Vested Interests in Addiction Research and Policy

Abstract

Background and Aims

There has been insufficient research attention to the alcohol industry’s use of corporate sponsorship as a marketing tool. This paper provides a systematic investigation of the nature and extent of alcohol sponsorship—at the brand level—in the U.S.

Methods

The study examined sponsorship of organizations and events in the U.S. by alcohol brands from 2010–2013. The top 75 brands of alcohol consumed by underage drinkers were identified based on a previously conducted national internet-based survey. For each of these brands, a systematic search for sponsorships was conducted using Google. The sponsorships were coded by category and type of sponsorship.

Results

We identified 945 sponsorships during the study period for the top 75 brands consumed by underage drinkers. The most popular youth brands were far more likely to engage in sponsorship and to have a higher number of sponsorships. The identified sponsorships overwhelmingly associated alcohol brands with integral aspects of American culture, including sports, music, the arts and entertainment, and drinking itself. The most popular brands among underage drinkers were much more likely to associate their brands with these aspects of American culture than brands that were less popular among underage drinkers.

Conclusions

Alcohol brand sponsorship must be viewed as a major alcohol marketing strategy that generates brand capital through positive associations with integral aspects of culture, creation of attractive brand personalities, and identification with specific market segments. Alcohol research, practice, and policy should address this highly prevalent form of alcohol marketing.

INTRODUCTION

Alcohol is the leading drug used [1], and exposure to alcohol marketing increases the likelihood that young people will start drinking [2]. Corporate sponsorship is the fastest growing form of marketing, allowing companies to “reach specifically targeted niche markets without any waste” [3]. In 2005, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission reported that 12 leading alcohol companies had spent nearly $510 million on sports and other public event sponsorships, approximately 16% of total marketing expenditure, and that some companies spent more than 20% of their marketing spending on sports sponsorships alone [4]. In 2011, 14 companies, responsible for 79% of the alcohol sold in the U.S., reported domestic sponsorship expenditures of $615 million, accounting for 17.8% of marketing spending [5]. Because sponsorships have largely gone unmeasured, there is a lack of information about which companies and brands are using corporate sponsorship and where this money is being spent. Without this information, it is difficult to assess the impact sponsorships may have on youth drinking cultures and underage alcohol consumption.

Sponsorship is defined as payment to a third party for an activity, event, or other cause, whereby the sponsor obtains the right to associate itself with the event or cause [6]. Corporate sponsorship has long been recognized as a critical aspect of cigarette marketing that exposes youth to positive brand messages [7–9]. Because of this, the Food and Drug Administration has banned tobacco brand sponsorships in the United States [10], and many other countries have adopted similar policies, which are a part of the international Framework Convention on Tobacco Control [11]. However, Casswell has pointed out that the corporate interests of alcohol companies in sponsorship have not been as well recognized as those of the tobacco companies [12]. Sparks et al. pointed out that despite similarities in the sponsorship strategies of the tobacco and alcohol industries, the regulatory framework for tobacco sponsorships is much more stringent than that for alcohol [13].

Furthermore, there is evidence that alcohol companies extensively use corporate sponsorship—especially of sports—as a marketing tool [12–27]. The sports sponsorship activity of alcohol companies in Australia has been well characterized [16–25], and includes sponsorship of cricket, rugby, football, and auto racing [22]. There is evidence that alcohol companies have used sponsorship of non-profit organizations, educational initiatives, and sporting events as a way to frame themselves as a positive entity within communities [12–15]. Moreover, it has been shown that youth develop equally positive brand associations in response to both traditional alcohol advertisements and sponsorship-linked marketing [27]. There is some evidence that alcohol sponsorship influences alcohol use among both adults [19,23,25] and youth [26].

