An exploratory study of influences on public opinion towards alcohol and tobacco sponsorship of sporting events

Abstract

The marketing of alcohol and tobacco products and their related public policy implications have become controversial issues worldwide, due mainly to health-related issues. Uses a telephone survey methodology to compare attitudes toward Olympic sponsorship by a leading US brewer with general attitudes toward the use of sports sponsorship to promote tobacco products. Results suggest that respondents have significantly different attitudes towards the two product categories and their use of sponsorship, accepting more readily the use of the Olympics to promote beer. Respondents' self-interest is also found to significantly affect the level of acceptance for the use of sport to promote alcohol or tobacco products, although in slightly different ways. The findings are discussed in relation to previous research, along with their managerial implications.

The Growth in Marketing Alliances between US Professional Sport and Legalised Gambling Entities: Are We Putting Sport Consumers at Risk?

“…For instance, the researchers found that beer drinkers had significantly more positive attitudes towards beer sponsorships than non-drinkers, as did smokers versus non-smokers, but, in general, attitudes towards beer sponsorship were significantly more positive than attitudes towards tobacco sponsorships, a distinction that was attributed to the greater social acceptability of drinking than smoking. Furthermore, McDaniel and Mason (1999) also found a strong corollary between smokers and their positive attitudes towards sponsorship by tobacco companies, suggesting that the same corollary may apply to gamblers and LGE sport sponsorship. Such findings suggest that, as a general research proposition, those who gamble may have more positive attitudes toward LGE sponsorship than non-gamblers.…”

“…As with tobacco and alcohol sport sponsorship, contradictions with sportʼs growing alliances with LGEs clearly exist on two fronts. First, there are the potential risks associated with gambling that are, as with tobacco and alcohol sports sponsorship, inconsistent with the health and social benefits of sport consumption (McDaniel & Mason, 1999). Second, and in this case unlike tobacco and alcohol sponsorship, the association of sport organisations with LGEs raises, albeit indirectly, "integrity of the game" challenges.…”

“…The researchers further suggested that consumers may be more accepting or tolerant of potentially harmful related sponsorships if they view such sponsorships as a means of lessening their own financial burdens (i.e., increased ticket costs if certain sponsorships were to be restricted). Additionally, consumer sentiments towards advertising and the degree of autonomy that sport organisations should be afforded may also influence consumer attitudes (McDaniel & Mason, 1999). Relying on the findings in a 1993 Roper Poll on tobacco sponsorship, the researchers suggested that, "even though some [respondents] seem generally opposed to the use of tobacco products, the majority are reluctant to allow government restriction of sport sponsorships.…”

“…Given the condemnation of products such as tobacco and alcohol by many religious groups, it would seem, as suggested by McDaniel and Mason (1999) that religiosity has the potential to influence how people feel towards the association of these types of potentially harmful products with sport. Thus, one general research proposition may be that those sport consumers who view themselves as highly religious may have more negative attitudes towards gambling, and thus towards sport organisations that align with LGEs.…”

“…Furthermore, McDaniel and Mason (1999) suggested that consumersʼ perceptions of commercialisation and their acceptance of an increasing corporate/ commercial presence in sporting events may influence their attitudes towards various types of sport sponsorship. The researchers further suggested that consumers may be more accepting or tolerant of potentially harmful related sponsorships if they view such sponsorships as a means of lessening their own financial burdens (i.e., increased ticket costs if certain sponsorships were to be restricted).…”