奥运会是否重塑了中国的国家形象

奥运会是否重塑了中国的国家形象?

Did the Olympic Games Rebrand China’s Country Image?

Gorm GABRIELSEN,Eugene D.JAFFE, Tore KRISTENSEN

论文摘要：

在文献著作中有许多争论,是否赞助重大的国内和国际体育事件是提升产品品牌和国家形象的一个有效途径。本文探讨了赞助最大的体育事件——奥运会是否能改变国家形象。许多争论着重于中国申办2008年北京奥运是否能够帮助提升国家形象。国际奥委会主席雅克·罗格先生说：“世界了解中国,中国了解世界。我相信,从长远来看它是有着积极影响的。”罗格的假设是否正确,是这次在丹麦所进行的全国范围的抽样调查研究的动机。进行这项研究用来检验北京奥运会对于中国作为三类产品生产者的国家形象的影响：运动商品、家用电子和摄影器材。在奥运会开始之前一个月和之后一个月,我们测量了消费者对中国、日本和韩国制造的产品品类和品牌的态度。我们也测量了通过电子媒体和印刷媒体接触奥运会的情况。研究测量结果显示,通过更加积极的产品认知和评价,申办奥运能够提升国家形象。

Over forty years ago, Aharoni(1966)detailed how a country can sell itself to potential investors.He wrote that a positive country image is just as important as other inherent features of a country, such as potential investment profitability.Shortly afterwards, marketing scholars began to investigate how a country’s“image”affects consumer perception of its products and services.From these studies, two models of country-of-origin(COE) effect have developed.One posits that COE directly affects consumer perception when there is little or no familiarity with the country’s products or services.A second model posits that consumers who are familiar with a given country, abstract its image from known qualities of its products.Country image,in turn,is comprised of cognitive, affective and behavioral components(Kaynak and Cavusgil, 1983).Any attempt to change a country’s image would have to change one or all of these components.

A major marketing tool in the effort to change a country’s image is the use of advertising.An advertising strategy that has been used lately on both the country and firm level is sponsorship of international sporting events.Sponsorship has been defined as“The provision of resources(e.g.money, people, equipment)by an organization directly to an event or activity in exchange for a direct association to the event or activity.The...organization can then use this direct association to achieve either their corporate, marketing, or media objective”(Sandler and Shani, 1989).

While firms enter into sponsorship arrangements for a variety of reasons, two of the most common are,(1) to increase brand awareness, and(2) to establish, strengthen, or change brand image(Gwinner and Eaton, 1999).However, like companies and products, countries have brands, and these brands have attributes that form their image.It has been reported that a group of the largest state media organizations in China is planning to spend billions of dollars as part of the government’s effort to improve China’s image(Barboza, 2009).This effort follows the hosting of the Olympic Games that provided a unique opportunity for China to both influence global perceptions about their national brand, and enhance their brand value on a world-wide basis (Dwigder, 2007).Moreover, Olympic Games are one of the most globally promoted and highly commercialized events and have benefited from positive perceptions even in light of repeated political controversies(Miyazaki and Morgan, 2001).Some view sponsorship as a potential source of competitive advantage(Fahy et al, 2004).In particular, sports sponsorship occurs when a sponsor contractually provides financing or other support in order to establish an association between the sponsor’s image, brands or products, and a sports sponsorship property in return for rights to promote that property in return for expected benefits such as brand recognition/awareness or hopefully,increased sales(Lagae, 2005；Ukman, 2006).

Olympic Games Sponsorship

Sponsorship of the Olympic Games has become an important revenue source for the organizers.According to the Olympic Committee, sponsorship revenue of the last several games has contributed about 30-35 percent of total income generated.Corporations such as Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Lenova have paid about$ 100 million each for the privilege of being official sponsors.Therefore, from a monetary perspective the Olympics constitute a major expenditure both for the host countries and for corporate sponsors.The question is：How effective have the games been in promoting country, corporate and brand images?For China, the 2008 Olympic Games arguably represented the single most important opportunity to address the“deficit of global respect,”a term coined termed by journalist Orville Schell to describe the sense within China that the country’s international standing is not in line with its self image(FutureBrand).

