.18 4.01 1.71 – – 1.00 0.55 0.65 0.74 0.55 0.27 0.21 4.56 1.41 – – 1.00 0.73 0.31 0.33 0.16 0.13 5.65 1.23 – – 1.00 0.49 0.49 0.24 0.19 5.48 1.06 0.72 0.57 1.00 0.66 0.32 0.25 4.22 1.46 0.91 0.77 1.00 0.49 0.39 2.67 1.42 0.83 0.72 1.00 0.55 3.68 1.75 – – 1.00 1.98 1.89 – – Notes: aVariable was measured with a single item. Therefore, composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) were not estimated Table I. Descriptive statistics and correlations IJRDM 37,4 Structural model statistics Model 378 Table II. Results of structural equations analyses Path Wholesome ! Prestige Imaginative ! Prestige Successful ! Prestige Charming ! Prestige Tough ! Prestige Wholesome ! Distinctiveness Imaginative ! Distinctiveness Successful ! Distinctiveness Charming ! Distinctiveness Tough ! Distinctiveness Prestige ! Team CID Distinctiveness ! Team CID Team CID ! Games Watched Team CID ! Retail Spending H1a H1b H1c H1d H1e H2a H2b H2c H2d H2e H3 H4 H5 H6 x2 df CFI TLI RMSEA Path estimate 0.59 0.21 0.48 2 0.28 2 0.02 0.15 0.48 2 0.18 0.04 0.25 0.22 0.55 0.49 0.39 79.6 59 0.98 0.97 0.05 t-value 3.75 * 1.11 4.74 * 2 1.78 2 0.14 1.91 2.94 * * 2 2.19 * * * 0.27 2.21 * * * 2.37 * * * 6.01 * 5.50 * 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 Brand Personality Wholesome Charming Prestige Successful (−) Distinctiveness Imaginative Games Watched Cognitive Identification Spending Figure 2. A model of team identification Tough χ2 = 79.6 df = 59 n = 62 CFI = 0.98 TLI = 0.97 RMSEA = 0.05 explained in games watched, and 15 per cent of the variance in retail spending is explained. 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 model we added paths from each brand personality facet, prestige, and distinctiveness to 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. The non-significant chi-squared difference test (Dx 2 ¼ 2.8, Ddf ¼ 15) reveals that there is not a meaningful statistical difference between the theoretical model and the alternative model. However, the theoretical model is more parsimonious and theoretically driven, which makes it the preferred model. Thus, the effects of the personality traits, prestige and distinctiveness are mediated through cognitive identification in the model. Discussion We investigated the influence of brand personality on team-related outcomes via team identification. The findings suggest that consumers may see sports team quasi-brands as having unique personalities that may influence their level of cognitive identification with the team. Additionally, team CID has a significant, positive influence on the number of games that fans watched and the amount of money spent on team-related retail purchases. Our findings reveal that team prestige and distinctiveness are positively influenced by both shared and unique facets of brand personality. Specifically, wholesomeness and success contribute to team prestige. Thus, it appears that fans attribute proven success and a wholesome image with a prestigious team. The brand personality traits of imaginativeness and toughness may add to the team aura by differentiating the team from others. A team that is perceived to be imaginative may provide more entertainment value to fans than other teams by calling plays and adopting strategies that are more creative and unique than other teams. Thus, the team’s imaginativeness contributes to its distinctiveness. Additionally, toughness had a direct influence on distinctiveness. Hence, comments from commentators and fans about a team often refer to the “toughness” of a team as a distinguishing characteristic. Surprisingly, success had a negative influence on perceptions of team distinctiveness. One possible explanation for this finding may be that sport fans, particularly those of successful teams, may be more familiar with successful teams because those teams receive more media coverage. As a result, it may be a fairly common perception among fans of a successful team that many, and possibly most, teams are successful. Therefore, less successful teams are perceived to be more unique than highly successful teams. Further investigation of this relationship in future research would be valuable. An additional unexpected result was the non-significant influence of charm on both prestige and distinctiveness. While many individuals become captivated by men and women who are charming, it appears that such a quality may be less relevant in some sports contexts. Managerial implications It appears that having a team image that fans want to identify with may result in fans devoting more time and retail spending on the team and its related products. Teams should work to enhance the distinctiveness and prestige of the team. Given the results of our study, it may be beneficial to focus certain marketing efforts on communicating the 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-brand relationships in sport 379 IJRDM 37,4 380 promoting the team’s involvement with local charities and organisations and the success of the team and its players both on and off the court may prove effective. Our results suggest that team distinctiveness may be enhanced through communicating an imaginative and tough image. For example, advertisements promoting the team that include images of the team and its players performing exciting and unexpected plays while also highlighting the physical intensity of the team may be beneficial. Effectively communicating the prestige and distinctiveness of the team may result in fans developing a stronger sense of identification with the team, thereby increasing retail spending and game attendance. The stronger path coefficient from distinctiveness to identification versus prestige to identification may indicate that distinctiveness could be more influential, in certain situations, in terms of strengthening fans’ levels of identifying with the team. Perhaps, fans are more intrigued with the entertainment value, mystique, and amount of fun they 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 drive media and merchandise consumptions, they may benefit from promotional activities that highlight their distinction from other teams and sporting events. For example, promotional messages should focus attention on an arena with a rich history, unique fan rituals and traditions at home games, or exclusive in-game promotional giveaways. Limitations and future research The limitations of this study should provide some guidance for future research. Our study investigated a single team within a single sport. It would be interesting to test our model of relationships using multiple teams and multiple sports simultaneously. Additionally, we examined five facets of brand personality, but additional facets may significantly influence prestige and distinctiveness. It may be that different facets of brand personality are more or less appropriate for team quasi-brands depending on the sport. The relationships outlined in our conceptual model, excluding the paths from the brand personality facets to prestige and distinctiveness, are strongly based on empirical work applying social identity theory and should be relatively consistent across various team and sport contexts. However, our investigation into the relationships between the brand personality variables and prestige and distinctiveness was largely exploratory. It is likely that significant paths between these variables in our final model may be team and/or sport specific. Future studies employing this conceptual model may find that