Dávid Harsányi

Measuring Event Marketing

The paper presents a INTRODUCTION

comprehensive introduc­ Many research studies have shown the growing impor­
tion of event marketing tance of event marketing. Marketers agree that there has
measurement techniques been a constant increase in event spending, and there is a
from both academic and widespread, positive attitude towards this marketing area.
practitioner points of view. Event marketing is a relatively new phenomenon in
After defining “event marketing practice and literature-approximately twenty
marketing,” its possible years old. Its rise is connected to the many changes in the
goals are summarized and marketing environment. These are the increasing amount
analyzed. Based on these of advertising, the fragmentation and overuse of tradi­
findings, an overall review tional media (Schreiber, Lenson 1994), changing attitudes
is presented on measuring of consumers, such as desire for novelty, individualism
possibilities and tech­ and added value (Wood, Masterman 2008), decreasing
niques. The research uses attention towards classical advertising and rising attention
mainly secondary data but towards experiential consumption (Drengner, Gaus, Jahn
also uses in-depth inter­ 2008), high fragmentation of the population, the necessity
views. The paper is based to focus on the important segments of the market, increas­
on international material, ing role of branding (Schreiber, Lenson 1994), and the
but also deals with the need to build an emotional attachment to brands (Wood,
Hungarian situation. Masterman 2008). As Kotler, Kartajaya, and Setiawan
(2010) note: “Instead of treating people simply as consum­
Keywords: event marketing, ers, marketers approach them as whole human beings with
measurement minds, hearts, and spirits.”
The need for and importance of measurment is con­
stantly increasing in marketing practice. It is even more
relevant in relatively new communication areas such as
event marketing, where the absence of data is one of the
greatest obstacles of the use of the area. But before we can
measure it, we have to define what exactly event marketing
is. It is still not obvious in English, nor in Hungarian litera­
ture, and a slight difference exists between the definitions
given in these various bodies of research. So the paper first
reviews the explanations of different publications. The lit­
erature relating to event marketing is not too extensive and
uniform, but it gives a sufficient platform for the analysis.
Event objectives play a prominent role in defining event
marketing and also in measuring it. The literature suggests

MARKETING & MENEDZSMENT 2012/1-2. 113

that measuring “begins with clearly stated munications mix (Butterfield 1999, Garrison
objectives developed from an understanding 2006), while others consider it to be part of
of what can be achieved” (Wood, Master- another tool (Jobber 1999, Kotler 2001).
man 2008 3) According to a complex approach
It is still a question how to measure (Wohlfeil and Whelan 2006a,b) event mar­
event marketing and its effects. There is keting is an interactive communication of
limited research on the topic, but some brand values by staging marketing-events
literature can be found from both academic as 3-dimensional brand-related hyper­
and practitioner perspectives. With a review realities in which consumers are actively
of the literature and help from profession­ involved on a behavioral level and their
als’ opinions, a comprehensive introduction familiarity, image, attitude and emotional
can be framed of the topic. attachment is positively influenced to the
brand. Sneath, Finney and Close (2005 374)
EVENT MARKETING agree that events offer opportunities for per­
First, it is necessary to define the term event sonal interaction with products and brands.
marketing. It has been used extensively Wohlfeil and Whelan (2005a,b) adds that
(Drengner, Gaus, Jahn 2008, Wohlfeil the major peculiarity of event marketing is
and Whelan 2005a), and there are broader the fact that target audiences are encour­
explanations and also focused approaches aged to experience the brand values actively
to event marketing. At its widest inter­ by becoming an essential part of its hyper­
pretation, every event is event marketing. reality. In Pope and Voges’ view (2000),
This interpretation certainly does not lead events provide an opportunity to engage the
us closer to the point, since the range of consumer with a company, its brands, and
events is too broad. We have to exclude the community. Events help raise attendees’
events such as private parties, and focus on involvement level, therefore, attendees
marketing-related events, as Cornwell and are apt to be more receptive to marketing
Maignan (1998 5) describe: event market­ messages and images associated with the
ing is “marketing of events and marketing event (Close et al., 2006). According to
with events”. Wohlfeil and Whelan (2005a) Wood and Masterman (2008), the greatest
consider events as products, sales promo­ effect is gained through peak experiences.
tions, or sponsorships. Gaur and Saggere Drengner, Gaus, Jahn (2008) show that flow
(2001) attach exhibitions and fairs, festivals experience is an important contributor to
and celebrations to event marketing. Berger the effect of the event.
(2004) connects sponsoring, conferences, Gaur and Saggere (2001) define an event
seminars, and internal events as well. Wood as “a multimedia package carried out with
and Masterman (2008) state the necessity of a preconceived concept, customized or
limiting the included events to those that are modified to achieve the client’s objectives
created for primarily marketing purposes. of reaching out and suitably influencing the
This certainly is a very exclusive approach, sharply defined, specially gathered target
since marketers can be sponsors at events, audience by providing a complete sensual
such as sporting events or music festivals, experience and an avenue for two-way
which are not marketing events in the first interaction.”
place. But Drengner, Gaus, and Jahn (2008) In the scarce Hungarian literature, Bauer
point out the necessity of detaching „event and Berács’s (1999) interpretation is quite
marketing” from „event sponsorship”. inclusive, not separating event sponsorship
Scholars emphasize that event marketing from event marketing. Biro’s (1997) defini­
is an element of integrated marketing com­ tion for event marketing is: a complex public
munication (Sneath, Finney and Close 2005). relations activity, that establishes an event
Some identify it as a separate tool of the com­ and provides sufficient publicity to increase