This paper examines the effect of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games on China’s country image.We first review the literature dealing with the effectiveness of sponsorship communication in the Olympics.Next, we present our research hypotheses and methodology.Finally, the last section deals with the results of our study and our conclusions and recommendations for strategy and further research.

Literature Review

Few academic studies have examined the extent to which Olympic Game sponsorship has been effective in achieving corporate objectives(Cornwell and Maignan,1998).The first study of this sort found in the literature examined the extent to which sponsorship of an international event(the 1988 Games in Seoul, South Korea) could change a country’s image.Israeli attitudes towards goods made in South Korea, Japan and West Germany were measured using a pre and post-test with control experimental design.The results showed that sponsorship could improve a country’s image as indicated by more positive product evaluations(Nebenzahl and Jaffe, 1991).

Three studies examined the relationship between Olympic Games sponsorship and corporate image.Stipp and Schiavone(1996) found that corporate image was improved as a result of customizing advertising to a unique Olympic event and when the advertisers identified themselves as Olympic financial sponsors.A study by Wally and Hurley(1998)examined how sponsorship of Olympic Games improved corporate reputation.After controlling for financial performance, the authors concluded that Olympic sponsorship improved corporate reputation although neither the magnitude of sponsored advertising, nor its length were related to reputation.Thus, the amount spent on advertising did not affect reputation, a surprising finding.Moreover, the authors did not include a control group of non-sponsors in order to measure any changes in their reputation over the same time period.A third study(Stipp, 1998)hypothesized that sponsorship of Olympic Games enhanced the image of the sponsors.

While the above studies were made in Western contexts, Rein(2008)studied the reaction of Chinese consumers to the sponsors of the Beijing Olympic Games.The objective was to determine whether consumers could identify the sponsors, and if so, whether their decision to purchase their products was influenced by the fact that they helped to finance the games.The study found that the majority of respondents failed to correctly identify the sponsors.For example, 40 percent identified Nike as a sponsor, when in fact it was Adidas.Moreover, Another 10 percent believed it was the Chinese brand, Li Ning.A similar pattern was found for Coca-Cola versus Pepsi-Cola.These are good cases of“ambush”marketing, where the true sponsor is mistaken for a competitor.The study concluded that if companies are trying to reach Chinese consumers, becoming a sponsor is not the best strategy to choose.

In summary, most of the studies of Olympic Games sponsorship investigated the effect of the games on corporate and brand image/awareness.Only one study(Nebenzahl and Jaffe, 1991) examined the relationship between Olympic sponsorship and a country’s image.This study partially replicates Nebenzahl and Jaffe,(1991)but adds a number of explanatory variables not considered in the previous study.We now turn to a discussion of the methodology used in the present study.

Methodology

Questionnaire

Three product categories were selected as objects in this study：Sporting equipment(e.g.tennis rackets, basketballs), household electronic products(e.g.VCRs, TV sets) and photographic equipment(e.g., cameras, cam recorders).These products were rated on a Likert-type 7-point scale for each of the three countries.Both products and countries were randomized to reduce position bias.Each respondent rated the products for all of the three countries.The questions are shown in Appendix 1.

Sample

A nationality probability panel sample of 281 respondents in Denmark was contacted one month before the Olympic Games and one month after the termination of the games.They were interviewed using the Politiken newspaper’s on line WEBPOL.An example of a page(screen-drop) from the WEBPOLis shown in Figure 1.In order to check for pre-exposure bias, a control group of 100 respondents(in addition to the original 281) answered the same questionnaire on the second wave.There were no significant differences between the answers of both groups.Therefore, our comparisons are made based on the 281 respondents.

