Beyond purchase intention in sports sponsorship: an alternative approach to measuring brand equity using best-worst scaling

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to study the effects of sports sponsorship on brand equity using two managerially related outcomes: price premium and market share. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a best–worst discrete choice experiment (BWDCE) and compares the outcome with that of the purchase intention scale, an established probabilistic measure of purchase intention. The total sample consists of 409 fans of three soccer teams sponsored by three different competing brands: Nike, Adidas and Puma. Findings With sports sponsorship, fans were willing to pay more for the sponsor’s product, with the sponsoring brand obtaining the highest market share. Prominent brands generally performed better than less prominent brands. The best–worst scaling method was also 35% more accurate in predicting brand choice than a purchase intention scale. Research limitations/implications Future research could use the same method to study other types of sponsors, such as title sponsors or other product categories. Practical implications Sponsorship managers can use this methodology to assess the return on investment in sponsorship engagement. Originality/value Prior sponsorship studies on brand equity tend to ignore market share or fans’ willingness to pay a price premium for a sponsor’s goods and services. However, these two measures are crucial in assessing the effectiveness of sponsorship. This study demonstrates how to conduct such an assessment using the BWDCE method. It provides a clearer picture of sponsorship in terms of its economic value, which is more managerially useful.