114 I MARKETING & MENEDZSMENT 2012/1-2.

the reputation of the organization and Professionals consistently associate interac­
help to develop a positive image amongst tion, involvement, relationship, sensory
important target groups. This approach experience with experiential marketing.
underlines the connection to PR. In a simple Schmitt (2003) created Customer Expe­
interpretation, event marketing is organiz­ rience Management (CEM) as an overall
ing and executing events with an objective corporate strategy, Pine and Gilmore (1999)
that is the connection of message (brand, go even further and frame something called
company, organization) with a unique, the experience economy, which is driven by
entertaining, and memorable experience the provision of experiences.
(Fazekas and Harsányi 2011). Garrison The other closely related term to event
(2006) connects event marketing to experi­ marketing is sponsoring. Many sources
ences, and in his opinion, marketing events discuss event sponsoring as event marketing,
are the most persuasive instruments of the because of their similarities. Both of their
communications mix. objectives can be raising awareness, interac­
tion with the attendees, brand building, or
ADJACENT CATEGORIES creating long term effects. But proprietary
Many marketing approaches, areas and events (staged by the company) act differ­
methods can be related to event marketing. ently than sponsored events in many ways
The closest connection definitely lies with (Drengner, Gaus, Jahn 2008, Wohlfeil and
experiential marketing, and sometimes the Whelan 2006a). Mau, Silberer and Weihe
two terms are used as synonyms. Wohlfeil (2006) state that the communication of
and Whelan (2006b 644) emphasize that an the marketing message is limited at event
understanding of consumers’ motivations and sponsorship. Drengner, Gaus, Jahn (2008)
experiential needs is a key factor in designing emphasize that sponsors have to compete for
effective event marketing strategies. They visitors’ attention. Odell (2004) adds that a
add that experiential marketing communica­ sponsored event is not connected very closely
tions are needed to gain consumers’ attention to the brand--but event sponsoring has lower
(Wohlfeil and Whelan 2006b 644) risk and costs, and less work is needed.
The literature on experiential marketing It is important that connecting the
is relatively extensive (Schmitt 1999, Smilan- company name to an event alone is not a
sky 2009). A wide but very useful definition, sufficient event marketing solution. Using
which emphasizes the most important points company banners at location, putting logos
of experiential marketing, is Jack Morton on invitation cards and such are merely
International’s (2006): “Live events where media appearances. Moreover, these are
audiences interact with a product or brand even worse, as it is like showing a logo on
face to face”. This is very close to event TV for 30 seconds instead of using a real
marketing, however Schmitt (1999) and Jaffe advertising video (Schreiber, Lenson 1994).
(2005) draw attention to the differences. Sponsoring takes real effect when the
According to Jaffe (2005) event marketing sponsor pays attention to related commu­
is a subset of experiential marketing, and nications, such as proprietary programs, or
it is the holistic intersection between brand attendee activations at locations. In this case
and event marketing: “It is the nontechno- we can call sponsoring event marketing.
logical or ‘offline’ expression of the ability to Sponsoring an event is not the only
involve. This is becoming one of the hottest choice that companies have. Other subjects
touch points today, offering to consumers a can be sponsored, such as people, sport
tangible and sustainable experience. Where teams, or organizations. International
once a series of messages (or promises) was Marketing Reports 2007 claims that only 23
used, marketers now have the ability to percent of sponsoring budgets are spent on
demonstrate the promise.” (Jaffe 2005 175). events (Kassay 2008).

MARKETING & MENEDZSMENT 2012/1-2. 115

 There are many specific events that are surveys related to event marketing, and
closely related to event marketing. Accord­ compare the goals respondents felt were
ing to Berger (2004), tradeshows are seen most important (Figure 3).
as the preferred event marketing tactic, pro­ Accurate objectives are elemental success
viding the best ROI for marketers, and the factors. As in the case of other marketing
largest percentage of event budgets is also instruments, a wide variety of goals can be
allocated to tradeshows and sponsorships. achieved by events as well. With one single
Some PR events and in-store activities can event, different objectives can be accom­
also be seen as event marketing. Berger plished due to the multi-purpose nature of
(2004) mentions internal events as an marketing events. So it is useful to group these
important part of event marketing. objectives for better perspective (Figure 4).
Event marketing is also connected to Objectives can be formulated in connec­
many other terms, such as special events, tion with the event and / or with the event’s
branded entertainment, brand activation, effects to product or brand. Many times
lifestyle marketing, conferences, seminars these are mixed together, but a separation is
and word of mouth marketing. advisable. These two certainly are close to
The following diagram shows a com­ each other - but they are not the same. An
prehensive explanation of event marketing event can be successfully organized, but it
in connection with the most adjacent disci­ can still fall short in reaching its communi­
plines (Figure 1). cations objectives.
This paper deals with mostly experi­ Most scholars agree that event market­
ence-focused, proprietary events; however ing can generate short term impacts but is
it seemed useful to include other closely more? effective in reaching long term goals
related events, as well (Figure 2). (Sneath, Finney, Close 2005, Bíró 1997,
The closest category to the proprietary Bauer and Berács 1999, Arany et al 2002).
experiential event is definitely event spon­ Usually quantitative measures are central,
sorship. These two categories have adjacent but numerous professionals emphasize
opportunities and similar goals. Fairs are the qualitative aspects of event marketing
also related to event marketing, though measurement (Joyce 2003, Patterson 2004,
their goals are partly different. At its broad­ Wood and Masterman 2008).
est interpretation, event marketing also Objectives also can be divided into
includes those events which are marketed three categories, which reflect the main
by their organizer. subject of event communication: generating
contacts or awareness, changing attitudes,
EVENT OBJECTIVES and changing behaviors (e.g. increasing
The objectives of events play a significant sales). All the goals can be classified into
role as we have already seen this far. Events these groups. Combining these aspects, the
are characterized and categorized by their following system can be set up (Figure 5).
objectives, so we should pay attention to This system also shows such points when
this criterion. As Patterson (2004) claims, measuring can take place.
marketers must have a clear understanding
of the goals, to determine which success MEASURING EVENTS IN GENERAL
factors to measure. Boehme (1999) points Measuring Problems
out the connection of company, financial One of the most important aspects of event
and event goals, and the importance of marketing is measurability. Managers are
harmonizing them. It is also relevant, that increasingly under pressure to measure
objectives have to be discussed and agreed the ROI (return on investment) of market­
by the marketer and the event organizer. ing activities (Joyce 2004). Measuring is
It is very beneficial to take a look at some also at the center of interest concerning

116 MARKETING & MENEDZSMENT 2012/1-2.

 F ig u re 1: The “F lo w e r -m o d e l", a
F ig u re 2: The “O n io n -m o d e l ” -
s im p lifie d m o d e l o f ev e n t m a rk e tin g a n d
th e la y e r s o f e v e n t m a rk e tin g
a d ja c e n t c a te g o r ie s

other marketed events (e.g. festivals)

participation in other events (e.g. fairs) or
marketing &pr events (e.g. sampling)
sponsored (experiential) appearances at events
proprietary experiential events

F ig u re 3: O b je c tiv e s o f E v en ts
S u r v e y o n E x p e r i e n t ia l E u rop ean S p o n so r­
E v e n t M a r k e tin g S tu d y
M a r k e tin g b y J a c k M o r ­ s h ip S u r v e y b y E S A
b y P ro m o M a g a z in e 2 0 0 4
t o n W o r ld w id e 2 0 0 7 ( E u r o p e a n S p o n s o r s h ip
“ g o a ls o f e v e n t m a r k e t ­
“ k e y b e n e f it s o f e x p e r i e n ­ A s s o c ia t io n ) 2 0 0 7
in g ”
t i a l m a r k e t in g ” “ s p o n s o r s h ip o b j e c t iv e s ”
generates advocacy, WOM
boost sales 79% 93% impact brand image 4.2
recommendations
increase brand visibility
raising brand awareness 74% builds brand awareness 92% 4.1
through media
capturing market share 64% builds brand relationships 92% increase brand awareness 4.0
desire to meet customers
generates sales/leads 77% increase brand loyalty 3.9
face-to-face
capture customer data changes behaviors 72% improve brand credibility 3.8
showcase social/commu-
generate trial 3.3
nity responsibility
introduce a product or
entertain clients/prospects 3.2
service or brand
foster retail relationships stimulate sales/trials/usage 3.0
motivate employees 2.9
network with co-sponsors 2.8
sell to co-sponsors 2.7
product demonstration 2.7
on-site sales/supply rights 2.5
1: not at all important
5: extremely important
Sources: Odell (2004), Jack Morton (2008), ESA (2007)