Figure 1　Screen Drop Sample Question^[1]

The demographic composition of the sample is as follows.Fifty-nine percent are male and forty-one percent female.Their average age is 41.Seventy-two percent are married.Sixty-six percent are home owners, and twenty-nine percent renters.Fifty-seven percent are employed in the service industry；while seventeen percent of these fill administrative positions.Ten percent are skilled workers, while another 5 percent, unskilled.Eleven percent are students and six percent pensioners.

Hypotheses

From the above discussion of the effect of country image on consumer perception of products and services, we hypothesize that：

1.There is a significant relationship between country image and consumer perception of products and services.

It is generally assumed that a major reason for a country to sponsor the Olympic Games is to enhance its image,so we posit that：

2.There is a significant, positive change in consumer attitudes towards Chinese-made products after exposure to the Olympic Games.

Moreover, we expect no significant changes in attitudes towards similar product categories made in Japan and South Korea, the control countries.

3.There are no significant changes in consumer attitudes towards products made in Japan and South Korea after exposure to the Olympic Games.

If exposure to the Olympic Games effected a change in consumer attitudes towards products made in China, we hypothesize that those who were exposed more to the games would have more positive attitudes than those who were exposed less.

4.The longer the exposure times to the Olympic Games on TV the greater the preference for Chinese-made products.

5.The higher the readership in newspapers about the Olympic Games the greater the preference for Chinese-made products.

We also posit that a more favorable attitude towards the Olympic Games would moderate attitudes towards Chinese-made products.

6.Those who liked the Olympic Games had a greater preference for Chinese-made products.

Results

We first tested for reliability of the scale results.A Factor analyses resulted in a two-factor solution.Cronbach’s Alpha is high ranging from 0.883 and 0.926 for the 5 questions.

Means were calculated for the three product groups across the three countries.As shown in Figure 2,Japanese products were rated the highest, followed by South Korea and China.Chinesemade products were rated significantly(p<.001) lower than those made in Japan and South Korea.Moreover, respondents discerned quality differences between Japanese-made products, but less so for those made in South Korea and China.For example, Japanese photographic equipment was rated significantly higher than the other two product categories.Chinese-made products were perceived as having the same(rather low)quality.As shown in Figure 2, Country 1 is China, Country 2, Japan and Country 3, South Korea.The ratings for Chinese products are nearly identical at the low end of the scale, while nearly similar results are shown for South Korea.Japanese-made products are rated significantly higher and differentiated.

Figure 2　Mean Ratings of Products Made In China, Japan and South Korea

In order to determine if a relationship exists between country image and consumer perception of its products, a regression analysis with Respondents, Country and Product as categorical variables was performed of the form(Scale)=Respondents+ Country+ Product+ Country* Product.The scale in this equation represents the ratings of three product categories of the three countries surveyed.The results(Table 1) show a positive and significant relationship between country image and the three product categories of all three countries.Country is more important than products while there is a significant interaction between both.Thus, hypothesis 1 is confirmed.

Table 1　Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

a.R Squared=,596(Adjusted R Squared=,544)

Sponsorship and Attitudes

We now examine the extent to which sponsorship of the Olympic Games affects attitudes towards a country as a manufacturer of the three product categories studie.Hypothesis 2 posits that there will be an overall, positive change in the image of China after the games, compared to its image in the period before.At the same time, we expect that there will not be any significant changes in the images of the control countries, Japan and South Korea(hypothesis 3).The results of these analyses are shown in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2 shows the mean ratings of the three product categories of the three countries before (wave 1)and after(wave 2)the Olympic Games.The results show that all three product

Table 2　Mean Ratings of Products Made in China, S.South Korea and Japan- Before and After the Olympic Games

Cont

Categories made in China show significant improvement after the Olympic Games, though the ratings are still below those for both Japan and South Korea.Note also that there was an overall increase in attitudes for the products in all three countries.Was the change in attitudes towards Chinese-made products greater than the change in attitudes towards products made in Japan and South Korea?As shown in Table 3, the interaction between country and wave(the two time periods,before and after)is not significant.Therefore,hypothesis 2 is accepted, while hypothesis 3 is rejected.

