Growing the Talent Pool: How Sponsorship of Professional Sales Programs Enhances Employer Branding

Abstract

Increasingly, professional sales programs receive financial support from company sponsors in exchange for varying types of branding and recruiting opportunities. This study builds on the literature regarding employer branding and talent acquisition by examining the effect sales program sponsorship has on students. Grounded in organizational reputation theories, brand equity, and the literature on corporate sponsorship, it is proposed that sponsoring a sales program leads to positive student–firm related perceptions. Additionally, it is predicted that classroom engagement in the form of coteaching enhances these positive effects. Two natural field experiments, one involving two semesters of professional sales students (n = 90), the other involving four semesters of professional sales students (n = 174), are conducted to test the conceptual model. Results confirm the study’s predictions that sponsoring firms are perceived more favorably by students, and classroom engagement enhances these positive perceptions. Finally, results suggest that firms with lower initial familiarity among students have the most to gain in terms of enhancing student perceptions through coteaching.

Keywords

sales sales education sponsorship recruiting practices employer branding

I liked (sales manager) from (sales program sponsor) most. I became more interested in a career in sales after this presentation.

—Professional Sales Student Feedback

Universities recognize the need to include sales education within their business curriculum, and as such, business schools are offering an ever-growing number of sales courses. The proliferation of sales education allows universities to better prepare students for successful careers in professional sales (Spiller et al., 2020). Despite these efforts on college campuses, students generally still have negative misconceptions about selling, and there is limited enthusiasm for working in the field (Cummins et al., 2016). An emerging stream of literature in marketing education focuses on understanding sales students’ intentions to pursue a career in sales and their transition into the sales profession (e.g., Cummins et al., 2016; Cummins et al., 2020; Peltier et al., 2014). This research has examined the effect various pedagogical and cocurricular activities such as role-playing, sales competition participation, and field trips have on students’ intentions to pursue a career in sales (Spiller et al., 2020).

Recently, research has begun to investigate the factors that attract students to specific sales jobs (Deeter-Schmelz et al., 2020; Nielson & Cummins, 2019). This conceptualization suggests that when students become more aware of the various industries hiring sales students and develop more favorable impressions of the firms hiring these students, their interest in pursuing a career in sales will grow (Cummins & Peltier, 2021). As the quote at the beginning of the article suggests, students may overcome the negative stereotypes of the selling profession when individual firms enhance their own reputation. One way to lead a student toward a career in sales then is first to drive them to a specific company and then drive them to a particular sales opening within that company. In this sense, hiring organizations’ reputation is vitally important when attracting college students toward professional sales programs (Agnihotri et al., 2014).

Building an organization’s reputation among prospective employees and enhancing the depth and breadth of candidate pools is also an important goal of hiring firms. To help achieve this goal, companies often provide financial and in-kind support to university career service offices and professional sales programs (New, 2016). Firms help fund university programs in exchange for opportunities to build their brand and have access to prospective future employees (Nielson & Cummins, 2019). While university program sponsorship has exploded in practice, academic research examining the phenomenon has not kept pace (Cummins et al., 2013). This is an essential gap in the literature as corporate sponsors are the financial lifeblood of many sales programs and providing a clear understanding of the benefits accrued from sponsorship can help sales program administrators retain and attract additional corporate support. The purpose of this article is to develop and empirically test a theoretically grounded model regarding the effect sales program sponsorship has on sales students’ perceptions of the sponsor.

This article addresses calls in the literature to investigate “. . . the role that corporate partners play in program development and delivery” (Cummins et al., 2020, p. 204) and makes essential contributions to the marketing and sales education streams of research. First, it contributes to the marketing literature by integrating theories of organizational reputation, employer branding, and corporate sponsorship. While recruiting employees has long been a goal of corporate sponsorship (Collins & Han 2004), research has yet to adequately address how prospective employees are affected by such initiatives (Cornwell et al., 2018). Next, we contribute to the sales education literature by developing and empirically testing a theoretical model as to how attitudes of professional sales students are affected by program sponsors. By offering such insights, we also make an important contribution to the practice of sales program administration. Companies sponsor sales programs to grow their sales talent pool, yet there has been little empirical evidence justifying the efficacy of these expenditures. This article provides initial support to the value of such financial investments and its findings can be used to help retain existing sponsors and recruit new partners.

In developing the conceptual model, we draw on human resource theories of organizational reputation and the marketing concepts of employer branding and corporate sponsorship. While there is a robust research stream addressing corporate sponsorship and its effects on consumers (see Cornwell & Kwon, 2020), limited work has addressed sponsorship’s effect on potential employees or job applicants. We propose that employer brand building can be achieved by financially supporting (i.e., sponsoring) a student’s professional sales program. Furthermore, we argue that these positive effects can be enhanced when the sponsoring company engages in classroom coteaching. Finally, we propose that lesser-known firms (vs. firms well known by students) have the most to gain through classroom engagement. Figure 1 displays our conceptual model.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

Theoretical Background

Employee Recruitment

The act of pursuing and accepting a job, especially for a recent college graduate, is a personal highlight that results in a concrete, public display of values, and abilities to colleagues and individuals surrounding the job seeker (Popovich & Wanous, 1982; Waples & Brachle, 2020). The connection between job seekers (i.e., students) and hiring organizations influences the pride one expects to feel when they become members of that hiring organization (Cable & Turban, 2003). When individuals believe that a hiring organization is well regarded, they infer that being a member of the organization will result in enhanced pride and thus will be more likely to pursue a position within the company (Helm, 2013; Wayne & Casper, 2012).

