Exploring the Preference of Corporations for Sponsorship Motives and the Impact of Sponsorship Motives on Sponsoring Intention in Post-Epidemic Era: Using Two Different Approaches—FPR and SEM
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, I find the topic raised in your manuscript interesting. But some clarifications and improvements are necessary.
1) It is necessary to clarify the concept of "soft power" included in line 38.
2) You should support with references, even if they are not scientific articles, the context data provided.
3) Reduce the methodological aspects explained in the introduction, limiting them to the methodology or methods section(s).
4) There are previous references of sequential or parallel use of both methods (FPR+SEM).
4.1) What are the methodological synergies achieved.
5) In Table 1, be specific in the relationship between evaluation criteria and sources.
6) It is strange not to find at least one specific reference of Saaty, regarding AHP.
7) It is necessary to report in the method or results tables the cut-off criteria of both CFA and SEM.
8) In terms of conclusion, given the possible methodological contribution, it is good to highlight the advantages of FPR+SEM, versus both separately.
9) In terms of discussion, this possible contribution of FPR+SEM should be better supported and contrasted against previous references. An authentic discussion versus previous contributions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well-written and structured. However, there are some issues that according to my opinion should be corrected.
The title of the paper is too long and needs to be shortened.
Section 2 presents five variables related to sponsorship motives (CI, MS, ME, AT, and OP), as well as sponsoring intention, after which the results of two studies (FRP and SEM) are presented.
Among mentioned motives, the problematic one refers to marketing strategy. When explaining this variable, the authors stated that "launching sponsorship in the marketing mix has been developed to be an alternative of MS". Sponsorship can be considered part of the marketing mix, primarily as the instrument of the promotion/communication mix. Hereby, it is questionable how sponsorship can be used as an alternative of MS, especially having in mind that within marketing strategy, decisions related to all marketing mix instruments (product, promotion, price, and place) follow the process of segmentation, targeting, and positioning.
In addition, when measuring the MS variable, the authors relied on the items associated with market share and return on investment, which refer to companies’ goals, rather than to a marketing strategy. Therefore, the authors need to give a better explanation for this variable and its measuring.
Moreover, all items should be fully presented in Table 9.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Make sure all my comments are taken seriously.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made the requested improvements to their article.
Reviewer 3 Report
Corrections have been made by the author