F ig u re 4: T ypes o f ev e n t o b je c tiv e s

event related effect related

short term long term
quantitative qualitative
awareness attitude action in focus

MARKETING & MENEDZSMENT 2012/1-2. 117

 F ig u r e 5: C a te g o r ie s o f E v e n t O b je c tiv e s
b efo r e e v e n t d u r in g e v e n t r ig h t a fte r e v e n t la te r a f t e r e v e n t
r e a c h h ig h p a r tic ip a tio n le v e l / m e e t
c u s to m e r s , p a r tn e r s , m e d ia , c o ­ r a isin g e v e n t a w a r e ­
r a isin g e v e n t a w a r e n e ss n ess
s p o n s o r s a n d c o m m u n ity m e m b e r s
event

fa c e to fa c e
g e n e r a te p u b lic ity / le n g t h o f s ta y / lik in g o f e v e n t / s a t is ­ g e n e r a te p u b lic ity / m e m o r a b le lo n g ­
m e d ia c o v e r a g e fa c tio n / p r o v id e e v e n t e x p e r ie n c e m e d ia c o v e r a g e te r m im p a c t
e n te r ta in c lie n t s / p r o s p e c ts / g en er a te w o rd o f
g e n e r a te w o r d o f m o u th m o u th
c o u r te sy to a tte n d e e s
in te r n e t a n d e - m a il h its in te r n e t a n d e -m a il
s h o w s o c ia l / c o m m u n it y r e s p o n s ib ility h its p o s t-e v e n t
p re-e v en t

r a is e b r a n d a w a r e n e s s / in tr o d u c e a in c r e a s e b r a n d v is ib il­
r e a c h b ra n d c o n n e c tio n
p ro d u c t o r b ra n d / p ro d u c t d em o n str a ­
to e v e n t it y th r o u g h m e d ia
t io n
b ran d

m e m o r a b le
in c r e a s e b r a n d v is ib il­ p r o v id e b r a n d e x p e r ie n c e / tr a n s fe r m e m o r a b le b ra n d
lo n g -te r m b r a n d
ity th r o u g h m e d ia b r a n d m e s s a g e / p o s itio n in g e x p e r ie n c e
e x p e r ie n c e
c h a n g e in a ttitu d e / e n h a n c e b r a n d
im a g e / in c r e a s e b r a n d c r e d ib ilit y /
e n h a n c e b ra n d p r e fe r e n c e
b u ild o r r e in f o r c e r e la t io n s h ip s w ith in c r e a s e b r a n d
in c r e a s e b r a n d lo y a lty
c o n su m e r s a n d o th er ta rg e t g r o u p s / lo y a lty a n d p a r tn e r ­
a n d p a r tn e r s h ip
g e n er a te a d v o c a c y s h ip
m o tiv a te e m p lo y e e s , m o tiv a te e m p lo y ­
m o t iv a t e e m p lo y e e s , t e a m b u ild in g te a m b u ild in g e e s , te a m b u ild in g
c h a n g e in b e h a v io r s
d is t r ib u t e s a m p le s , c o u p o n s
s t im u la t e t e s t in g , tr ia ls
c a p tu r e c u s t o m e r d a ta / b u ild d a ta b a s e
r e a c h fu tu r e p u r c h a s e in te n t
g en er a te r e c o m m e n ­ g e n e r a te r e c o m ­
g e n e r a te le a d s o r o r d e r s m e n d a tio n s
d a tio n s
in c r e a s e s a le s /
in c r e a s e s a le s / in t e n ­ in t e n s if y u s a g e
h e lp s a le s / in c r e a s e o n - s i t e s a le s / c a p tu re m a rk et
s ity u sa g e /
sh are
e n h a n c e e q u ity

Explanation o f colours: awareness / contact, altitude / feelings, a i t i o n s a in s

event sponsorship (Pope and Voges 2000, Marketing Trends survey (Johannes 2007)
Close et al 2006). The European Sponsor­ marketers are getting better at determining
ship Association (ESA) pays pre-eminent ROI and acting on the results.
attention to this subject (ESA 2007) as the So the important task and challenge is
most important challenge of sponsoring. the explanation of the effect mechanism of
A Jack Morton survey (2008) showed that events and the establishment of sufficient
the most important obstacle to using event measuring systems. Research pays off: In a
marketing is the lack of demonstrating ROI. U.S. survey almost half of the respondents
As an early study conducted by Gardner claimed that event marketing delivered a
and Shuman (1987) finds, nearly half of the higher ROI than sales promotions, advertis­
companies surveyed did not measure event ing, Internet marketing, and public relations
marketing outcomes (Sneath, Finney, Close (Staffers 2002). EventView 2006 (MPI
2005). According to Promo’s 2007 Event 2006) confirmed these findings that event

118 MARKETING & MENEDZSMENT 2012/1-2.

marketing delivers the greatest ROI in mar­ component of the plan (32%) or taken under
keting. Global Event Trends study ranked consideration with other mediums (50%).
event marketing second only to direct mar­ The size of the international event indus­
keting in perceived return on investment try is constantly increasing. After the year
(Berger 2004). 2000, many firms were optimistic about
The marketer and the organizer share their plans to spend more on event / experi­
responsibility for event success and ential marketing the following year (Staffers
achievement of objectives (Wood and Mas- 2002, Berger 2004, Johannes 2007, Jack
terman 2008). Bell (2010) points out that in Morton 2008, Experiential Marketing 2009).
most cases, companies do not entrust the This shows great optimism towards events,
measurement of the event to their organizer, even if in some years budgets decreased in
which would project proprietary evaluation. reality (Johannes 2007). So survey results
Surveys show that among those who mea­ are not coherent even in the U.S. According
sure, it is overwhelmingly done internally to the survey by Promo Magazine, 10% of
(85%) as opposed to an independent third total marketing budgets were spent on event
party (15%) or by the organizing agency marketing in 2003 (Spethmann 2004). In
(12%) (Berger 2004). European results are contrast, MPI Foundation’s data on 2004
similar as 80% of the sponsors measure show that 22% of total marketing budgets
internally, and 42% with research agency were addressed to event related sponsoring
(ESA 2007). The survey suggests that exter­ activities (Sneath, Finney and Close 2005).
nal research agencies are involved where The problem is that methodology is not pub­
greater objectivity is needed. lished concerning the size of the industry,
and samples are relatively small (100-300
Overview of Event-Measuring interviewees) when evaluating marketers’
Techniques attitude towards events.
Measurement of event marketing shows The recession of 2008 and 2009 cer­
wide variety. Due to its complexity, many tainly had its effects on the industry in
types of research can be done on this topic. budget cuts. But event organizers have
It is useful to review the most important adapted to the situation and still concentrate
directions (Figure 6). on planning events that are creative, inspir­
ing and motivating, but also cost effective
Event Industry (Crawley-Boevy 2009, Hurley 2010).
In 2005, more than 96 percent of U.S. cor­ Unfortunately there is only scarce infor­
porations included event marketing in their mation on the Hungarian event industry.
promotional strategies (GPJ, 2005). In 2009, Mainly practical articles deal with certain
(EMI 2010) the ratio was similar: event questions related to events, and Promo
marketing is a lead tactic (10%), a vital Direkt holds annual surveys on the basic

