See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259160325

Branding athletes: Exploration and conceptualization of athlete brand image

Article in Sport Management Review · January 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.smr.2013.04.003

CITATIONS READS

266 31,836

3 authors:

Akiko Arai Yong Jae Ko

Tokyo University of Science University of Florida
18 PUBLICATIONS 551 CITATIONS 125 PUBLICATIONS 5,661 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Stephen Ross
Concordia University- St.Paul
37 PUBLICATIONS 2,972 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yong Jae Ko on 25 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Sport Management Review 17 (2014) 97–106

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Sport Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/smr

Branding athletes: Exploration and conceptualization of

athlete brand image
Akiko Arai a, Yong Jae Ko a,*, Stephen Ross b
a
University of Florida, United States
b
University of Minnesota, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: In this study, the current issues of athlete brand management are discussed and the
Received 21 December 2011 construct of athlete brand image is conceptualized. A conceptual model of athlete brand
Received in revised form 26 April 2013 image (MABI) is developed incorporating three key dimensions: athletic performance,
Accepted 27 April 2013 attractive appearance, and marketable lifestyle. These dimensions are defined by an
Available online 14 June 2013 athlete’s on-field characteristics, attractive external appearance, and off-field marketable
attributes. This study contributes to the sport branding literature by providing the first
Keywords: comprehensive conceptual framework of athlete brand image and offering managerial
Athlete
implications for building and managing the brand image of individual athletes.
Brand management
ß 2013 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by
Brand image
Conceptual model
Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Recently, many athletes have been expanding their influence beyond their sport by getting involved in a variety of social
activities and businesses. In light of modern media culture, those athletes are considered ‘‘a social sign, carrying cultural
meanings and ideological values, which express the intimacies of individual personality, inviting desire and identification;
an emblem of national celebrity, founded on the body, fashion and personal style’’ (Gledhill, 1991, p. xiii). The concept of
‘athlete brand’ has emerged from their multi-functional and multi-platform nature. Athletes are considered not only as
vehicles for advertisements or product endorsement, but also as cultural products that can be sold as ‘‘brands’’ (Gilchrist,
2005). In fact, there are numerous sport agencies currently in existence that provide a vast range of client level services. In
this highly competitive industry, managing brands for athletes is becoming an essential task for agents (IBIS World Industry
reports, 2008). For example, IMG, the world’s largest sport agency announced their mission statement as ‘‘Today, we help
hundreds of elite athletes, coaches, industry executives and prestigious sports organizations maximize their earnings
potential and build strong personal brands’’ (IMG, n.d.).
The brand management for athletes has grown in importance because the concept of branding is well suited for athletes
as products. Previous branding studies have documented positive consequences of successful branding such as: influencing
the probability of brand choice, willingness to pay premium price, marketing communication effectiveness, and promotion
of positive word of mouth (Aaker, 1996; Berry, 2000; Keller, 1993; Rein, Kotler, & Shields, 2006a). These benefits are also
highly applicable to individual athletes, with well-branded athletes attaining price premiums on their salary, transfer fees,
contract monies, and the ability to maintain fan support even when their performance has declined (Gladden & Funk, 2001).
Well-branded athletes who carry symbolic messages can attract companies seeking effective endorsers. Furthermore, the

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 352 392 4042; fax: +1 352 392 7588.
E-mail address: yongko@ufl.edu (Y.J. Ko).

1441-3523/$ – see front matter ß 2013 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.04.003
98 A. Arai et al. / Sport Management Review 17 (2014) 97–106

established brand value of the athlete will help his/her post-athletic career because well-branded athletes can leverage their
brand value through their post-athletic career (Rein et al., 2006a). Rein et al. (2006a) pointed out the advantage of viewing
athletes as a brand, stating ‘‘because there are a growing number of distribution opportunities available, the athlete has the
potential to enter into a variety of sectors and use his or her sports career as a platform for other endeavors.’’ Additionally,
athletes are considered to be unstable products in the sport industry because of the potential risks for unexpected injuries or
performance slumps. Considering those risks, athletes are truly in need of strong branding strategies. Even though winning is
one of the major factors in the sports brand mix, win-loss cycles are an inevitable condition for athlete brands. Sports
marketers should seek other branding strategies (e.g., establishing of a strong brand identity) to overcome losing records and
sustain loyalty (Rein, Kotler, & Shields, 2006b; Richelieu & Pons, 2006). Acknowledging the unique nature of the sports
products including those of athletes, Rein et al. (2006b) emphasized that ‘‘sports products can only survive with new brand
thinking’’ (p.30).
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the construct of athlete brand image and propose a conceptual model of
athlete brand image (MABI). This study identifies specific dimensions of athlete brand image through an extensive literature
review. The MABI provides a theoretical understanding of athlete brand image and offers a structural framework for
managers and agents in the development and management of athlete brands.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Definition of athlete brand

Defining an athlete brand is a fundamental step in the process of model development. Several scholars have attempted to
define ‘‘human brand’’, but a common consensus has not yet been achieved. A brand in sports is defined as ‘‘a name, design,
symbol, or any combination that a sports organization uses to help differentiate its product from the competition’’ (Shank,
1999, p. 239). According to this definition, all individual athletes can be considered as brands because every athlete has a
name, distinctive appearance, and a personality. Consistent with this, Thomson (2006) broadly defined the human brand as
‘‘any well-known persona who is the subject of marketing communications efforts’’ (p.104). On the other hand, according to
Keller, ‘‘A brand is something that has actually created a certain amount of awareness, reputation, prominence, and so on in
the market place’’ (Keller, 2008, p. 2). Till (2001) discussed athlete brand in a limited sense, and implied that only athletes
who have earned a significant amount of money from endorsement contracts can be considered as brands.
By applying these basic concepts, we define an athlete brand as a public persona of an individual athlete who has
established their own symbolic meaning and value using their name, face or other brand elements in the market.

