Mere Exposure Effect in Sponsorship? a Field Investigation Involving a Highly Familiar Brand

Jean-Luc Herrmann, Université Paul Verlaine-Metz, CEREFIGE, France
Mathieu Kacha, Université Paul Verlaine-Metz, CEREFIGE, France
Björn Walliser, Université de Nancy, CEREFIGE, France
Jonathan Dedonder, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Olivier Corneille, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Companies spend billions sponsoring events throughout the world. By doing so, they generally seek to influence consumer decisions through explicit reminders and deliberate inferences drawn about the sponsoring brand. But may sponsorship also result in mere exposure benefits for highly familiar brands? We examined this possibility in a study involving 1084 visitors of a tennis tournament sponsored by a well-known mineral water brand. Exposure to the sponsor increased the probability of choosing the brand among visitors who failed to recall the sponsorship of the brand. Of importance, however, this effect was only found among non-consumers of the brand who made a free (rather than comparative) choice. Hence, the present study reveals (1) that mere exposure effects for a highly familiar sponsor are possible, and (2) that these effects are constrained.
[ to cite ]:
Jean-Luc Herrmann, Mathieu Kacha, Björn Walliser, Jonathan Dedonder, and Olivier Corneille (2011) ,"Mere Exposure Effect in Sponsorship? a Field Investigation Involving a Highly Familiar Brand", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 39, eds. Rohini Ahluwalia, Tanya L. Chartrand, and Rebecca K. Ratner, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 720-722.