F ig u re 6: T yp ica l re se a rc h f ie ld s o n e x p e r ie n tia l even ts

su b je c t app roach s a m p le research er

size of event industry, use and
Promo, MPI / EMI / GPJ: Event-
measuring of events, opinion on practical professionals
View, EMF / IMI, ID, Jack Morton
effectiveness
opinion on events, attitude towards
practical visitors Jack Morton, Event Marketer, ID
events in general
development of event measuring practical /
visitors SponsorMap Experiential, BATS
techniques theoretical
Academic professors
influence mechanism of events theoretical visitors
(e.g. Close, Wohlfeil)

MARKETING & MENEDZSMENT 2012/1-2. 119

parameters of the event industry (Promo understanding of audience behavior; find
Direkt 2010). specific sales opportunities at the event
where an incentive is given; and evaluate
MEASURING PARTICULAR EVENTS the impact on public relations.
Measuring Aspects of ROI As we can see, these specifications give
Many factors have to be taken into con­ information on ROI aspects, but do not
sideration when measuring certain events. determine a clear categorization. Some pro­
Professionals believe that the ROI of events fessionals even question the use of ROI, and
is essential, but the literature is not coherent talk about ROT (return on goals, return on
regarding what the exact measures of ROI are. targets) or ROE (return on - brand - equity).
In a Global Event Trends study, the According to Batalis, (Joyce 2004) events
majority of respondents indicated brand cannot be measured by ROI, since their goal
preference and brand awareness as the is brand building.
perceived ROI drivers (Berger 2004). Some scholars categorize event measur­
According to Promo’s survey (Johannes ing methods. Patterson (2004) summarizes
2007) respondents declared the following the general metrics that marketing can use.
aspects the most important in measuring In his opinion the three specific perfor­
ROI: event headcount (45.7%) register sales mance areas that Marketing can impact are
data per event days (45.7%), future likeli­ acquisition, penetration, and monetization.
hood to purchase (45.7%), Internet hits The three connecting metrics gauges of
post-event (43.6%), samples, coupons marketing are market share, lifetime value,
distributed (37.2%), length of time engaged and brand equity. Though this is a compre­
(25.0%), and other (5.9%). The survey adds, hensive framework, it can be adopted to
that “measuring the consumer experience” event marketing.
means: sales volume (66.0%), expressed Wood and Masterman (2008) quote
purchase intent (39.9%), brand preference Hofman (1991) who believes that while
altered (29.3%), other (brand awareness, the appeal of some experiential events is
loyalty, email hits, etc.) (7.4%). hedonic (art, sport, music), others have
Though ESA’s survey (2007) deals with instrumental appeal (sampling, trade shows)
sponsoring, the results are useful for other and others combine both (test drives, con­
events as well. The most preferred evalu­ sumer shows). Evaluation therefore needs to
ation techniques according to ESA (2007) consider both the hedonic and instrumental
are: media exposure (80%), event attendees experiences of the consumer.
/ participants (69%), TV ratings (45%), The Association of Hungarian Exhibition
consumer / sponsorship research (44%), and Fair Organizers (AHEFO 2006) groups
sales figures (43%), competitor sponsorship exhibitors’ targets and measures into six cat­
activity (42%), interest levels from clients egories: sales, customer relationships, retail
/ trade partners (43%), employee feedback channel, research, brand building and PR.
(42%), demographics (35%), fan passion There are three broad schools of evalu­
(29%) provided by rights holder (20%), and ation according to Gupta (2003): measuring
psychographics (16%). awareness or attitude change; quantifying
Westcott (Joyce 2004) advises pro­ in terms of sales results; and comparing the
fessionals to use at least seven ways to value of sponsorship-generated media cov­
measure event marketing: track lead quality erage to the cost of equivalent advertising
and quantity; calculate total audience size time or space.
and the quality of impressions; assess the In SponsorMap’s (2009) model, mea­
overall effectiveness of the brand message; surement of the effectiveness is based on
gather competitive intelligence (from a five key stages. Attention and understanding
trade show floor, for example); gain a better (measured by recall of the event and brand),

120 MARKETING & MENEDZSMENT 2012/1-2.

1 F ig u re 7: The f i v e k e y s ta g e s o f th e S p o rtso rM a p m o d e l to m ea su re ev e n t e ffe ctiv en ess

S o u rce: S p o rtso rM a p E x p e rie n tia l

engagement (measured by passion index), As we saw earlier, companies can for­

appreciation (measured by gratitude index) mulate goals for the event itself, or for the
and commitment - change in attitudes or effects of the event. The situation is the
behavior (measured by brand shift index). same with measuring, as firms can measure
The most useful and comprehensive the event or the effects of the event (Wood
categorization is Wood and Masterman’s and Masterman 2008).
(2008). They suggest three categories: Patterson (2004) emphasizes the impor­
1. The event (attendance, media coverage, tance of measuring and metrics, and most
satisfaction) scholars look for quantitative measures. How­
2. Consumer experience of event ever, Schreiber and Lenson (1994) believe
3. Consumer response to the experience that the qualitative dimension is as important
(feelings, attitudes, intentions, behavior) as quantitative. Wood and Masterman (2008
a) Attitude change as a result of experience 9) also draw attention to qualitative aspects
(perceived brand values, preference, lik­ at the same time: “Use of interviews, focus
ing) groups, consumer panels, surveys and control
b) Behavioral change as a result of expe­ groups can obtain data which can be used
rience (purchase behavior, WOM, to enhance and better understand simple
recommendations, advocacy, trial) numerical results.” This confirms Joyce’s
(2003) opinion as quantitative measures fail
According to them, in order to evaluate to collect other categories of information that
the outcomes of particular marketing activi­ should be judged when evaluating an event.
ties (i.e. event marketing) it may be more An example of that is the on-site impression
practical to measure the ‘value’ to the cus­ of marketer and organizer, which can not be
tomer. This requires both benefits and costs quantified. AMP’s Brand Ambassador Track­
of the experience to be considered (Value = ing System (BATS), a Web-based reporting
Benefits - Costs). Costs can be monetary, tool also includes qualitative data such as
cognitive, psychic and psychological as can photos and consumer quotes transmitted by
the benefits. It is of primary importance that organizing staff members (Joyce 2004).
measures have to be based upon the com­ Woods (2003) warns that “the simple
munication objectives of the event (Woods marketing truth is that the dynamic between
2003). So it is useful to adapt the categories many brands and most consumers is a ‘rela­
of event goals to event measuring. These tionship’ — not a math problem”. He points
parameters are: out that short-term ROI is many times not
• measure the event or the effect of the what companies really should look for. Joyce
event (2003) agrees that short-term evaluation
• quantitative or qualitative methods needs to be supplemented with a longer-term
• short term or long term effects perspective. She adds that collecting data
• awareness / contact, attitude / feelings, from consumers months and even years after
or action / sales in focus an event helps evaluate the impact. Sneath,

MARKETING & MENEDZSMENT 2012/1-2. 121

Finney and Close (2005), as well as Wood Event awareness and change in brand
and Masterman (2008) also emphasize that awareness both can be measured, and
evaluating requires longitudinal data track­ awareness level is important before and
ing, or at least research before and after each after the event.
event (pre- and post-event surveys). Wood It is common to compare events’ media
and Masterman (2008) draw attention to the exposure to advertising campaign cover­
necessity of archived historic data over a age, usually in the case of great customer
number of campaigns in order to provide a events. When the company concentrates
usable base for the analysis. It is also useful to on achieved contact numbers, this can be a
compare results of event periods to no activity good evaluation method. It is sometimes the
periods. U.S. Concept measures sales volume case at event sponsorships as well, where
in the weeks after the event, it conducts direct the most important goal can be enhancing
questioning as attendees are leaving the event, brand awareness. In these events, displayed
and in many cases, it does an e-mail follow-up logos play great role, acting like traditional
in the succeeding weeks (Joyce 2004). advertising. In this case events are defined
Some argue that all of these aspects as media, and equivalent media costs can be
need to be taken into account if event suc­ calculated. Professionals tend to believe that
cess is to be credibly evaluated. But due to events are short in terms of contact numbers
the variety of communication effects that which means that a relatively small group of
can be achieved by events different evalu­ people can be reached from a relatively high
ation techniques are appropriate in every cost per capita. But according to Experien­
single case, customized to the parameters tial Marketing Forum and IMI International
and objectives of each program. (EMF 2010b), events can be equally effec­
tive as media appearances, when “impact”
THREE MAJOR CATEGORIES OF and not contact is evaluated involving other
MEASUREMENT aspects, such as length of contact, quality of
Three Categories contact, or the word of mouth effect.
From the many aspects of event evalua­ Recently the influence of social media
tion, there is one grouping principle, which has been growing exponentially. So it is
seems prominent. This divides measuring important not just to reach journalists and
into three groups, which can be character­ the mass media, but other opinion leaders,
ized by the event objectives, such as: bloggers, and hubs to generate word of
• Awareness (contact, knowledge, etc.) mouth. Creating consumer conversations,
• Attitude change (feelings, relation, etc.) word-of-mouth or buzz, can be one of the
• Action (behavior, trial, sales, etc.) main goals of an event and is therefore one
of the potential outcomes which needs to
Practically every measuring aspect be evaluated. According to Jack Morton’s
belongs to one of the above groups. The (2006) study, live experiences are the best
three “A”-s also follow the decision making medium to generate word of mouth, as 85%
process of purchasing that a target member of respondents claimed that participating in
of the event can go through. experiential marketing events would cause
them to talk about the product or brand.
Awareness SponsorMap (2009) also looks at the WOM
Event effectiveness is often measured by impact as a major feature of experiential
awareness or contact numbers, such as: marketing. Krueger and Casey (2000) sug­
• range of media coverage gest a tool for measuring WOM following
• word of mouth an event: interviewing the friends of event
• number of event participants attendees shows what has been said about
• event connection to the brand the activity. Another way to measure WOM

122 MARKETING & MENEDZSMENT 2012/1-2.

(Reichheld 2006) is to ask event attendees Close (2005) prove that contacting with
how likely they would be to recommend the the product or brand has a greater effect
brand to a friend. This method of course only on attendees’ attitude and brand preference
measures the potential recommendations. than title sponsorship, logos, and banners
Another aspect of measuring events is on site. So companies should concentrate on
participation, but this still shows only contact experience and involvement.
numbers, not real effects. A better way is to Marketers can measure many aspects such
measure whether attendees can connect the as liking of the event, feelings of attendees,
brand to the event, but Wood and Master- event experience, brand experience, transfer
man (2008 10) point out that “awareness of brand message, impact on brand image,
measurement is a less useful tool for experi­ development of emotional connections or
ential events as attendees will undoubtedly be relationship between brands and consumers,
aware of the brand. Awareness measurement change in brand preference and credibility,
can be applied to the wider nonattending increase in brand partnership and loyalty.
audience to measure awareness of the event As we can see, attitude change can be
and/or awareness of the brand message com­ reached towards the event and / or the brand.
municated through the event.” Measuring is more complex than in the case
Scholars emphasize the shortcomings of of awareness (media equivalent, contacts
contact measurement. Many professionals or simply attendance), since the numerous
claim that what really need to be measured objectives and effects that can be reached.
are the communication effects - not broad­ Most aspects require longitudinal research,
casted messages or CPM (Garrison 2006, so measuring attitude change is a complex
Schreiber and Lenson 1994). According to question. Scholars believe that current
Pham (1991), measurement of media cover­ methods are not seen as comprehensive or
age may not be appropriate, because it does reliable due to the intangibility of the event
not provide information about recall or atti­ experience. Wood and Masterman (2008)
tude change (Sneath, Finney, Close 2005). emphasize the difficulty in standardizing
methods and measures, since a wide variety
Attitude change of tools and measures exist which could be
It is important to measure not just whether adapted and combined. Later on we return
company or brand messages were seen or to this point to analyze the difficulties of
heard, but whether they had an impact, and event measurement.
what that impact was. The few academic research studies con­
According to a survey (Berger 2004), centrate on the attitude change towards brands
the majority of professionals answered indi­ caused by marketing or sponsored events.
cated brand preference and brand awareness Esch et al’s (2006) research is not con­
as the perceived ROI drivers. As Boehme nected directly to events. However, it is
(1999) claims, the objectives of certain very useful to understand the brand’s long
events are not to make profits directly but term effects on purchase. As they find brand
to enhance goodwill. ROI is important in knowledge is not sufficient for building
both cases, but it is measured differently strong brands in the long run. Brand knowl­
in each. Wood and Masterman (2008 18) edge influences future purchases through
believe that “the event becomes the brand, brand relationship, and brand relationship
representing the brand values in a physical has factors such as brand satisfaction, brand
and interactive form. This suggests then trust and attachment to the brand.
that one of the most important aspects to Wohlfeil and Whelan (2006a) examine
measure is the strength and characteristics how a consumer is motivated to participate
of the emotional connections made as a in marketing events. Sneath et al (2005)
result of the event.” Sneath, Finney and concentrate on immediate effects and find

