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

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. Issues such as anti-trust legislation or the public funding of stadiums have brought sport into the realm of government policy making (Ambrose, 1985; Lowe, 1995; US Congress, 1998). According to Ingraham (1988), those involved in the policy-making process should seek out those who have a vested interest (i.e. `̀ pockets of receptivity''), to help shape policy and enlist support. In other words, sport-related policy makers need to utilise effective feedback mechanisms, such as public opinion, to allow for more informed decision making regarding what have become increasingly complex and controversial issues (Chalip, 1995). One such policy issue that has received limited attention, in terms of public opinion research, is the use of sport sponsorship to market potentially unhealthy products, like alcohol and tobacco. The current study employs a national telephone survey of randomly selected people aged 18 or over (n = 248), to examine attitudes towards the recent use of Olympic sponsorship by a leading US brewery, which are compared to measures of attitudes towards the general use of sport sponsorship to promote tobacco products. It is hoped that this pilot study will help provide insight into public opinion on the above issues, what shapes these views, and how such information can help stakeholders work toward more balanced/effective policy in this area. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com This research was made possible by a faculty research grant from the University of Maryland, along with support from Dr Laura Wilson of the College of Health and Human Performance. Sport-related government policy JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 6 1999, pp. 481-499, # MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 0887-6045 481 An executive summary for managers and executive readers can be found at the end of this issue Among the high-profile areas of policy development in the USA and other parts of the world is the issue of restricting the sale and promotion of products considered unhealthy or potentially hazardous to groups in society (Ambler, 1996; Boddewyn, 1994; Moschis, 1989; Pollay, 1993). In particular, tobacco companies have been subject to increasingly restrictive policies (Food and Drug Administration, 1996). However the misuse of other products, such as alcohol, also creates economic/health burdens on society, and its producers have faced and may continue to face further sanctions (Cornwell and Maignan, 1998; Rice et al., 1991; Schuster and Powell, 1987). In addition to health and social considerations, legislation regarding the promotion of the above products is further complicated because the implications of free commercial speech must also be considered (Alliance for Sponsorship Freedom, 1997; Boddewyn, 1993; 1994; Matthews, 1998; Warner et al., 1986). Since alcohol and tobacco are still legal products marketed to adults, some argue that these companies should have the same right to use conventional marketing communication techniques utilised in other industries (Matthews, 1998). Others question the efficacy of banning such advertising altogether, as it is unclear whether this strategy has demonstrated positive effects on public health (Ambler, 1996; Boddewyn, 1994; Madden and Grube, 1994). While tobacco sponsorship of sport and entertainment events has already been subject to regulation in many countries, alcohol promotion is facing increasing scrutiny as well (Howard and Crompton, 1995; O'Connell, 1989). As public awareness regarding the impact of alcohol abuse on society is heightened, so is the pressure to regulate advertising and sport marketing that promotes alcohol. For instance, the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug abuse issued a formal protest against Anheuser Busch's (AB's) sponsorship of the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta (Carter, 1996). Similarly, the National Coalition of Hispanic Health and Human Services Organisation voiced concerns over AB's involvement with World Cup Soccer (Carter, 1996). Anti-substance abuse groups in France also opposed the brewer during this campaign, as AB sought an exemption to French rules that prohibited alcohol advertising and billboards, in order to have stadium signage when that country hosted the 1998 World Cup Tournament (Sports Industry News, 1997a). Thus, while spirits or `̀ hard'' alcohol have been subject to government and/or self-regulation, the practice of brewers promoting their products through sport has become a more prominent public issue. It appears that many major sports governing bodies throughout the world who endorse drug testing of athletes, including the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the World Cup and the National Association of Collegiate Athletics (NCAA), waver on the issue of regulating the promotion of certain alcoholic beverages (e.g. beer). This may be because the sports industry and related media concerns are much more financially dependent on the stream of revenue from the brewing industry than income from promoting tobacco (Howard and Crompton, 1995; Sports Industry News, 1996). To this point, public policy makers and scholars in the health, general marketing and sports marketing disciplines have devoted a great deal of attention to: . tobacco and alcohol promotion; . the potential effects of their use by children; and Alcohol promotion facing increasing scrutiny 482 JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 6 1999 . subsequent regulatory strategies addressing this issue (cf. Aitken et al., 1986; Austin and Nach-Ferguson, 1995; Blum, 1991; Boddewyn, 1994; Cornwell, 1997; Hoek et al., 1993; Ledwith, 1984; Luik, 1993; Madden and Grube, 1994; Pollay, 1993; Schuster and Powell, 1987; Sparks, 1997). However, based on the existing literature in this area, it appears little consideration has been given to public opinion towards promotional tactics used to market such products, in particular the use of sport marketing and sponsorship. It would therefore seem prudent for the various stakeholders involved to develop a better understanding of public opinion about such issues and what drives it, whether it be for: . building support for regulatory policies; . building support against such policies; . creating materials for health awareness campaigns; or . maintaining brand equity of an event or team, by understanding if certain types of sponsorship have the potential to alienate fans. In effect, a greater understanding of public attitudes toward the sponsorship of sport by alcohol and tobacco companies can only further enhance the likelihood of stakeholder success in any of the four above areas. One potentially fruitful avenue for exploring public attitudes towards sponsorships promoting products like tobacco and alcohol involves the concept of self-interest, which essentially holds that `̀ people are responsive to the costs and benefits associated with their interests'' (Green and Gerken, 1989, pp. 8-9). Interestingly, a review of studies involving self-interest and public policy issues reveals that while self-interest does not dramatically influence most attitudes towards political and social concerns, smokers and non-smokers have significantly different opinions toward tobacco-related policy matters (Green and Gerken, 1989), including the regulation of tobacco promotions (Dixon et al., 1991). While there have been no similar studies examining alcohol usage and the influence of self-interest on attitudes towards its promotion or regulation, the aforementioned research on smoking suggests this notion offers a great deal of face validity. Similarly, scholarly research examining other potential influences on self-interest, such as interest in sports, has not been pursued. The current study seeks to provide insight into this dynamic by examining the effects of certain aspects of self-interest on public acceptance of an 1996 Olympic sponsorship promoting beer, while comparing these attitudes with views on the general practice of using sport sponsorship to promote tobacco products. The research focuses on the Olympics and Anheuser-Busch due to the ties between the two parties, recent protests against such relationships, and increasing concern over the sport-alcohol dyad. Public opinion concerning the above promotion is compared to opinions toward the general use of sport sponsorship to promote tobacco, as this practice is already highly regulated. This provides a basis of comparison for opinions toward sportrelated promotions, between two products with relatively similar health, regulatory, and self-interest issues. In doing so, it is hoped that this exploratory work will help provide the impetus for more exhaustive research examining self-interest and sport-related policies, like sponsorships promoting potentially unhealthy products. The following section provides an overview of recent studies examining the links between alcohol, tobacco, sport, leisure, self-interest, and public policy, providing a rationale for the Public opinion