Alcohol companies use sponsorship to develop brand capital [28]. According to the theory of brand capital, it is through the creation of brands that companies develop product “personalities” that appeal to a specific target audience [28]. Furthermore, corporate sponsorship is a critical avenue by which that brand capital is developed [6,29–47]. Sponsorships function by creating positive images, associations, and expectancies for a specific brand (i.e., brand capital) [6,29–47] and in turn, this brand capital is directly related to the demand for a given brand [28]. Saffer explained that “Brand capital is defined as the collective positive associations that individuals have about a brand. Firms with higher levels of brand capital will have higher sales because they provide consumers with higher levels of utility” [28]. Hastings has shown that internal alcohol industry documents reveal the intent of some alcohol companies to use brand sponsorship to recruit young drinkers to their brands [48].

Although there is extensive knowledge about alcohol company sponsorship in Australia, very little has been published about alcohol sponsorship in other countries, including the United States. In contrast, the sponsorship activities of tobacco companies in the U.S. have been extensively characterized [9]. Moreover, there has been no systematic research to identify the nature and extent of alcohol sponsorship at the brand level. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first to systematically assess the scope of alcohol brand sponsorship in the United States.

In this paper, we report the results of a systematic search to identify all alcohol brand sponsorships during the period 2010–2013 by the top 75 brands consumed by underage youth in the U.S. By examining the nature and extent of alcohol brand sponsorship, this paper will contribute towards a better understanding of the potential influence of this important form of alcohol marketing on the alcohol-related attitudes and behavior of underage youth.

METHODS

Design overview

The study examined sponsorship of organizations and events by alcohol brands from 2010 to 2013. The top 75 brands of alcohol consumed by underage drinkers were identified based on a previously conducted national Internet based survey [49]. A systematic search for sponsorships was conducted using Google.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

A previous study identified the prevalence of past 30 day consumption of each of 898 alcohol brands among a national sample of 1031 underage drinkers in the United States [49]. We selected the top 75 alcohol brands in terms of consumption prevalence among this group of underage drinkers. These 75 brands accounted for two-thirds (67.9%) of the overall alcohol consumption among youth in the sample, and included all brands with a past 30-day consumption prevalence of 1.7% or higher.

All sponsorships found for each of the 75 brands during the years 2010–2013 and in the U.S. were included in the study. Sponsorships solely under the name of the parent company (for example Anheuser Busch) were not included because the focus of this study was on brand-specific sponsorships. Events or activities that were planned or conducted by alcohol companies themselves not under the direction of a third party were not included because they do not meet the definition of sponsorship [6]. Only events or organizations based in the United States were included.

Internet search

We conducted a systematic search through the search engine Google for web pages that made reference to alcohol sponsorship of organizations, events, and individuals in the U.S. during the years 2010–2013. The key words used were “sponsor”, “sponsorship”, and ‘sponsored” along with the alcohol brand name. Researchers continued the search until they had reviewed five consecutive search results pages without any new and relevant information on sponsorships.

Data compilation

The sponsorships were coded by category and type of sponsorship. Categories included organizations, events, and individuals. This categorization was based on whether the sponsorship was primarily of an organization (e.g., a charitable organization, a museum, a sports team, a stadium or other venue), a specific event or series of events (e.g., sporting events, races, festivals, concerts, film screenings, contests, bar crawls), or an individual, such as a specific athlete, entertainer, or artist.

Types of sponsorships included sports, music, arts & entertainment, education, military, environment, GLBT community, animals, drinking, physical fitness, food & cuisine, and health. These type classifications were defined as follows: (1) sports – sporting events, including American football, baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, volleyball, motor sports, horse racing, skiing, fishing, and surfing; (2) music – concerts, artists, album releases or parties, music venues, and music events or festivals; (3) arts & entertainment – theatre, film, ballet, comedy, and dance; (4) education – schools, colleges, universities, scholarship programs, or academic/educational programs; (5) military – programs to support or honor soldiers or veterans; (6) environment – organizations or programs devoted to promoting environmental health; (7) GLBT community – organizations or events focused on or supporting the GLBT community; (8) animals – causes promoting the protection of animals; (10) drinking – activities that promote or involve alcohol consumption; (11) physical fitness – exercise, physical activity, running, walking, hiking, swimming, and cycling; (12) food & cuisine – events involving dining, food tasting, or food festivals; and (13) health – programs or organizations devoted to promotion of public health, excluding those classified under physical fitness. If a sponsorship fell in multiple categories, we chose the one that best described the event’s or organization’s main goal.