MARKETING & MENEDZSMENT 2012/1-2. 123

positive links between sponsorship and incorporate a reasonable balance of sales
favorable brand perception. They add that numbers and relationship matters. Accord­
purchase intention is also favorably influ­ ing to Joyce (2004), as consumers become
enced by the attendees’ brand experience. more complex, so does marketing, therefore
Close et al’s (2006) research shows that measurement techniques cannot concen­
attendees’ knowledge of the sponsor’s prod­ trate only on financial terms.
ucts, activeness and enthusiasm in the event
topic (e.g. sport, arts) is linked to apprecia­ COMPLEXITY OF MEASUREMENT
tion of the sponsor which leads to positive Events and IMC
brand opinion and to purchase intention. Events have to be considered as a relevant
Martensen et al (2007) analyze brand part of the integrated marketing commu­
involvement, fit between brand and event, nications strategy, and not as a separate
and event involvement to positive and nega­ communications tool (Sneath, Finney,
tive event and brand emotions, event and Close 2005, Jack Morton 2008). Some
brand attitude, and these effects on buying professionals believe that one single com­
intention. They find connection between munication method cannot be evaluated
these, but only indirect impact of event separately. So the primary challenge for
emotions and attitude on buying intention. marketers is the difficulty of isolating event
Drengner, Gaus and Jahn (2008) con­ effects from the effects of other promotional
centrate on measuring the relation between activities. As Sneath, Finney, and Close
flow experience of attendees and brand (2005 375) summarize this idea, “the IMC
image. The results show indirect connec­ approach suggests that unlike sales- and
tion as follows: flow > positive emotions to profit-oriented approaches, it may be more
event > event image > brand image. They appropriate to measure event marketing
also point out that event providers should effectiveness using exposure-based meth­
motivate consumer interaction not just with ods (Hulks, 1980), tracking measures that
brands but with other attendees, which can measure recall, awareness, and attitudes
stimulate word of mouth and sales. (McDonald, 1991), and experiments that
allow for control of the effects of advertising
Action (Pham, 1991)”. During post-event research,
Actions such as trials, accepting coupons, wider target groups (control groups) have to
giving contact data, ordering, or buying be interviewed, who did not attend or did
are what many marketers believe the most not hear from the event, and their answers
important factors of event effectiveness. have to be compared to those participated
Some of the companies assess effectiveness the event (Schreiber, Lenson 1994). This
solely through sales and market share, even of course still leaves open the question of
though event marketing is a communica- whether attendees were originally more
tions-oriented activity. familiar with the company, brand or event.
These measuring aspects are very Some believe it is advisable to evaluate
popular because of their simplicity and an experiential event separately only when
immediate data accessibility. But purchases it represents a relatively large proportion
usually come some time after the event, of the overall communication, or when its
so Garrison (2006) considers the effect on results can be compared to periods when
buying intention to be the most important events are not in use.
metric related to an event (he calls it PIM,
that is Purchase Intent Measurement). Modifying factors
Many professionals believe that too Many other factors can modify the effect
much emphasis is given to sales aspects. of events, even from outside the planned
Woods (2003) claims that measuring should campaign. “Event effectiveness is related

124 MARKETING & MENEDZSMENT 2012/1-2.

to individual emotional response, to the and time involvement. But many research
influence of other communications, both tools were developed to give marketers
marketing driven and in a wider social sufficient background for evaluation. For
context, and to the previous experience and example the ROI Tool Kit (Biba 2008) is
expectations of each individual in the audi­ a Web-based calculator developed to help
ence” (Wood and Masterman 2008 4). marketers determine trade show ROI. Spon-
sorMap Experiential (2007) measures the
Labor, Cost, and Time interaction between the event, the brand and
Research can be labor intensive in terms of the consumer at proprietary events. It also
field work, but the most important aspect deals with WOM. The Brand Ambassador
is professionalism concerning research Tracking System (BATS) is a Web-based
design, and analysis. This is why marketers real-time accessible reporting tool. Besides
may need the assistance of event organizers capturing attendance figures, demographics
or research institutes. However it is said to of visitors, numbers of samples distributed,
be doubtful to use the agency providing the it allows field staff to transmit consumer
events, because of lack of neutrality. quotes, photos to the system (Joyce 2004).
Joyce (2003, 2004) has analyzed event There is a wide range of data collection
evaluation expenditures, and states that costs methods that can be applied to evaluate
can be relatively high. For the reasons she experiential marketing events. In connection
quotes Wescott (as cited in Joyce 2004) who to event awareness, media cutting services
suggests measuring as many parameters as can be used to measure achieved media
possible, and Woods (as cited in Joyce 2003), exposure. The volume of attendees can be
who claims that a valid statistical pool is found out using door counters or registra­
about five to ten percent of attendees at a tion. Gift or sample distribution also gives
retail-based event and two to three percent information. A relatively new way of mea­
at a festival event. Joyce (2003) points out suring visitors’ movement is using Radio
that an extensive long term research study Data System (RDS). Special gadgets that
needs significant investment in database transmit radio signals are distributed among
resources, as well. Events are usually stron­ participants, and with receivers at main
ger concerning long-term effects. Impacts areas of the event, it can be seen, which pro­
on customer behavior often appear with a gram elements were most and least favored
time delay: days, weeks, even months after by attendees.
the event. So measuring should be orga­ To measure the attitude of those who
nized to meet this challenge (Schreiber and got in touch with the event, mostly face-to-
Lenson 1994). Uncertainty can be reduced face or self completion questionnaires are
by tracking research, and measuring can be used. Not only attendees and prospects are
conducted before, during and after the event. interviewed, but with questionnaires, the
Wood and Masterman (2008) draw attention experiences of staff also can be established.
to the problem of ‘Short-termism’. It is one Using questionnaires is quite popular, but it
of the main obstacles to improving event does have its shortcomings. It is sometimes
evaluation, as the brand manager is often expensive, and disturbs event experience.
handling the brand for a short time and thus According to Batalis (as cited in Joyce 2004),
he or she is not interested in brand building marketers should consider investing in new
but in winning market share for a short time. methods of evaluating an event. Product
This is a practice marketers should avoid. sales data and exit quizzes on future buying
intent are the old-school measures of event
Research Techniques success. She advises marketers to find out
In practice, those measures are in favor what consumers really think vs. what they
which do not demand much work, budget say they think. To do so, effective analysis

