Arts Sponsorship Versus Sports Sponsorship: Which Is Better for Marketing Strategy?

ABSTRACT

This paper identifies the distinctive features of nonprofit arts sponsorship relative to profit driven sports sponsorship and shows that although arts sponsorship has been little researched, it is a potentially important means of marketing. The methodology employed was a literature review on sponsorship that attempted to distinguish arts sponsorship from sports sponsorship. Then, we present the findings from 23 in-depth interviews with arts sponsee managers, to reveal how they see themselves (as sponsees) being differentiated from sports sponsees. The literature and interview findings are brought together in a discussion that highlights the differences between arts sponsorship and sports sponsorship in terms of target audience, the relationship cost/benefit, range of emotions elicited, awareness, marketing metrics, goodwill, and learning potential. Finally, suggestions are made for future research.

KEYWORDS:

• Arts sponsees
• arts sponsorship
• marketing
• sponsorship
• sports sponsorship

Introduction

Many years ago the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sponsored abstract expressionistic art exhibits in order to promote the social benefits of American society as compared to society in the Soviet Union (Sooke, 2016). Since then, sponsoring the arts has evolved from use as “benevolent propaganda” into a tool to create brand specific benefits. In general sponsorship is now the fastest-growing marketing communication tool both in terms of volume (Andrews, 2016) and complexity (Meenaghan, McLoughlin, & McCormack, 2013), but few companies focus specifically on the sponsorship of nonprofit organizations such as those in the arts sectors (Kushner & Poole, 1996).

Before considering arts sponsorship, however, one must understand what art is. Aristotle seems to have been the first to define art, suggesting that it is simply that which is made or made serviceable. He distinguished between the arts used to produce a product and those that use the product (Barnes, 2014). A definition of art offered in Minima Moralia (Adorno & Jephcott, 2005) states: “Magic delivered from the lie of being truth.” This was the first work to link art to sociological concepts. A work of art’s functional characteristics or the institution for/by which it is produced can result in it being classified in different ways (Davies, 1990). However, the Arts Council of Great Britain promotes the view that art should be created for its own sake (Jowell, 2004). A modern definition of the arts sector is offered by Colbert (2014), who distinguishes between industries that produce multiple copies of a work of art and those that focus on the production of a prototype that is not intended to be reproduced. Thus, art could be the single production of any prototype in music, architecture, visual, or performing art.

While there are many definitions of the term “art,” the sponsorship literature does not offer a specific definition of “arts sponsorship.” In fact, the papers that focus on arts sponsorship refer to it only as a practice that is becoming increasingly popular due to the “1000 businesses sponsoring arts interest” (Jefkins & Yadin, 2000). In one of the few papers that focuses on arts sponsorship, Quester and Thompson (2001) only mention that arts audiences are different from sports audiences. As a consequence of this lack of a definition, there is a lack of agreement about which institutions pertain to the arts. Olkkonen and Tuominen’s (2008) work on cultural sponsorship focuses on museums, but does not offer a specific definition of what cultural sponsorship is. Gardner and Shuman (1987) consider arts sponsorship a subgroup of cultural sponsorship that includes orchestras, museums, dance companies, and theatre groups. This view is supported by the International Entertainment Group, which makes a distinction between the arts and festivals (Andrews, 2016) and by Cornwell and Maignan (1998) who likewise make a distinction between the arts and cultural events.

The arts are not usually seen as profit-driven, and as such, sponsorship of the arts is positioned as being more philanthropic than commercial. Lee and Kotler (2011) suggest that sponsorship of the arts is aligned with the “process of using marketing principles and techniques to promote target-audience behaviour that will benefit society as well as individuals” (Lee & Kotler, 2011). When sponsoring an art institution, a sponsor should consider the audience’s socioeconomic status (Quester & Thompson, 2001) and demographic attributes that influence the attitude toward sponsorship (Mowen, Kyle, & Jackowski, 2007). By connecting, informing and spreading concepts and tools to individuals, there is a broader societal gain when an arts institution is sponsored (Lee & Kotler, 2011). Sponsorship of the arts is therefore significantly different from sports sponsorship (Quester & Thompson, 2001), which tends to be more commercially-oriented.

Despite the arts not being commercially-oriented, they have experienced growth in sponsorships (Thwaites, 1995) as sponsorship has developed from a merely commercial activity into a holistic tool used to address a wider range of stakeholder groups (Meenaghan et al., 2013). In fact, US$60.2 billion was spent on sponsorships in 2016 (Andrews, 2016), and, at US$970 million, the arts represent 4% of the total amount of sponsorship moneys expended in North America. This percentage reflects a global trend, with arts recipients being increasingly recognized and valued as sponsees (i.e., the recipients of sponsorship support) (Andrews, 2016). This magnitude of sponsorship investment has led to increased interest in the study of this topic over the last 15 years, which has resulted in more research being conducted on the factors that lead to successful sponsorships (Nickell, Cornwell, & Johnston, 2011).