Research suggests that mere exposure to organizational reputation information may increase an individual’s probability of applying for a company position (Gatewood et al., 1993). That is, as familiarity increases, so too does the likelihood of pursuing a position within the company as such information serves as a signal and helps the job seeker judge their potential fit and future successes at the firm (DelVecchio et al., 2007). The valence of an organization’s reputation also plays an essential part in its ability to acquire human capital (Cable & Turban, 2003; Gatewood et al., 1993; Lange et al., 2011). The literature conceptualizes organizational reputation as the degree to which the organization is known for something (a certain level of consistency in its organizational outcome) and is perceived as having an overall good and attractive reputation. Considering this, ensuring potential job applicants have favorable impressions of the hiring organization is an important goal of hiring managers (Wayne & Casper, 2012).

Employer Branding

Brand equity is the positive outcome achieved from the marketing of a product or service that would not have otherwise been executed if such a positive image of that company was not present at the time of purchase (Keller, 1993). Research confirms companies can use marketing communications to craft their brand image and shape perceptions of their products and/or services (Berry, 2000; Hatch & Schultz, 2003). In the human resource context, employer branding refers to corporate efforts to build awareness and perceptions of the company in the mind of current and prospective employees (Ambler & Barrow 1996; Gilani & Cunningham 2017). This is important because, as discussed above, employees actively seek companies that possess a powerful and positive image (Cable & Turban, 2003). Employees do this partly because it allows them to create a compelling resume (i.e., a signal) for future employers (DelVecchio et al., 2007). Employees see their resume as the foundation for their career, which serves as a testimonial, a symbol of strength emphasized from their previous employer’s reputation. The degree to which an organization carries a strong and positive brand image will encourage its employees to advance within that field or place of work (Miles & Mangold, 2005).

Corporate Sponsorship of Professional Sales Programs

Brands must be actively managed to elicit a response in the marketplace (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). One specific tool marketers use to build brand equity is through corporate sponsorship. Corporate sponsorship is defined as “the provision of assistance either financial or in-kind to an activity by a commercial organization for the purpose of achieving commercial objectives” (Meenaghan, 1983, p. 9). Influencing consumer perceptions of the sponsoring brand is the most cited corporate objective, and in turn, the majority of academic research has investigated sponsorship’s effect on consumers (see Cornwell & Kwon, 2020). However, substantial investments in sponsorships are made with other objectives and target audiences in mind. For example, companies often sponsor local participatory sporting events or community events to engage, reward, and recruit employees (Filo et al., 2010). Companies also often use large national or international sponsorship agreements (e.g., The Olympics, American Red Cross, National Football League, etc.) to engage and motivate employees (Cornwell et al., 2018).

Companies also use various corporate sponsorships to attract potential employees. For example, firms are increasingly sponsoring university programs to aid in the human capital recruitment process. This recruitment process often consists of partnering with a university’s career services office (New, 2016). Moreover, firms are sponsoring specific academic programs across campus. For example, the proliferation of professional sales programs mirrors an increase in corporate financial support for such programs. Agnihotri et al. (2014) suggest that “the competition among organizations to hire talent directly from today’s university and college campuses is intense,” and such ‘hyper-competition’ for sales students has created a ‘noisy’ recruiting environment” (p. 75). As such, companies seek to cut through the noise by directly partnering with sales programs through corporate–academic partnerships (Deeter-Schmelz, 2015). Such partnership arrangements offer branding opportunities for sponsors on campus and acts as an endorsement signal from the university and sales program. This enhanced exposure and implicit endorsement allow sponsors to stand out in the minds of students. Thus, we predict that students in a professional sales program will be more familiar with, have more favorable reputation perceptions of, expect more pride from membership and will be more likely to pursue a job with a sponsoring company compared with a similar nonsponsor company.

Hypothesis 1: Sponsors of a professional sales program (vs. nonsponsors) will have greater student (a) familiarity, (b) perceptions of organizational reputation, (c) pride expected from employment, and (d) job pursuit intentions.

Corporate Classroom Engagement

Whether it is on a worldwide scale or a local level, corporate sponsorship gives a company the right to affiliate with the sponsored organization. How a sponsoring firm utilizes and leverages this relationship is up to the parties involved. Sponsorship activation, as defined by Weeks et al. (2008), is “communications that promote the engagement, involvement, or participation of the sponsorship audience with the sponsor” (p. 639). In the context of a professional sales program, the sponsorship audience is the students within the sales programs. Activation, then, includes activities that communicate the corporate–academic relationship and engages students with the sponsor.

Firms seeking sales talent provide financial assistance to professional sales academic programs in exchange for mutually agreed terms. While specific terms may vary, a common theme of nearly all professional sales program partnerships is the development of connections between students and representatives from the sponsoring company. Such engagement opportunities can include presenting at professional development events, participating in student role-plays, participating in golf outings, attending sales-specific career fairs, and coteaching during class sessions (Deeter-Schmelz, 2015; Newberry & Collins, 2012; Nielson & Cummins, 2019). Here we focus specifically on coteaching and define corporate classroom engagement as a curricular activity where a company representative delivers educational content to students during a scheduled class meeting. This engagement goes beyond in-class role-playing and is distinct from a cocurricular (outside the classroom) talk or lecture. It involves delivering some core sales pedagogical content in conjunction with a scheduled meeting of a credited sales course.

Individuals in the market for job opportunities typically have limited information of hiring organizations (Rynes & Miller, 1983). Accordingly, signaling theory (see Spence, 1973) suggests that the initial information a job seeker is exposed to is highly influential in shaping their impressions of the organization (Braddy et al., 2008). In this sense, as a student gains exposure to a company representative, they become more familiar with the sponsoring organizations and are better able to draw conclusions about the company. These inferences from the student occur because agents of the company act as cues that become representative of the entire organization (Rynes et al., 1991). Such engagement by corporate partners will further build awareness and help shape a student’s perceptions of the sponsoring company. Classroom engagement then will enhance the positive effects of sponsorship.

Hypothesis 2: Corporate classroom engagement in the form of coteaching enhances the positive effect program sponsorship has on student (a) familiarity, (b) perceptions of organizational reputation, (c) pride expected from employment, and (d) job pursuit intentions.