different facets of brand personality are significant predictors 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 the only conceptual framework. Because this study is based upon a single sports team, the generalizability of our findings to other contexts warrants additional investigation. For instance, can we expect a similar set of relationships to exist when investigating other intangible brands such as insurance, airlines, movies, music, and education' A number of intangible brands have created a unique personality, such as Virgin Airlines with its image of irreverence, rebellion, and fun; James Bond movies with their combination of action and 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 as a framework for developing additional studies that further explore consumer relationships with retail brands in multiple contexts. By understanding the psychology of what makes consumers identify with a brand, firms may be able to enhance the brand experience and increase consumer spending on retail offerings. Consumer-brand relationships in sport 381 Conclusion Sport has a powerful impact on retailing. Our findings suggest that studying the antecedents of cognitive identification with teams may be useful for understanding this relationship. Additionally, the findings underscore and extend the work of Aaker (1997) by demonstrating that intangible quasi-brands, as well as more traditional tangible brands, have a personality. Moreover, brand personality influences the prestige and distinctiveness of the brand, thereby influencing identification, and ultimately team viewership and retail spending. Specifically, success, wholesomeness, imaginativeness, and toughness are brand personality facets important in predicting team cognitive identification. The sports industry is rapidly growing with consumers spending an increasing amount of money on retail purchases that enhance the sport consumption experience. As such, the sports world offers a plethora of opportunities for marketers and retailers as sport fans often spend large sums of money on team merchandise, apparel, and events, as well as non-sport products such as high-definition TVs and home theater systems. We found that the stronger a consumer identifies with a team, the more time and money the consumer will spend to support and thereby demonstrate affiliation with the team. As new factors that influence consumer relationships with sport quasi-brands are identified, managers will be able to develop strong brands that connect with consumers, resulting in long-lasting and profitable consumer-brand relationships 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 Consumer Research, Vol. 31, June, pp. 1-16. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended 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 of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39. Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 139-68. Bergami, M. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2000), “Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 39, pp. 555-77. Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company identification: a framework for understanding consumer’s relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, April, pp. 76-88. IJRDM 37,4 382 Bhattacharya, C.B., Rao, H. and Glynn, M.A. (1995), “Understanding the bond of identification: an investigation 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”, Journal of 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 Social Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 366-75. Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R.V. and Roper, S. (2004), “A corporate character scale to assess employee 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 spectator need 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 and intimacy on identification and spending”, Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Summer Educator’s Conference, San Francisco, CA. Donavan, D.T., Janda, S. and Suh, J. (2006), “Environmental influences in corporate brand identification 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 member identification”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 239-63. Fink, J.S., Trail, G.T. and Anderson, D.F. (2002), “Environmental factors associated with spectator attendance and sport consumption behavior: gender and team differences”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 11, pp. 8-19. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, February, pp. 39-50. Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumer and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research”, 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 motion pictures”, 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 of identity 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 of Consumer Research, Vol. 22, June, pp. 1-16. Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language, Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL. Kwon, H.H. and Armstrong, K.L. (2002), “Factors influencing impulse buying of sport team licensed 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. Lichtenstein, D.R., Drumwright, M.E. and Braig, B.M. (2004), “The effect of corporate social responsibility on consumer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 16-32. McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F. (2002), “Building brand community”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 38-54. Madrigal, R. (1995), “Cognitive and affective determinants of fan satisfaction with sporting event attendance”, 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 the reformulated 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 of Occupational & 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 relative mean and relative variance”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 5, pp. 275-98. Tajfel, H. (1978), “The achievement of group differentiation”, in Tajfel, H. (Ed.), Differentiation Between Social Group: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Academic Press, 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 the scale’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 with their 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-brand relationships in sport 383 IJRDM 37,4 β Brand Personality (7-point bi-polar) Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. XYZ basketball is ………. Wholesome Imaginative Successful Charming Tough 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. 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. Retail Spending Approximately how much did you spend on merchandise related to XYZ basketball this year' Games Watched During this season, approximately how many XYZ basketball games did you watch on TV and/or in person' 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. My Identity A B C D E F G H Team’s Identity Far Apart Close Together but Seperate Very Small Overlap Small Overlap Moderate Overlap Large Overlap Very Large Overlap Complete Overlap 0.78 (SE) 384 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.80 0.70 Item dropped 0.82 0.90 0.92 0.44 0.12 Item dropped 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.92 0.15 0.92 0.15 0.91 0.19 Figure A1. Measures (Item 2) Please indicate to what degree your self-image overlaps with the image of the team. 0.16 Corresponding author Brad D. Carlson can be contacted at: bcarlso8@slu.edu To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints