"Brought to you by Brand A and Brand B": investigating multiple sponsors' influence on...

Corporate sponsorship of sports, arts, civic, and cultural events and activities has increased dramatically over the past decade, from $2.5 billion annually in 1990 to an estimated $8.7 billion in 2000 in North America (International Events Group [IEG] 1999). Worldwide annual spending on sponsorship

is now estimated to top $20 billion (IEG 1999). Examples of sponsorships abound, ranging from the myriad corporate sponsors of the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympic Games, to the sponsorship of Seattle's Festival of World Music, Arts and Dance by Tom's of Maine, Inc., to the Republican National Convention hosted by Philadelphia 2000, a nonprofit group supported by sponsors including AT&T, PepsiCo, and General Motors, as well as embattled companies Philip Morris and Microsoft.

Reflecting its importance in marketing practice, extant consumer-focused research has addressed issues such as recall of sponsors and image effects in sponsorship, defined as an exchange between sponsors and an event or activity, whereby the latter receives a fee and the former obtains rights to associate with the event and to advertise that association (Cornwell and Maignan 1998). For example, McDaniel and Kinney (1998) showed recency of exposure to advertising for a sponsored event to be a significant influence on posttest sponsor awareness.

Omitted from research inquiry has been the issue of multiple sponsors and their impact on sponsorship advertising effectiveness, including consumers' attitudes toward the event itself. Yet, this issue is important, both theoretically and practically. Many, if not most, events of all sizes and locales involve more than one advertised sponsor. For example, Visa, Coca-Cola, Samsung, Panasonic, Kodak, and many other companies were official sponsors of the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympic Games. Even sponsorships considered to be more local in nature are typically sponsored by more than one company or brand (e.g., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Companies, US Airways, Sara Lee, American Express, and Bank of America are sponsors of the North Carolina Black Repertory Theatre Company). The lack of research on two key topics characteristics of multiple sponsors and consumers' evaluations of the jointly sponsored event--is particularly surprising given the theoretical interest in multiple-brand and multiple-product attitudinal effects, such as congruence and complementarity, in other areas of marketing research (e.g., product bundling: Mulhern and Leone 1991, Simonin and Ruth 1995, Yadav 1993; brand assortments in retail settings: Buchanan, Simmons, and Bickart 1999, Jacoby and Mazursky 1984; brand alliances: Park, Jun, and Shocker 1996, Simonin and Ruth 1998; joint sales promotions: Varadarajan 1986; cooperative advertising: Young and Greyser 1983).

Furthermore, in some cases, the roster of advertised event sponsors includes brands that are controversial. Cigarette and alcohol brands--labeled as "socially undesirable" (Cornwell and Maignan 1998) and "controversial" (Pollay, Lee, and Carter-Whitney 1992; Schuster and Powell 1987)--have had their access to advertising restricted or denied, resulting in the redeployment of their advertising dollars (Beirne 2001). As a result of such contextual shifts, brands have increasingly turned to sponsorship as a means of keeping their brands in the public arena (e.g., Philip Morris is a sponsor of the Alvin Alley American Dance Theater), and a key question emerges: What effect does the presence of a controversial brand in the sponsorship roster have on consumers' evaluations of the event itself?

In addition, many foreign firms have started to reshape the domestic landscape of event sponsorship due to both the increasing pressure to establish a competitive presence globally and the need to rapidly build awareness and a desirable image locally. This "glocalization" trend is best captured by the "think globally, act locally" motto of Akio Morita, Sony's legendary founder and late CEO. This approach coincides with the dual call for being a key player on the global scene (e.g., one unveiled by World Cup soccer or the Olympic games) as well as a good corporate citizen and neighbor in a foreign market. In both cases, attitudes toward the event are possibly prone to effects related to a sponsor's nationality as a domestic versus foreign brand. While there is a rich literature on country-of-origin effects (see Bilkey and Nes 1982; Han 1989), country image effects (Roth and Romeo 1992), and foreign branding effects (Lecletc, Schmitt, and Dube 1994), the understanding and study of nationality effects (or lack thereof) in the context of sponsorship, and a fortiori in the case of multiple sponsors, remains very limited.

In combination, these factors raise key questions about multiple-brand sponsorship and its effects: How do multiple sponsors influence attitudes toward the advertised event? What role does a sponsor whose products are controversial play in influencing attitudes toward the advertised event? As with other multiple-brand marketing activities, does the complementarity of products represented by sponsors influence attitudes toward the sponsored event? Does the impact of a controversial sponsor differ based on the complementarity of products? Similarly, does the impact of a controversial sponsor differ based on its foreign versus domestic nationality?

This paper investigates these questions by introducing literature on sponsorship, followed by a theoretical account of how characteristics associated with multiple sponsors contribute to consumers' evaluations of the event itself. We elect to focus on attitudes toward the event because of the theoretical relationship between attitudes and behavioral intentions. Marketing managers seek to enhance attitudes toward their events to maximize consumer participation in the event itself and to ultimately increase the value of the event property (IEG 1999). We examine how preexisting attitudes associated with each sponsor influence evaluations of the event, including the impact of controversial sponsors such as tobacco and alcohol brands. An experimental study, using a variety of brand combinations paired with a sponsored event (i.e., a parade), is used to test the hypotheses. The results and discussion offer in sight into multiple sponsors' influence on consumer evaluations of sponsored events.

A CONSUMER-FOCUSED VIEW OF SPONSORSHIP

Fombrun (1996) and others (Cornwell, Roy, and Steinard 2001; Meenaghan 1998) state that sponsorship involves brands' investments in activities with the goal of achieving corporate or marketing objectives such as enhancing corporate reputation or enhancing brand equity. Despite its prominence from an economic standpoint and importance as a possible tool for achieving corporate and marketing objectives, Cornwell and Maignan suggest sponsorship research "lack[s] ... underlying theories and conceptual foundations on which to base scholarly inquiry" (1998, p. 16). We utilize the growing literature on brand equity and consumer evaluations of brands, along with past sponsorship research, as the foundation for inquiry.

Brand Equity and Sponsorship

Keller (1993) defines consumer-based brand equity as the differential effect of consumers' brand knowledge on their responses to brand marketing stimuli such as advertising and promotion. Customer-based brand equity involves consumer reactions to an element of the brand's marketing mix in comparison with their reactions to the same marketing mix element attributed to another brand. Consumer brand awareness, the favorability of attitudes toward the brand, and brand-specific associations are key components of brand equity.

Typically, research has considered these associations to be related to the brand's attributes and benefits (e.g., durability or stylishness), referred to as primary associations. Also related to the brand are secondary associations such as inferences or information about distribution channels such as stores (e.g., "no frills"), celebrity spokespersons (e.g., tough-talking John Madden for "Tough Actin' Tinactin"), or events (e.g., the emotionality of the Olympics and Kodak films). The global attitudinal affect related to these secondary associations (e.g., the Olympics) can transfer to the brand (Gwinner and Eaton 1999; Keller 1993).

If secondary associations with events can lead to the transfer of attitudes to the brand, by extension, attitudes associated with sponsors are also expected to transfer to evaluations of the event. When one considers the case of multiple sponsors, the brands and the event are associated via the placement of representations of the entities. For example, in a two-sponsor case, the two sponsor brands and the event are presented in close proximity in time or space (e.g., side-by-side brand signage at an event, such as the announcement "Coverage of Monday Night Football is brought to you by Visa and Microsoft"). The presentation of two brands as sponsors results in the association of the brands with the event.

Prior evidence in a nonsponsorship setting demonstrates that attitudes toward one brand can be transferred to another through marketing efforts. Simonin and Ruth (1998) investigated the impact of brand attitudes on evaluations of brand alliances (e.g., a Ford automobile powered by a Motorola microprocessor). They observed that prior attitudes toward a microprocessor brand (e.g., Motorola) influenced attitudes toward the branded (e.g., Ford) car containing the microprocessor (see also Park, Jun, and Shocker 1996). Likewise, Simonin and Ruth (1995) observed that attitudes toward brands participating in a product bundle influenced consumer willingness to pay for bundled products.

Thus, based on brand equity theories and evidence from prior research on other multiple-brand marketing activities, it is expected that attitudes toward sponsor brands will influence consumer evaluations of the sponsored event. That is, in the two-sponsor case presented in this paper (i.e., Sponsor A and Sponsor B), prior attitudes toward each sponsor are positively related to attitudes toward the event. Hence, the following hypotheses are posited:

   H1a: More (less) favorable prior attitudes toward Sponsor
   Brand A are associated with more (less) favorable attitudes
   toward the event.

   H1b: More (less) favorable prior attitudes toward Sponsor
   Brand B are associated with more (less) favorable attitudes
   toward the event.

Beyond attitudes, the brands may be associated with other key marketing characteristics, such as a particular product category, nationality, and degree of complementarity of products. Each of these characteristics may help account for attitudes toward the sponsored event.

Controversial Products as Sponsors

Tobacco and alcohol products have had a tumultuous history in marketing communications (Andrews and Franke 1991; DiFranza et al. 1991; Kinney and McDaniel 2001; Pierce et al. 1991; Pollay et al. 1996; Schuster and Powell 1987; Triese, Wolburg, and Omes 1999; Wilcox 1991). Meenaghan (1998) suggests that government prohibition on tobacco and alcohol advertising fueled the recent growth of sponsorship spending. Others have argued that sponsorship offers a loophole for brands prohibited from advertising in other venues (Cornwell 1997). Oftentimes, such brands are extremely well known but suffer from negative attitudes in the general public (Fombrun 1996). As postulated by H1a and H1b, attitudes toward these controversial brands will influence attitudes toward the event.

However, even after controlling for attitudes toward these sponsors, a sponsor associated with a controversial product may further influence attitudes toward the event. Stigma theory provides an explanation for why this may occur. Goffman (1963) described stigma as an "identity spoiled" because of an association with an attribute that deviates from expectations and that discredits through negative evaluations and associations. Reactions to people or institutions possessing stigmatizing traits are more negative than for those that do not possess the trait, particularly if the person or institution is judged to be responsible for the trait (Weiner, Perry, and Magnusson 1988). Moreover, research suggests that it is difficult to eliminate the biases associated with a label that is stigmatizing (Banning 1998; Harris et al. 1992; Heatherton 2000). For example, Snyder, Omoto, and Crain (1999) found that the stigma associated with AIDS is so great that AIDS volunteers were "punished for their good deeds" and were evaluated more negatively than those who volunteered for other types of organizations. In a consumer research setting, Tepper (1994) found that some elderly consumers avoided using age-based discounts to avoid the stigma and effects of being labeled a "senior citizen."

Stangor and Crandall (2000) suggest that stigma arises out of an initial, universally held motivation to avoid danger, and subsequently oftentimes leads to a shared sense of threat, consistent with interpretations of why tobacco and alcohol products are subject to advertising restrictions in the United States and other countries. For brands that are strongly associated with a controversial product, the product will readily come to mind when the brand is presented (e.g., Marlboro and cigarettes). In this setting, attitudinal affect associated with that product category will be transferred to the event through an automatic process used in making category-based judgments (Biernar and Dovidio 2000). Thus, we propose that even after controlling for attitudes toward the sponsors (H1a and H1b), the presence of a controversial product category will negatively influence attitudes toward the sponsored event.

   H2: Even after controlling for attitudes toward the sponsor
   brands (H1a and H1b), attitudes toward an event sponsored
   by a brand associated with a controversial (noncontroversial)
   product will be less (more) favorable.

Should such an effect be found, evidence consistent with stigma theory would be observed because affect associated with the brand (and its associated product) is not fully accounted for by brand attitude, and the bias associated with the (stigmatized) product category is present.

Domestic Versus Foreign Sponsors

When assessing attitudes toward an event, are domestic sponsors more desirable than foreign sponsors? That is, is there a home-country bias? Although the literature on sponsorship lacks empirical evidence regarding this issue, some elements of an answer can be drawn from the vast literature on country-of origin (COO) effects. For several decades, researchers have investigated whether the COO of a product influences consumers' attitudes, beliefs, and purchase intentions about that product (e.g., Batra et al. 2000). It has been suggested that COO effects are consistent with theories of stereotyping, where consumers develop country stereotypes from their social and consumption activities (Hong and Wyer 1989; Maheswaran 1994). Such stereotyping effects occur when consumers process product information and use COO as a type of inferential signal (Hong and Wyer 1989). In general, COO information has been shown to have a strong influence on evaluations of products, where relatively favorable (unfavorable) perceptions of a product's COO yield relatively favorable (unfavorable) evaluations of the product (Roth and Romeo 1992).

While COO research often relies on the assessment and contrast of country images (e.g., high versus low country image), it also speaks to the simpler issue of home-country bias: Are domestic products preferred over foreign ones regardless of country-image levels? After reviewing the extant literature, Liefeld (1993) concludes that, indeed, the grass is greener in the home country: "domestic products [are] almost always seen as highest in quality." Likewise, based on her literature review, Harrison-Walker (1995) draws similar conclusions regarding the presence of a home-country bias on the part of consumers. She finds empirical support for such a bias in the service industry by showing that nationality has a significant effect on consumer selection of a service provider. Still, as Graby (1993) warns, one must be cautious not to overgeneralize the view that consumers tend to prefer domestic over foreign products, a view anchored in earlier COO work but challenged by more recent studies.

In sum, brands are likely to be impacted by an array of COO effects ranging from positive/negative perceptions rooted in typical country stereotypes to a possible home-country bias where domestic products are preferred over foreign ones. In that regard, Parameswaran and Pisharodi acknowledge that although COO can be a powerful image variable that can be used to gain competitive advantage, "few multinational marketers and advertisers make full use of their products' favorable COO image (or successfully overcome the liability associated with [an] unfavorable one)" (1994, p. 44). In the international marketer's strategic repertoire, sponsorship represents a direct and appealing instrument to leverage a desirable nationality association (e.g., a July 4th parade event and an "all-American" company), to attenuate a negative one, or simply to reduce foreignness. For example, as foreign companies try to "insiderize" and to establish their status as "good citizens," event sponsorship represents an attractive avenue to showcase their investment in and commitment to local communities. In that spirit, foreign banks, car manufacturers, and airline companies often choose to sponsor local art exhibitions and athletic events (e.g., MasterCard and local soccer events leading up to the World Cup).

Still, there is no evidence that what may be strategic thinking from a foreign sponsor's point of view is necessarily good for the event itself. The question of whether a sponsor's foreign identity impacts attitudes toward a sponsored event remains unexplored in the literature and needs to be assessed formally. Given the lack of research precedent on this question, our hypothesis formulation relies on the traditional research findings pertaining to home-country biases in nonsponsorship settings (Harrison-Walker 1995; Liefeld 1993): Nationality is expected to influence event evaluations in the case of multiple-sponsor events. More specifically, the presence of a foreign (versus domestic) sponsor brand will be associated with less (more) favorable attitudes toward the event.

   H3: The nationality of a sponsor affects attitudes toward the
   event such that an event with a foreign (domestic) sponsor is
   evaluated less (more) favorably.

Product-Related Congruence Effects

Sponsorship research has investigated congruence effects in the past, where the focus is on understanding the "fit" between the sponsor and the event itself. Rifon et al. (2001) observe congruence effects in consumers' assessments of the sponsors' product line and the event. Likewise, Gwinner and Eaton (1999) show that the transfer of image from the event to the brand was higher when the event and sponsor were congruent in either functionality or image.

A different type of congruence effect may be at work in the case of multiple-brand sponsorship: the complementarity of products associated with the sponsors (e.g., Coca-Cola soft drinks and Jack Daniel's whiskey). In other joint marketing activity settings, the combination of products associated with the brands has been shown to influence consumers' evaluations of joint offerings. In joint sales promotion settings, Varadarajan (1986) proposed that products' usage complementarity will contribute to their success. Roth and Romeo (2000) observed that similar product categories and high perceived fit between co-promotion partners contributed to higher behavioral intentions and satisfaction. Furthermore, past research has shown that consumer perceptions of how well the products "fit" together influenced attitudes toward the joint offering of the partners (Park, Jun, and Shocker 1996; Simonin and Ruth 1995, 1998; Yadav 1993).

With sponsorships, however, the sponsors' products are oftentimes not mentioned or not shown directly, which may dampen the degree to which the products themselves are considered by consumers to be joined and the extent to which the perceived complementarity of products affects attitudes. Nevertheless, given the robust effect of product complementarity in other multiple-product marketing settings, consumer evaluations of sponsorship may still be affected by the associated products' complementarity in use. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:

   H4: The complementarity of the sponsors' products will influence
   attitudes toward the event such that complements
   (noncomplements) yield more (less) favorable attitudes.

However, we propose that this main effect of complementarity will be qualified by an interaction effect with controversy. Since the controversy associated with a product such as tobacco is vivid and the bias associated with it may be difficult to eliminate during processing (see H2), the effect of product complementarity will be dominated by the presence of a controversial product. Indeed, it is expected that the effect of complementarity will be eliminated by the presence of controversy since the product retains its controversial status irrespective of the degree of complementariness with other products in the sponsor roster. As a result:

   H5: There will be an interaction between sponsors such that
   product complementarity yields more favorable attitudes toward
   the event than noncomplementary products but not in the presence
   of a controversial product.

In contrast, the foreignness of a brand may attenuate the controversy effect because the strength of association between a foreign brand and its product category (and hence its controversial status) is weaker. For example, non-U.S, tobacco brands as compared with U.S. ones have received relatively little U.S. media attention with respect to restrictions on advertising (Dovidio, Major, and Crocker 2000). Therefore, even when consumers know that foreign and domestic cosponsors are associated with the same product category (i.e., tobacco), domestic brands will be subject to greater stigma effects. For consumers, the strength of association (Keller 1993) between the foreign brand and its controversial status may be weak. In contrast, for domestic sponsors, there may be a strong link, such that when the brand is presented, the controversial product category is likely to come to mind. Overall, then, it can be expected that:

   H6: There will be an interaction such that the effect of a
   controversial product on attitudes toward the event will be
   attenuated for foreign compared with domestic sponsors.

This effect will occur because the stigma associated with a controversial product will be stronger for domestic versus foreign brands, even if both are associated with the same controversial product category. Together, these hypotheses address conditions under which characteristics of multiple sponsors will influence consumers' attitudes toward sponsored events.

METHOD

To test these hypotheses, it was important to identify a context where brands and product categories could be varied. It was also critical to utilize real rather than fictitious brands so that genuine brand attitudes could be activated and assessed. We elected to use the context of advertising a sponsored parade in a large North American city. This scenario was selected for its realism, because brands often join together to sponsor such events. For example, the 2002 Rose Bowl Parade included Kodak, Whiskas brand cat food, and the Automobile Club of California as advertised sponsors. In our study, one of the two sponsor brands, Coca-Cola, was held constant so that the impact of cosponsors, controversy, nationality, and complementarity could be gauged. Coca-Cola was selected because it is well known, well liked, and has face validity as a ubiquitous event sponsor. Selecting this one sponsor also provides a means of controlling experimentally, at a high level, the favorability and familiarity of one sponsor brand to determine the impact of the experimentally manipulated cosponsors' characteristics on attitudes toward the event. Since Coca-Cola is held constant, we refer to Coca-Cola's sponsorship partners (i.e., the brands manipulated) as "cosponsors."

Procedure

Participants (n = 219; average age = 23 years; 58% male) were students and staff members recruited via the campus newspaper of a large West Coast university. The purpose of the study was described as an opportunity "to better understand people's impressions of products and brands in the marketplace today." Each participant was given a booklet containing marketing materials "in development stages." Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight versions of an advertisement that introduced the sponsored event. The target ad varied the products' complementarity, the presence/absence of controversy associated with the cosponsors' products, and the cosponsors' nationality in a 2 X 2 X 2 factorial design, with 29 or 30 participants per cell.

Complementarity consisted of those cosponsors who offer products that are used or not used in conjunction with soda (complementarity in use; Varadarajan 1986). Controversy consisted of two levels: whether or not the cosponsors' product had been deemed controversial by virtue of restrictions on advertising. Nationality of the sponsor consisted of two levels: whether the cosponsor was an equally well-liked foreign, and in this case Japanese, brand or a domestic U.S. brand. Following several pretests, the brands selected for use in the study were actual U.S. brands (Breyer's ice cream, Jack Daniel's whiskey, Bank of New York, and Marlboro cigarettes) and actual Japanese brands (Meiji ice cream, Suntory whiskey, Bank of Japan, and Fuji cigarettes).

The Study

Proceeding at their own pace, participants first answered a series of questions regarding familiarity with and prior attitudes toward a number of brands, including those represented by the sponsorship and others to mask the true nature of the study. These questions were worded as follows: "(Brand) is a brand name of a (country) company in the (product) industry." For example, Coca-Cola was introduced as follows: "Coca-Cola is a brand name of an American company in the soft drink industry." Participants were then asked to rate their familiarity with and attitudes toward the brand. Following unrelated filler material that lasted approximately 25 minutes, participants then turned to the target ad, which depicted the event and its sponsors (see Appendix). Following ad exposure, participants responded to questions on attitudes toward the event. Upon completion, respondents were debriefed and paid $10 for completing this study and others unrelated to this research.

Measures

Prior attitudes toward Coca-Cola, prior attitudes toward the cosponsor brand, and attitudes toward the event were assessed via three seven-point bipolar semantic differential scales. Attitude measures were anchored by negative/positive, unfavorable/favorable, and bad/good (e.g., "Overall, my attitude toward the parade sponsored by Coca-Cola and Marlboro is negative/positive"; Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum 1957). For each attitude construct, these three items were averaged to create a scale. Each scale achieved satisfactory reliability, with Cronbach a values ranging from .77 to .98.

Pretests

Pretests were conducted to determine that candidate products and brands varied according to the experimental factors. Participants similar to those included in the reported study examined products for their complementarity and controversial status (n = 35). Candidate complementary products with soda included ice cream (e.g., ice cream float) and whiskey (e.g., mixed drink). Candidate noncomplementary products included banks and tobacco. Prior research suggested products considered to be controversial were tobacco and alcohol. Following past research on complementarity, three seven-point Likert items were used (noncomplementary/complementary product combination, bad-/good-fitting product combination, noncomplementary/complementary in use; Varadarajan 1986). The items were averaged to create scales. Ice cream (M = 4.28; a = .96) and whiskey (M = 3.90; a = .91) were perceived to be more complementary with soda than banks (M = 1.87; a = .85) and cigarettes (M = 2.94; a = .95; comparisons were significantly different arp < .05).

These participants also responded to two items assessing the extent to which the products are controversial or stigmatized. Following an introduction stating that "'stigmatized' refers to being tainted with a negative stereotype," participants were asked, "As a product category, to what extent are __(cigarettes, banks, alcohol, ice cream) perceived to be stigmatized?" The item for "controversial" was worded similarly. The two items were averaged to create scales. Whiskey (M = 4.40; r = .54) and cigarettes (M = 6.06; r = .50) were considered to be more controversial and stigmatized than ice cream (M = 1.68; r = .66) and banks (M = 2.96; r = .41 ; comparisons were significantly different at p < .05).

By definition, U.S. brands are domestic and Japanese brands are foreign, conforming to the intention of the nationality factor and manipulations. It was also important, however, to show that attitudes toward products of these countries do not differ significantly. In a separate pretest with 30 participants, we measured attitudes toward Japanese products and attitudes toward U.S. products. On a seven-point Likert scale, liking of the products of the two countries did not differ significantly ([M.sub.j] = 5.34 versus [M.sub.U.S] = 4.90, t = 1.15, n.s.). We also measured attitudes toward the specific brands in the experiment itself. Using the three-item attitude scale, preexposure attitudes toward the manipulated domestic (U.S). brands were not different from the foreign (Japanese brands) ([M.sub.j] = 4.03 versus [M.sub.U.S.] = 4.12, t : .198, n.s.).

RESULTS

Analysis of variance with covariates was used to test the hypotheses. Attitudes toward each sponsor brand were included as covariates: (1) to assess the impact of prior attitudes toward the sponsors on attitudes toward the event (H1a and H1b), and (2) to determine if the negative effect of controversial products persists even after controlling for prior attitudes toward the brands (H2). The analysis of variance results are presented in Table 1. Because the attitude covariates are significant, estimated marginal means are presented since they take into account the estimated effect of the covariates. An additional analysis was conducted where familiarity with Coca-Cola and the cosponsors were also included as covariates in addition to attitudes toward these brands. Familiarity with Coca-Cola and familiarity with the cosponsor were nor significant covariates.

First, as postulated in H1a and H1b, prior attitudes toward both brands are significant ([M.sub.Coca-Cola] = 5.75, s.d. = 1.259, F = 4.080, p < .045; [M.sub.Cosponsor] = 4.25, s.d. = 1.366, F = 32.805,p < .001), suggesting that they account for a significant portion of variance in consumers' formation of attitudes toward the advertised event. Second, as postulated in H2, even after controlling for prior attitudes toward both sponsors, the presence of a controversial product exerts a significant main effect on attitudes toward the event (F = 19.836, p < .001), with less favorable attitudes for events associated with controversial sponsors ([M.sub.Cont], = 3.97) compared with non-controversial sponsors ([M.sub.Noncont] = 4.90).

H3 is not supported because a main effect of sponsor nationality is not observed. This result is significant in that it constitutes a first piece of evidence in the investigation of COO effects in event sponsorship. As in traditional COO research, such nationality effects may well be context-specific. Also, whereas product complementarity improves evaluations of bundles and brand alliances (e.g., Simonin and Ruth 1998), product complements versus noncomplements do not exert a differential impact on evaluations of the event (F = 1.396, p > n.s.). Thus, H4 is not supported, pointing to sponsorship as a very unique form of collaboration. Also, H5 postulated an interaction of complementarity and controversy, which was not observed in the two-way interactions.

On the other hand, consistent with H6, a two-way interaction of controversy and nationality is observed where nationality moderates the impact of controversy (F = 6.709,p < .010). Whereas the impact of controversy is muted for non-U.S, sponsors ([M.sub.Non-U.S., Noncont] = 4.62 versus [M.sub.Non-U.S., Cont] = 4.21), the event is severely downgraded when sponsored by a U.S. rather than a non-U.S, controversial brand. As shown in Figure 1, and assessed via a simple main effects test (Keppel 1973), non-controversial U.S. cosponsors produce attitudes toward the event that are relatively high compared with U.S. sponsors associated with controversial products ([M.sub.U.S., Noncont] = 5.18, [M.U.S., Cont] = 3.73; F = 57.243, p < .001).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Although not hypothesized, a three-way interaction of controversy, complementarity, and nationality is also observed (F = 4.806, p < .029). As shown in Figure 2a, for U.S. cosponsors the presence of a controversial product clearly harms evaluations of the event, in both complementary ([M.sub.U.S., Noncont, Comp] = 4.78 versus [M.sub.U.S., Cont, Comp] = 3.59; F = 20.881, p < .001) and noncomplementary product conditions ([M.sub.U.S., Noncont, Noncomp] = 5.58 versus [M.sub.U.S., Cont, Noncomp] = 3.86; F = 42.144, p < .001). For noncontroversial U.S. cosponsors, a noncomplementary relationship between products actually improves attitudes toward the event compared with a complementary product relationship ([M.sub.U.S., Noncoat] = 5.58, [M.sub.U.S., Noncoat, Comp] = 4.78; F = 9.31,p < .005). The pattern of relationships is different for non-U.S, sponsors, as shown in Figure 2b. That is, noncontroversial but complementary products yield more favorable attitudes toward the event ([M.sub.Non-U.S., Noncomp Comp] = 4.94) than their controversial counterparts (([M.sub.Non-U.S., Noncomp Comp] = 3.92; F = 13.26, p < .002) but no differences are observed when comparing controversial versus noncontroversial products in noncomplementary conditions ([M.sub.U.S.,Cont, Noncomp] = 4.50 and ([M.sub.Non-U.S., Noncont Noncomp] = 4.29; F = .57, n.s.). Finally, foreign, controversial products that are complementary yield event attitudes that are less favorable ([M.sub.U.S., Cont, Comp] = 3.92) than foreign, controversial noncomplements ([M.sub.Non-U.S., Cont, Noncomp] = 4.50; F = 4.456, p < .05).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

DISCUSSION

Nearly thirty-five years ago, Adler (1966) introduced the notion of symbiotic marketing, or two firms working together for mutual benefit. Yet researchers focused on advertising and promotion have been slow to acknowledge that many brands collaborate to some degree, either directly through formal brand alliance relationships or indirectly through the association of their brands in promotional activities such as event sponsorship. Our results provide insight on sponsorship and the effects associated with advertising an event's multiple sponsors.

First, these results demonstrate that multiple-brand effects are not uniform across all types of marketing tactics. Specifically, the importance of fit, or complementarity between products, has been suggested in marketing contexts such as coupons, bundles, and brand alliances. Yet our results show that complementarity does not exert a uniform main effect in consumers' assessments of sponsorships. This result is consistent with Cornwell and Maignan's 1998 observation that sponsorship communications often foster an association between the brand and event rather than focusing attention on the sponsor brand's product category.

Second, the results provide evidence that a controversial product can work against the formation of positive evaluations of events. Even when controlling for attitudes toward brands whose products are controversial, a consistent negative effect of a controversial product is observed. This means that controversial sponsors have two types of effects on attitude toward the event: (1) brands associated with controversial products such as tobacco are likely to have, on average, relatively less favorable consumer attitudes, which will contribute to lowered event evaluations; and (2) an additional and substantial negative effect on the event is caused by the brand's product being controversial.

Third, a home-country bias main effect was not observed, but a more complex combination of nationality and controversy did influence event evaluations as expected, suggesting that country-of-origin effects in sponsorship are context-specific. When foreign versus domestic brands are placed in the context of multiple-brand event promotion, evaluations of events are penalized when sponsored by domestic rather than foreign brands whose products are controversial. This finding suggests that sponsored events may benefit from a type of immunity carried by foreign brands with respect to their product's controversial status. This interaction effect between controversy and nationality calls for further research to better understand its context-specific nature and delineate possible boundary conditions. Other contexts, such as the number of foreign sponsors within a promotional roster, may also influence attitudes toward events.

Fourth, these results provide some initial insight into how consumers may process information about multiple-sponsor events. The fact that complementarity effects are reversed in certain conditions suggests that in some situations individuals may not be using an automatic or cue-based process when making sponsorship judgments (Fazio et al. 1986). A more thought-based process may be at work where individuals attempt to make sense of the brand/event relationships and to judge marketer intent, although future research would have to directly investigate this possibility. Past research shows that consumers assess marketers' intentions in other promotional settings, such as advertising, couponing, and free samples (Forehand 2000; Friestad and Wright 1994, 1995; Tietje 2002). For example, Haley (1996) observed that consumers judge the intent of marketers and downgrade those whose intentions are self-interested rather than goodwill-oriented. With the case of public service announcements whose goal was to reduce the incidence of drinking and driving, one respondent stated that firms "who produce alcohol would be a bad sponsor for a drinking and driving message. They are just protecting themselves" (Haley, p. 29).

It is possible that consumers may also assess marketers' intentions in other sponsorship situations. To the extent that consumers see sponsorship as an opportunity for firms to "do good" for the community, consumers may judge sponsors with complementary products to be particularly self-serving, resulting in a downgraded evaluation of the event. The marketer intention explanation is also consistent with the result that foreign, nonstigmatized sponsors with complementary products yield more favorable attitudes as compared with their noncomplementary counterparts. That is, consumers may question why a foreign firm would sponsor a local event such as a parade. Under these conditions, consumers may use a perception of product complementarity to justify and explain the marketer's intention. In both cases for the lack of a main effect of product complementarity but an effect for complementarity when other explanations are not easily generated, as in the case where a foreign brand sponsors a local event--consumer assessment of marketers' intentions may provide a deeper explanation for attitudinal outcomes and provides a rich opportunity for additional theory development.

Managerial Implications

One implication of this research is that marketing managers should look carefully at whether a stigmatized sponsor should be approached or accepted in this form of promotional activity. Clearly, from an attitudinal perspective, controversial sponsors appear to harm evaluations of the event, and by implication, the event's reputation. Nevertheless, other business considerations may be at work when events seek out or accept sponsorship support from beleaguered brands. Because "recurring attacks on their leading products have forced these companies into a defensive posture," embattled brands often seek to "aggressively link up with ... cultural and sporting events" (Fombrun 1996, p. 160) through their promotional largesse. In some well-considered circumstances, event marketing managers may give greater weight to financial considerations over stigma and reputational concerns. For example, an event marketing manager who is considering offers made by two equally generous but controversial potential sponsors might select the foreign rather than the domestic brand as a way to minimize reputational penalties associated with a stigmatized product. On the other hand, when the event has a favorable, well-established image, event marketing managers may worry less about adopting a controversial sponsor because high-equity event properties may be more resistant to spillover effects than their low-equity counterparts (see Simonin and Ruth 1998).

In addition, it is likely that the impact of controversy is not limited to products faced with advertising restrictions. Event marketing managers may be wise to assess very carefully companies and brands that are tarnished due to crises (e.g., Bridgestone/Firestone), legal and regulatory challenges (e.g., Microsoft, Archer-Daniels Midland), or other reputational scandals. A key to unlocking the effects of controversial products may reside in the extent to which the brands are deemed responsible for the problems associated with them (Weiner, Perry, and Magnusson 1988). The stigma effect may be more likely to be observed when brands are judged to be culpable for their stigma (e.g., tobacco brands sell a product they acknowledge as potentially harmful versus a firm that is the victim of an outsider's product tampering, such as the Tylenol case). Moreover, consistent with Louie and Obermiller (2002), differential effects may be observed when an event retains a sponsor that has become tarnished versus selecting a new sponsor with preexisting repurational problems.

Limitations and Future Research

The study was conducted with a limited set of real rather than fictitious brands to maintain experimental control while examining the impact of genuine brand affect; replications with additional products, types of events, brands, and nationalities are warranted. For example, it is possible that, beyond a general stigma, alcohol and tobacco products are also somewhat incongruent with the parade event context and this may have affected the results. Future studies should incorporate different events, examine product--event congruence, and utilize alternative measures (e.g., direct assessments of marketer intention) and techniques (e.g., response time) that may yield important insights. Also, although study participants were informed in the preexposure measures of familiarity and attitudes that Fuji is a brand of cigarette made by a Japanese firm, that information may also have elicited thoughts associated with Fuji brand film. Although not a rare occurrence in Japanese business and branding (e.g., Mitsubishi brand cars and electronic products; Yamaha brand pianos and motorcycles), the results regarding Fuji should be interpreted with some caution. Moreover, since stigma is largely a socially constructed phenomenon, a characteristic may be stigmatizing at one time in history but not another, or to some people and not to others (e.g., nonsmokers versus smokers; Dovidio, Major, and Crocker 2000). Future research should investigate such possible moderators of stigma effects.

An important question remains unexamined, namely, how the presence of multiple sponsors ultimately affects each participating brand. Building on Keller's 1993 notion that brands can build up a secondary association with an event, attitudes toward the event could serve to aggregate reactions to the event and then spill over onto long-term evaluations for each participating brand (see Simonin and Ruth [1998] in the brand alliance case). The possible spillover effect of event evaluations onto participating brands is an important question since brands enter into sponsorships to influence brand image, and as Javalgi et al. (1994) and Dean (1999) suggest, in certain instances sponsorship may actually damage rather than enhance it. At the same time, stigmatized brands may well attempt to enhance their own stature through direct, positive effects from the event and through indirect effects from the other "better-liked" cosponsors. Ultimately, spillover effects of the event may influence not only brand attitude and image bur also purchase intentions in a hierarchy-of-effects sequence (see Madrigal 2000, 2001).

Research on multiple-brand effects will become even more important as these forms of promotion become more prevalent and diverse, ranging from Web sites sponsored by for profit organizations (Rifon et al. 2001) to affiliate programs run by firms such as Amazon.com. In addition, with continued globalization, foreign brands may not need to partner with domestic brands, which means that future research should also examine multiple sponsorship situations comprised of nondomestic brands and brands not strongly associated with a particular country. Building on extant research on sponsorship and brands, along with the theoretical possibilities offered by stigma and marketer intention, a promising foundation has been presented for future research on consumer-based views of sponsorships in general, and multiple-brand sponsorships in particular.

APPENDIX

Experimental Stimulus Advertisement

(Cosponsor's brand name) and Coca-Cola are proud sponsors of (city)'s

Annual Thanksgiving Day Parade

Everyone loves a parade! And you won't want to miss (city)'s Annual Thanksgiving Day Parade, sponsored by (cosponsor's brand name) and Coca-Cola.

The Thanksgiving Day Parade will begin at 1:00 P.M. on Friday, November xxx at (location). Beautiful floats designed by the parade's sponsors (cosponsor's brand name) and Coca-Cola, will start off the parade magic.

Marching bands, storybook characters, cartoon characters, and much much more will bring joy to all!