Moderating Effect of Familiarity

While we predict all sponsors to benefit from classroom engagement, certain types of firms will likely benefit more than others. Companies of all sizes, from various industries, offering various product categories can, and do, sponsor and engage in professional sales programs. Sponsors range from well-known consumer-focused companies (e.g., Pepsico, Sprint, and Sherwin Williams) to firms with lower awareness among college-age students (e.g., Gartner, C. H. Robinson, and Airgas). Additionally, there is likely variance among a sales program’s lineup of sponsors regarding student familiarity with the various partners. For example, some companies may be long-term sponsors who have high awareness among the student population. Other companies may be relatively new sponsors and/or only brand themselves on campus when a specific hiring need arises. We propose that sponsors with relatively low initial levels of familiarity among classroom participants (i.e., students) have the most to gain from corporate classroom engagement.

Research from the advertising literature suggests that as familiarity increases, the effectiveness of advertising messaging in terms of changing customer perceptions decreases (Bass & Talarzyk, 1972). This occurs because when an individual is highly familiar with a brand, their opinion and perceptions of that brand are relatively rigid. In other words, it takes great effort to change perceptions of a highly familiar brand. Conversely, those less familiar with a specific brand tend to draw heavily on new evidence they receive when forming impressions (Kamleitner & Marckhgott, 2021). Being exposed to information regarding a less familiar brand then is more influential in shaping consumers’ perceptions. Based on this theoretical rationale, we propose that student perceptions will be enhanced as a result of classroom engagement more for a sponsor with lower initial familiarity among students than sponsors with higher levels of initial familiarity.

Hypothesis 3: Familiarity moderates the positive effect corporate classroom engagement has on student perceptions such that sponsors presenting in class with lower initial familiarity (compared with sponsors with higher initial familiarity) will have a greater effect on student (a) familiarity, (b) perceptions of organizational reputation, (c) pride expected from employment, and (d) job pursuit intentions.

Method

Research Context

We test the study hypotheses by conducting two separate field studies. Study participants for both studies are students from a professional sales program at a large university in the Midwestern part of the United States. The professional sales program garners financial support from approximately 20 companies in a wide variety of industries. Students must complete four sales courses to earn a certificate in professional selling. Corporate partner involvement in the program includes role-playing, resume workshops, career fairs, student organization presentations, and classroom engagement (i.e., coteaching). Students in an upper-division (400-level) professional sales class comprises each of the studies’ samples. The course is an upper-division business elective. It is required as part of the professional sales curriculum and is taken during the students’ final year before graduation while actively pursuing full-time employment.

Study 1: Procedure

The purpose of Study 1 is twofold. First, it seeks to identify if firms that sponsor sales programs have more favorable impressions among students compared with nonsponsoring firms, and second, it aims to assess if classroom engagement in the form of coteaching can further enhance these positive perceptions. To achieve these goals, we conducted a natural experiment across two semesters of the upper-division professional sales class discussed above. Specifically, we created a pretest–posttest design with a treatment (coteaching) and a control condition in Semester 1. Then, to control for possible extraneous noise and to isolate the specific effect coteaching has on the sponsored brand, we create a pretest–posttest design with no treatment in Semester 2. This design allows us to identify if any pre- to postsemester change in student perceptions are indeed a result of the coteaching as opposed to engagement activities external to the classroom.

Data were collected from students for two consecutive semesters. A total of 90 unique students participated in Study 1 (45 in Semester 1 and 45 in Semester 2). Before the beginning of Semester 1, arrangements were made with representatives from a sponsoring company to teach one class session during the course. The sponsor is from the hospitality management industry and was selected for several reasons. First, at the time of the study the firm was actively hiring professional sales students to fill commercial (i.e., business-to-business) sales positions (e.g., corporate conference sales, group sales, sport team travel, etc.) and was thus deemed highly relevant to senior-level professional sales students. Second, the firm was a top-level partner and had access to the full gambit of sponsor benefits including coteaching opportunities. A control (nonsponsor) company was selected to pair with the sponsoring company. To select the control, we used zoominfo.com and examined the sponsor company’s “top competitors.” Specifically, we chose a competitor with similar revenue and employee sizes and had similar entry-level sales positions in the university’s geographical footprint.

In both semesters, prior to the classes’ first meeting, an online pretest survey was administered to each student enrolled in the course. Following some introductory questions, students were randomly shown one of the two companies followed by a battery of questions regarding that specific company. Participants were then shown the other company and answered the questions following each exposure. During Week 6 of Semester 1, representatives from the sponsor company taught a topic during a 75-minute class session. In Semester 2, the sponsor did not coteach nor present anything directly to the class. During finals week of each semester (Week 16), students were given a posttest online survey where they were again exposed to the two companies in random order and completed a battery of questions related to the respective companies.

Measures and Measurement Validation

Each item in the survey was measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Familiarity, perceived pride from membership, and job-pursuit intentions were measured using the scales from Cable and Turban (2003). To measure organizational reputation, we adapted Riordan et al.’s (1997) six item scale by reducing it to four items. Since students would be completing the entire battery of questions multiple times, we were concerned about survey length. We eliminated the following items from the scale: “Generally I think [company] has a good reputation in the industry” and “Generally I think [company] is known as a good place to work.” As discussed below, the psychometric properties of the adapted scale indicate the measure is both reliable and valid.

In accordance with Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) protocol, we fit a measurement model (i.e., eight-factor confirmatory factor analysis) using AMOS 25.0 to assess the psychometric properties of the measures. The measurement model included the four constructs collected during the pretest survey and the four constructs collected during the posttest survey. The analysis yielded satisfactory overall model fit statistics: χ² = 642 (degrees of freedom [df] = 320), p < .001; increment fit index (IFI) = .972; comparative fit index (CFI) = .972; goodness of fit index (GFI) = .885; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .053 (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). All factor loadings are above .7, all average variance extractions (AVEs) are above .5, and the reliability measures were above-stablished standards (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Discriminant validity was confirmed, as the square root of the AVE values for each pair of constructs was greater than the corresponding correlations (Hair et al., 2006). Table 1 displays the item measures and factor loadings.