Despite the proliferation of sponsorship research, it is predominantly conducted for (and often by) the sponsoring institution. Research from the perspective of the sponsored institution (the sponsee) is limited, and there is nothing at all relating to arts sponsees. To fill this gap, this research poses the following research question (RQ):

RQ:

What is the difference between arts sponsorship and sports sponsorship?

In addressing this question this research considers 186 articles drawn from 106 journals that were identified as having an impact factor of 0.5 or above (Reuters, 2015). Then, to build on this literature foundation, 23 in-depth interviews were conducted with arts sponsee managers. Finally, to vividly illustrate sports versus arts sponsorship, a specific case comparing football stadiums and museums attendance in the UK and Spain is discussed. The findings are of considerable importance not just to those organizations that are considering sponsoring the arts, but also to arts sponsees themselves. The potential impact of arts sponsorship is still not fully understood by arts professionals. Arts professionals need to understand their target audience (whose attendance in some cases could well be superior to sport) and other dimensions of their being a sponsee. We argue that research on arts sponsorship in relation to cost/benefits, goodwill, awareness, emotions elicitation, educational benefits, and other metrics is needed in order to make transparent the potential of arts sponsorship not just to those organizations contemplating sponsoring the arts, but also, to arts sponsees themselves. By revealing the potential of arts sponsorship vis-à-vis sports sponsorship, sports sponsors, and sponsees also stand to benefit from such research.

Methodology

Our overriding research objective is to compare and contrast arts sponsorship and sports sponsorship. The method was comprised of two major approaches:

• (1) To provide a platform, the authors conducted an exhaustive review of published literature that focuses on the empirical or conceptual investigation of sponsorship as an instrument for marketing communication. The authors filtered 186 papers by selecting the 2015 Journal Citation Report (JCR) from the edition SCIE and SSCI, under the “Business” category and the Web of Science (WoS) category scheme (Reuters, 2015) (see Appendix). The screening process considered the titles of the papers and their abstracts, keywords, frameworks, headings, and subheadings, which ensured no duplication (Kumar, 2016). The papers were identified as having the word “spons” in either their titles or abstracts (as “spons” covers both “sponsorship” and “sponsored”).

A content analysis is rendered systematic and replicable by compressing many words of text into a few content categories based on explicit rules of coding (Weber, 1990), using a number of variables already published in past literature in order to estimate demand (Jensen, Cobbs, & Turner, 2016). The content of these 186 papers was analyzed using ATLAS.ti 1.5.1® software in order to calculate a word count of the most frequently used terms.

• (2) Building on the literature foundation, in-depth interviews with 23 arts sponsorship managers (from the sponsee side) globally dispersed and with demonstrated experience in sponsorship were collected, analyzed, and their significance explained. These interviews were part of a larger study into how sponsees manage sponsorship arrangements. The central objective of the interviews was to obtain an in-depth understanding of how arts sponsees see themselves vis-à-vis sports sponsees. The maximum variation sampling methodology was applied to allow different perspectives and in-depth understanding of contextual variances variation (Creswell, 2013), like global dispersion, which enriches the insights. The interviewees (who were all responsible for managing sponsorship arrangements in their organisation) represented a range of arts institutions: orchestras, museums, dance companies, and theatre groups (Gardner & Shuman, 1987) (see Table 1).

Table 1. Interviewees.

	Interviewee’s position	Arts sponsee	Years	Country	Interview type	Language
1	Adjoined General Director	Theatre	4	Spain	Personal	Spanish
2	General Manager	Museum	3	Peru	Personal	English
3	Director Partnership Development	Dance	8,5	Singapore	Telephone	English
4	Executive Director, Institutional Relations	Museum	8	USA	Skype video	English
5	Sponsorship Director	Museum	8	Canada	Telephone	English
6	International Development	Museum	6	France	Telephone	English
7	Adjoined Director	Dance	10	Spain	Personal	English
8	Development Manager	Museum	6	UAE	Telephone	English
9	Director	Museum	4	Spain	Personal	English
10	Director	Museum	15	Panama	Personal	Spanish
11	Director	Museum	0,5	Guatemala	Personal	Spanish
12	Marketing Manager	Orchestra	4	Brasil	Personal	Spanish
13	Director of the Culture Department	Museum	12	Easter Island	Personal	Spanish
14	Institutional Relationships Coordinator	Theatre	4	Chile	Personal	Spanish
15	Head of Corporate Relations	Orchestra	17	Australia	Telephone	English
16	Marketing and Sponsorship Manager	Museum	11	Spain	Personal	English
17	Sponsorship & Partnership	Dance	7	Netherlands	Telephone	English
18	Senior Manager, Corporate Partnerships	Dance	20	Canada	Telephone	English
19	Director of External Relations	Dance	20	Australia	Telephone	English
20	Corporate Partnerships & Development Special Events	Museum	10	Canada	Telephone	English
21	Fund Raising, Sponsorship, & Events	Orchestra	8	Italy	Telephone	English
22	Sponsorship Director	Theatre	15	Spain	Personal	Spanish
23	Institutional Relationships Director	Museum	10	Chile	Personal	Spanish

The interviews were conducted personally, by phone or via Skype video in either English or Spanish (both languages in which at least one of the researchers is fluent).