Table 3　Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Cont

a.R Squared=,527(Adjusted R Squared=,499)

Exposure to the Olympic Games and Attitudes

As in many countries, the Danes showed an avid interest in the Olympic Games.According to our survey, 83 percent of the respondents watched the games on television on a daily basis.Twentynine percent watched the games less than a half hour, 24 percent from one half hour to an hour, 16 percent from one to two hours, 9 percent from two to three hours, and 4 percent more than three hours.

Table 4　Tests of Between- Subjects Effects

a.R Squared=.516(Adjusted R Squared=.487)

All respondents had read something about the games in printed media or on the internet.The vast majority were exposed for up to a half hour daily.Four percent stated that they were exposed to such media for an hour or more on a daily basis.The question is：Is there a relationship between the amount of media exposure and attitude change?

Table 4 shows the results of exposure to TV and attitude change at the individual level.SP13 is the amount of exposure to TV, while“wave_dummy”is a variable taking the value“0”at wave 1 and the value“1”at wave 2.The results show that as exposure to the games broadcast on TV increases, attitudes toward products made in China are more favorable.However, the direction of change is the same for products made in Japan and South Korea.Asimilar analysis was made for print media.Again, there was a positive, significant relationship between exposure to the games in the media and attitudes toward products made in the three countries.In conclusion,exposure to the Olympic Games on both TV and print media, including the internet, does result in a positive change in attitudes toward products made in the sponsoring country.However, the changes in attitude were the same for Japan and South Korea.This is a case of“ambush”marketing, where non-sponsor countries were able to profit from advertising(such as Sony and Samsung)during the games.In any case, these results lead us to accept hypotheses 5 and 6.

Attitudes towards the Olympic Games and Attitude towards Products

We have seen that exposure to media is positively correlated with attitude towards a country’s products.However, when we asked respondents the extent to which they had a favorable impression of the games, we found that this variable had a greater effect on attitudes towards products made in China than exposure to the media.In other words,ones overall impression of the games may be a proxy for respondents’liking or disliking of China as a country.This like-dislike colors their attitudes towards the country’s products.The basis for these conclusions is shown in Table 5.Since exposure to TV had a stronger influence on attitudes than media exposure, we include that variable(SP13) along with attitude toward the games(sp16).The interaction between like-dislike country(China), and attitude change toward its products after the games is significant(.015).However, the interaction between TV exposure and attitude change is not significant in this case(.487).What this means is that there is an exposure effect for all three countries, but only if there is a favorable image of the country to begin with.Therefore, hypothesis 6 is accepted.

Discussion and Conclusions

The research presented in this paper shows that it is possible to improve a country’s image by sponsoring a major event like the Olympic Games.However, in the case of China, the improvement in attitudes towards its products, while significantly positive over time was not greater than the change in attitudes towards products made in Japan and South Korea, the two control countries.Both in the before and the after surveys, China’s products were rated significantly below those of the other two countries.Thus, a central question for countries wishing to sponsor the Olympic Games is whether the investment is worth the returns.There is no question that China’s sponsoring of the games carried a high risk.Notably, they were carried out without any interruptions that could have resulted in unfavorable publicity.

Two major findings of this study are that country image does affect consumer evaluations of its products.Therefore, managing the image is essential to improving consumer preference for its products.Another interesting finding was that predisposition to a country moderates the effect of media exposure.A negative predisposition to a given country will be difficult to overcome solely by sponsoring an event such as the Olympics.

While we have used a probability sample of the Danish population in this study, we cannot say that Denmark is representative of other countries.Another limitation of the study was the choice of only Asian countries as controls.Perhaps the inclusion of a Western country would have been a better choice.While we have shown that attitude change occurred a month after the conclusion of the games, another wave, say two or three months afterwards would have been welcome.This was not possible owing to budget constraints.