Table 1.

Measures and Factor Loadings.

Study measures (sources)		Study 1		Study 2
		Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest
		λ	λ	λ	λ
Familiarity (Cable & Turban, 2003)
1	I know quite a bit about this firm.	.95	.95	.85	.93
2	I am very familiar with this firm.	.96	.96	.96	.94
3	I am familiar with the firms’ products or services.	.89	.94	.93	.87
Organizational reputation (Riordan et al., 1997)
1	Generally, I think [company] has a good reputation in the community.	.91	.92	.89	.93
2	Generally, I think [company] is actively involved in the community.	.81	.80	.73	.79
3	Generally, I think [company] has a good overall image.	.90	.94	.93	.93
4	Generally, I think [company] has a good reputation among its customers.	.89	.93	.92	.93
Perceived pride from employment (Cable & Turban, 2003)
1	I would feel proud to be an employee of this firm.	.92	.96	.93	.92
2	I would be proud to tell others that I work for this firm.	.93	.95	.93	.94
3	I would be proud to identify myself personally with this firm.	.92	.94	.89	.91
Job-pursuit intentions (Cable & Turban, 2003)
1	I would exert a great deal of effort to work for this company.	.77	.83	.87	.88
2	I would like to work for this company	.76	.89	.90	.92
3	I would be interested in gathering more information about this job opening.	.95	.92	.80	.93
4	I would be willing to attend an evening information session about this job.	.85	.93	.72	.91

Note. Study 1: χ² = 642 (df = 320), p < .001; IFI = .972; CFI = .972; GFI = .885; RMSEA = .083. Study 2: χ² = 931 (df = 320), p < .001; IFI = .971; CFI = .971; GFI = .907; RMSEA = .052. df = degrees of freedom; IFI = increment fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness of fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

Study 1: Analysis and Results

To assess the effect sales program sponsorship has on students’ perceptions, we first assessed the sponsor versus nonsponsor company, by comparing the scores for the four constructs measured at the beginning of each semester (prior to any classroom engagement; see Table 2). The analysis of variance (ANOVA) results indicate that students had significantly higher perceptions of the sponsor versus nonsponsor company for each of the four variables: familiarity: M_sponsor = 2.86 versus M_nonsponsor = 1.77, F (1, 179) = 57.96, p < .01; organizational reputation: M_sponsor = 3.48 versus M_nonsponsor = 2.96, F (1, 179) = 40.05, p < .01; perceived pride: M_sponsor = 3.54 versus M_nonsponsor = 3.07, F (1, 179) = 29.72, p < .01; and job pursuit intentions: M_sponsor = 3.19 versus M_nonsponsor = 2.99, F (1, 179) = 4.17, p < .05. In alignment with Hypothesis 1, these findings support the prediction that even prior to classroom engagement, students are more familiar with, have more favorable impressions of, and are more likely to pursue a position with a sponsor company compared with nonsponsor company. These significant differences are depicted in Figure 2.

Table 2.

Study 1: Means by Experimental Condition as Assessed at Beginning of Semester.

Study measures	Nonsponsor, M (SD)	Sponsor, M (SD)
Familiarity	1.77 (0.83)	2.86** (1.09)
Organizational reputation	2.96 (0.50)	3.48** (0.59)
Perceived pride	3.07 (0.52)	3.54** (0.64)
Job pursuit intentions	2.99 (0.57)	3.19* (0.72)

Note. Significantly higher perceptions of the sponsor versus nonsponsor company for each of the four variables.

p < .01. ^*p < .05.

Figure 2.

Study 1: Student perceptions at beginning of semester.

Next, to assess the effect classroom engagement has on influencing student perceptions (Hypothesis 2), we created difference scores by subtracting the posttest and pretest scores for each of the four measures. This difference, or growth score, represents the change in student perceptions from the beginning of the semester to the end of the semester. We created these difference scores for both the sponsor and nonsponsor companies for Semester 1 (the treatment semester when representatives presented on behalf of the sponsor company) and for Semester 2 (the control semester where no representatives presented on behalf of either company).

The ANOVA results (see Table 3) showed there were significant differences in terms of magnitude of change (i.e., growth) for each of the measures for the sponsor brand between the semester of classroom engagement versus the semester with no classroom engagement: familiarity: M_{engagement_semester} = 1.16 versus M_{nonengagement_semester} = 0.53, F (1, 89) = 12.57, p < .01; organizational reputation: M_{engagement_semester} = 0.54 versus M_{nonengagement_semester} = 0.31, F (1, 89) = 4.29, p < .01; perceived pride: M_{engagement_semester} = 0.41 versus M_{nonengagement_semester} = 0.11, F (1, 89) = 5.09, p < .01; and job pursuit intentions: M_{engagement_semester} = 0.13 versus M_{nonengagement_semester} = −0.26, F (1, 89) = 7.09, p < .01. That is, there were significantly greater positive changes in student attitudes for the sponsor company during the classroom engagement semester compared with the no classroom engagement semester. Importantly, there were no significant differences in terms of magnitude of change (for any of the measures) for the nonsponsor company across the semester with classroom engagement versus no classroom engagement (p > .10). Thus, in support for Hypothesis 2, we conclude that classroom engagement in the form of coteaching drives positive changes in student attitudes toward the sponsor. Figures 3(a) to (d) depicts this effect.

Table 3.

Study 1: Change in Student Perceptions by Experimental Condition Presemester Versus Postsemester.