MARKETING & MENEDZSMENT 2012/1-2. 125

should use an appropriate mix of both direct • Step 1: Isolate the experiential impact
and indirect data, qualitative and quantita­ • Step 2: Use consistent measures (effi­
tive approaches. ciency, effectiveness, cost effectiveness)
A recent solution for measuring event • Step 3: Compare to objective database.
attendees is using sensors. These are put on
participants like vests and detect the person’s This gives a reasonable frame for
emotion changes. With this data very deep research, but the procedure is too simplified.
analysis can be made concerning feelings of As a conclusion, some key aspects can
attendees. Sensors are especially effective be defined to measure event marketing in
with the combination of RDS. A fascinating practice.
idea by Joyce (2003) is giving bonus cards • marketers should think in advance to
to event participants. With this, attendees’ have time for research design, and to
post-event buying activities can be measured. allow of necessary pre-event surveys
AHEFO (2006) suggests comparison of costs • research focus has to be harmonized
reaching marketing goals with the event or with clear event objectives
with other marketing tools. Another interest­ • the researcher has to be appointed
ing point is the effect of single or repeated (in-house department or colleague,
events. Sneath, Finney, and Close (2005) find organizing agency, or third party /
that first-time event participants can be bet­ research agency)
ter candidates for persuasion than returning • a sufficient budget has to be allocated
attendees. According to EMF (2010c) with • modifying factors which also influence
repeated events the effect on brand love is the outcome have to be determined
substantially greater (55% -> 71%) and buy­ (parallel or previous marketing activity)
ing intent also increasing (56% -> 77%). As • research method, sample and the most
Wood and Masterman (2008) analyze in their appropriate metrics have to be chosen
assay, every method has its own shortcom­ and agreed before the event (or even
ings. The situation, the event objectives and included in contract) in order to protect
company resources (e.g. budget) determine both parties
the selection of research method(s). Moreover, • benchmarks have to be assigned (situ­
according to Westcott (as cited in Joyce 2004) ation before event or non-promotional
marketers and market sectors have different periods, using of control panel, etc.),
event measurement priorities. many times data have to be collected
For these challenges a complex mea­ prior to event
suring method could give the answer.
However, a universal method would be SUMMARY
almost impossible to create, due to the Events are constantly developing promo­
diversity of marketing events, the various tion tools. There is no universal definition
event types and goals. Moreover, in practice for event marketing, and many other com­
there is hardly enough time and financial munication areas are overlapping, such
background for such deep research. So the as experiential marketing, sponsoring,
field is unlikely to develop a methodology and public relations. The objectives of
that is perfectly applicable to every event. event marketing play a pre-eminent role in
The solution can be focus, as it is for other practice, but are so widespread, therefore
marketing and communication methods. comprehensive categorization is advisable.
Many research studies show the advan­
MEASURING IN PRACTICE tages of event marketing, but its presumable
The Experiential Marketing Forum (EMF effectiveness is often based on managers’
2010a) suggests three easy steps to measure beliefs rather than empirical evidence.
experiential marketing: Events are very complex, so holistic measur-

126 MARKETING & MENEDZSMENT 2012/1-2.

ing methods are almost impossible to create. EMF (2010d) Experiential Marketing Forum /
However, with a clear focus on objectives Clickin Research / International Experiential
Marketing Association (IXMA): “Experiential Mar­
and sufficient planning, event effectiveness keting - Changing the Way You Relate to Brands”,
can be measured adequately. Special advertising section to Adweek and Brand-
There is much more research to be done week, experientialforum.com/survey/AWBWEMF.
in understanding the effectiveness of events. pdf 5p accessed January 2011
One topic is, for example, the success fac­ EMI (2010) Event Marketing Institute / George P.
Johnson: “EventView 2010”, www.mpiweb.org/
tors of events (such as location, program,
Libraries/N TA -R eports/E ventV ie w _2010.pdf
catering, staff, etc) that make dominant accessed January 2011
effects on attendees’ attitude and behavior. Eredményesség-mérés - Kiállítási részvételeknél
And of course adaptable long term evalua­ [Measuring efficiency at exhibition participation],
tion techniques are still to be developed. Hatékonysági fórum [Efficiency Forum] 2006,
www.mkvsz.hu accessed January 2011
ESA (2007) European Sponsorship Association:
REFERENCES “European Sponsorship Survey 2007, Bruxelles, ESA
Arany E. és tsai (2002), Üzleti rendezvényszervezés
Annual Conference, November 2007 www.sponsor-
I. - Titkok és trükkök [Business event planning I. -
ship.org/content/downloads_public/resInfo_DL/
Secrets and Tricks], B+V, 128p ESA_European_Sponsorship_Survey_2007_SMS_
Bauer A., Berács J. (1999), Marketing. Aula, Budapest
final_l.pdf accessed January 2011
Berger, J. (2004), “Study predicts increased value,
ESCH F-R, LANGNER T, SCHMITT В H, GEUS P
role and spending for event marketing”, Los Angeles
(2006) “Are brands forever? How brand knowledge
Business Journal, June 28, 2004 and relationships affect current and future pur­
Biba, E. (2008), “Tech can help quantify events” В
chases”, Journal o f Product & Brand Management,
to B, 5/6/2008, 93 7, p30-30 15 2, p98-105
Bíró P. (1997), Eseménymarketing: Új eszközök a
EXPERIENTIAL MARKETING (2009): Working
kommunikációban, KITK, Budapest The Front Lines, www.experientialforum.com/
Boehme, A. J. (1999), Planning Successful Meet­
content/view/205/48/ October 5, 2009 17p accessed
ings and Events, Amacom, 174p
December 2010
Close, A. G., Finney, Z. R., Lacey, R. Z., Sneath, J.
FAZEKAS I, HARSÁNYI D (2011): Marketing­
Z. (2006), “Engaging the Consumer through Event
kommunikáció egyszerűen, Szókratész, Budapest
Marketing: Linking Attendees with the Sponsor,
GARRISON P (2006): Exponenciális marketing,
Community, and Brand.” Journal o f Advertising
HVG, 239p
Research 46 4 pp.420-433
GAUR S S, SAGGERE S V (2001): Event Marketing
Cornwell, T. B., Maignan, L. (1998), “An Interna­
and Management, Vikas Publishing House, 243p
tional Review of Sponsorship Research”, Journal o f
GPJ (2005) George P. Johnson Company / MPI Foun­
Advertising 27 1 pl-22
dation: “Fourth Annual Trends Study, Event-View
Crawley-Boevy, S. (2009): “Keeping up Appear­
‘05/’06”, Press Release, July 11, 2005 www.mpiweb.
ances”, Marketing, September 16 2009 p33-34
org/archive/250/56.aspx, accessed January 2011
Drengner, J., Gaus, H., Jahn, S. (2008), “Does Flow GUPTA S (2003): “Book Review on Event Market­
Influence the Brand Image in Event Marketing?”,
ing and Management”, ПМВ (Indian Institute o f
Journal o f Advertising Research, 48 1, pl38-147
Management Bangalore) Management Review,
EMF (2010a) Experiential Marketing Forum /
December 2003,15 4, p98-99
IMI International: “How to Measure & Optimize
HURLEY L (2010): “The New Day for Corporate Spe­
Experiential Marketing”, www.consultimi.com/
cial Events”, Special Events, May/Jun2010,29 3, pl5-17
wp-content/uploads/2009/08/EMF-IMI-How-to-
JACK MORTON International (2006): Experiential
Measure-and-Optimize-Experiential-Marketing.
Marketing Study - A Survey of Global Response,
pdf accessed January 2011 4p www.interpublic.com/news%2Bideas/research#
EMF (2010b) Experiential Marketing Forum / IMI
accessed January 2011
International: “Mass or Experiential?” experiential-
JACK MORTON International (2008): Survey on
forum.com/xmr/MassvExM.pdf accessed January
Experiential Marketing - Executive Summary,
2011 January 2008, 17p www.experientialforum.com/
EMF (2010c) Experiential Marketing Forum / component/option,com_docman/task,doc_down-
IMI International: “Repeat Experiential Event
load/gid,lll/Itemid,30/ accessed January 2011
Attendees: Greater Brand Love, Purchase Intent”,
JAFFE J (2005): Life After the 30-Second Spot -
experientialforum.com /xm r/repeatxm event.pdf
Energize Your Brand with a Bold Mix of Alternatives
accessed January 2011 to Traditional Advertising, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 304p