2.2. Brand equity and athlete brand image

Branding is generally understood to be a strategy for establishing a trademark the public associates exclusively with an
entity (Storie, 2008). From an academic perspective, branding is often discussed in terms of developing, building, managing, and
measuring brand equity (Aaker, 1996; Ross, 2006). Brand equity is often defined as the added value attached to the brand name
or other brand elements (Aaker, 1996), and includes both financial and customer-based perspectives of value (Gladden, Milne, &
Sutton, 1998). However, recent brand management literature tends to understand ‘brand equity’ focusing only on the
consumer’s perspective, while ‘brand value’ indicates quantifiable elements in relation to its financial worth (Raggio & Leone,
2009). Although consensus for a definition of brand equity has yet to be reached, consistent with the majority of previous
studies (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993), this study concentrates on the consumer’s perspective of brand equity.
Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) have conducted extensive research on brand equity, and are viewed as perhaps the two
foremost authorities on the topic. Aaker’s (1991) framework emphasizes the contents of brand equity, and includes brand
name awareness, brand loyalty, perceived quality, and brand associations. Alternatively, Keller (1993) developed a
customer-based brand equity model, suggesting that positive equity is developed when customers have high levels of
awareness and familiarity with the brand, and hold strong, favorable, and unique brand associations in memory. Although
Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) have taken different approaches in understanding brand equity, both emphasized the
importance of brand associations in the process of building a strong brand. In fact, subsequent marketing studies have found
that brand choice and brand loyalty are highly influenced by the image that consumers make with a brand (Bauer, Sauer, &
Exler, 2005; Bauer, Sauer, & Exler, 2008; Chen, 2001; Low & Lamb, 2000). Importantly, marketing a sport property (e.g., team
or individual athlete) is ‘‘all about selling an image’’ while other product brands may have many other tangible brand
elements (e.g., quality and price) that could be managed (Cordiner, 2001, p. 13). Given this important distinction, the focus of
this study is an athlete’s brand image.
Brand image has been defined as the reasoned or emotional perceptions consumers attach to specific brands (Dobni &
Zinkhan, 1990), and involves the perceptions of a particular brand as reflected by the brand associations held in a consumer’s
memory (Keller, 1993). Based on these definitions, ‘brand image’ and ‘brand association’ are often used interchangeably in
the literature (e.g., Bauer, Sauer, et al., 2005). Keller (1993) further classified the types of brand associations into overall
brand attitudes, brand attributes (i.e., product-related attributes and non-product-related attributes), and brand benefits
(i.e., functional benefit, symbolic benefit, experiential benefits). Brand attributes are ‘‘those descriptive features that
characterize a product or service – what a consumer thinks the product or service is or has and what is involved with its
 A. Arai et al. / Sport Management Review 17 (2014) 97–106 99

purchase or consumption’’ (Keller, 1993, p. 4). Attributes are further classified into product-related attributes, which are the
necessary features for performing the product or service function, and non-product attributes, which are the external
features of a product or service. These external features include price information, packaging or product appearance
information, user imagery, and usage imagery (Keller, 1993). Lastly, brand benefits refer to ‘‘the personal value consumers
attach to the product or service attributes – that is, what consumers think the product or service can do for them’’ (Keller,
1993, p. 4).
Although Keller’s classification of brand associations (1993) provides an in-depth understanding of the multidimensional
brand image construct, the classifications are still controversial. First, in the marketing literature, attitude is defined as an
affective reaction toward the product or service (Lutz, 1991) and is often considered as attitudinal loyalty. For example,
attitude is often modeled as a dependent variable of image management (Bruner & Hensel, 1996; Homer, 2006; Kirmani &
Shiv, 1998). Second, Keller (1993) implied that the associations are not independent of each other and some benefits
correspond with attributes. In fact, a previous brand image free-thought listing survey identified only two benefit
dimensions: socialization and commitment (Ross, James, & Vargas, 2006). These results imply that when consumers are
asked to think about the brand, they tend to recognize only one aspect (i.e., attributes or benefits). This is consistent with
previous advertising studies (e.g., Choi & Rifon, 2007; Ohanian, 1990) that identified the adjectives to describe endorsers in
order to assess the endorsers’ image. Bauer, Sauer, et al. (2005) explained the relationship between brand attributes and
customers’ benefit by applying the means-end chain model (Gutman, 1982). They suggested that product attributes are the
means for consumers to obtain desired benefits. On an unconscious level, the product attributes are ideally linked to
desirable benefits for the consumer. Therefore, this study focuses only on the attribute features of athlete brands. We
understand an athlete’s brand image as a consumers’ perception about athlete brand attributes.

2.3. Application of brand image

In fact, previous studies have found that brand image is an important antecedent of fan loyalty (Bauer et al., 2008; Bauer,
Sauer & Schmitt, 2005). If sport marketers can understand what creates brand associations or which association factors make
an athlete a strong brand, they can develop marketing strategies to create new, favorable brand associations and reinforce
existing positive brand associations (Gladden & Funk, 2001). Because brand associations differ across brands and product
categories (Low & Lamb, 2000), it is necessary to examine what kinds of brand associations become important in developing
a strong athlete brand. Sports consumers hold unique associations in memory when thinking of certain athlete brands. The
purpose of the current study is to identify athlete brand-specific brand associations. Although few studies have directly
examined athlete brand image, there are some related studies applicable to athlete brand image. Therefore, we conducted a
comprehensive literature review in sport team branding and athlete endorser image studies to identify the crucial brand
associations in developing brand equity for athletes.

