Please read the case study above and answer the following questions:

1. Evaluate the effectiveness of the sponsorship investment of Comcast from a B2B perspective. What kind of companies or organizations should NFL teams recruit for their sponsorship network to satisfy Comcast?

2. Discuss the goal, mission, and the vision of the department built for the B2B sponsorship network management.

3.Describe one-way the NY Jets Marketing Department can utilize this case study to enhance their B2B promotion.

1 Seeking Strategic Alliances through Sponsorship: Sponsorship Network Portfolio of the National Football League Amy Chan Hyung Kim, Florida State University social network analysis Sponsorship represents one of the most dynamic forms of in- KEY TERMS direct marketing strategy. For instance, globally, corporations binary network were projected to spend roughly $55.3 billion while North bottom-up approach business-to-business marketing American companies were projected to spend $20.6 billion centrality on sponsorship activities. In particular, sport-related sponsor- Co-sponsee network ship is projected to be 70 percent of all sponsorship dollars- cosponsoring network roughly $14.35 billion in North America (IEG, 2014a). The cutpoint significance of sport-related sponsorship has attracted various sponsorship management types of studies exploring the dynamics of sponsoring behav- sponsorship portfolio iors (Cornwell, 2008; Weeks & Cornwell, 2008). Sport spon- strategic alliance sorship studies have heavily focused on consumer-oriented strategic network management research evaluating the image and awareness of sponsorships reflected by consumer's perceptions from the perspective of two-mode data individual psychological reaction (e.g., Gladden & Wolfe, valued network 2001). Hence, a majority of studies have made implications and suggestions for spon- soring corporations to develop their sponsorship strategies depending on different vari- ables that influence consumer perceptions and consumer behavioral intentions. This approach can be effective for customer-oriented sponsoring corporations that wish to expose themselves to sport consumers. However, what current sport sponsorship studies have overlooked is how sponsoring corporations and sponsored entities can maximize the sponsorship effectiveness from an industry-oriented aspect; in other words, for the purpose of business-to-business (B2B) promotion. top-down approach 24 Case Study One 25 Sponsorship Network Portfolio of the National Football League B2B COMPANIES AND STRATEGIC ALLIANCES Currently, many corporations are sponsoring sport leagues or events are B2B com- panies. For instance, several B2B technology firms have been spending a great deal of money on sponsoring different types of sport events. In 2013, SAP AG, a German multinational software corporation, invested $71.25 million in global sponsorship deals with different types of sport-related enterprises, including the National Football League (NFL), TSG 1899 Hoffenheim (a German Bundesliga football club), Women's Tennis Association (WTA) tours, such as the Sony Open, and MetLife Stadium lo- cated at East Rutherford in New Jersey. Hewlett-Packard (HP) spent roughly $44.4 million on various types of global sport-related sponsorships, including Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (England), NASCAR, National Basketball Association (NBA), Davis Cup (international tennis tournament), and the HP Byron Nelson Champion- ship (PGA Tour event). The IBM Corporation is estimated to spend around $35.1 million on sports-related events and leagues such as Wimbledon, United States Ten- nis Association's US Open, French Open, Australian Open, and US Golf Association. Cisco Systems, a networking company, has dedicated its sport-related sponsorship to events and leagues such as the 2016 Rio Olympic Games, NBA, and National Hockey League (NHL), spending about $35.26 million dollars (IEG 2014b). For these types of companies, it is essential to obtain a competitive advantage by developing business relationships with other companies in order to exchange different types of information, knowledge, and resources (De Man, 2004). These types of business partnerships can be defined as strategic alliances. Strategic alliances refer to a "manifestation of interor- ganizational cooperative strategies, entail the pooling of skills and resources by the al- liance partners, in order to achieve or more goals linked to the strategic objectives of the cooperating firms (Varadarajan & Cunningham, 1995, p. 283). In this sense, it is vital for B2B firms to seek out strategic alliances and be embedded in advantageous positions within business networks. Because one company will have strategic business relationships with multiple companies most of the time, the shape of strategic alliance is not dyadic, but a network. Although co-sponsoring the same sport event/entity can serve as a distinctive opportunity for these B2B firms to expand their strategic alliance networks, this aspect of sponsorship strategies and evaluations has been overlooked. In fact, the NBA hosted its first B2B promotion event in June 2013 at the NBA Draft at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, New York. Through this event, the NBA attempted to serve as a "bridge" for sponsors. By hosting such a social event for sponsors, the league could, as a sponsee, provide sponsoring