Past research on factors explaining sponsorship identification has focused principally upon (a) cognitive processes or heuristics used by individuals to recall or reconstruct associations between a sponsor and the property, and (b) characteristics of the sponsoring brand. Respectively, we know little regarding the role of affect in determining sponsorship identification, and little regarding the role that property characteristics play in generating sponsorship identification.

For instance, research on mental processing of a sponsor's association with a property indicates that individuals exhibit a bias in recall for those sponsoring brands that are related to the event and that are prominent, familiar brands (cf., Johar and Pham 1999; McDaniel 1999; Pham and Johar 2001; Speed and Thompson 2000). Hence, we know something of how individuals use heuristics associated with the sponsoring brand to identify event or property sponsors.

Although not explicitly tested, Dean's (2002) research regarding sponsorship of charitable events suggests that the liking of a sponsored property may produce positive outcomes for the sponsor. Within the context of mainstream sponsorship opportunities, we expect that it is not necessarily the positive affect (or liking) of the property that influences positive sponsorship outcomes such as accurate recall of the association between the property and the sponsor. Rather, it is the intensity of the affective response to the property (intense liking or disliking) that heightens awareness of the sponsor-property association. Individuals may be more likely to recall sponsors of properties that illicit very strong emotional reactions, both positive and negative, than for properties that generate more neutral feelings. For instance, due to the emotional intensity associated with either love or hate of the New York Yankees, individuals may be more likely to attend to or centrally process information related to sponsors associated with the Yankees (need to find some support for connection between affect & info processing).

Overlooked in research regarding the use of prominence and relatedness heuristics (viz., Johar and Pham 1999) is the possibility that certain properties may be more likely to attract prominent sponsors, thereby compounding the prominence effect. Prominent brands such as VISA, Nike, and the like are more likely to sponsor the leading property in a given category. Such properties (e.g., NASCAR's Jeff Gordon sponsored by DuPont or The Louvre Museum in Paris sponsored by Nippon) are also more likely to elicit strong affective responses in individuals.

Our research of over 200 fans at a NASCAR event at the Phoenix International Raceway indicates that fans do tend to recall the sponsors of the drivers that they both love and hate. While sponsors may be cautious of signing up drivers with very strong followings and opposition, this research suggests that the brand message is at least registering in the minds of fans. How this translates into brand purchases is a subject for future research.

We also find that the most prominent corporate brands do tend to sponsor the best drivers, which compounds the effects on fans' recall of the sponsor. In general, fans recall those sponsors that are prominent brands and that are in some way related to the event-such as Budweiser. However, given that Budweiser also sponsors one of the most prominent drivers-love him or hate him-in Dale Earnhardt, Jr., sponsorship recognition is even higher. The implication for less prominent and unrelated brands, such as Freddie B's who sponsors NASCAR's Kirk Shelmerdine, is that they stand little chance of recognition by fans.