Table 5　Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

a.R Squared=,529(Adjusted R Squared=,500)

Appendix Scales used in the Study Household electronic products made in COUNTRY X are...

The same scales were used for sporting goods and photographic equipment.

Source：Eugene D.Jaffe and Israel D.Nebenzahl(2006), National Image& Competitive Advantage：The Theory and Practice of Place Branding, Frederiksberg：Copenhagen Business School Press.

References

Aharoni, Yair(1966), The Foreign Investment Decision Process, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business, Harvard University.

Barboza,/David(2009),“China Looks to Improve its Image Abroad,”Herald Tribune,January 15.http://www.iht.com/bin/prontfriendly.php?id=19358499.Retrieved February 11, 2009.

Cornwell, T.Bettina and Isabelle Maignan(1998),“An International Review of Sponsorship Research,”Journal of Advertising, 27,1, 1-21.

Dwigder, David(2007),“China and Canada：Olympic Host Nations with Different Green National Brands,”Marketing Green.http://marketinggreen.wordpress.com/category/nation-brand/.Retrieved, January 7, 2008.

Fahy,J., Farelly, F.and P.Quester(2004),“Competitive Advantages through Sponsorship- A Conceptual Model and Research Propositions,”European Journal of Marketing, 38, 8, 1013-1030.

FutureBrand.www.brands of the world.com

Gwinner, Kevin and John Eaton(1999),“Building Brand Image Through event Sponsorship：The Role of Image Transfer,”Journal of Advertising, 28, 4, 47-59.

Jaffe,Eugene D.and Israel.D.Nebenzahl(2006), National Image& Competitive Advantage：The Theory and Practice of Place Branding, Frederiksberg Copenhagen Business School Press.

Kaynak,Erdener and S.Cavusgil(1983),“Consumer Attitudes Towards Products of Foreign Origin：Do They Vary Across Product Classes?”International Journal of Advertising, 2, 147-157.

Lagae, W.(2005),Sports Sponsorship and Marketing Communications- A European Perspective, Harlow：Prentice-Hall.

Miyazaki, Anthony and Angela Morgan(2001),“Assessing Market Value of Event Sponsoring：Corporate Olympic Sponsorships,”Journal of Advertising Research,January-February, 9-15.

Nebenzahl,Israel and Eugene Jaffe(1991),“The Effectiveness of Sponsored Events in Promoting a Country’s Image,”International Journal of Advertising,20, 223-237.

Rein, Shaun(2008),“Beijing Olympic Sponsorship’s A Waste,”Forbes, www.Forbes.com/2008/04/23/china-olympics-sponsors-oped-x_sre_0424olympics_print.html.Retrieved January 2, 2009.

Sandler, Dennis and David Shani(1989),“Olympic Sponsorship vs.‘Ambush’Marketing：Who Gets the Gold,”Journal of Advertising Research, August-September, 9-14.

Stipp, H.and N.Schiavone(1996),“Modeling the Impact of Olympic Sponsorship on Corporate Image,”Journal of Advertising Research, 36, 4, 22-28.

——(1988),“The Impact of Olympic Sponsorship on Corporate Image,”International Journal of Advertising, 17, 1, 1-7.

Ukman, L.(2006), IEG’s Guide to Sponsorship, Chicago：IEG.

Wally,Stefan and Amy Hurley(1998),“The Torch Stops Here：Olympic Sponsorship and Corporate Reputation,”Corporate Reputation Review, 1, 4, 343-355.

〔Gorm GABRIELSEN, Copenhagen Business School,Frederiksberg, Denmark Eugene D.JAFFE,Ruppin Academic Center and Bar-Ilan University, Israel Tore KRISTENSE,Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark〕

【注释】

[1]The question reads：“What do think about sports equipment made in Japan?”