firms an opportunity to socialize and build the strategic relationships with other participating entities. The IEG sponsorship report in- troduced this industry-oriented initiative of the NBA highlighting the six aims for the best practices on hosting B2B events: "(1) host meetings separate from sponsor sum- mits, (2) ask partners who they would like to meet, (3) facilitate relationships between like-minded companies, (4) invite procurement executives, (5) commit the necessary time and resources, and (6) keep things fresh" (IEG, 2014c). Yet these aims need to be polished with more sophisticated strategies based on the sponsorship networks that are empirically generated and tested. This case study introduces a sponsorship network portfolio as an evaluative tool for strategic industrial networking plans and implements social network analysis to examine relational dynamics among sponsors and sponsored entities. To be specific, the present study investigated the sponsorship network of the NFL teams during the 2013-1014 season as a means to better understand network-ori- ented strategic sponsorship management in a business network setting, SPONSORSHIP NETWORK PORTFOLIO OF THE NFL Some small firms such as local restaurants or local grocery stores may support the NFL in order to be exposed to a massive number of potential customers. These types of firms and entities may not need to seek potential strategic alliances. If a company sees strategic alliances as a requirement for expanding or enhancing their business plans, sponsorship investment for the purpose of B2B is preferred. In this case, a sponsorship network portfolio is a good indicative for sponsoring corporations and sponsored enti- ties wishing to build plans for future strategic alliances within sponsorship networks. Social network analysis (SNA) is an invaluable tool to generate sponsorship network portfolios. Emphasizing the significance of the connections and links among actors, SNA analyzes social relationships among actors by providing diagrams to disclose the patterns of relations and utilizing mathematical/computational models to illustrate those structural patterns of links among actors (Freeman, 2011). Employing SNA, a sponsorship network portfolio consists of visualized sponsorship networks and math- ematical social network measurements. Here, this case study focused on the first part: visualized sponsorship network. A sponsorship network is one type of two-mode network. The term mode is defined as a distinctive set of entities on which the structural and relational variables are mea- sured (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Because the sponsorship network comprises two different sets of actors-sponsoring corporations and sponsored entities--two-mode network analysis is properly employed. In analyzing a two-mode network, if two actors A and B are connected to the other mode a, those two actors A and B are considered to either have, or have the possibility to develop, a new relationship (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, 2013). In a sponsorship network, if two corporations sponsor the same sponsee (e.g., event, organization, person), it is assumed that those two corporations either have a direct business relationship or, at least, have a chance to develop future relationships. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Sponsorship network data can be collected via archival records. This study retrieved a list of official corporate partners for each NFL team via official NFL team websites in order to generate a sponsorship network portfolio of NFL in the 2013-2014 season. A total of 11 NFL teams listed their sponsoring partners via official websites. As a result, a total of 551 of corporate partners were identified by the teams officially. Table 1 de- scribes the data in detail. As discussed earlier, the sponsorship network portfolio of the NFL includes a two- mode sponsorship network. The first mode represents a set of corporations that sup- port a certain team in the NFL (e.g., Pepsi, Cisco) whereas the second mode represents 26 27 Case Study One Sponsorship Network Portfolio of the National Football League TABLE 1-1. Data Description Team Sponsoring Types #Sponsors Total Buffalo Bills Partners 46 46 Championship Partners 8 Official Partners 14 Houston Texans 95 Preferred Partners 11 Partners 62 Denver Broncos Media Partners 6 6 Founding Partners 14 Philadelphia Eagles Corporate Partners 22 97 Youth Partnerships 61 Corporate Partners 60 101 Washington Redskins Community Partners 41 Hall of Fame Partners 8 Chicago Bears Official Partners 12 Proud Partners 13 Building Partners 7 51 Green Bay Packers Partners 44 Media Partners 3 Minnesota Vikings 14 MV Cheerleader Partners 11 Patron Saints Partners 14 New Orleans Saints Exclusive and Official Partners 27 80 Proud Partners 39 Go Green Partners 12 St. Louis Rams 23 Cheerleader Partners 11 Seattle Seahawks Sprint Partners 5 5 Source: Sponsorship data of the NFL was retrieved from the official website of each team June 8, 2014 (see Appendix AL partners that sponsor the same NFL team) and a cosponsee network (relationship among NFL teams that are sponsored by a same corporation). The present case study spe- cifically focuses on the converted one-mode cosponsoring network because it provides the direct implications of the strategies for network positioning among sponsoring companies. For