In addition to quantifying the number of identified sponsorships, we also made an attempt to examine the extensiveness of each sponsorship. We therefore categorized whether or not each sponsorship was a “series” sponsorship. A series sponsorship was defined as: (1) sponsorship of a series of sports, entertainment, or other events; (2) sponsorship of an athlete, artist, team, racing car, or sports league/club that encompasses a series of events; (3) sponsorship of a stadium, resort, museum, television or radio station or show, or entertainment complex that encompasses a series of events. We also coded each series sponsorship into categories of: (1) arts and entertainment; (2) music; (3) sports; and (4) other. We present these results for each of the 75 alcohol brands.

Sponsorships were identified and coded by one of four investigators who were trained in the use of a standardized search and classification protocol. Because of the large number of brands studied, the brands were divided among the four investigators and sponsorships were coded by only one person. If a brand sponsored the same organization or event more than once during the study period, we only included that sponsorship once. In any cases in which the existence of a sponsorship was unclear, we did not include it.

Complete listings of all the identified sponsorships were compiled into a written report, available on the journal web site as supporting material (Appendix S1) and online at www.youthalcoholbrands.com/sponsorship.

Data analysis

The correlation between rankings of youth brand consumption prevalence and number of sponsorships was assessed using the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. The significance of differences in mean numbers of sponsorships was assessed using a two-sample t-test. The significance of differences in the proportion of sponsorships by category was assessed using a chi-square test.

In order to assess the relationship between the use of corporate sponsorship by a brand and its youth consumption prevalence, we conducted a logistic regression analysis. There were 75 observations, one for each brand in our study. The outcome variable was whether the brand utilized sponsorship (i.e., whether we identified one or more sponsorships for that brand). The predictor variable was whether that brand was among the most popular brands (i.e., those with a consumption prevalence of 5% or greater). Thus, the resulting odds ratio represents the ratio of odds that a brand popular among youth drinkers uses corporate sponsorship compared to a brand that is less popular among youth.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 945 alcohol brand sponsorships during the period 2010–2013 among the top 75 brands consumed by underage drinkers (Table 1). A description of all identified sponsorships by brand, organized by alcoholic beverage type, is available on the journal’s web site as supporting material (Appendix S1) and online at www.youthalcoholbrands.com/sponsorship. There was a wide variation in the number of sponsorships by brand, ranging from 0 (for 10 brands) to 160. The top five brands by number of sponsorships were Miller (including Miller Lite, Miller Genuine Draft, and Miller High Life) (160), Twisted Tea hard iced teas (57), Jim Beam bourbon (53), Jack Daniel’s (including Jack Daniel’s bourbon and Jack Daniel’s cocktails) (49), and Pabst Blue Ribbon (44).

Table 1.

Identified sponsorships by brand.