Study measures	Nonsponsor, M (SD)	Sponsor, M (SD)
Change in familiarity
Classroom engagement	0.20 (0.85)	1.16** (0.85)
No classroom engagement	0.05 (0.78)	0.53** (0.83)
Change organizational reputation
Classroom engagement	0.03 (0.50)	0.54** (0.56)
No classroom engagement	0.17 (0.43)	.31** (0.50)
Change perceived pride
Classroom engagement	−0.23 (0.71)	0.41** (0.67)
No classroom engagement	−0.20 (0.61)	0.11** (0.58)
Change job pursuit intentions
Classroom engagement	−0.39 (0.66)	0.13** (0.69)
No classroom engagement	−0.31 (0.43)	−0.26^** (0.72)

Note. Significant difference of change in perceptions across the engagement and no engagement semesters

p< .01.

Figure 3a.

Study 1: Difference in changes of familiarity by sponsor and nonsponsor and semester.

Figure 3b.

Study 1: Difference in changes of organizational reputation by sponsor and nonsponsor and semester.

Figure 3c.

Study 1: Difference in changes of perceived pride from employment by sponsor and nonsponsor and semester.

Figure 3d.

Study 1: Difference in changes of job pursuit intentions by sponsor and nonsponsor and semester.

Study 2: Sample and Procedure

The purpose of Study 2 is to replicate and extend the findings of Study 1. Specifically, Study 2 aims to confirm (Hypothesis 1) students have more favorable attitudes toward sponsors (vs. nonsponsor) and (Hypothesis 2) coteaching enhances these favorable attitudes. That is, to improve the findings’ generalizability, Study 2 tests these effects using different sponsor brands and different samples of students. Furthermore, it seeks to test (Hypothesis 3) if sponsors with low initial familiarity have more to gain from classroom engagement. To achieve these objectives, data were collected from students (from the course described above) for four consecutive semesters. These four semesters of students are unique from the two semesters sampled in Study 1. A total of 174 students participated in Study 2. Two “top-level partner” sponsoring firms—one from the vehicle-leasing industry and one from the energy distribution industry—were selected as the treatment conditions in this natural experiment. These two sponsors were chosen for several reasons. First, at the time of the study, each company was actively hiring professional sales students to fill business-to-business sales positions; the vehicle-leasing firm was hiring students to sell fleet management services, and the energy distribution firm was hiring students to sell long-term electricity contracts to medium-sized enterprises. Thus, both were considered highly relevant to senior-level professional sales students. Second, both firms were top-level partners, and each had access to the full gambit of sponsor benefits, including coteaching opportunities. Finally, the vehicle leasing company was a long-term sponsor (10+ years) and was considered to have high familiarity among current students. On the other hand, the energy distribution firm was a relatively new sponsor (<1 year at the time of the first semester) and was considered to have little familiarity among the population of professional sales students.

Before the beginning of each of the four semesters, arrangements were made with representatives from each sponsoring company to teach one class session during the course (i.e., each company had its own day). During the semester, representatives from the two sponsor companies taught a topic during a 75-minute class session. The high familiarity company presented during Week 4 of each semester while the low familiarity company presented during Week 6 of each semester. Two control companies were selected to pair with each of the sponsor companies using the same processes described in Study 1. The control companies came from identical industries (vehicle leasing and energy distribution) were of similar size, and had similar entry-level sales positions.

Before the classes’ first meeting, an online pretest survey was administered to the students enrolled in the course. Following some introductory questions, each student was randomly shown one of the four companies (1) low familiar sponsor, (2) low familiar nonsponsor, (3) high familiar sponsor, and (4) high familiar nonsponsor followed by a battery of questions regarding that specific company. Participants were randomly shown the other three companies and answered the questions following each exposure. Students were given a posttest online survey during finals week (Week 16). Again, participants were exposed to the four companies in random order and completed a battery of questions after each separate exposure. This within-subjects experimental design reduces the effect of random noise (i.e., extraneous participant differences) and allows for a more robust interpretation of the independent variable’s effect on the endogenous variables (Maxwell et al., 2017).

Identical measures as those used in Study 1 were again used in Study 2 (see Table 1). A confirmatory factor analysis yielded satisfactory overall model fit statistics for the data collected in Study 2: χ² = 931 (df = 320), p < .001; IFI = .971; CFI = .971; GFI = .907; RMSEA = .052 and again the reliability and discriminant validity of the measures were confirmed.

Study 2: Analysis and Results

As in Study 1, we assessed student perceptions of the sponsor versus matched nonsponsor company by comparing the mean scores for the four constructs measured at the beginning of each semester (see Table 4). The ANOVA comparing the low familiarity (energy distribution industry) matched companies indicated that students had significantly higher perceptions of the sponsor versus nonsponsor company with regard to familiarity: M_sponsor = 2.07 versus M_nonsponsor = 1.83, F (1, 347) = 8.73, p < .01; organizational reputation: M_sponsor = 3.08 versus M_nonsponsor = 2.93, F (1, 347) = 12.30, p < .01; and perceived pride: M_sponsor = 3.01 versus M_nonsponsor = 2.89, F (1, 347) = 7.20, p < .01; but not job pursuit intentions: M_sponsor = 2.86 versus M_nonsponsor = 2.77, F (1, 347) = 2.52, p > .10. There were significant differences of preclass perceptions between the high familiarity matched sponsor and nonsponsor firms on all four measures: familiarity: M_sponsor = 3.74 versus M_nonsponsor = 2.07, F (1, 347) = 101.60 p <.01; organizational reputation: M_sponsor = 4.00 versus M_nonsponsor = 3.36, F (1, 347) = 120.76, p <.01; perceived pride: M_sponsor = 3.63 versus M_nonsponsor = 3.12, F (1, 347) = 44.45, p < .01; and job pursuit intentions: M_sponsor = 3.09 versus M_nonsponsor = 2.71, F (1, 347) = 20.22, p < .01.

Table 4.

Study 2: Means by Experimental Condition as Assessed at Beginning of Semester.