The first contact was an explanatory e-mail, which aimed at establishing interviewees’ availability for the study. The interview procedure was organized in a standard manner, starting with an informed consent letter signed by each interviewee (Creswell, 2013). The consent letter guaranteed the confidentiality of the interviewee, unless confidentiality was specifically waived, and specified that all recorded data would be destroyed once transcribed to prevent the possibility of voice tracking (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The letter also stated that participation in the study was voluntary and interviewees were free to withdraw at any time.

Credibility is an important consideration in qualitative research. The credibility of qualitative research is defined as “the weight of evidence” (Eisner, 1991; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). We used several strategies to foster credibility. First, going beyond the minimum number of 20 interviews proposed by Creswell (2013) prolonged the observation period with interviewees and reduced the risk of lack of credibility. Second, extracting data from these relevant professionals ensured the credibility of the data by directly linking with our central research question (Silverman, 2013). Third, credibility may be threatened when interviewees respond based on social desirability instead of personal experience (Krefting, 1991). Since sponsorship is not an intimate subject, however, we assumed that interviewees were not particularly threatened by the interviews. Fourth, to further ensure credibility, and to avoid any misinterpretation of the findings, the last seven interviewees (after being interviewed) were asked to comment on the provisional research outcomes. This process reinforced an “accurate translation of the interviewee’s viewpoint into data” (Krefting, 1991). Fifth, interviews were conducted to the point of saturation, that is, to the point where additional interviews yielded no new insights. Finally, one of the authors has considerable interest in and experience with the arts, but this experience and interest, and the bias that it might bring, was bracketed during the data analysis process.

The approach to analyzing the data consisted of a careful analysis of the rich data, studying the transcripts sentence by sentence in order to obtain a sense of the whole database (Moustakas, 1994). Significant statements were extracted and then clustered into exhaustive themes.

Insights from the literature review

Arts sponsorship versus sports sponsorship

Sports sponsorship (the most popular form of sponsorship) is defined as “a potent alliance between those who market sport with those who market through sport” (Farrelly & Quester, 2005). In 2010, sports accounted for 68% of the sponsorship sector’s global spending, representing a decrease from the 80% share that sports accounted for in 1995 (Thwaites, 1995). This suggests that other sponsorship categories, such as arts sponsorship, are becoming more popular, although based on the literature arts sponsorship remains significantly less popular. It can be seen in the sponsorship literature that relatively little research features the word “sponsored/sponsee” as these words appear a total of 3,479 times, while “sponsor” occurs 16,596 times (see the Appendix). This implies that the research focus up until now has been on the sponsor’s side of the sponsorship relationship rather than the sponsee’s side. Furthermore, the term “arts” is mentioned only 496 times, whereas “sports” appears 6,373 times. So within the sponsee literature, arts is very much secondary.

Many companies that sponsor mainly sports are starting to question whether this is the best approach for future development (Thwaites, 1995). Sports sponsorship can be risky as the main focus of sponsorship activities because while association with a celebrity star or a winning team may enhance consumer purchase intention, the opposite may also be true. As a sponsored team experiences losses, this may decrease consumers’ intention to purchase, and the sponsor cannot simply discontinue the contract to limit damages for fear of being labeled opportunistic (Ngan, Prendergast, & Tsang, 2011). Furthermore, player misconduct and rising ticket costs are alienating sports fans and even forcing sports teams themselves to engage in the arts to reconnect with their local communities (Madrigal, 2001). For this reason, when discussing image transfer to a sponsor, an arts sponsee could be considered safer than a sport sponsee, and not just in the case of losing teams but also because art is generally less subject to scandal, particularly they kind of scandal that seems to be a recurring happening in sports (Madrigal, 2001; Westberg, Stavros, & Wilson, 2011; Wilson, Stravos, & Westberg, 2008).

The image objective is definitely a primary consideration for corporate sponsors, but, in a sponsorship program, there is usually a distinction between art, which is normally seen in a philanthropic public relationships framework, and sports, which is considered primarily as a marketing tool (Witcher et al., 1991).