Brand	Past 30-day consumption prevalence among underage drinkersa	Number of sponsorships
Bud Light and Budweiser Beers	37.4	19
Smirnoff Vodkas and Malt Beverages	24.3	36
Coors/Coors Light	15.2	20
Bacardi Rums and Cocktails	14.5	30
Corona/Corona Light	14.2	19
Jack Daniel’s Whiskeys and Cocktails	13.4	49
Captain Morgan Rums and Cocktails	12.7	17
Miller Lite and Miller Beers	12.4	160
Mike’s Flavored Malt Beverages	10.8	29
Absolut Vodkas	10.1	41
Heineken	9.7	8
Jose Cuervo Tequilas and Margaritas	8.7	29
Keystone Light/Ice/Premium	8.6	3
Blue Moon	8.2	33
Malibu Rums and Cocktails	7.8	9
Seagram’s	7.4	3
Grey Goose Vodkas	6.7	10
1800 Tequilas and Margaritas	6.5	6
Four Loko	6.0	0
Hennessy Cognacs	5.7	42
Patron Tequilas and Liqueur	5.6	11
Busch/Busch Light	5.2	2
Baileys Irish Cream Liqueurs	5.2	1
UV Vodkas and Cocktails	5.1	5
Ciroc Vodkas	5.0	9
Bartles & Jaymes	4.8	0
Natural Ice/Natural Light	4.6	0
Barefoot Wines	4.4	7
Jim Beam Bourbon Whiskeys	4.0	53
Kahlua Liqueurs and Cocktails	3.9	7
Dos Equis	3.8	10
Skyy Vodkas	3.6	6
Burnett’s Vodkas	3.3	0
Everclear 190	3.2	0
Samuel Adams Beers	3.1	21
Crown Royal Whiskey	3.0	5
Pabst Blue Ribbon (PBR)	2.9	44
E&J Gallo Brandy	2.8	2
Tecate/Tecate Light	2.8	23
Pinnacle Vodkas	2.7	31
Andre Champagnes	2.7	0
Bartenders Cocktails	2.5	0
Twisted Tea Hard Iced Teas	2.4	57
Yellow Tail Wines	2.3	1
Modelo Especial	2.3	7
Boones Farm Cocktails	2.1	0
Arbor Mist Wines	2.1	0
Wild Turkey Bourbon Whiskey	2.0	5
Amstel Light	2.0	19
Michelob Beers	2.0	25
P.I.N.K. Spirits	2.0	0
Sutter Home Wines	1.9	3
Sailor Jerry Spiced Navy Rums	1.8	10
Guinness Beers	1.8	4
Jameson Irish Whiskey	1.7	14

^aProportion of underage drinkers who reported consuming brand in past 30-days, Youth Alcohol Brand Survey [49].

Brands with a higher prevalence of underage youth consumption were more likely to utilize sponsorships. In a logistic regression analysis, the most popular brands (i.e., those with a consumption prevalence of 5% or greater) were approximately 10 times more likely to utilize sponsorships than less popular brands (those with a consumption prevalence below 5%) (odds ratio = 9.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1–80.5). The average youth consumption prevalence for brands that utilized sponsorships was 7.1, compared to 3.3 for brands that did not utilize sponsorships (t=−1.75, p<0.10 for two-sample t-test). The average number of sponsorships for the most popular brands was 24, compared to 12 for the less popular brands (t=−1.89, p<0.10 for two-sample t-test). Nevertheless, there were some exceptions to this pattern. In particular, three brands – Twisted Tea, Pinnacle, and Pabst Blue Ribbon – engaged in many sponsorships (a combined total of 132) despite being less popular brands among youth drinkers. The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient for the two columns in Table 1 (youth consumption prevalence and number of sponsorships) was 0.37 (p<0.01).

Of the 945 identified sponsorships, 232 (24.6%) were categorized as series sponsorships (Table 2). Of these series sponsorships, the majority (160, or 69.0%) were sports-related. Distinct patterns of series sponsorship were apparent for specific alcohol brands. For example, Bud Light, Budweiser, Coors Light, Miller Lite, Pabst Blue Ribbon, Tecate, and Michelob engaged in series sponsorships that were dominated by sporting events. In contrast, Hennessy’s series sponsorships were dominated by music-related events. Brands that were more popular among youth had more series sponsorships. The top 10 brands accounted for 116 series sponsorships (50.0% of all series sponsorships), compared to 11 (4.7%) for the bottom 10 brands.

Table 2.

Identified series^a sponsorships by brand.

Brand	Arts, dining, and entertainment: entertainment complex, TV/radio show, or entertainment series sponsorship	Music: artist, band, TV/radio show, or concert series sponsorship	Sports: athlete, team, sports event series, league, TV/radio show, or stadium sponsorship	Other	Total number of series sponsorships
Bud Light and Budweiser Beers	0	0	8	1	9
Smirnoff Vodkas and Malt Beverages	0	1	2	2	5
Coors/Coors Light	1	2	7	0	10
Bacardi Rums and Cocktails	0	1	3	0	4
Corona/Corona Light	0	1	1	0	2
Jack Daniel’s Whiskeys and Cocktails	1	3	8	0	12
Captain Morgan Rums and Cocktails	0	1	2	0	3
Miller Lite and Miller Beers	4	13	41	1	59
Mike’s Flavored Malt Beverages	1	1	4	0	6
Absolut Vodkas	2	2	2	0	6
Heineken	0	0	0	0	0
Jose Cuervo Tequilas and Margaritas	0	4	7	0	11
Keystone Light/Ice/Premium	0	0	3	0	3
Blue Moon	0	3	0	1	4
Malibu Rums and Cocktails	2	1	3	0	6
Seagram’s	0	0	0	0	0
Grey Goose Vodkas	0	0	4	0	4
1800 Tequilas and Margaritas	0	0	2	0	2
Four Loko	0	0	0	0	0
Hennessy Cognacs	0	5	1	0	6
Patron Tequilas and Liqueur	1	0	3	0	4
Busch/Busch Light	0	0	2	0	2
Baileys Irish Cream Liqueurs	0	0	0	0	0
UV Vodkas and Cocktails	0	0	0	0	0
Ciroc Vodkas	0	2	1	0	3
Bartles & Jaymes	0	0	0	0	0
Natural Ice/Natural Light	0	0	0	0	0
Barefoot Wines	0	0	1	0	1
Jim Beam Bourbon Whiskeys	0	2	3	0	5
Kahlua Liqueurs and Cocktails	0	0	0	0	0
Dos Equis	1	1	2	0	4
Skyy Vodkas	0	0	1	0	1
Burnett’s Vodkas	0	0	0	0	0
Everclear 190	0	0	0	0	0
Samuel Adams Beers	1	0	3	0	4
Crown Royal Whiskey	0	0	2	0	2
Pabst Blue Ribbon (PBR)	0	2	20	0	22
E&J Gallo Brandy	0	1	1	0	2
Tecate/Tecate Light	0	0	10	0	10
Pinnacle Vodkas	1	0	0	0	1
Andre Champagnes	0	0	0	0	0
Bartenders Cocktails	0	0	0	0	0
Twisted Tea Hard Iced Teas	1	3	3	0	7
Yellow Tail Wines	0	0	0	0	0
Modelo Especial	0	0	1	0	1
Boones Farm Cocktails	0	0	0	0	0
Arbor Mist Wines	0	0	0	0	0
Wild Turkey Bourbon Whiskey	0	0	0	0	0
Amstel Light	0	0	0	0	0
Michelob Beers	0	0	5	0	5
P.I.N.K. Spirits	0	0	0	0	0
Sutter Home Wines	0	0	1	0	1
Sailor Jerry Spiced Navy Rums	1	1	1	0	3
Guinness Beers	0	0	2	0	2
Jameson Irish Whiskey	0	0	0	0	0
Total	17	50	160	5	232

^aA series sponsorship was defined as sponsorship of: (1) a series of sports, entertainment, or other events; (2) sponsorship of an athlete, artist, team, racing car, or sports league that encompasses a series of events; (3) sponsorship of a stadium, resort, museum, television or radio station or show, or entertainment complex that encompasses a series of events.

The top categories of alcohol brand sponsorship were sports (269), arts/entertainment (167), music (166), and drinking (125) (Table 3). These four categories alone accounted for 76.9% of the identified sponsorships, including more than 90% of sponsorships for liquor (90.8%), flavored alcoholic beverages (99.3%), and wine (90.9%), and for 56.4% of sponsorships for beer.

Table 3.

Sponsorships by category.

Category	Total	Beer	Liquor	FAB	Wine
Sports	269	116	119	31	3
Arts/Entertainment	167	54	45	61	7
Music	166	32	133	1	0
Drinking	125	33	38	54	0
Food	68	68	0	0	0
Physical Fitness	47	24	22	0	1
GLBT	46	46	0	0	0
Health	17	17	0	0	0
Military	6	6	0	0	0
Youth	6	0	6	0	0
Education	5	5	0	0	0
Environment	5	5	0	0	0
Other	18	11	6	1	0
Total	945	417	369	148	11

FAB = Flavored alcoholic beverages.

Sponsorships by flavored alcoholic beverages were more likely to be drinking-related events than those for non-flavored alcoholic beverage brands (χ2=82.7, d.f.=1, p<0.0001) (Table 3). More than one-third (36.4%) of flavored alcoholic beverages sponsorships involved the promotion of drinking (e.g., bar crawls, beer festivals, cocktail festivals), compared to 7.9% for beer, 10.3% for liquor, and 0% for wine. While there were 125 sponsorships of drinking-related events, there were only 3 identified sponsorships for events related to responsible drinking behavior.

Overall, beer brands utilized the most sponsorships (417), followed by liquor (369), flavored alcoholic beverages (148), and wine (11) (Table 3). The average number of sponsorships per brand was 25 for beer, 21 for flavored alcoholic beverages, 14 for liquor, and 2 for wine.

There was a large difference in the number of sponsorships by the top 10 brands by youth consumption prevalence compared to the bottom 10 brands (Table 4). The top 10 brands accounted for 420 sponsorships (44.4% of all sponsorships), compared to 87 (9.2% of all sponsorships) for the bottom 10 brands. There was also a difference in the nature of the sponsorships. While 38.3% of the sponsorships for the top 10 brands were in the categories of music, arts/entertainment, and drinking, none of the sponsorships for the bottom 10 brands were in these categories. The top 10 brands accounted for nearly half of all drinking-related sponsorships (48.0%), while the bottom 10 brands had no sponsorships in this category. There were no sponsorships for responsible drinking-related events among the top 10 brands; however, the bottom 10 brands accounted for all 3 of the identified sponsorships in this category.

Table 4.

Sponsorships by category: top 10 youth brands versus bottom 10 brands.

Category	Top 10 brandsa	Bottom 10 brandsa
Animals	0	0
Arts/Entertainment	43	0
Business	1	0
Drinking	60	0
Education	5	0
Environment	5	0
Fashion	1	0
Food	68	0
GLBT	46	0
Health	17	0
Literature	3	0
Military	6	0
Music	58	0
Physical Fitness	0	29
Politics	0	2
Professional Development	0	2
Responsible Drinking	0	3
Sports	107	51
Technology	0	0
Travel	0	0
Youth	0	0
Total	420	87

^aTop 10 or bottom 10 brands in prevalence of past 30-day consumption among underage drinkers, out of top 75 brands in overall youth consumption prevalence [49].

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically examine the nature and extent of alcohol brand sponsorship in the United States. We found that alcohol brand sponsorship is extensive, with 945 identified sponsorships during the study period for the top 75 brands consumed by underage drinkers. We also found a strong association between the number of alcohol brand sponsorships and the popularity of a brand among underage drinkers. The most popular youth brands were far more likely to engage in sponsorship and to have a higher number of sponsorships. The identified sponsorships overwhelmingly associated alcohol brands with integral aspects of American culture and lifestyle, including sports, music, the arts and entertainment, and drinking itself. Furthermore, the most popular brands among underage drinkers were much more likely to associate their brands with these aspects than brands that were less popular among underage drinkers.

Our finding that alcohol brands are associating themselves with integral aspects of American culture is important because it suggests that alcohol companies are using corporate sponsorship to build brand capital. Alcohol company sponsorships build brand capital by associating these brands with aspects of American life for which audiences already have positive affect. For example, Bud Light builds on Americans’ love of football by being practically ubiquitous through its sponsorship of the National Football League [50].

In addition, sponsorships create or contribute to brand “personalities.” For example, through its sponsorship of events such as bull riding [51], motorcycle rallies [52], biking [53], marathon running [54], and auto racing [55], Jack Daniel’s portrays its brand as being tough, rugged, and powerful.