Study measures	Low familiarity, M (SD)		High familiarity, M (SD)
Study measures	Nonsponsor	Sponsor	Nonsponsor	Sponsor
Familiarity	1.82 (0.74)	2.07^** (0.80)	2.97 (0.83)	3.74^** (0.57)
Organizational reputation	2.93 (0.38)	3.08^** (0.42)	3.36 (0.61)	4.00^** (0.46)
Perceived pride	2.89 (0.39)	3.01^** (0.47)	3.12 (0.71)	3.63^** (0.73)
Job pursuit intentions	2.77 (0.50)	2.86 (0.52)	2.71 (0.78)	3.09^** (0.78)

Note. Significantly higher perceptions of the sponsor versus nonsponsor company for each of the four variables.

p < .01.

We conducted an additional robustness check on this preclass survey data. To confirm it was appropriate to collapse the four semesters of preclass data and to rule out any potential cross-semester growth effects, we compared the means of the study measures within each condition across the four semesters. For each company there were no significant differences (across any semesters) on any of the four measures.

To assess (Hypothesis 2) the effect classroom engagement has on enhancing student perceptions and (Hypothesis 3) the moderating effect familiarity has on this relationship, we first created difference, or growth scores by subtracting the posttest and pretest scores for each of the four measures in each of the four conditions (see Table 5). We then conducted a series of 2 (nonsponsor vs. sponsor) × 2 (low familiarity vs. high familiarly) ANOVAs for each of the four measures. As predicted, results confirm the rate of change in student perceptions are higher for the sponsors (which were both engaged in coteaching) versus nonsponsor on each of the four measures: familiarity: M_sponsor = 0.90 versus M_nonsponsor = 0.43, F (1, 696) = 51.50, p < .01; organizational reputation: M_sponsor = 0.30 versus M_nonsponsor = 0.06, F (1, 696) = 25.56, p < .01; perceived pride: M_sponsor = 0.23 versus M_nonsponsor = −0.08, F (1, 696) = 35.35, p < .01; and job pursuit intentions: M_sponsor = .24 versus M_nonsponsor = 0.08, F (1, 696) = 8.79, p < .01. Additionally, the interactions (sponsor × familiarity) were significant for each of the measures: familiarity: F (1, 696) = 16.58, p < .01, organizational reputation: F (1, 696) = 11.09, p < .01; perceived pride: F (1, 696) = 17.03, p < .01; and job pursuit intentions: F (1, 696) = 4.13, p < .05. These findings lend initial support to the idea that familiarity moderates the effect classroom engagement has on changing student perceptions.

Table 5.

Study 2: Changes in Student Perceptions From Beginning to End of Semester by Experimental Condition.

Student measure	Low familiarity, M (SD)		High familiarity, M (SD)
Student measure	Nonsponsor	Sponsor	Nonsponsor	Sponsor
Change in familiarity	0.53 (0.88)	1.32** (1.08)	0.32 (0.80)	0.49**/a (0.68)
Change organizational reputation	0.16 (0.58)	0.55** (0.66)	−0.03 (0.62)	0.05^a (0.61)
Change perceived pride	−0.02 (0.56)	0.51** (0.75)	−0.14 (0.63)	−0.05^a (0.78)
Change job pursuit intentions	0.13 (0.64)	0.41** (0.72)	0.02 (0.65)	0.07^a (0.85)

Note. Significant difference between rate of changes in student perceptions (nonsponsor vs. sponsor).

p < .01, significant difference between rate of changes in student perceptions (low familiarity sponsor vs. high familiarity sponsor).

p < .01.

To further analyze this interaction effect, we compared the rates of change in student perceptions across the two sponsor companies (high vs. low familiarity) on each of the four measures. This analysis shows there were significant differences in terms of magnitude of change for each of the measures across the low versus high familiarity sponsor conditions: familiarity: M_{high_familiarity} = 0.49 vs. M_{low_familiarity} = 1.32, F (1, 347) = 43.35, p < .01; organizational reputation: M_{high_familiarity} = 0.05 versus M_{low_familiarity} = 0.55, F (1, 347) = 54.49, p < .01; perceived pride: M_{high_familiarity} = −0.05 versus M_{low_familiarity} = 0.51, F (1, 347) = 46.10, p < .01; and job pursuit intentions: M_{high_familiarity} = 0.07 versus M_{low_familiarity} = 0.41, F (1, 347) = 15.66, p < .01. Thus, there were significantly greater rates of change of student attitudes for the low familiarity presenting sponsor, compared with the high familiarity presenting sponsor. In sum, these results support Hypothesis 3 such that familiarity moderates the effect classroom engagement has on changing student attitudes toward the sponsor. Figure 4 depicts these significant interactions.

Figure 4.

Study 2: Difference in the changes of student perceptions (beginning to end of semester) by sponsor familiarity.

Discussion and Implications

Growing and retaining sales talent is a crucial pursuit of most companies (Cappelli, 2000). Firms hiring sales candidates look for successful recruiting techniques to expand their applicant pools’ depth and breadth. A growing number of companies have approached the challenge of finding qualified entry-level sales professionals through university sales program sponsorship. By sponsoring a sales program, firms gain access to potential entry-level salespeople who desire a career in professional sales and have had appropriate training from a specially designed sales curriculum (Nielson & Cummins, 2019). Simultaneously, professional sales programs are increasingly relying on corporate financial support to help with program funding and are relying on corporate engagement to help deliver pedagogical content (Cummins & Peltier, 2021).

The empirical studies presented here lend support to the idea that such financial investments can be a fruitful venture for companies, and it provides guidance as to how sponsors can maximize their branding impact. Specifically, our results indicate that professional sales students (i.e., prospective salespeople) have more favorable impressions of program sponsors compared with similar nonsponsor companies. Furthermore, the positive effects of program sponsorship are enhanced when students are exposed to representatives of the sponsor in a classroom environment. This finding supports the theory that job seekers rely heavily on initial exposure to company information when making assessments of the organization and its reputation (Braddy et al., 2008). Substantively, this finding suggests that companies should work to engage students during in-class curricular activities to maximize the effectiveness of program sponsorship.