A reason that may account for the low number of investments in arts sponsorship is concern by sponsors about a lack of emotion generated at events, and it is thought that emotions are more favorable for sports sponsorship (Cornwell, 2008). This emotion results in enhanced memory recall, which is often the main means by which the effect of sponsorship is measured (Tripodi, Hirons, Bednall, & Sutherland, 2003). Arts sponsorship does not engender either the mass audience emotion of sport (Cornwell & Humphreys, 2013) or the returned goodwill of social causes and environmental sponsorship programs (Meenaghan, 2001). However, there is no general agreement about sport’s predominance in provoking emotion, as investigated by Olson (2010), who denies that there is any difference in the impact of arts and sports sponsorships on audiences. Cornwell and Humphreys (2013) questioned the relationship between emotions and memory recall due to the lack of clarity about how emotion supports memory. Despite the lack of consensus, there is a general belief that arts sponsorship has a limited impact on mass audiences when compared to sports sponsorship (Walraven, Bijmolt, & Koning, 2014).

However, awareness is only one of the sponsorship outcomes, and sponsoring the arts may offer other advantages. For instance, it may be less risky because the threat of a team losing a match resulting in subsequent reduced purchase intention does not loom (Ngan et al., 2011). Moreover, while sports accounts for most sponsorship contracts, it also accounts for 87% of discontinued sponsorship contracts (Copeland & Frisby, 1996). Meenaghan (1983) notes that there is a long list of sports sponsorship failures. However, there are geographical differences, because in the United States sports events are managed mainly by profit-driven professionals and in Europe events still seem to be run by nonprofessionals underwritten by state funding (Mazodier & Reezae, 2013).

As mentioned previously, despite there being considerable research on sponsorship, it is predominantly conducted for (and often by) the sponsoring institution, and, most often relates to sports sponsorship. Research from the perspective of the sponsee institution is limited, and there is nothing at all relating to arts sponsees. This leads into the rationale for the in-depth interviews with arts sponsees.

Insights from the in-depth interviews

In this section we report the interviewees’ view on the core questions: “What are the challenges of arts sponsorship? What value can you add to the sponsor by offering arts sponsorship compared to sport sponsorship?” These answers are clustered into seven exhaustive themes as shown below. Although multiple statements support each theme, here we only present selected representative ones.

Theme 1. Target audience

Target audience is the main goal in sponsorship, where all the branding efforts are concentrated on the consumers. In arts sponsorship the audience seems to be different from sports and is reflected in the views of interviewee n. 8:

“Differences between arts and sports are about the target audience.”

One first different attribute is the number of visitors, which is larger in sports than arts as commented by interviewee n. 16:

“The numbers of visitors are not the same as for sports (with some exception like the Tate or the Moma).”

Another interviewee, n. 1, supported this argument:

“There is no magic, is the size of the audience of sport.”

Sports sponsorship seems to be characterized by larger audiences, but top management and decision makers in general seem to belong to the arts audience, as another interviewee, n. 13, said:

“They are leaders of big companies and they use their position to make a contribution.”

Arts suffers for having less visitors, but offers more precise market targeting than in sports, as interviewee n. 14 said:

“Compared to a football club this is very different because the public is much more dispersed. I think it is about a specific target here, if a brand wants to reach a specific target, for the arts it is much easier to do the positioning.”

Mass audience could also be a disadvantage for sports and an advantage for arts according to interviewee n. 22:

“During an arts event you can create a relationship that is more personal, the experience that you offer is unique. It is not like football where you are surrounded by hundreds of thousand of people.”

Technology can play a pivotal role in increasing the audience for the arts, as interviewee n. 1 said:

“Our target audience is very elitist, but when we use the social media…the “Flying Dutch” (an opera play), was watched by 608,000 people. These are incredible data.”

Theme 2. Arts sponsorship cost/benefit

The elevated costs of sports sponsorship are not affordable for every company, therefore the cost/benefit ratio of an arts sponsee could be attractive for certain sponsors, again from interviewee n. 5:

“Arts sponsorship is much more cost effective than other types of sponsorship, because the fee is lower.”

Sport collects most of the sponsorship investments because of its obvious tangible benefits for the sponsor, as said by interviewee, n. 5:

“Sport sponsors pay much more money, but they get a lot more tangible marketing benefits.”

And interviewee n. 17

“It is quite cheap actually [laughing] compared (to sport), I mean, you can develop marketing campaigns by sponsoring cultural institutions that can be completely different and gain the same effect.”

And n. 9 when asked about arts being cheaper than sports sponsorship, was at first doubtful, but then commented about the unbridgeable gap between the two:

“It is difficult to measure. I cannot enter into that, I cannot compete with sport.”

Theme 3. Goodwill

Goodwill is another distinguishing feature between arts and sports, the latter characterized by there being losers and winners and the arts instead fostering goodwill. Interviewee n. 12 refers to this not so positive perception of sports, if compared to the arts:

“The arts really have the power to transform to do good, instead football creates more rivalries, it enhances the hate between the people.”

And interviewee n. 9

“We really believe that art can change society and can improve each person.”

It is not just about arts sponsorship positively impacting individual lives, but also about transferring image to the sponsor, as interviewee n. 3 said:

“A programme that has helped transform the life of a person will also be shown as the sponsor having impacted individuals.”