the conversion process, the minimum method was used instead of the cross-product method (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005) due to the fact that the sponsorship network is a valued network, not a binary network. That is, if two corporations sponsor one NFL team at the same time, the value of ties is one, whereas if two corporations sponsor the same three NFL teams simultaneously, the value of the tie between these two sponsoring firms is three. The cosponsoring network was visualized through UCINET 6 software (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002). Identifying central subgroups is essential for both the NFL teams and the sponsoring firms to establish the effective strategies. This study visualized multiple layers of the cosponsoring networks utilizing the magnitude of tie strength (values of ties) to disclose the influential subgroups. As an example, let's assume that the Buffalo Bills may desire to recruit Pandora Media Inc., a company providing a music streaming service, into their sponsoring network as a new mem- ber in order to attract other consumer electronics manufacturers and automobile com- panies. This is because Pandora Media Inc. is currently allying with manufacturers to put its technologies onto the microchips of products manufactured by both con- sumer electronics companies, such as Sony, Panasonic, Vizio, and LG, and automobile companies such as Toyota. Pandora Media Inc. has expanded these types of business partnerships continuously (Pandora, 2010). To be specific, the Bills would need to (1) identify a group of consumer electronics manufacturers and automobile companies that are currently involved in a sponsorship network to appeal to Pandora Media Inc. to be a sponsor by showing the list of potential business partners, and (2) seek what kind of other consumer electronics manufacturers and automobile companies can be additional members to their sponsorship landscape and what other companies can be attracted by these new additional members in the future. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 1-1 depicts the two-mode sponsorship network of the NFL during the 2013-2014 season. Nodes of squares represent a total of 11 teams, while nodes of circles present a total of 551 sponsoring partners. In this network, most sponsoring firms were placed at the periphery of the network because these entities sponsored only one NFL team. On the other hand, the visualized two-mode network also highlighted the existence of the central group of sponsoring partners within the network. These entities were placed at the center due to the fact that they sponsored more than one NFL team. The present study examined the central group in more detail by analyzing a one-mode cosponsoring network (see Figure 2). Still, it was strenuous to investigate the structural patterns of the hub due to a great number of nodes. Hence, using a multiple-layering visualization tech- nique, only a handful of nodes were selected according to the tie strength. In the cosponsoring network, if corporation A and B sponsor the same NFL team, they are connected with a tie. Further, if corporation A and B sponsor two NFL teams a certain team sponsored by a group of sponsors (e.g., Buffalo Bills, Houston Texans). Two-mode data can be analyzed in two different ways. The first method is a direct approach, transforming the rectangular matrix of two-mode network into a square bi- partite matrix. The second method is a conversion approach that converts a two-mode network into a one-mode network. The direct approach provides a holistic view of the relationships between sponsored NFL teams and sponsoring corporations, while the conversion approach provides particular insights of relationships among either NFL teams or sponsoring partners: a cosponsoring network (relationships among corporate 30 Case Study One Sponsorship Network Portfolio of the National Football League 31 simultaneously, the tie strength is two. To convey the multiple layering visualization process, the present study provides a series of one-mode cosponsoring networks. Fig- ure 1-3 shows the cosponsoring network with nodes that have at least a tie strength of three, while Figure 1-4 shows the cosponsoring network with nodes that have at least a tie strength of four. As Figure 1-4 shows, the influential companies within a cosponsoring network in clude Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola, Verizon, MillerCoors, Gatorade, Ticketmaster, Dr. Pepper Snapple, Papa John's, McDonald's, United Airlines, FedEx, State Farm, NRG, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Nike, Geico, SCA, Lincoln Financial Group, Nova Care Re- habilitation, Sports Authority, Master Card, Comcast, ACME, and The J. Willard & Alice S. Marriott Foundation. The size of the nodes and their labels indicate the value of each node's number of ties. In other words, a larger node with a larger label sponsored a greater number of NFL teams than a smaller node with a smaller label. According to Figure 1-4, the most influential sponsor within this cosponsoring network was Comcast. Comcast was a cutpoint among sponsoring corporate partners. The concept of a cutpoint is vital for understanding strategic networks, particularly when investigating sponsorship subgroups from a top-down approach. A top-down approach examines the whole struc- ture, and it also discloses substructures as parts to look for "holes" or "vulnerabilities" or "weak spots" in the overall network structure. In comparison, a bottom-up approach elaborates the structure of the whole network from couplings of smaller subgroups (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005). Without cutpoints, network structures become divided into groups (Borgatti et al., 2013). From an industry-oriented perspective, the sole de- pendency of companies on one cutpoint, such as Comcast, might become vulnerable in the sponsoring network. The NFL teams, as sponsees, need to assess whether these firms at the vulnerable positions are targeting Comcast as a future business partner or not. If they are, while the NFL teams need to maintain or strengthen the relationship with Comcast, teams also need to find other alternative sponsors that can be future business partners. By doing so, those companies at vulnerable spots can develop new relation- ships with other companies depending on their business strategies for future sponsor- ship partners. While seeking the new potential business partners, it is vital for firms to compare their positions within the existing sponsorship network to their overall future strategic alliance so that the structural portfolio of the sponsorship network and the plan of strategic alliances of one corporation are congruent. The high level of congru- ency between a position within a sponsorship network and strategic alliance plan will allow these firms to maximize the effectiveness of sponsoring investments as strategic relationship developments with other potential partnering corporations for the purpose of industry-oriented B2B promotions. From a sponsoring entity's standpoint, due to the fact that adding more relation- ships with multiple NFL teams incurs significant costs, the decision to sponsor mul- tiple NFL teams may not always be efficient, particularly for customer-oriented firms, such as local restaurants or local banks. Indeed, the results of the visualized cosponsor- ing network showed that all of the local-oriented companies were sponsoring only one team efficiently. If a local company decides to expand their business, the company may FIGURE 1-3. Visualized One-mode Cosponsoring Network of the NFL During the Season of 2013-2014 (tie strength 2 3) 32 Case Study One Sponsorship Network Portfolio of the National Football League 33 consider building the strategic alliance plan for its strategic network, starting with a conscientious review of its sponsorship network. Opposite to the customer-oriented standpoint, targeting a gigantic network is not effective for the purpose of B2B promotion because while one firm needs certain firms in their strategic alliance for achieving the industrial purpose, the other form needs to be exposed to a greater number of fans for achieving their own purpose. To maximize the effectiveness of the socializing process among sponsoring corporations through co- sponsorship networks, the mutual efforts of sponsoring firms and sponsored entities is crucial. It is invaluable for sponsees to comprehend the dynamics of the relationships among sponsoring partners so that they can stimulate the intentions of investments on sponsorship programs. Sponsees should play a role as a "bridge" for the sponsor- ing firms. When sponsees can manage and organize the opportunities for sponsors to interact with each other (e.g., regular summit for sponsoring partners, hiring experts to manage B2B sponsorship networks), sponsors will have more opportunities to build business relationships with other sponsors. Therefore, it is crucial for sponsees to pro- mote the firms that can attract potential sponsors through them. More importantly, both parties may need to recruit and train experts for manag- ing their sponsorship decisions efficiently. This group of sponsorship expertise should coordinate with sponsors so that they can satisfy their positions within the sponsorship network and also have more options to build and manage their relationships strategi- cally with other sponsoring corporations. Anheuser-Busch FIGURE 1-4. Visualized One-mode Cosponsoring Network of the NFL During the Season of 2013-2014 (tie strength 24) REFERENCES Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis (Computer software). Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. Borgatti, S. P. Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Cornwell, T. B. (2008). State of art and science in sponsorship-linked marketing. Journal of Advertising, 37(3), 41-55. De Man, A. P. (2004). The network economy: Strategy, structure and management. Chelten- ham, UK: Edward Elgar. Freeman, L. C. (2011). The development of social network analysis: With an emphasis on recent events. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 26-39). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. w Gladden, J. M., & Wolfe, R. (2001). Sponsorship of intercollegiate athletics: The importance of image matching. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 3, 41-65. Hanneman, R., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Retrieved from http://faculty.ucr.edu/-hanneman IEG. (2014). 