Effects of F1 Grand Prix Sponsorship by Cigarette Brands on Adolescents' Cognitive and Behavioural Responses. (Research Paper)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract: The strategic importance of sponsorship of sports events by the tobacco industry has been increasing since tobacco firms have been constrained their advertising activities. The present study will provide further insight to this critical promotion tool for cigarette brands. Specifically, it will focus on the effects of tobacco companies' sponsorship at the Montreal F1 Grand Prix on adolescents' cognitive and behavioral responses, i.e. identification with cigarette brands and brands' personality and consumption of cigarettes. A questionnaire was administered to a sample of adolescents before and after the Grand Prix. Both sponsoring and non-sponsoring brands benefited from the Grand Prix, since the perceived brand personality and the identification with the brands were enhanced by the event. These findings tend to confirm that such sporting events are efficient ways to increase cigarette consumption and brand identification, especially for older male adolescents who are interested car races. Keywords: Adolescents, tobacco, attitudes, consumption Importance of sponsorship for the tobacco industry Sponsorship expenditures have grown fast and consistently the last ten years. They reached $13.4 billion worldwide 1996 (International Events Group Report 1996). In the United States alone, they doubled between 1989 and 1994, from $2.1 billion to $4.25 billion (Smith et al., 1995). Huge amounts of money have been spent worldwide by companies sports sponsoring: from $11 billion 1996 alone (Meenaghan, 1998) and $24, 4 billion 2002 (Marketing News, 2002). In the USA alone, $6, 4 billion were spent sport sponsoring 2002, almost 50 per cent more than 1998; expenditures sports sponsoring are about ten times as much as the arts counterpart and represent 67 per cent of global sponsoring expenditures (Marketing News, 2002). According to the 2002 IEG, sports sponsorship remains very strong and spending on sponsorship outpaced advertising. In 2002, sponsorships were projected to grow 2.9 per cent and advertising 2.4 per cent (Goch, 2002). However, as for the specific sport examined the pres ent study, i.e. car racing, it seems to be presently in struggle to sell sponsorship: Jordan Ford is running 2003 without a title sponsor and has the highest amount of inventory available at $21 .6 million, while even Ferrari, the world's most marketable motor sports brand and winner of last year's championship, has a $17 million package up for grabs. Tobacco companies have a major share the sports sponsoring expenditures. The strategic importance of sponsorship of sporting events by the tobacco industry is growing. It is considered as an efficient communication tool, particularly for the adolescents who represent the future customers of this industry; it's also one of the very few promotional tools left the arsenal of the tobacco industry, especially North America where the promotion of tobacco products is quite restricted. In 1998, the USA only, $125.6 million was spent on sports sponsorship and related promotional efforts. (Federal Trade Commission, 2000). More importantly, the sponsorship of motor sports events constitutes approximately 70 per cent of tobacco sponsorship expenditures (IEG Custom Research Report, 1998). However, the trend seemed to be changing 2002. Smokers' consumption has been impacted by the sharp cigarette-price increases, which stems from legal settlements, state excise tax increases and tobacco companies' search for profits. For instance, 2002 Reynolds reported a fourth-quarter loss and predicted that net income for this year would be down sharply from 2002. Consequently, Reynolds asked the National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR) to try to find a replacement backer for the next series (Fairclough, 2003). The obvious reason why the tobacco companies have so far been spending such huge amounts of money sponsoring sports, and especially motor sports, stems from the necessity to circumvent two restrictions: the ban on cigarette advertising on television since 1971 (FTC, 1998) and smokeless tobacco advertising since 1984 (Health Education Act, 1998). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».