Theme 4. Arts sponsorship awareness

But art also faces a problem of awareness from potential sponsoring companies, apparently characterized by their low level of arts knowledge and consequently a low interest in arts sponsorship. In fact interviewee n. 9 said:

“It would not be easy to get a company that has never sponsored the arts.”

Interestingly the interviews also suggests arts sponsees may have low self-awareness about how they are different from sports. In most cases arts sponsees admit their limited knowledge about sports sponsorship, justifying it as a natural consequence of working in another field, n. 6:

“Well, I work in a museum so we only get arts sponsorship and I do not think I can answer about the difference between arts sponsorship and sport sponsorship.”

Or in the words of interviewee n. 7

“Mmm, (thinking)…I do not know…I think we are more subtle than football, more sophisticated and if they do not understand it, there is nothing to do.”

Only as an exception, interviewee n. 19 was aware of the arts sponsee marketing potential:

“I found that what you can offer in sponsorship is much more valuable in the arts, but…some marketing professionals do not understand how they can…make arts sponsorship work for their brand.”

Although arts enjoy a great reputation, artists may suffer from a “being poor” reputation, as interviewee n. 10 said:

“Artists do not have a decent economic status, so it does not help to motivate people into art, because they think there is no future. Instead for sportsmen the future is brighter, as much as a mathematician, a physicist.”

Theme 5. Arts sponsorship elicits different emotions

Arts is powerful to elicit emotions, because it is an aesthetical experience as interviewee n. 1 summarized:

“Listening to opera fulfils you, gets you emotional, makes you feel something and this is a characteristic of culture, not sports.”

The wider range of emotions in the arts makes the audience act not just as a spectator of a sports battle where there is a winner and a loser, but part of an art “experience.” Interviewee n. 22 said:

“Arts is more involving, more about personal encounter, what emotions bring you, what it reminds you of and what resonates with you.”

Interviewee n. 5 commented specifically about the difference in the emotions for arts/sports:

“About sports teams, I think it is a different emotional response and there is lots of research that talks about the arts in terms of well-being.”

Or interviewee n. 7

“Think of those people screaming in sports and compare these emotions to the much more subtle ones generated by ballet.”

Theme 6. Metrics of arts sponsorship

Sponsorship outcome measurement still represents a challenge for arts sponsorship as interviewee n. 22 reported:

“Arts sponsorship is more about philanthropy, although we like to call it sponsorship.”

Confirming the lack of marketing mindset in some arts sponsees and their gap with sports which is instead much more advanced in marketing metrics, interviewee n. 19 said:

“Sports sponsees are quite scientific about how they look at their value for money.”

According to interviewee n. 9 the problem in arts is that little can be measured:

“…my metrics will be destroyed, I am always talking about qualitative and intangible things.”

Finally, arts institutions, seem to be very keen on their social media achievements, but are unaware of their competitor social media positioning, from interviewee n. 5:

“I do not know how our social media impressions compare to sports. I know they make much more, I know that a hockey match has a huge reach and we do not have that kind of reach.”

Theme 7. Education

According to our findings the educational dimension is the emerging arts sponsorship feature as per interviewee n. 4:

“…something more in depth that can not be brought out in the sports sector. We are content providers, we are teaching all sorts of things that people can learn.”

Education is about thinking differently, in the words of respondent n. 9:

“… the museum is a machine that makes you think in a different way than sports. You use a part of the brain that you normally do not use.”

Interviewee n. 20:

“As a leisure activity, if you want to look at it that way, you are still getting something much more meaningful through the education, through the learning. You know we often talk about it as a place for lifelong learning.”

Interviewee n. 10:

“We invite them to a workshop where they can give a shape to their creativity and be part of the artwork production.”

Overall it seems that arts sponsees have a lack of awareness about their own attributes and positioning, yet, arts sponsorship’s marketing potential is enormous, as illustrated in the example that follows.

An illustrative example of arts sponsorship versus sports sponsorship: Attendance at art museums versus football stadiums

One reason why sponsorship of the arts sees much less investment than sponsorship in sports is because it is argued that the discrete exposure it offers does not match that offered by mass events (Woisetschläger & Michaelis, 2012). Arts sponsorship, apparently, is not effective at conveying emotions to a mass audience (Cornwell & Humphreys, 2013), especially when compared to sports (Walraven et al., 2014). Examining this argument, we would like to offer some data shedding light on the potential of arts sponsorship for mass impact. The yearly number of visitors to arts museum compared to football stadiums in the UK and Spain serves to demonstrate the potential offered by sponsorship of the arts. For example, the Tate Modern and the British Museum had more than 12 million visitors in 2012 (BBC, 2013). That almost equals the entire attendance of the UK Premier League, which counted 13 million spectators (ESPN, 2012). Data for the Spanish football tournament in 2014 indicated a level of attendance that was slightly above 10 million spectators (ESPN, 2014), whereas the Prado Museum alone had 4 million visitors in 2012 (Museo del Prado, 2014) and there were nearly 60 million visitors to Spanish museums overall in 2012 (MCU, 2012). These data indicate that museums and football stadiums had comparable magnitudes of attendance in countries such as Spain and the UK, both of which host major football leagues (ESPN, 2014).