Our finding that classroom engagement has a relatively larger impact on influencing attitudes toward less familiar companies has important theoretical and substantive implications. From a theoretical perspective, this finding lends support to signaling theory in the context of organizational reputation and employee recruitment (Spence, 1973; Waples & Brachle, 2020). Students use limited information from unfamiliar hiring organizations to draw inferences about the organization. This finding has value to both hiring companies and sales program administrators. The results indicate companies that have the lowest awareness among college-age students likely have the most to gain from program sponsorship. When prospecting for potential program sponsors then, sales program administrators would be well served to target firms that with a high demand for qualified sales talent yet have little recognition among college-age students.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Our results are not without limitations. First, the data were collected from upper-division (senior-level) college students from one professional sales program in the Midwestern United States. There may be idiosyncrasies of this program, its students, and its corporate partners that may limit the study’s generalizability. Future research can address this limitation by testing the conceptual model using samples of students from various universities and at different academic career stages. Second, while the analysis supports Hypothesis 3, there are critical possible confounds that need to be addressed. Our analysis indicated that the low familiarity sponsor had a more pronounced growth in perceptions due to classroom engagement compared with the high familiarity sponsor. This difference in growth rate may, in part, be a result of differences between the individuals coteaching the course and not exclusively from the familiarity of the respective companies involved in the sponsorship. Future research should continue to build on this research and the work of Nielson and Cummins (2019) to identify if, and how, the presenter and presentation topic influences students.

Another significant limitation is regarding the nature of our measures. The studies only assessed student attitudes and intentions and did not measure actual behaviors. While the link between intentions and behaviors is well established in the literature (e.g., Ajzen 1991), the omission of a behavioral outcome variable remains a limitation. Future research can address this limitation by conducting a longitudinal study with students whom corporate sponsors employed. Such a study should expand beyond the few months past graduation as sales program alum often seek and gain employment at sponsoring firms several years after graduation when making an early career job change. There are other important measures that were omitted in the study. For example, the degree to which a student believes there is a fit between themselves and the organization is an important consideration in the recruitment process (Allen et al., 2017). Future research should identify how sales program sponsorship and in-class engagement influences students’ fit perceptions.

Beyond directly addressing the article’s limitation, our findings open the door for several additional avenues of future research. First, it would be valuable to examine the effect sales program sponsorship has on the length of tenure a recent graduate has with their initial employer. In other words, since students have enhanced exposure to program sponsors and are better able to judge the reputation of the hiring organization prior to accepting a position, are they more likely to stay with the company? Considering the high cost of turnover in the sales profession, such insights would provide additional evidence to the efficacy of sales program sponsorship and would help hiring managers show a positive return on their sales program sponsorship investment. It would also be valuable to examine the effect tenure as a program sponsor has on student attitudes toward the sponsor. Long-term sponsors are likely more familiar in students’ minds, and our analysis indicates that as familiarity grows, the effectiveness of classroom engagement in terms of changing student attitudes decreases. What activation activities then can long-term, more familiar sponsors engage in to ensure they remain attractive employers for students? Addressing such questions can give additional insights to ensure program sponsorships are being leveraged to their fullest extent.

Another intriguing area for future research is expanding this study’s model to the broader university environment and other specific academic programs across campus. While professional sales programs are at the forefront of the program sponsorship model, other academic programs may be able to adopt similar corporate partnership models. Future researchers can help in this process by extending the model developed here to a university-wide academic program sponsorship context. Comparing sponsorship models between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations may also be a fruitful area for future work. In this article, the sales program sponsorship process is conceptualized as a company providing financial assistance to a sales program in exchange for the opportunity to brand and recruit students from that program. However, some not-for-profit organizations may provide immense value to students yet not have the capital available to financially sponsor university sales programs. Future research should work to assess the effect such a “pro-bono” style of program sponsorship has on student attitudes.

Conclusions

Building familiarity and increasing organizational reputation among collegiate sales students are essential in the sales employee recruitment process. Companies both large and small can now market themselves directly to their future sales talent through collegiate sales program sponsorship. Hiring managers looking to differentiate themselves from their competition should look toward program sponsorship to gain a recruiting competitive advantage. Such sponsorships provide sales programs funding that can be used to continually improve the program itself, while the partnership provides a firm access to interact directly with its target demographic. The results here provide initial evidence that while financial support leads to some favorable outcomes, these positive outcomes are magnified when sales program sponsors leverage their access to students by engaging with them in the classroom. Thus, sales program sponsors and administrators alike should engage sponsors to the greatest extent possible, preferably through in-class coteaching activities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Mark D. Groza

References

Aaker

D. A.

(1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. Free Press.

Agnihotri

Bonney

Dixon

A. L.

Erffmeyer

Pullins

E. B.

Sojka

J. Z.

West

(2014). Developing a stakeholder approach for recruiting top-level sales students. Journal of Marketing Education, 36(1), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475314522039

Ambler

Barrow

(1996). The employer brand. Journal of Brand Management, 4(3), 185-206. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.1996.42

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Allen

C. K.

Dugan

R. G.

Popa

E. M.

Tarasi

C. O.

(2017). Helping students find their sweet spot: A teaching approach using the sales process to find jobs that fit. Marketing Education Review, 27(3), 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2017.1323555

Bagozzi

R. P.

(1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327

Bass

F. M.

Talarzyk

W. W.

(1972). An attitude model for the study of brand preference. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(1), 93-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377200900121

Berry

L. L.

(2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 128-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281012

10.

Braddy

P. W.

Meade

A. W.

Kroustalis

C. M.

(2008). Online recruiting: The effects of organizational familiarity, website usability, and website attractiveness on viewers’ impressions of organizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2992-3001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.05.005

11.

Cable

D. M.

Turban

D. B.

(2003). The value of organizational reputation in the recruitment context: A brand-equity perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(11), 2244-2266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01883.x

12.

Cappelli

(2000). A market-driven approach to retaining talent. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 103-103.

13.

