{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02097902097902098, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.580459770114943, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Assessing the Impact of Sponsor Asset Selection, Intangible Rights, and Activation on Sponsorship Eff ectiveness

Brand awareness is frequently cited as a main objective for firms engaging in sponsorship, and is often used as a measurement of sponsorship effectiveness. Meanwhile, sport sponsorship has evolved from static signage and one-way messaging to include an exhaustive list of assets and intangible rights, along with extensive on-site activation, each with a specific incremental cost. Yet, it is unknown whether the mix of assets and rights firms may choose to purchase, along with an investment in activation, impacts their ability to generate greater sponsorship effectiveness, in the form of brand awareness. While controlling for duration as a sponsor, results indicate that the selection of videoboard and LED in-stadium advertising, as well as on-site activation, led to increased brand awareness for sponsors. Moreover, category exclusivity and official status designation were also statistically significant predictors of brand recognition, with exclusivity doubling the probability that a sponsor is recognized by consumers.