2014 Sponsorship spending outlook. Retrieved from http://www.sponsorship. com/Latest-Thinking/Sponsorship-Infographics/2014-Sponsorship-Spending-Outlook.aspx IEG. (2014). Who does what: B2B technology companies. Retrieved from http://www. sponsorship.com/iegsr/2014/02/24/Who-Does-What--B2B-Technology-Companies.aspx#. UyXMi2RgawM IEG. (2014). NBA expands basketball to business initiative. Retrieved from http://www. sponsorship.com/iegsr/2014/01/27/NBA-Expands-Basketball-to-Business-Initiative.aspx#. UOVUG2RgawM 1 Seeking Strategic Alliances through Sponsorship: Sponsorship Network Portfolio of the National Football League Amy Chan Hyung Kim, Florida State University social network analysis Sponsorship represents one of the most dynamic forms of in- KEY TERMS direct marketing strategy. For instance, globally, corporations binary network were projected to spend roughly $55.3 billion while North bottom-up approach business-to-business marketing American companies were projected to spend $20.6 billion centrality on sponsorship activities. In particular, sport-related sponsor- Co-sponsee network ship is projected to be 70 percent of all sponsorship dollars- cosponsoring network roughly $14.35 billion in North America (IEG, 2014a). The cutpoint significance of sport-related sponsorship has attracted various sponsorship management types of studies exploring the dynamics of sponsoring behav- sponsorship portfolio iors (Cornwell, 2008; Weeks & Cornwell, 2008). Sport spon- strategic alliance sorship studies have heavily focused on consumer-oriented strategic network management research evaluating the image and awareness of sponsorships reflected by consumer's perceptions from the perspective of two-mode data individual psychological reaction (e.g., Gladden & Wolfe, valued network 2001). Hence, a majority of studies have made implications and suggestions for spon- soring corporations to develop their sponsorship strategies depending on different vari- ables that influence consumer perceptions and consumer behavioral intentions. This approach can be effective for customer-oriented sponsoring corporations that wish to expose themselves to sport consumers. However, what current sport sponsorship studies have overlooked is how sponsoring corporations and sponsored entities can maximize the sponsorship effectiveness from an industry-oriented aspect; in other words, for the purpose of business-to-business (B2B) promotion. top-down approach 24 Case Study One 25 Sponsorship Network Portfolio of the National Football League B2B COMPANIES AND STRATEGIC ALLIANCES Currently, many corporations are sponsoring sport leagues or events are B2B com- panies. For instance, several B2B technology firms have been spending a great deal of money on sponsoring different types of sport events. In 2013, SAP AG, a German multinational software corporation, invested $71.25 million in global sponsorship deals with different types of sport-related enterprises, including the National Football League (NFL), TSG 1899 Hoffenheim (a German Bundesliga football club), Women's Tennis Association (WTA) tours, such as the Sony Open, and MetLife Stadium lo- cated at East Rutherford in New Jersey. Hewlett-Packard (HP) spent roughly $44.4 million on various types of global sport-related sponsorships, including Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (England), NASCAR, National Basketball Association (NBA), Davis Cup (international tennis tournament), and the HP Byron Nelson Champion- ship (PGA Tour event). The IBM Corporation is estimated to spend around $35.1 million on sports-related events and leagues such as Wimbledon, United States Ten- nis Association's US Open, French Open, Australian Open, and US Golf Association. Cisco Systems, a networking company, has dedicated its sport-related sponsorship to events and leagues such as the 2016 Rio Olympic Games, NBA, and National Hockey League (NHL), spending about $35.26 million dollars (IEG 2014b). For these types of companies, it is essential to obtain a competitive advantage by developing business relationships with other companies in order to exchange different types of information, knowledge, and resources (De Man, 2004). These types of business partnerships can be defined as strategic alliances. Strategic alliances refer to a "manifestation of interor- ganizational cooperative strategies, entail the pooling of skills and resources by the al- liance partners, in order to achieve or more goals linked to the strategic objectives of the cooperating firms (Varadarajan & Cunningham, 1995, p. 283). In this sense, it is vital for B2B firms to seek out strategic alliances and be embedded in advantageous positions within business networks. Because one company will have strategic business relationships with multiple companies most of the time, the shape of strategic alliance is not dyadic, but a network. Although co-sponsoring the same sport event/entity can serve as a distinctive opportunity for these B2B firms to expand their strategic alliance networks, this aspect of sponsorship strategies and evaluations has been overlooked. In fact, the NBA hosted its first B2B promotion event in June 2013 at the NBA Draft at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, New York. Through this event, the NBA attempted to serve as a "bridge" for sponsors. By hosting such a social event for sponsors, the league could, as a sponsee, provide sponsoring firms an opportunity to socialize and build the strategic relationships with other participating entities. The IEG sponsorship report in- troduced this industry-oriented initiative of the NBA highlighting the six aims for the best practices on hosting B2B