MARKETING & MENEDZSMENT 2012/1-2. 127

JOHANNES A (2007): “Time Out”, Promo, Jan 1, SCHMITT В H (2003): Customer Experience Man­
2007 promomagazme.com/eventmarketing/market- agement: A Revolutionary Approach to Connecting
ing_time_4/ accessed January 2011 with Your Customers, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 288 p
JOYCE К M (2003): “Show Me the Money - And SCHREIBER A L, LENSON В (1994): Lifestyle
More”, Promo, Mar 1, 2003 promomagazine. and Event Marketing: Building the New Customer
com/mag/marketing_show_money_2/index.html Partnership, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 263p
accessed January 2011 SMILANSKY S (2009): Experiential Marketing: A
JOYCE К M (2004): “Return On...What?”, Promo, Practical Guide to Interactive Brand Experiences,
Jan 1, 2004 promomagazine.com/microsites/maga- Kogan Page, 272 p
zinearticle.asp?mode=print&magazinearticleid=18 SNEATH J Z, FINNEY R Z, CLOSE A G (2005):
9131&releaseid=&srid=11534&magazineid=122&s “An IMC Approach to Event Marketing: The Effects
iteid=2 accessed January 2011 of Sponsorship and Experience on Customer Atti­
KASSAY L (2008): Szponzoráéit) - kommunikációs tudes.”, Journal o f Advertising Research, Dec 2005,
eszköz és médium, [Sponsoring - communications 45 4, p373-381
tool and medium] AKTI Füzetek, Budapest, March SPETHMANN В (2004): „Event Marketing:
2008, Issue 24, archiv.akti.hu/akti/dok/fuzet24.pdf Street Smarts”, Chief Marketer, April 1, 2004
accessed January 2011 chiefmarketer.com/presence/events/marketing_
KOTLER P (2001): Marketing management - street_smarts/index.html accessed January 2011
Elemzés, tervezés, végrehajtás és ellenőrzés, STAFFERS E (2002): Event Marketing to Increase
[Marketing Management - Analysis, Planning, in 2002 www.thenewsletterplace.com/001eninews/
Implementation, and Control] Műszaki, 875p issuell/article2.html accessed January 2011
KOTLER P, KARTAJAYA H, SETIAWANI (2010): Wohlfeil, M„ Whelan, S. (2005a), “Event-Mar­
Marketing 3.0 - From Products to Customers to the keting as Innovative Marketing Communications:
Human Spirit, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 188p Reviewing the German Experience”, Journal o f
KRUEGER R A, Casey M A (2000): Focus Groups. Customer Behaviour, 4 2, pp.181-207
A Practical Guide for Applied Research, Thousand Wohlfeil, M„ Whelan, S. (2006a): “Consumer Moti­
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 206p vations to Participate in Marketing-Events: The
MARTENSEN A, GR0NHOLDT L, BENDTSEN L, Role of Predispositional Involvement”, European
JENSEN M J (2007): “Application of a Model for the Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, pp.125-131
Effectiveness of Event Marketing”, Journal o f Adver­ Wohlfeil, M., Whelan, S. (2006b): “Consumer
tising Research, September 2007,47 3, p283-301 Motivations to Participate in Event-Marketing
MPI (2006) MPI Foundation / George P. Johnson Strategies.” Journal o f Marketing Management, 22
Company: EventView 2006 8p www.mpiweb.org/CMS/ 5/6, pp.643-669
uploadedFiles/Research_and_Whitepapers/Event- Wood, E. H., Masterman, G. (2008), “Event Market­
View2006-FINAL-060705.pdfaccessed January 2011 ing: Measuring an experience?”, 7th International
ODELL P (2004): „PROMO Exclusive: By the Num­ Marketing Trends Congress, 17-19 Jan, 2008 Venice
bers”, Promo, January 1,2004 promomagazine.com/ marketing-trends-congress.com/2008_cp/Mate-
research/eventtrends/m arketing_prom o_exclu- riali/Paper/Fr/Wood_Masterman.pdf accessed
sivejnumbers/index.html accessed January 2011 January 2011
PATTERSON L (2004): “If you don’t measure, you Woods, S. M. (2003), “Chasing the ROI Grail”,
can’t manage. The best metrics for managing market­ Promo, Mar 1, 2003, promomagazine.com/event-
ing performance.” Marketing profs. 23 Nov, 2004 marketing/marketing_chasing_roi_grail/index.
PINE В J, GILMORE J H (1999): The Experience html accessed January 2011
Economy: Work Is Theater & Every Business a
Stage, Harvard Business Press; Boston, MA, 272 p Dávid Harsányi
POPE N K, VOGES К E (2000): “The Impact of
Assistant Professor
Sport Sponsorship Activities, Corporate Image, and
Prior Use on Consumer Purchase Intention.” Sport Budapest Business School
Marketing Quarterly, 9 2 p96-102 harsanyi.david@kkfk.bgf.hu
PROMO DIREKT (2010): Rendezvényszervezői
piackutatás 2010 [Event planning survey 2010]
www.promo-direkt.hu accessed January 2011
REICHHELD F F (2006): The Ultimate Question,
Driving Good Profits and True Growth, Harvard
Business School Press, 224p
SCHMITT В H (1999): Experiential Marketing: A
New Framework for Design and Communications,
Free Press, 304p

128 MARKETING & MENEDZSMENT 2012/1-2.