(Cosponsor's brand name) and Coca-Cola, bringing you a Thanksgiving Parade to remember.

TABLE 1
Analysis of Variance Effects on Attitudes Toward the Event

                                                 df      F     Signi f.

Covariates                                        2
  Attitudes toward Coca-Cola                      1    4.080    .045
  Attitudes toward cosponsor                      1   32.805    .001

Main Effects                                      3
  Controversy                                     1   19.836    .001
  Complementarity                                 1    1.396    .239
  Nationality of cosponsor                        1     .041    .840
Two-Way Interactions                              3
  Controversy x complementarity                   1     .723    .396
  Controversy x nationality                       1    6.709    .010
  Complementarity x nationality                   1    1.598    .208

Three-Way Interaction                             1
  Controversy x complementarity x nationality     1    4.806    .029

Residual                                        209

REFERENCES

Adler, Lee (1966), "Symbiotic Marketing," Harvard Business Review (November/December), 59-71.

Andrews, Rick L., and George R. Franke (1991), "The Determinants of Cigarette Consumption: A Meta-Analysis," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 10 (1), 81-100.

Banning, Stephen A. (1998), "Cigarette and Alcohol Advertising, Self-Esteem, and Societal Opinion: First-Person and Third-Person Effects in Relation to Perceived Stigma, Product Use, and Self-Esteem," Ph.D. diss., Southern Illinois University.

Batra, Rajeev, Venkatram Ramaswamy, Dana L. Alden, Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp, and S. Ramachander (2000), "Effects of Brand Local/Non-Local Origin on Consumer Attitudes in Developing Countries," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (2), 83-96.

Beirne, Mike (2001), "Big Tobacco Gets Tough," Brandweek (May 14), 29-34.

Biernat, Monica, and John F. Dovidio (2000), "Stigma and Stereotypes," in The Social Psychology of Stigma, Todd E Heatherton and Robert Kleck, eds., New York: Guilford Press, 88-123.

Bilkey, Warren J., and Erik Nes (1982), "Country-of-Origin Effects on Product Evaluations," Journal of International Business Studies, 8 (1), 89-99.

Buchanan, Lauranne, Carolyn J. Simmons, and Barbara A. Bickart (1999), "Brand Equity Dilution: Retailer Display and Context Brand Effects," Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (August), 345-355.

Cornwell, T. Bettina (1997), "Worldwide Circumvention of Advertising Restrictions in the Tobacco Industry: The Sponsorship Loophole," in Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, M. Carole Macklin, ed., Cincinnati: American Academy of Advertising, 256-257.

--, and Isabelle Maignan (1998), "An International Review of Sponsorship Research," Journal of Advertising, 27 (1), 1-21.

--, Donald P. Roy, and Edward A. Steinard II (2001), "Exploring Managers' Perceptions of the Impact of Sponsorship on Brand Equity," Journal of Advertising, 30 (2), 41-52.

Dean, Dwane H. (1999), "Brand Endorsement, Popularity, and Event Sponsorship as Advertising Cues Affecting Consumer Pre-Purchase Atritudes," Journal of Advertising, 28 (3), 1-12.

DiFranza, Joseph R., John W. Richards, Paul M. Paulman, Nancy Wolf-Gillespie, Christopher Fletcher, Robert Jaffe, and David Murray (1991), "RJR Nabisco's Cartoon Camel Promotes Camel Cigarettes to Children," Journal of the American Medical Association, 266 (22), 3149-3153.

Dovidio, John E, Brenda Major, and Jennifer Crocker (2000), "Stigma: Introduction and Overview," in The Social Psychology of Stigma, Todd E Heatherton and Robert Kleck, eds., New York: Guilford Press, 1-28.

Fazio, Russell, David M. Sanbonmatsu, Martha C. Powell, and Frank R. Kardes (1986), "On the Automatic Activation of Attitudes," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (February), 229-238.

Fombrun, Charles J. (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value for the Corporate Image, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Forehand, Mark L. (2000), "Extending Over justification: The Effect of Perceived Reward Giver Intention on Response to Rewards," Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (6), 919-931.

Friestad, Marian, and Peter Wright (1994), "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 1-31.

--, and -- (1995), "Persuasion Knowledge: Lay People's and Researchers' Beliefs About the Psychology of Advertising," Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (1), 62-74.

Goffman, Erving (1963), Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Graby, Francoise (1993), "Countries as Corporate Entities in International Markets," in Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, Nicolas Papadopoulos and Louise Heslop, eds., New York: International Business Press, 257-283.

Gwinner, Kevin P., and John Eaton (1999), "Building Brand Image Through Event Sponsorship: The Role of Image Transfer," Journal of Advertising, 28 (4), 47-57.

Haley, Eric (1996), "Exploring the Construct of Organization as Source: Consumers' Understandings of Organizational Sponsorship of Advocacy Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 25 (2), 19-36.

Hart, C. Min (1989), "Country Image: Halo or Summary Construct?" Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (May), 222-229.

Harris, Monica J., Richard Milich, Elizabeth M. Corbitt, Daniel W. Hoover, and Mariane Brady (1992), "Selfs-Fulfilling Effects of Stigmatizing Information on Children's Social Interactions, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (1), 41-50.

Harrison-Walker, Jean (1995), "The Relative Effects of National Stereotype and Advertising Information on the Selection of a Service Provider: An Empirical Study," Journal of Services Marketing, 9 (1), 47-59.

Heatherton, Todd F., and Robert Kleck (2000), The Social Psychology of Stigma, 2d ed., New York: Guilford Press.

Hong, Sung-Tai, and Robert S. Wyer, Jr. (1989), "Effects of Country-of-Origin and Product Attribute Information on Product Evaluation: An Information Processing Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (2), 175-187.

International Events Group (IEG) (1999), IEG's Complete Guide to Sponsorship, Chicago: IEG.

Jacoby, Jacob, and David Mazursky (1984), "Linking Brand and Retailer Images: Do Potential Risks Outweigh the Potential Benefits?" Journal of Retailing, 60 (Summer), 105-122.

Javalgi, Rajshekhar G., Mark B. Traylor, Andrew C. Gross, and Edward Lampman (1994), "Awareness of Sponsorship and Corporate Image: An Empirical Investigation," Journal of Advertising, 23 (4), 47-58.

Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), "Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity," Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), 1-22.

Keppel, Geoffrey (1973), Design and Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kinney, Lance, and Stephen R. McDaniel (2001), "An Exploratory Investigation of Demographic Variables as Predictors of Attitudes Toward Sports Sponsorship," paper presented at the annual conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Salt Lake City, April.

Leclerc, France, Bernd H. Schmitt, and Laurente Dube (1994), "Foreign Branding and Its Effects on Product Perceptions and Attitudes," Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (May), 263-270.

Liefeld, John (1993), "Experiments on Country-of-Origin Effects: Review and Meta-Analysis of Effect Size," in Product-Country Images, Nicolas Papadopoulos and Louise Heslop, eds., New York: International Business Press, 117-156.

Louie, Therese, and Carl Obermiller (2002), "Consumer Response to a Firm's (Dis)Association Decisions," Journal of Advertising, 31 (4), 41-52.

Madrigal, Robert (2000), "The Influence of Sponsee Identification and Group Norms on Intentions to Purchase a Corporate Sponsor's Products," Journal of Advertising, 29 (4), 13-24.

--(2001), "Social Identity Effects in a Beliefs-Attitude-Intentions Hierarchy: Implications for Corporate Sponsorship," Psychology and Marketing, 18 (2), 145-165.

Maheswaran, Durairaj (1994), "Country of Origin as a Stereo-type: Effects of Consumer Expertise and Attribute Strength on Product Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (September), 354-365.

McDaniel, Stephen R., and Lance Kinney (1998), "The Implications of Recency and Gender Effects in Consumer Response to Ambush Marketing," Psychology and Marketing, 15 (4), 385-403.

Meenaghan, Tony (1998), "Current Developments and Future Directions for Sponsorship," International Journal of Advertising, 17, 3-28.

Mulhern, Francis J., and Robert P. Leone (1991), "Implicit Price Bundling of Retail Products: A Multiproduct Approach to Maximizing Store Profitability," Journal of Marketing, 55 (October), 63-76.

Osgood, Charles E., George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum (1957), The Measurement of Meaning, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Parameswaran, Ravi, and Mohan Pisharodi (1994), "Facets of Country of Origin Image: An Empirical Assessment," Jourhal of Advertising, 23 (1), 43-56.

Park, C. Whan, Sung Youl Jun, and Allan D. Shocker (1996), "Composite Brand Alliances: An Investigation of Extension and Feedback Effects," Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (November), 453-466.

Pierce, John P., Elizabeth Gilpin, David M. Burns, Elizabeth Whalen, Bradley Rosbrook, Donald Shopland, and Michael Johnson (1991), "Does Tobacco Advertising Target Young People to Start Smoking?" Journal of the American Medical Association, 266 (22), 3154-3158.

Pollay, Richard W., Jung S. Lee, and David Carter-Whitney (1992), "Separate, But Not Equal: Racial Segmentation in Cigarette Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 21 (1), 45-57.

--, S. Siddarth, Michael Siegel, Anne Haddix, Robert K. Merritt, Gary A. Giovino, and Michael P. Eriksen (1996), "The Last Straw? Cigarette Advertising and Realized Market Shares Among Youths and Adults," Journal of Marketing, 60 (April), 1-16.

Rifon, Nora J., Sejung Marina Choi, Carrie Trimble, and Hairong Li (2001), "Consumer Attributions of Corporate Sponsorship Motive and the Development of Attitude Toward the Sponsor of Health Information on the World Wide Web," paper presented at the annual conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Salt Lake City, April.

Roth, Martin S., and Jean B. Romeo (1992), "Matching Product Category and Country Image Perceptions: A Framework for Managing Country-of-Origin Effects," Journal of International Business Studies, 23 (3), 477-497.

--, and -- (2000), "Co-Promotions Drive Health Plan Satisfaction and Subscriber Appeal," Marketing Health Services (Winter/Spring), 21-27.

Schuster, Camille P., and Christine P. Powell (1987), "Comparisons of Cigarette and Alcohol Advertising Controversies," Journal of Advertising, 16 (2), 26-33.

Simonin, Bernard L., and Julie A. Ruth (1995), "Bundling as a Strategy for New Product Introduction: Effects on Consumers' Reservation Prices for the Bundle, the New Product, and Its Tie-In," Journal of Business Research, 33, 219-230.

--, and -- (1998), "Is a Company Known by the Company It Keeps? Assessing the Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes," Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (February), 30-42.

Snyder, Mark, Allen M. Omoto, and A. Lauren Crain (1999), "Punished for Their Good Deeds: Stigmatization of AIDS Volunteers," American Behavioral Scientist, 42 (7), 1175-1192.

Stangor, Charles, and Christian S. Crandall (2000), "Threat and the Social Construction of Stigma," in The Social Psychology of Stigma, Todd E Heatherton and Robert Kleck, eds., New York: Guilford Press, 62-87.

Tepper, Kelly (1994), "The Role of Labeling Processes in Elderly Consumers' Responses to Age Segmentation Cues," Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (4), 503-519.

Tietje, Brian C. (2002), "When Do Rewards Have Enhancement Effects? An Availability Valence Approach," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (4), 363-373.

Triese, Debbie, Joyce M. Wolburg, and Cele C. Otnes (1999), "Understanding the 'Social Gifts' of Drinking Rituals: An Alternative Framework for PSA Developers," Journal of Advertising, 28 (2), 17-31.

Varadarajan, R. Rajah (1986), "Horizontal Cooperative Sales Promotion: A Framework for Classification and Additional Perspectives," Journal of Marketing, 50 (April), 61-73.

Weiner, Bernard, Raymond P. Perry, and Jamie Magnusson (1988), "An Attributional Analysis of Reactions to Stigmas," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 738-748.

Wilcox, Gary B. (1991), "Cigarette Brand Advertising and Consumption in the United States: 1949-1985," Journal of Advertising Research, 31 (August/September), 61-67.

Yadav, Manjit S. (1993), "How Buyers Evaluate Product Bundles: A Model of Anchoring and Adjusting," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (September), 342-353.

Young, Robert E, and Stephen A. Greyser (1983), Managing Cooperative Advertising: A Strategic Approach, Lexington, MA: Heath.

Julie A. Ruth (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is an assistant professor of marketing at Rutgers University, School of Business.

Bernard L. Simonin (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is an associate professor of marketing and international business at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.