These data refer to event attendance and do not consider online or television viewership, which amplifies visibility (Close, Finney, Lacey, & Cornwell, 2015). Although they do not have similar online or television reach, the volume of attendance at events suggests that millions of visitors can be activated through arts sponsorship and speaks to the value of investing in audience engagement (Quester & Thompson, 2001). Arts sponsorship initiatives can engage consumers on a face-to-face level with both the sponsored brand and its product offerings (Lacey, Close, & Finney, 2010). Consider also that consumers’ personal taste is a powerful driver of sponsorship initiatives that, according to research, is reinforced by self-congruence (Close, Finney, Lacey, & Sneath, 2006). This congruence occurs when the concept perceived by consumers and their self-image are projected onto a sponsorship initiative (Do, Ko, & Woodside, 2015). When a consumer is enthusiastic and knowledgeable about a sponsorship event and can be active during personally attended events, such as art exhibitions or performances, decision making seems to be especially enhanced (Close et al., 2006). Furthermore, among the sponsored events that seem more suited for engaging with consumers who are more likely to improve their opinions of a sponsor because of its engagement with the community (Close et al., 2006), arts events hold a special place due to the loyalty of their audiences toward the sponsee (Olson, 2010).

The literature, the illustrative example, and the in-depth interviews suggest that although arts sponsorship audiences are relatively limited compared to sports sponsorship audiences, the potential impact of arts sponsorship on marketing is considerable. Indeed, arts sponsorship presents a number of unique opportunities for marketing.

Discussion

Returning to the research question posed by this research:

RQ:

What are the differences between arts sponsorship and sports sponsorship?

The first difference is the target audience. This is instrumental in sponsorship since brand managers strategically position their brand according to the target (Close et al., 2015). Individuals closely associated with a sponsee may more easily consider sponsor motives and therefore identify a basis of congruence between the sponsor and event (Deitz, Myers, & Stafford, 2012). The arts target audience has its own specific socioeconomic status (Quester & Thompson, 2001) that can be addressed for specific brand positioning, also because of the superior level of loyalty (Olson, 2010). Although the central purpose of this research was to identify perceived differences between arts sponsorship and sports sponsorship in general (rather than teasing out country-specific nuances), interviewees from Spain, UAE, Easter Island, and Chile specifically mentioned audience attendance as a challenge for arts versus sport sponsorship, with the latter attracting a larger and more general audience.

Perhaps related to the above point, we have also confirmed that the arts offer exclusive/upstream target groups that are not reachable through sports (Lee & Kotler, 2011) or are alienated by player misconduct (Madrigal, 2001). Arts connect with community leaders and policymakers (Lee & Kotler, 2011), in fact exclusive demographic or socioeconomic groups are attracted to the arts (Quester & Thompson, 2001). Age and apparently race and gender may influence the attitude toward sponsorship (Mowen et al., 2007). Arts sponsorship should take advantage of its privileged target audience for marketing positioning, but also for its privileged link with decision makers, because arts sponsorship decisions may be made individually in companies (Daellenbach, Thirkell, & Zander, 2013) rather than in the marketing department, by the sponsor’s top management (Amis, Slack, & Berrett, 1999).

The interview data shows that the increased costs of sponsorship programs have made them less appealing, and this concurs with the literature (see Mazodier & Reezae, 2013). This represents an opportunity for the arts, since the cost/benefit of arts sponsorship programs may make them more appealing than the more expensive and profit driven sports sponsorship programs (Mazodier & Reezae, 2013). Although arts sponsorship does not engender the mass audience of sports (Cornwell & Humphreys, 2013), arts sponsorship can be used efficiently and to engage with the target audience (Witcher et al., 1991), especially with arts tailor made offering to the customer (Cornwell, 2008)

Art is considered to foster goodwill because of the loyalty of the audience and this is different from the mass-market crowd following sport (Olson, 2010). The level of commitment that exists in certain target markets toward the arts sponsee is a strong reason for a company to invest in arts sponsorship (Madrigal, 2001). Consumer loyalty is a powerful argument to compensate arts organizations’ lack of demographic extension, and is necessary to incentivize sponsors to invest (Kotler & Scheff, 1997). Art is antithetical to sports that needs winners and losers as a reason of being (Ngan et al., 2011), but, there is low awareness among sponsors about how arts could foster a perceived sponsor/sponsee congruence (Ko & Kim, 2014).