2.3.1. Endorser image

Athlete image management has often been discussed in studies regarding product endorser image rather than a brand
itself (Choi & Rifon, 2007; Ohanian, 1991; Till, 2001). Shuart (2007) defined an endorser as a ‘‘well-known person used in
advertising whose function is to sell products’’ (p. 128). However, considering their multi-functional, symbolic status,
athletes are more than just endorsers. As Seno and Lukas (2007) stated, ‘‘celebrity product endorsement is a form of co-
branding. . .the essence of co-branding is a public relationship between independent brands’’ (p. 123), recent endorsement
studies have begun to discuss endorsers as independent brands and consider their relationship as ‘co-branding’ rather than
simply endorsees and endorsers.
Although the celebrity endorsement studies have established a rich history of research, due to the difference of the goal
orientation, those research fields are not well linked. However, the identified components of effective endorsers are
applicable for athlete branding because athletes’ self-branding activities include a self-endorsement perspective. Therefore,
the theories discussed in the endorser image research support the development of the athlete brand association model and
generate implications for brand management. Athlete and celebrity endorsement research has attempted to examine the
‘image’ that influences the effectiveness of celebrities and athletes as product endorsers. Ohanian (1991), for example,
examined the impact of celebrity spokespersons’ perceived image on consumers’ intention to purchase endorsed products.
This source credibility model (Ohanian, 1990) provides a crucial theoretical basis for athletes to be established as brands.
Many scholars agree that a brand includes a promise for future satisfaction (Berry, 2000; Clifton & Simmons, 2004; Raggio &
Leone, 2007), and therefore, athletes have to be credible for satisfying consumers’ future needs. Also, in the general brand
management literature, brand credibility has been considered to be an important antecedent of brand loyalty or brand
choice (Erdem & Swait, 2004; Kim, Morris, & Swait, 2008). Erdem and Swait (2004) defined brand credibility as ‘‘the
believability of the product information contained in a brand, which requires that consumers perceive that the brand have
the ability (i.e., expertise) and willingness (i.e., trustworthiness) to continuously deliver what has been promised.’’ Therefore,
credibility is considered as an essential element for athletes not only to be endorsers, but also to be established as brands.
Credibility is considered to have two primary components, trustworthiness and expertise (Erdem & Swait, 2004).
Trustworthiness implies that it is believed a brand will deliver what it has promised, while expertise implies that the brand is
perceived as capable of delivering the promise (Kim et al., 2008). Ohanian (1990) also added physical attractiveness as a
dimension of source credibility based on Joseph’s (1982) study, which experimentally proved that physically attractive
100 A. Arai et al. / Sport Management Review 17 (2014) 97–106

communicators have a more positive impact on opinion change, product evaluation, and other dependent measures. The
dimensions (attractiveness, trustworthiness, and expertise) proposed by Ohanian (1990) are also applicable for athlete
brand image. Choi and Rifon (2007) further extended the celebrity image dimensions to include genuineness, competence,
excitement and sociability. Those dimensions were confirmed as independent dimensions from credibility dimensions:
attractiveness, trustworthiness, and expertise (Ohanian, 1990). The athletic star power dimensions identified by Braunstein
and Zhang (2005) also extended and modified those endorser characteristics into sports stars. Star power was
conceptualized as the power and the unique characteristics of a specific individual that make him or her ‘‘star worthy’’
(French & Raven, 1959). Based on four endorser effectiveness frameworks: the source attractiveness model (McGuire, 1985),
source credibility model (McGuire, 1968) the meaning transfer model (McCracken, 1989) and the product match-up
hypothesis (Kamins, 1990), Braunstein and Zhang (2005) identified athletic star power factors (i.e., professional
trustworthiness, likeable personality, athletic expertise, social attractiveness and characteristic style). As such, endorser
image dimensions have been considered from various angles. In this study, we integrated and modified those identified
endorser image dimensions based on Keller’s framework (1993), and attempt to provide structural understanding of athlete
brand image dimensions.

2.3.2. Sport team branding

Although previous literature focusing solely on athlete brands is lacking, several sport team branding studies have been
conducted. Unlike other tangible products, the sports consumers’ needs, expectations, and image for sports products are
unique (Gladden et al., 1998). Thus, the sport-specific dimensions found in the sport team brand image studies might be
applicable to the dimensions of athlete brand image. Specifically, the team sports brand association research by Gladden and
Funk (2001, 2002) and Ross et al. (2006) are two relevant studies that can provide a foundation for an athlete brand image
construct.
By adapting Keller’s conceptualization of brand associations (1993), Gladden and Funk (2001, 2002) developed the team
association model (TAM) to examine brand associations of sports teams. Gladden and Funk (2002) identified 16 brand
association dimensions through an extensive literature review and included: product-related attributes (i.e., success, star
player, head coach, team’s management), non product-related attributes (i.e., logo, stadium, tradition, product delivery),
symbolic benefits (i.e., fun identification, peer group acceptance), experiential benefits (i.e., escape, nostalgia, pride in place),
and attitude (i.e., importance, knowledge, affective reaction).
In a related study, Ross et al. (2006) developed the team brand association scale (TBAS) to examine brand associations in
professional sports teams. Ross et al. questioned the structure of the brand image dimensions proposed by Gladden and
Funk. In fact, several researchers (Low & Lamb, 2000) have argued that Aaker (1991) and Keller’s (1993) brand image
dimensions may not reflect the consumers’ image precisely because Aaker and Keller’s models have not been empirically
tested. Ross et al. (2006) asserted that the literature review and brainstorming sessions conducted by Gladden and Funk were
not enough to identify the appropriate brand associations in sport. Therefore, Ross et al. (2006) identified brand association
dimensions through a free-thought listing technique and strict psychometric analysis to confirm the dimensions’ validity.
The final scale identified 11 dimensions underlying professional sports team brand associations and included success,
history, stadium, team characteristics, logo, concessions, socialization, rivalry, commitment, organizational attribute, and
non player personnel.
Some of the factors identified in the TAM (Gladden & Funk, 2001) and TBAS (Ross et al., 2006) were also supported by a
qualitative study. Richelieu and Pons (2006) investigated how legendary sports teams with high brand equity (i.e., Toronto
Maple Leafs and football club Barcelona) have built and leveraged their brand equity. Richelieu and Pons (2006) identified
four common fundamental factors where two teams establish their brands: winning tradition, intense rivalry, longevity and
tradition and powerful fans. Based on the sports team branding literature, we further identified and modified the athlete
brand specific associations to include competition style, rivalry, symbol, life story and relationship effort.

3. Model development: athlete brand image

The dimensions of the athlete brand image model proposed in this paper were identified through a comprehensive
literature review of the previously discussed research fields: (1) endorser image studies that explore the factors for being an
effective endorser, and (2) sports team branding studies that explore the sports team brand association dimensions.
The model of athlete brand image is primarily based on Keller’s (1993) classification of attribute dimensions (product
related attributes and non-product related attributes). We adopt Keller’s customer-based brand equity model (1993) here
because the model highlights the multidimensional structure of brand associations. In applying the schema to the athlete
brand context, we consider athletic performance as a product related attribute (on-field attribute) since athletes typically
develop their brand status based on their continued excellence in their sport (e.g., Andrews & Jackson, 2001, p. 8). Gladden
et al. (1998) also stated that success should be the most important creator of brand associations and brand equity over time.
We consider here other off-field characteristics (i.e., marketable lifestyle) as equivalent to non-product related attributes.
The physical attractiveness was initially included in the off-field attributes. However, the appearance of athletes could be
considered both on-field and off-field attribute (e.g., body fitness). Furthermore, athletes’ appearances may serve as a
‘‘trademark’’ of their brands. Since this trademark management is a major building block in most branding practice (Storie,
2008), we decided to place the attractive appearance as a primary dimension that parallels athletic performance and
 A. Arai et al. / Sport Management Review 17 (2014) 97–106 101

Table 1
Definitions of athlete brand image dimension.

Dimension Definition Sub-dimension Definition

Athletic performance An athlete’s sport
performance
related features
Athletic expertise An athlete’s individual achievement and athletic capability
(winning, skills, proficiency in their sport)
Competition style An athlete’s specific characteristics of his/her performance in a
competition
Sportsmanship An athlete’s virtuous behavior that people have determined is
appropriate (fair play, respect for the game, integrity)
Rivalry An athlete’s competitive relationship with other athletes

Attractive appearance An athlete’s attractive Physical attractiveness An athlete’s physical qualities and characteristics that spectators
external appearance find esthetically pleasing
Symbol An athlete’s attractive personal style and trademark
Body fitness An athlete’s body fitness in his/her sport

Marketable lifestyle An athlete’s off-field
marketable features
Life story An appealing, interesting off-field life story that includes a
message and reflects the athlete’s personal value
Role model An athlete’s ethical behavior that society has determined is worth
emulating
Relationship effort An athlete’s positive attitude toward interaction with fans,
spectators, sponsors and media

marketable life style in the model. The sub-dimensions were adopted and modified from endorsement and sports team
brand association dimensions. The detailed definitions and adaptation process of each sub-dimension is provided below
(Table 1).

3.1. Athletic performance

Athletic performance refers to an athlete’s sports performance related associations, and is further divided into: athletic
expertise, competition style, sportsmanship and rivalry.
Athletic expertise involves an athlete’s individual sports achievements and capabilities (e.g., winning, skills, and
proficiency in their sport). Gladden et al. (1998) suggested that success is probably the most important creator of brand
associations and brand equity over time. However, success in sports often means more than simply the winning records of
the athletes. The winning does not have to be consistent success but can be the extraordinary records which define their
brands as competitive (Richelieu & Pons, 2006). Furthermore, we discussed in the introduction, developing athlete brands
based only on winning is risky because losing is inevitable. Therefore, the factor focuses more on expertise. Trail, Robinson,
Dick, & Gillentine (2003) suggested that there are different types of fans, each viewing success in various ways. One type of
fan highly identifies themselves with the team and cares about winning, while another type of fan is just a spectator who
seeks a well-played, back-and-forth game. Those fans are motivated more by the skills and knowledge of the athletes than
just winning.
Expertise has been identified as a critical characteristic for endorsers. Hovland, Janis and Kelley (1953) found that
‘‘expertness’’ and ‘‘trustworthiness’’ are major dimensions of the source credibility of endorsers, and Ohanian (1990) further
identified the expertise dimensions as expert, experienced, knowledgeable, qualified, and skilled. In addition, an athlete
endorsement study reported that athletic expertise is most effective in making athletes recognizable in a target market
(Braunstein & Zhang, 2005).
Competition style refers to an athlete’s specific characteristics of his/her performance in the competition itself. Ross et al.
(2006) identified team play characteristics to be specific characteristics that a team displays on the field (i.e., how the team
scores), as one of the team brand associations. The spectator motivation literature has also found that identification with the
team or player is one of the most important factors for fans’ loyal behavior (Trail et al., 2003). If the athlete has a clear and
unique playing style that fans can easily identify with, strong identification will likely develop and lead to loyalty.
Sportsmanship refers to an athlete’s virtuous behavior and is often defined by fairness, integrity, ethical behavior, and
respect for the game, opponents, and teammates (e.g., Sessions, 2004; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Sportsmanship can be a
symbolic message for the athlete brand, and is very important when trying to attract consumer trust. This dimension was
chosen as an athlete specific factor of trustworthiness given that Ohanian (1990) defined the dimensions of trustworthiness
as dependable, honest, reliable, sincere, and trustworthy in the celebrity endorser-credibility scale. In the sports context,
those dimensions overlap with the concept of sportsmanship.
Rivalry refers to an athlete’s competitive relationship with other athletes. Ross et al. (2006) defined rivalry as the factor
pertaining to the competition among teams that are known to be historically significant competitors. Richelieu and Pons’
(2006) study found that sports teams define their brand image in opposing terms to their opponent. Rivalry is also important
for individual athlete brands, because rivalry enables fans to develop a clear understanding of what their identity is, and is
not. For example, the storied relationship between tennis stars Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer adds meaning to both of their
brands, and serves as a promise for exciting games between the two athletes.
102 A. Arai et al. / Sport Management Review 17 (2014) 97–106

3.2. Attractive appearance

Attractive appearance refers to an athlete’s attractive external appearance and is defined by physical attractiveness,
symbol, and body fitness. This primary dimension works as a ‘‘trademark’’ for athlete brands. Attractiveness can be any
arbitrary, distinctive and non-descriptive features of an athlete that the public can recognize or appreciate. Trademark in
branding is often defined as anything (e.g., a word, phrase, symbol, color, number, sound) that often exclusively denominates
the products (Storie, 2008) (e.g., Coca-Cola is associated with red color). In marketing research and practice, how to manage
the legal aspect of a trademark (e.g., image right) and how to develop a secondary meaning the consumers attach to a
trademark have been major issues (Cohen, 1986). The physical attractiveness, symbol and body fitness are the fundamental
factors that work as ‘‘trademark’’ for athlete brands.
Physical attractiveness has become an important dimension of source credibility (Ohanian, 1991). Specifically, consumers
tend to form positive stereotypes about attractive people, and research has shown that physically attractive communicators
are more successful in changing beliefs than unattractive communicators (Ohanian, 1991). Symbol refers to an athlete’s
attractive personal style, fashion or any outward unique features of the athletes; athletes often utilize their personal style to
express their personality or character. This dimension is as important as name, logo, and team color of team sport (e.g.,
Gladden & Funk, 2001; Ross et al., 2006). For example, Brett Favre of the National Football League (NFL) was known for having
a rugged fashion sense, while former National Basketball Association (NBA) star Dennis Rodman is recognized for wearing
outlandish clothes at public appearances. For individual athletes, the athlete’s name and fashion style have public meaning
apart from their real name and true fashion sense. For example, professional golfer Tiger Woods’ signature red or black golf
apparel often worn during competitions provides a point of differentiation.
Body fitness refers to how physically fit an athlete is in a given sport. Because these individuals are athletes, not fashion
models, their attractiveness can be evaluated in terms of the fitness of their body. Braunstein and Zhang (2005) star power
dimensions included the body fitness in the social attractiveness factor mixed with other attractive social characteristics
(e.g., physical attractiveness, media exposure and entertainment). In this study, Body Fitness is identified as an independent
factor as it is unique and essential for athlete brands. Previous research (e.g., Lau, Cheung & Ransdell, 2008) has examined the
relationship between body image and self-esteem, and an athlete’s body fitness could be viewed as a symbolic message of
self-esteem and self-concept. Perhaps most importantly, the Body Fit influences the consumers’ perception toward opposite
sex athletes (Daniels, 2009). Therefore, the body fitness of athletes can be an athletic specific brand association factor.

3.3. Marketable life style

Marketable life style refers to an athlete’s off-field marketable features that could be indicative of his or her value and
personality. Today, celebrities achieve their status not only because of their outstanding on-field performance, but also in
their distinct life style (Choi & Rifon, 2007). A number of public relations studies have investigated the on and off-field roles
of athletes (Andrews & Jackson, 2001; L‘Etang, 2006; Summers & Morgan, 2008). Consistent with Andrews and Jackson’s
observations (2001), off-field indiscretions can play a role in understanding the personal narrative associated with a
particular sport celebrity, and it is natural to assume that those off-field attributes have strong influence on consumers’
image, and thus brand equity, of the athlete. ‘‘Lifestyle’’ was chosen in this model rather than ‘‘personality’’ because
‘‘personality refers to the internal characteristics of a person, while life style refers to the external manifestations of those
characteristics- or how a person lives’’ (Mowen & Minor, 1998, p. 220). As the recent Tiger Woods’ infidelity scandal proved,
sport spectators cannot always know the athlete’s true personality. However, sport consumers can see athletes’ lifestyles can
reflect their personality and personal value. Therefore, it was decided to reflect the personality characteristics within the
lifestyle dimension. The marketable life style dimension includes life story, role model, and relationship effort.
Life story refers to an appealing, interesting off-field life story about an athlete and may include a message that reflects the
athlete’s personal values. Jowdy and Mcdonald (2002) suggested that one unique episode about an athlete can increase the
value of that athlete. For example, famed cyclist Lance Armstrong’s battle with cancer provided a foundation for the set of
associations with the Armstrong brand. Escalas (2004) argued that a brand becomes more meaningful when it is closely
linked to the consumer, and narrative processing of the brand information helps consumers to connect themselves to the
brand. According to Escalas (2004), ‘‘as a result of the meaning arising from the structure of narratives, people are able to
make evaluations and form judgments by constructing stories.’’ Therefore, the life stories that can connect the athletes to
consumers are critical associations for athlete brands.
Role model refers to an athlete’s ethical behavior that the society has determined to be worth emulating. These behaviors
could be related to the athlete’s active participation and contribution to society, conformance to societal norms, and/or
exhibition of virtuous behavior. This dimension is identified based on the credibility model (Ohanian, 1991); however, it is
differentiated from sportsmanship in that it refers to the off-field activities of the athletes. ‘‘People need role-models and
idols. . .they offer essential help and orientation, for children and adolescents in particular’’ (Biskup & Pfister, 1999, p. 199).
Relationship effort refers to an athlete’s interactions with fans. Thomson (2006) suggested that fulfilling fans’ need for
relatedness by offering athletes’ online spaces such as blogs or chat rooms where fans can have direct contact with the
athlete, can assist with the development of fan attachment. For example, NFL star Chad Ochocinco has achieved significant
attention for his use of Twitter to connect with fans. Thus, those fan services are included in this dimension and have been
identified as an organizational attribute in team branding research (Ross et al., 2006).
 A. Arai et al. / Sport Management Review 17 (2014) 97–106 103

Fig. 1. Conceptual model of athlete brand image.

In summary, through a comprehensive literature review, this study proposes a model of athlete brand image consisting of
the three first-order dimensions of athletic expertise, attractive appearance, and marketable lifestyle. These three
dimensions are further divided into ten association sub-dimensions; these sub-dimensions are defined and the resulting
model is visually represented in this paper (Fig. 1).

4. Discussion

The significance of the proposed model stems from (1) providing a definition of an athlete brand, and (2) identification of
the salient athlete brand image dimensions. Although previous studies have indeed discussed athletes as brands, there is a
lack of theoretical understanding of the athlete brand image construct. To fill this conceptual void, we developed a
conceptual model showing the dimensions of athlete brand image which potentially influences consumer brand equity
formation toward athlete brands.
This study contributes to the relatively new research area of human brand (e.g., Thomson, 2006) by linking the rich field of
endorsement studies and brand management literature. Athletes have been studied as endorsers rather than brands for
decades (e.g., Till, 2001). Although the endorsement studies identified many characteristics of successful endorsers (e.g.,
Braunstein & Zhang, 2005; Choi & Rifon, 2007; Ohanian, 1990), these studies are more concerned with using athletes to sell
products. This study represents one of the initial attempts to define and understand an athlete as a brand. By considering an
athlete as a brand, athletes should be able to discover more active marketing opportunities rather than waiting for
companies’ sponsorship offers. Furthermore, the interactive relationship between an athlete and a sponsor may provide
benefits as the relationship allows sports marketers to adopt more advanced branding strategies established in the
marketing research process such as co-branding and brand extension development. This study serves as a fundamental step
for future athlete branding studies based on both the rich field of athlete endorsement studies and sports branding studies.
104 A. Arai et al. / Sport Management Review 17 (2014) 97–106

The model of athlete brand image (MABI) identified the critical brand associations for athlete brand in developing
brand equity among consumers. The construct of athlete brand image is based on Keller’s customer-based brand equity
theory (1993), which is modified to athlete brands. Each specific association identified in the MABI will aid sport agents
and managers when building (or rebuilding) the athlete as a brand. The MABI consists of three dimensions (i.e., athletic
performance, attractive appearance, and marketable lifestyle) and 10 sub-dimensions. The first overarching dimension,
athletic performance, consists of four sub-dimensions (i.e., athletic expertise, competition style, sportsmanship and
rivalry). The second overarching dimension, attractive appearance, consists of three sub-dimensions (i.e., physical
attractiveness, symbol and body fitness). The third overarching dimension, marketable lifestyle, consists of three sub-
dimensions (i.e., life story, role model, and relationship effort). The three generic dimensions are common facets of
athlete brand image. Therefore, practitioners can use the basic concepts (i.e., dimension level) in formulating their
athletes’ brand image strategies. For example, sport agents can evaluate overall image of their clients by analyzing
general aspects of athlete brand images from a consumer’s perspective. In contrast, the subdimensions can be used for
evaluating the specific aspects of athlete brand images and framing branding strategies accordingly. For example, the
managers can strengthen or reposition their clients’ images by using the specific subdimensions of the model as
evaluation criteria.
Based on the associations, sports agents and managers can identify which dimensions are weak or strong for their
respective athletes and help develop a stronger brand image. Each dimension could serve as a guideline in evaluating the
athlete brand by finding out the strengths and weaknesses of the athlete as a brand. The MABI can be used in evaluating an
existing athlete brand image or developing a new image. It is important for sport marketers to understand the construct of an
athlete brand image, given that consumers dislike ‘‘fake brands’’ and prefer brand images the seem to be authentic rather
than created (Thomson, 2006). Richelieu and Pons (2006) emphasized that strategic construction of brands is only possible
with a clear identity and strong positioning. However, without understanding the current image of the athletes, it can be
risky because the existing image and developed identity must be consistent to some extent. By evaluating the current
athlete’s brand image among certain consumer segments, sport agents and managers might be able to develop a consistent
strategy for building or rebuilding an athlete brand. Overall, the proposed model of athlete brand image may provide
strategic concepts to brand managers for the systematic evaluation of athlete brand image and assist in preparing effective
marketing and branding strategy for their clients.
As with any study, there are limitations in this research that must be discussed. First, future research should seek to
empirically test the proposed model, and examine the influence athlete brand image has upon selected attitudinal and
behavioral outcomes. Second, the MABI should be examined using both athletes for team sports and individual sport
athletes. Third, the model should be examined with a specific market segment in mind because consumers often have
different brand perceptions based on their consumer segment (Aaker, 1996). Hoek, Dunnet, Wright, and Gendall (2000) also
suggested that brands should develop distinct images that will attract a specific consumer segment.

