To sponsor or not to sponsor: Transgressions are unequally detrimental

Abstract

Extant research in endorsements has widely examined the impacts of scandals on the evaluations of tarnished endorsers and endorsed brands. However, less is known about the impacts of specific scandal characteristics on tarnished endorsers and endorsed brands. Capitalizing on the cue-diagnosticity theory, this study investigates the influence of transgression relevance and severity on the evaluations of athlete endorsers and endorsed brands. The results indicate that transgression severity and relevance yield different patterns of erosion on endorser expertise, endorser images, and endorsed brands. Specifically, high-severity transgressions are more detrimental than low-severity transgressions to brand evaluations. However, high-relevance transgressions are more detrimental than low-relevance transgressions only when the severity of transgression is high. Severe transgressions are not severely detrimental unless the transgressions are highly relevant to the expertise of the athlete endorsers. Thus, the consideration of sponsorship termination for tarnished athlete endorsers should be hierarchical. It is plausible to terminate the sponsorship for tarnished endorsers involved in severe and relevant transgressions. However, some tolerance may be given for athlete endorsers involved in severe, but irrelevant, transgressions.