The arts are unique in eliciting a wide range of emotions (Cupchick, 1994). In contrast sports elicit a unique but intense emotion: identification (Madrigal, 2001; Walraven et al., 2014). This is useful in massive events and for sponsoring brands that are seeking identification attributes. However, when it is about individual experiences and personal encounters, arts sponsorship is preferable, especially for sponsors who offer “feeling” services and want to increase consumer purchase intention (Prendergast, Poon, & West, 2010).

Unfortunately arts sponsorship metrics seem to be still underdeveloped, perhaps because such sponsorship is seen as being more associated with philanthropy where marketing metrics are not necessary (Brennan, Binney, & Brady, 2012). Again teasing out some regional nuances, our interview data suggested the possibility that Latin/Mediterranean respondents have a more philanthropic approach to sponsorship and consequently to metrics, while Anglo-Saxon respondents have a stronger marketing approach to sponsorship and are clearer in their mind that sports is their competitor in the sponsorship arena. Literature suggests that sport (sponsorship) is much more advanced in linking purchase intention and team identification (Madrigal, 2001), but there is still a perception that the effects of most sponsored events, sports, or otherwise, remain unmeasured (Cornwell & Humphreys, 2013). Therefore some sponsorship professionals have started trusting the efficacy of finance-developed methodologies that may help to answer key questions concerning the overall value of major marketing programs and provide input on the best approach for measuring sponsorship outcomes (Cornwell, Pruitt, & Clark, 2005). Because it is still unknown how emotions support memory, an important sponsorship outcome, Cornwell and Humphreys (2013) question the value of emotions in sponsorship and more research is needed to measure sponsorship outcomes.

Limitations and future research

This research has several limitations. First, it compares sports sponsorship to sponsorship of the arts, but there are other sponsorship sectors that should be considered as well. For example festivals are smaller in size than the sports, but relate differently to arts sponsorship. Furthermore, this research only considered publications in business journals, and within that, journals with an (arguably subjective) impact factor of 0.5 or above. Details about the specific arts sponsee target audience also needs to be investigated because there are indications in this research of a specific upstream target group, age, and gender. In addition, country-specific details could be unravelled in future research, as our interview data hints at the possibility of regional/country nuances in how arts sponsees see themselves vis-à-vis sports sponsees. Finally the voices of the sponsor have not been considered in this research, and are necessary to shed light on their reasons for supporting sports or arts sponsorship as a marketing tool.

Conclusion

The underlying motivation for this research was to reveal how arts sponsees see themselves vis-à-vis sports sponsees, and in doing so provide insights of benefit not only to arts sponsors and arts sponsees, but also to sports sponsors and sports sponsees, to enable them to be better informed about sponsorship’s potential. The literature, in-depth interviews and the illustrative case captured in this study have unravelled findings of importance to the parties involved in sponsorship arrangements. Most of the research on sponsorship is in the context of sports sponsorship, its target consumers, achievable objectives, and marketing strategies. However, the extant literature and in-depth interviews presented here indicate that sports sponsorship does neither function in the same manner as arts sponsorship nor has the same marketing features. Specifically, nonprofit arts sponsorship seems able to mitigate the limitations of conventional profit driven sponsorship in terms of it having market targetability, audience loyalty, and high engagement levels. Furthermore, arts sponsorship’s cost/benefit, ability to elicit a wide range of emotions, and nurturing learning makes it attractive. But arts sponsorship also faces the challenge of finally moving away from philanthropy and developing its own marketing metrics and awareness.

Despite the revelations generated by this research’s literature review and in-depth interviews, it is clear that there is need for further research that facilitates a deeper understanding of the marketing and societal implications of arts sponsorship.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Appendix:Papers on sponsorship published in journals with an impact factor of 0.5 or above (Reuters, 2015)