events: "(1) host meetings separate from sponsor sum- mits, (2) ask partners who they would like to meet, (3) facilitate relationships between like-minded companies, (4) invite procurement executives, (5) commit the necessary time and resources, and (6) keep things fresh" (IEG, 2014c). Yet these aims need to be polished with more sophisticated strategies based on the sponsorship networks that are empirically generated and tested. This case study introduces a sponsorship network portfolio as an evaluative tool for strategic industrial networking plans and implements social network analysis to examine relational dynamics among sponsors and sponsored entities. To be specific, the present study investigated the sponsorship network of the NFL teams during the 2013-1014 season as a means to better understand network-ori- ented strategic sponsorship management in a business network setting, SPONSORSHIP NETWORK PORTFOLIO OF THE NFL Some small firms such as local restaurants or local grocery stores may support the NFL in order to be exposed to a massive number of potential customers. These types of firms and entities may not need to seek potential strategic alliances. If a company sees strategic alliances as a requirement for expanding or enhancing their business plans, sponsorship investment for the purpose of B2B is preferred. In this case, a sponsorship network portfolio is a good indicative for sponsoring corporations and sponsored enti- ties wishing to build plans for future strategic alliances within sponsorship networks. Social network analysis (SNA) is an invaluable tool to generate sponsorship network portfolios. Emphasizing the significance of the connections and links among actors, SNA analyzes social relationships among actors by providing diagrams to disclose the patterns of relations and utilizing mathematical/computational models to illustrate those structural patterns of links among actors (Freeman, 2011). Employing SNA, a sponsorship network portfolio consists of visualized sponsorship networks and math- ematical social network measurements. Here, this case study focused on the first part: visualized sponsorship network. A sponsorship network is one type of two-mode network. The term mode is defined as a distinctive set of entities on which the structural and relational variables are mea- sured (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Because the sponsorship network comprises two different sets of actors-sponsoring corporations and sponsored entities--two-mode network analysis is properly employed. In analyzing a two-mode network, if two actors A and B are connected to the other mode a, those two actors A and B are considered to either have, or have the possibility to develop, a new relationship (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, 2013). In a sponsorship network, if two corporations sponsor the same sponsee (e.g., event, organization, person), it is assumed that those two corporations either have a direct business relationship or, at least, have a chance to develop future relationships. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Sponsorship network data can be collected via archival records. This study retrieved a list of official corporate partners for each NFL team via official NFL team websites in order to generate a sponsorship network portfolio of NFL in the 2013-2014 season. A total of 11 NFL teams listed their sponsoring partners via official websites. As a result, a total of 551 of corporate partners were identified by the teams officially. Table 1 de- scribes the data in detail. As discussed earlier, the sponsorship network portfolio of the NFL includes a two- mode sponsorship network. The first mode represents a set of corporations that sup- port a certain team in the NFL (e.g., Pepsi, Cisco) whereas the second mode represents 26 27 Case Study One Sponsorship Network Portfolio of the National Football League TABLE 1-1. Data Description Team Sponsoring Types #Sponsors Total Buffalo Bills Partners 46 46 Championship Partners 8 Official Partners 14 Houston Texans 95 Preferred Partners 11 Partners 62 Denver Broncos Media Partners 6 6 Founding Partners 14 Philadelphia Eagles Corporate Partners 22 97 Youth Partnerships 61 Corporate Partners 60 101 Washington Redskins Community Partners 41 Hall of Fame Partners 8 Chicago Bears Official Partners 12 Proud Partners 13 Building Partners 7 51 Green Bay Packers Partners 44 Media Partners 3 Minnesota Vikings 14 MV Cheerleader Partners 11 Patron Saints Partners 14 New Orleans Saints Exclusive and Official Partners 27 80 Proud Partners 39 Go Green Partners 12 St. Louis Rams 23 Cheerleader Partners 11 Seattle Seahawks Sprint Partners 5 5 Source: Sponsorship data of the NFL was retrieved from the official website of each team June 8, 2014 (see Appendix AL partners that sponsor the same NFL team) and a cosponsee network (relationship among NFL teams that are sponsored by a same corporation). The present case study spe- cifically focuses on the converted one-mode cosponsoring network because it provides the direct implications of the strategies for network positioning among sponsoring companies. For the conversion process, the minimum method was used instead of the cross-product method (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005) due to the fact that the sponsorship network is a valued network, not a binary network. That is, if two