5. Conclusion

Although this study is ripe for future research, the proposed model (MABI) will have significant application once it
has been empirically examined. As Mullin, Hardy, and Sutton (2007) stated, ‘‘Sport product is a complex package of the
tangible and the intangible’’ (p. 148). Commercial value of individual athletes can also be ambiguous as it depends on
spectators’ subjective perceptions, not only visible statistics. There are numerous players who are very popular and have
high commodity value despite their level of performance, and in some cases the opposite is true. Given fluctuations in
performance, some high profile athletes may have a poor performing season (e.g., NFL’s Brett Favre in 2010), while
other low-profile athletes may have a breakout season (e.g., NFL’s Adrian Peterson in 2007). The question of what makes
this difference is critical, and the idea of branding offers an effective guidance in answering this question.
Over 50 years ago, Levitt (1969) acknowledged the importance of branding in product marketing. Levitt (1969)
emphasized the importance of ‘‘a new kind of competition’’ that is ‘‘not competition between what companies produce in
their factories, but between what they add to their factory output in the form of packaging, services, advertising, customer
advice, financing, delivery arrangements, warehousing, and other things that people value.’’ (p. 2).
Combined with the modern media culture, the same can be said for athlete brands. It is not only what athletes produce in
terms of winning or losing, but how they package this winning or losing as a complete brand. Strategic branding based on
marketing theory is now truly needed for athletes, and the conceptual model developed in this study will help to provide an
understanding of what factors make strong athlete brands, and help sport marketers to further understand strategies in
branding athletes.

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to thank many people who gave an inspiration, time and knowledge to the study including Dr.
Kyriaki Kaplanidou, Dr. James Zhang, and Mr. Kang Jung Won. The authors have spent a lot of time on crystallizing this idea of
athlete brand image since they presented their initial idea at the conference. Therefore, hope that readers can enjoy this work
as well as find it informative.
 A. Arai et al. / Sport Management Review 17 (2014) 97–106 105