Table

RANK	JOURNAL TITLE	IMPACT FACTOR	PAPERS ON SPONSORSHIP
1	ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW	7.288
2	ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL	6.233
3	JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT	6.051
4	ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY	5.316
5	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT REVIEWS	4.854
6	JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES	4.26
7	JOURNAL OF BUSINESS VENTURING	4.204
8	FAMILY BUSINESS REVIEW	4.147
9	ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES	3.94
10	JOURNAL OF MARKETING	3.885	1
11	JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE	3.744	7
12	JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES	3.62
13	BUSINESS STRATEGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT	3.479
14	ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY AND PRACTICE	3.414
15	STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL	3.38
16	JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING	3.256
17	JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MARKETING	3.25
18	JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH	3.187	1
19	JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH	3.109	2
20	JOURNAL OF PRODUCT AND BRAND MANAGEMENT	3.017	1
21	JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR	2.986
22	LONG RANGE PLANNING	2.936
23	JOURNAL OF WORLD BUSINESS	2.811
24	SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT––AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL	2.731
25	TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE	2.678
26	MARKETING THEORY	2.673
27	CONSUMPTION MARKETS & CULTURE	2.659
28	CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT	2.647
29	JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH	2.462	1
30	STRATEGIC ORGANIZATION	2.444
31	JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING	2.288	20
32	JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY	2.25
33	HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW	2.249	1
34	INTERNATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS JOURNAL	2.215
35	JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT	2.197
36	BRITISH JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT	2.188
37	CORPORATE GOVERNANCE––AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW	2.169
38	ELECTRONIC COMMERCE RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS	2.139
39	BUSINESS & SOCIETY	2.135
40	JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH	2.129	10
41	MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW	2.114	1
42	JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT	2.086
43	JOURNAL OF RETAILING	2.014
44	JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY	2.009	1
45	INDUSTRIAL MARKETING MANAGEMENT	1.93	3
46	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE	1.853
47	JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS	1.837	1
48	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN MARKETING	1.833	1
49	STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP JOURNAL	1.8
50	SMALL BUSINESS ECONOMICS	1.795
51	BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY	1.735
52	INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS REVIEW	1.669
53	MARKETING SCIENCE	1.647
54	ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT	1.629
55	INTERNATIONAL MARKETING REVIEW	1.588	4
56	MARKETING LETTERS	1.508	3
57	JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT	1.474
58	IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT	1.454
59	EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL	1.437
60	JOURNAL OF MACROMARKETING	1.429
61	ELECTRONIC MARKETS	1.404
62	AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT	1.4
63	BUSINESS ETHICS––A EUROPEAN REVIEW	1.386	1
64	PSYCHOLOGY & MARKETING	1.367	21
65	INDUSTRIAL AND CORPORATE CHANGE	1.327
66	ELECTRONIC COMMERCE RESEARCH	1.275
67	JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE RESEARCH	1.255
68	PUBLIC RELATIONS REVIEW	1.249	2
69	ENGINEERING ECONOMIST	1.207
70	R & D MANAGEMENT	1.19
71	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING	1.169	35
72	JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY & MARKETING	1.15
73	MANAGEMENT DECISION	1.134	1
74	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS	1.128
75	CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW	1.109
76	EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MARKETING	1.088	27
76	JOURNAL OF FAMILY BUSINESS STRATEGY	1.088
78	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSUMER STUDIES	1.086
79	JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS	1.053	1
80	RESEARCH-TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT	1.052
81	JOURNAL OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR	1.022
82	JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING	1.021	3
83	BUSINESS HORIZONS	1.008	4
84	SERVICE BUSINESS	0.985
85	JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING	0.973	9
85	JOURNAL OF PRODUCTIVITY ANALYSIS	0.973
87	INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND E-BUSINESS MANAGEMENT	0.953
88	BRQ––BUSINESS RESEARCH QUARTERLY	0.857
89	ASIAN BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT	0.85	1
90	QME––QUANTITATIVE MARKETING AND ECONOMICS	0.846
91	JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH	0.825	20
92	EMERGING MARKETS FINANCE AND TRADE	0.768
93	SERVICE SCIENCE (MASS)	0.711	1
94	BUSINESS HISTORY	0.709	1
95	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MARKET RESEARCH	0.697	1
96	ASIAN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION	0.684
97	ASIA PACIFIC BUSINESS REVIEW	0.683
98	ENTERPRISE & SOCIETY	0.680
99	INTERNATIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND MANAGEMENT JOURNAL	0.659
100	BUSINESS HISTORY REVIEW	0.634
101	JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT	0.618
102	CLOTHING AND TEXTILE RESEARCH JOURNAL	0.680
103	JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION	0.594
104	AMERICAN BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL	0.576
105	ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS	0.522
106	ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH JOURNAL	0.515

Word count by Atlas.ti 1.5.1® of the 186 papers listed

Table

WORD	COUNT
SPONSORSHIP	21,928
SPONSOR/COMPANY	16,596
BRAND	16,011
EVENT	7202
CONSUMER	5817
SPORTS	6373
ADVERTISING	5347
CONGRUENCE/CONGRUITY/FIT	5100
IMAGE	4717
SPONSORED/PROPERTY/SPONSEE	3479
RELATIONSHIP	2248
RESULTS	2104
ATTITUDE	1990
SPONSORED/PROPERTY/SPONSEE	3479
INTERNATIONAL	1985
MANAGEMENT	1904
OLYMPIC	1861
SOCIAL	1773
EVENTS	1737
ATTITUDES	1631
MARKET	1497
PURCHASE	1370
TIME	1269
CORNWELL	1221
RECALL	1210
IDENTIFICATION	1191
TRANSFER	1014
MEMORY	991
RELATIONSHIPS	893
AFFECT	858
COMMUNITY	776
EVALUATION	687
AMBUSH	668
INTENTIONS	665
MEASUREMENT	555
ARTS	496
ONLINE	492
PROMINENCE	491
MANAGERS	485
PROMINENT	481
CONGRUENT	342
GOODWILL	312
PERSUASION	286