A third way in which we found that alcohol brand sponsorships promote brand capital is by appealing to specific target audience groups. For example, Absolut vodka has used brand sponsorship to identify itself with the LGBT community. It has accomplished this by sponsoring events such as the Provincetown Carnival Week [56], RuPaul’s Drag Race [57], the Big Gay Brunch in New York City [58], and gay pride festivals in Nashville [59], Indianapolis [60], Asbury Park [61], Washington, DC [62], St. Louis [63], and Santa Barbara [64].

Another important finding from this research is the strong association between the intensity of an alcohol brand’s sponsorship activities and the popularity of that brand among underage drinkers. This suggests that sponsorship may be creating positive brand capital among the underage population. However, we cannot conclude that sponsorship is causally connected to underage drinking because it is theoretically possible that youth are merely mimicking adult drinking patterns. Nevertheless, if this is the case, there could still be an indirect causal relationship if adult drinking is itself caused by sponsorship. Regardless, it is difficult to imagine that with 166 music sponsorships – 58 of them among the top 10 youth alcohol brands – these brands are not reaching youth. Moreover, there is evidence that youth involvement in alcohol brand promotion, such as ownership of alcohol branded merchandise, is associated with the initiation of teen drinking [65]. Therefore, our observed relationship between the intensity of brand sponsorship and the popularity of brands among underage drinkers is concerning. In addition, some of the brands that engage in heavy sponsorship activity are large national brands that likely have larger marketing budgets and can therefore spend more on traditional advertising. Thus, we would expect that youth are also exposed to heavier advertising for some of the brands that engage in higher levels of sponsorship.

Our findings have important research, practice, and policy implications. First, they suggest that more research is needed to examine the potential impact of alcohol sponsorship on youth alcohol-related attitudes and drinking behavior. Second, they suggest that, as has been the case with tobacco [47], public health campaigns may be needed to discourage organizations from accepting alcohol industry sponsorship. Third, and also like tobacco [10], they point to a potential need for legislation limiting alcohol brand sponsorship. Finally, they suggest the need for programs to develop “community sponsorship funds” that provide alternatives to alcohol sponsorship. The Australian government recently committed $25 million to such a fund, which will support sports and cultural organizations to help remove the links between alcohol and these sports and cultural activities [66].

The major limitation of this paper is the certainty that we have underestimated the total scope of alcohol brand sponsorship. Our findings should be viewed as a lower-bound estimate of the number of sponsorships. Because we relied upon Internet searching, we are most likely to have missed smaller sponsorships, especially those involving smaller organizations and events that may not have a web site or may be less likely to conduct media outreach and thus generate news and internet coverage of their activities and events. It is possible that these sponsorships could involve less prominent alcohol brands which do not publicize their sponsorships as extensively. This would bias the results towards the finding that more popular brands are more likely to engage in sponsorship. Therefore, it is important that our results be verified using more rigorous search strategies, including professional companies, such as IEG (Chicago, IL), whose business is devoted to tracking corporate sponsorship activity [9].

A second limitation is that sponsorships were coded by only one investigator so there is the potential for weakness in the reliability of coding. While we attempted to standardize the search protocol and to clearly define the coding categories, we did not attempt to evaluate the degree of inter-coder reliability, which remains uncertain.

Third, we included only sponsorship of activities, events, and organizations in the United States. Nevertheless, alcohol corporate sponsorship is an international concern. In fact, most of the previous research on alcohol sponsorship has focused on activity outside the U.S., in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. A comparison of our results with those from previous international studies suggests that alcohol sponsorship strategy in the U.S. and other countries is similar, especially regarding sports sponsorship.

Despite these limitations, this paper has demonstrated that alcohol brand sponsorship is a significant strategy of alcohol marketers that generates brand capital through positive associations with integral aspects of culture and lifestyle, creation of attractive brand personalities, and identification with specific market segments. Problems related to alcohol use, particularly among underage persons, cannot be adequately understood and addressed without taking into account and developing better means of monitoring and measuring the impact of this highly prevalent form of alcohol marketing.