References
in verde li ho già scaricati
Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: Free Press.
Aaker, D. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: Free Press.
Andrews, D., & Jackson, S. (2001). Sport celebrities, public culture, and private experience. In D. L. Andrews (Ed.), Sport stars: The cultural politics of sporting celebrity
(pp. 1–19). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Bauer, H., Sauer, N., & Exler, S. (2005). The loyalty of German soccer fans: Does a team’s brand image matter? International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship,
7, 14–22.
Bauer, H., Sauer, N., & Exler, S. (2008). Brand image and fan loyalty in professional team sport: A refined model and empirical assessment. Journal of Sport
Management, 22, 205–226.
Bauer, H., Stokburger-Sauer, N., & Schmitt, (2005). Customer-based brand equity in the team sport industry: Operationalization and impact on the economic
success of sport teams. European Journal of Marketing, 39, 496–513.
Berry, L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 128–137.
Biskup, C., & Pfister, G. (1999). I would like to be like her/him: Are athletes role-models for boys and girls? European Physical Education Review, 5, 199–218.
Braunstein, J., & Zhang, J. (2005). Dimensions of athletic star power associated with generation Y sports consumption. International Journal of Sports Marketing &
Sponsorship, 6, 242–267.
Bruner, G. C., & Hensel, P. J. (1996). Marketing scales handbook. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Chen, C. (2001). Using free association to examine the relationship between the characteristics of brand associations and brand equity. The Journal of Product and
Brand Management, 10, 439–451.
Choi, S. M., & Rifon, N. J. (2007). Who is the celebrity in advertising? Understanding dimensions of celebrity images. The Journal of Popular Culture, 40, 304–324.
Clifton, R., & Simmons, J. (2004). Brands and branding. Princeton, New Jersey: Bloomberg Press.
Cordiner, R. (2001). Sport wakes up to the value of brands. Sports Marketing (14608359), 75, 13.
Daniels, E. (2009). Sex objects, athletes, and sexy athletes: How media representations of women athletes can impact adolescent girls and college women. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 24, 399–422.
Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G. (1990). In search of brand image: A foundation analysis. In Marvin, E., Goldberg, G., & Richard, P. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research pp.
110–119). (Vol. 7Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research .
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 191–198.
Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 168–180.
French, J. R., & Raven, B. H. (1959). Bases of power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Gilchrist, P. (2005). Local heroes or global stars. In L. Allison (Ed.), The global politics of sport: The role of global institutions in sport (pp. 107–126). London, England:
Routledge.
Gladden, J. M., & Funk, D. C. (2001). Understanding brand loyalty in professional sport: Examining the link between brand associations and brand loyalty.
International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 3, 67–95.
Gladden, J. M., & Funk, D. (2002). Developing an understanding of brand associations in team sport: Empirical evidence from consumers of professional sport.
Journal of Sport Management, 16, 54–81.
Gladden, J. M., Milne, G., & Sutton, W. (1998). A conceptual framework for assessing brand equity in Division I college athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 12, 1–
19.
Gledhill, C. (1991). Stardom: Industry of desire. London, England: Routledge.
Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60–72.
Hoek, J., Dunnet, J., Wright, M., & Gendall, P. (2000). Descriptive and evaluative attributes: What relevance to marketers? Journal of Product and Brand Management,
9, 415–433.
Homer, P. (2006). Relationships among ad-induced affect, beliefs, and attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 35(1), 35–51.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion; psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven: Yale University.
IBIS World. (2008). Celebrity & sports agents in the US Retrieved from http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/retail.aspx?indid=1635&chid=1 (08.04.08).
IMG/sport/client management (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.imgworld.com/sports/client_management/default.sps (03.02.10).
Joseph, B. (1982). The credibility of physically attractive communicators: A review. Journal of Advertising, 11(3), 15–24.
Jowdy, E., & Mcdonald, M. (2002). Tara Nott case study: Celebrity endorsements and image matching. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 186–189.
Kamins, M. (1990). An investigation into the match-up hypothesis in celebrity advertising: When beauty may be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising, 19, 4–13.
Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.
Keller, K. (2008). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kim, J., Morris, J., & Swait, J. (2008). Antecedents of true brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 99–117.
Kirmani, A., & Shiv, B. (1998). Effects of source congruity on brand attitudes and beliefs: The moderating role of issue-relevant elaboration. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 7(1), 25–47.
Lau, P., Cheung, M., & Ransdell, L. (2008). A structural equation model of the relationship between body perception and self-esteem: Global physical self-concept
as the mediator. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 9, 493–509.
L‘Etang, J. (2006). Public relations and sport in promotional culture. Public Relations Review, 32, 386–394.
Low, G. S., & Lamb, C. W., Jr. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9, 350–368.
Levitt, T. (1969). The marketing mode: Pathways to corporate growth. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lutz, R. J. (1991). The role of attitude theory in marketing. In H. H. Kassarjian & T. S. Robertson (Eds.), Perspectives in consumer behavior (pp. 317–339). Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman and Company.
McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 310–321.
McGuire, W. J. (1968). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 136–314). Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitude and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 233–346). New York: Random House.
Mowen, J. C., & Minor, M. (1998). Consumer behavior fifth edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Mullin, B. J., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W. A. (2007). Sport marketing. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of
Advertising, 19(3), 39–52.
Ohanian, R. (1991). The impact of celebrity spokespersons’ perceived image in consumers’ intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research, 31, 46–54.
Raggio, R., & Leone, R. (2007). The theoretical separation of brand equity and brand value: Managerial implications for strategic planning. Journal of Brand
Management, 14, 380–395.
Raggio, R., & Leone, R. (2009). Chasing brand value: Fully leveraging brand equity to maximize brand value. Journal of Brand Management, 16, 248–263.
Rein, I. J., Kotler, P., & Shields, B. (2006). The elusive fan: Reinventing sports in a crowded marketplace. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rein, I., Kotler, P., & Shields, B. (2006). A sporting chance at branding. Brand Strategy, 30–31.
Richelieu, A., & Pons, F. (2006). Toronto Maple Leafs vs. Football Club Barcelona: How two legendary sports teams built their brand equity. International Journal of
Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 7, 231–250.
Ross, S. (2006). A conceptual framework for understanding spectator-based brand equity. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 22–38.
Ross, S., James, J., & Vargas, P. (2006). Development of a scale to measure team brand associations in professional sport. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 260–279.
106 A. Arai et al. / Sport Management Review 17 (2014) 97–106

Seno, D., & Lukas, B. (2007). The equity effect of product endorsement by celebrities. A conceptual framework from a co-branding perspective. European Journal of
Marketing, 41, 121–134.
Sessions, W. (2004). Sportsmanship as honor. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 31, 47–59.
Shank, M. (1999). Sports marketing: A strategic perspective (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Shields, D. L. L., & Bredemeier, B. J. L. (1995). Character development and physical activity. Champlain, IL: Human Kinetics.
Shuart, J. (2007). Heroes in sport: assessing celebrity endorser effectiveness. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 8, 126–140.
Storie, J. (2008, July 7). Professional athletes, sports: The ultimate branding. Fort Worth Business Press.
Summers, J., & Morgan, M. J. (2008). More than just the media: Considering the role of public relations in the creation of sporting celebrity and the management of
fan expectations. Public Relations Review, 34, 176–182.
Thomson, M. (2006). Human brands: Investigating antecedents to consumers’ strong attachments to celebrities. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 104–119.
Till, B. (2001). Managing athlete endorser image: The effect of endorsed product. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 10, 35–42.
Trail, G., Robinson, M., Dick, R., & Gillentine, A. (2003). Motives and points of attachment: Fans versus spectators in intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 12, 217–227.

View publication stats