corporations sponsor one NFL team at the same time, the value of ties is one, whereas if two corporations sponsor the same three NFL teams simultaneously, the value of the tie between these two sponsoring firms is three. The cosponsoring network was visualized through UCINET 6 software (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002). Identifying central subgroups is essential for both the NFL teams and the sponsoring firms to establish the effective strategies. This study visualized multiple layers of the cosponsoring networks utilizing the magnitude of tie strength (values of ties) to disclose the influential subgroups. As an example, let's assume that the Buffalo Bills may desire to recruit Pandora Media Inc., a company providing a music streaming service, into their sponsoring network as a new mem- ber in order to attract other consumer electronics manufacturers and automobile com- panies. This is because Pandora Media Inc. is currently allying with manufacturers to put its technologies onto the microchips of products manufactured by both con- sumer electronics companies, such as Sony, Panasonic, Vizio, and LG, and automobile companies such as Toyota. Pandora Media Inc. has expanded these types of business partnerships continuously (Pandora, 2010). To be specific, the Bills would need to (1) identify a group of consumer electronics manufacturers and automobile companies that are currently involved in a sponsorship network to appeal to Pandora Media Inc. to be a sponsor by showing the list of potential business partners, and (2) seek what kind of other consumer electronics manufacturers and automobile companies can be additional members to their sponsorship landscape and what other companies can be attracted by these new additional members in the future. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 1-1 depicts the two-mode sponsorship network of the NFL during the 2013-2014 season. Nodes of squares represent a total of 11 teams, while nodes of circles present a total of 551 sponsoring partners. In this network, most sponsoring firms were placed at the periphery of the network because these entities sponsored only one NFL team. On the other hand, the visualized two-mode network also highlighted the existence of the central group of sponsoring partners within the network. These entities were placed at the center due to the fact that they sponsored more than one NFL team. The present study examined the central group in more detail by analyzing a one-mode cosponsoring network (see Figure 2). Still, it was strenuous to investigate the structural patterns of the hub due to a great number of nodes. Hence, using a multiple-layering visualization tech- nique, only a handful of nodes were selected according to the tie strength. In the cosponsoring network, if corporation A and B sponsor the same NFL team, they are connected with a tie. Further, if corporation A and B sponsor two NFL teams a certain team sponsored by a group of sponsors (e.g., Buffalo Bills, Houston Texans). Two-mode data can be analyzed in two different ways. The first method is a direct approach, transforming the rectangular matrix of two-mode network into a square bi- partite matrix. The second method is a conversion approach that converts a two-mode network into a one-mode network. The direct approach provides a holistic view of the relationships between sponsored NFL teams and sponsoring corporations, while the conversion approach provides particular insights of relationships among either NFL teams or sponsoring partners: a cosponsoring network (relationships among corporate 30 Case Study One Sponsorship Network Portfolio of the National Football League 31 simultaneously, the tie strength is two. To convey the multiple layering visualization process, the present study provides a series of one-mode cosponsoring networks. Fig- ure 1-3 shows the cosponsoring network with nodes that have at least a tie strength of three, while Figure 1-4 shows the cosponsoring network with nodes that have at least a tie strength of four. As Figure 1-4 shows, the influential companies within a cosponsoring network in clude Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola, Verizon, MillerCoors, Gatorade, Ticketmaster, Dr. Pepper Snapple, Papa John's, McDonald's, United Airlines, FedEx, State Farm, NRG, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Nike, Geico, SCA, Lincoln Financial Group, Nova Care Re- habilitation, Sports Authority, Master Card, Comcast, ACME, and The J. Willard & Alice S. Marriott Foundation. The size of the nodes and their labels indicate the value of each node's number of ties. In other words, a larger node with a larger label sponsored a greater number of NFL teams than a smaller node with a smaller label. According to Figure 1-4, the most influential sponsor within this cosponsoring network was Comcast. Comcast was a cutpoint among sponsoring corporate partners. The concept of a cutpoint is vital for understanding strategic networks, particularly when investigating sponsorship subgroups from a top-down approach. A top-down approach examines the whole struc- ture, and it also discloses substructures as parts to look for "holes" or "vulnerabilities" or "weak spots" in the overall network structure. In comparison, a bottom-up approach elaborates the structure of the whole network from couplings of smaller subgroups (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005). Without cutpoints, network structures become divided into groups (Borgatti et al., 2013). From an industry-oriented perspective, the sole de- pendency of companies on one cutpoint, such as Comcast, might become vulnerable in the sponsoring network. The NFL teams, as sponsees, need to assess whether these firms at the vulnerable positions are targeting Comcast as a future business partner or not. If they are, while the NFL teams need to maintain or strengthen the relationship with Comcast, teams also need to find other alternative sponsors that can be future business partners. By doing so, those companies at vulnerable spots can develop new relation- ships with other companies depending on their business strategies for future sponsor- ship partners. While seeking the new potential business partners, it is vital for firms to compare their positions within the existing sponsorship network to their overall future strategic alliance so that the structural portfolio of the sponsorship network and the plan of strategic alliances of one corporation are congruent. The high level of congru- ency between a position within a sponsorship network and strategic alliance plan will allow these firms to maximize the effectiveness of sponsoring investments as strategic relationship developments with other potential partnering corporations for the purpose of industry-oriented B2B promotions. From a sponsoring entity's standpoint, due to the fact that adding more relation- ships with multiple NFL teams incurs significant costs, the decision to sponsor mul- tiple NFL teams may not always be efficient, particularly for customer-oriented firms, such as local restaurants or local banks. Indeed, the results of the visualized cosponsor- ing network showed that all of the local-oriented companies were sponsoring only one team efficiently. If a local company decides to expand their business, the company may FIGURE 1-3. Visualized One-mode Cosponsoring Network of the NFL During the Season of 2013-2014 (tie strength 2 3) 32 Case Study One Sponsorship Network Portfolio of the National Football League 33 consider building the strategic alliance plan for its strategic network, starting with a conscientious review of its sponsorship network. Opposite to the customer-oriented standpoint, targeting a gigantic network is not effective for the purpose of B2B promotion because while one firm needs certain firms in their strategic alliance for achieving the industrial purpose, the other form needs to be exposed to a greater number of fans for achieving their own purpose. To maximize the effectiveness of the socializing process among sponsoring corporations through co- sponsorship networks, the mutual efforts of sponsoring firms and sponsored entities is crucial. It is invaluable for sponsees to comprehend the dynamics of the relationships among sponsoring partners so that they can stimulate the intentions of investments on sponsorship programs. Sponsees should play a role as a "bridge" for the sponsor- ing firms. When sponsees can manage and organize the opportunities for sponsors to interact with each other (e.g., regular summit for sponsoring partners, hiring experts to manage B2B sponsorship networks), sponsors will have more opportunities to build business relationships with other sponsors. Therefore, it is crucial for sponsees to pro- mote the firms that can attract potential sponsors through them. More importantly, both parties may need to recruit and train experts for manag- ing their sponsorship decisions efficiently. This group of sponsorship expertise should coordinate with sponsors so that they can satisfy their positions within the sponsorship network and also have more options to build and manage their relationships strategi- cally with other sponsoring corporations. Anheuser-Busch FIGURE 1-4. Visualized One-mode Cosponsoring Network of the NFL During the Season of 2013-2014 (tie strength 24) REFERENCES Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis (Computer software). Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. Borgatti, S. P. Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Cornwell, T. B. (2008). State of art and science in sponsorship-linked marketing. Journal of Advertising, 37(3), 41-55. De Man, A. P. (2004). The network economy: Strategy, structure and management. Chelten- ham, UK: Edward Elgar. Freeman, L. C. (2011). The development of social network analysis: With an emphasis on recent events. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 26-39). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. w Gladden, J. M., & Wolfe, R. (2001). Sponsorship of intercollegiate athletics: The importance of image matching. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 3, 41-65. Hanneman, R., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Retrieved from http://faculty.ucr.edu/-hanneman IEG. (2014). 2014 Sponsorship spending outlook. Retrieved from http://www.sponsorship. com/Latest-Thinking/Sponsorship-Infographics/2014-Sponsorship-Spending-Outlook.aspx IEG. (2014). Who does what: B2B technology companies. Retrieved from http://www. sponsorship.com/iegsr/2014/02/24/Who-Does-What--B2B-Technology-Companies.aspx#. UyXMi2RgawM IEG. (2014). NBA expands basketball to business initiative. Retrieved from http://www. sponsorship.com/iegsr/2014/01/27/NBA-Expands-Basketball-to-Business-Initiative.aspx#. UOVUG2RgawM