Collins

C. J.

Han

(2004). Exploring applicant pool quantity and quality: The effects of early recruitment practice strategies, corporate advertising, and firm reputation. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 685-717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00004.x

14.

Cornwell

T. B.

Howard-Grenville

Hampel

C. E.

(2018). The company you keep: How an organization’s horizontal partnerships affect employee organizational identification. Academy of Management Review, 43(4), 772-791. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0209

15.

Cornwell

T. B.

Kwon

(2020). Sponsorship-linked marketing: research surpluses and shortages. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(4), 607-629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00654-w

16.

Cummins

Loe

Peltier

J. W.

(2016). Using sales competition videos in a principles of marketing class to improve interest in a sales career. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 24(1), 15-20.

17.

Cummins

Nielson

Peltier

J. W.

Deeter-Schmelz

(2020). A critical review of the literature for sales educators 2.0. Journal of Marketing Education, 42(3), 198-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475320941917

18.

Cummins

Peltier

J. W.

(2021). Understanding students’ decision-making process when considering a sales career: A comparison of models pre-and post-exposure to sales professionals in the classroom. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 41(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2020.1811112

19.

Cummins

Peltier

J. W.

Erffmeyer

Whalen

(2013). A critical review of the literature for sales educators. Journal of Marketing Education, 35(1), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475313481157

20.

Deeter-Schmelz

D. R.

(2015). Corporate-academic partnerships: Creating a win-win in the classroom. Journal of Education for Business, 90(4), 192-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1014457

21.

Deeter-Schmelz

D. R.

Dixon

A. L.

Erffmeyer

R. C.

Kim

Agnihotri

Krush

M. T.

Pullins

E. B.

(2020). Attracting students to sales positions: The case of effective salesperson recruitment ads. Journal of Marketing Education, 42(2), 170-190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475318810335

22.

DelVecchio

Jarvis

C. B.

Klink

R. R.

Dineen

B. R.

(2007). Leveraging brand equity to attract human capital. Marketing Letters, 18(3), 149-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-007-9012-3

23.

Filo

Funk

O’Brien

(2010). The antecedents and outcomes of attachment and sponsor image within charity sport events. Journal of Sport Management, 24(6), 623-648. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.24.6.623

24.

Gatewood

R. D.

Gowan

M. A.

Lautenschlager

G. J.

(1993). Corporate image, recruitment image and initial job choice decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 414-427. https://doi.org/10.2307/256530

25.

Gilani

Cunningham

(2017). Employer branding and its influence on employee retention: A literature review. Marketing Review, 17(2), 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934717X14909733966209

26.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

(2006). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice-Hall.

27.

Hatch

M. J.

Schultz

(2003). Bringing the corporation into corporate branding. European Journal of Marketing, 37(7-8), 1041-1064. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560310477654

28.

Helm

(2013). A matter of reputation and pride: Associations between perceived external reputation, pride in membership, job satisfaction and turnover intentions. British Journal of Management, 24(4), 542-556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00827.x

29.

Kamleitner

Marckhgott

(2021). Silent persuasion: Incidental use of promotional merchandise benefits unfamiliar brands. International Journal of Advertising, 40(7) 1135-1159. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2020.1855823

30.

Keller

K. L.

(1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700101

31.

Lange

Lee

P. M.

Dai

(2011). Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management, 37(1), 153-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310390963

32.

Maxwell

S. E.

Delaney

H. D.

Kelley

(2017). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315642956

33.

Meenaghan

J. A.

(1983). Commercial sponsorship. European Journal of Marketing, 17(7), 5-73. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315642956

34.

Miles

S. J.

Mangold

W. G.

(2005). Positioning Southwest Airlines through employee branding. Business Horizons, 48(6), 535-545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2005.04.010

35.

New

(2016, July 05). Career counselors or headhunters? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/05/corporate-partnership-programs-increasing-college-career-centers

36.

Newberry

Collins

M. K.

(2012). A recruiting and hiring role-play: An experiential simulation. Marketing Education Review, 22(1), 67-72. https://doi.org/10.2753/MER1052-8008220111

37.

Nielson

Cummins

(2019). Recruiting sales students: The value of professionals in the classroom. Marketing Education Review, 29(1), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2018.1537717

38.

Peltier

J. W.

Cummins

Pomirleanu

Cross

Simon

(2014). A parsimonious instrument for predicting students’ intent to pursue a sales career: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Education, 36(1), 62-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475313520443

39.

Popovich

Wanous

J. P.

(1982). The realistic job preview as a persuasive communication. Academy of Management Review, 7(4), 570-578. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1982.4285243

40.

Riordan

C. M.

Gatewood

R. D.

Bill

J. B.

(1997). Corporate image: Employee reactions and implications for managing corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(4), 401-412. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017989205184

41.

Rynes

S. L.

Bretz

R. D. J.

Gerhart

(1991). The importance of recruitment in job choice: A different way of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44(3), 487-521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb02402.x

42.

Rynes

S. L.

Miller

H. E.

(1983). Recruiter and job influences on candidates for employment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(1), 147-154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.1.147

43.

Schumacker

R. E.

Lomax

R. G.

(2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610904

44.

Spence

(1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355-374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010

45.

Spiller

L. D.

Kim

D. H.

Aitken

(2020). Sales education in the United States: Perspectives on curriculum and teaching practices. Journal of Marketing Education, 42(3), 217-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475319852756

46.

Waples

C. J.

Brachle

B. J.

(2020). Recruiting millennials: Exploring the impact of CSR involvement and pay signaling on organizational attractiveness. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 870-880. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1851

47.

Wayne

J. H.

Casper

W. J.

(2012). Why does firm reputation in human resource policies influence college students? The mechanisms underlying job pursuit intentions. Human Resource Management, 51(1), 121-142. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21461

48.

Weeks

C. S.

Cornwell

T. B.

Drennan

J. C.

(2008). Leveraging sponsorships on the Internet: Activation, congruence, and articulation. Psychology & Marketing, 25(7), 637-654. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20229