The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5664.

htm

Examining the behavioral manifestations of fan avidity in sports marketing

Wayne S. DeSarbo
Smeal College of Business, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA, and

Fan avidity in sports marketing 79

Robert Madrigal
Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA
Abstract
Purpose The sports industry is one of the fastest growing business sectors in the world today and its primary source of revenue is derived from fans. Yet, little is known about fans allocation of time, effort, and/or nancial expenditures in regard to the sports they care so desperately about. The purpose of this paper is to explore the multidimensional aspects of such manifestations of fan avidity and examine the nature of heterogeneity of such expressions. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from a student sample of football fans from a well-known US university. Findings In total, 35 different expressions of fan avidity are developed related to how fans follow and support their favorite team. A spatial choice multidimensional scaling model is developed to uncover four latent dimensions of fan avidity expression. Originality/value The managerial aspects of these empirical ndings are provided, and the authors suggest several directions for future research. Keywords United States of America, Sports, Consumer behaviour Paper type Research paper

The sports industry is one of the ten largest and fastest growing business sectors in the USA. The Sports Business Journal (2009) has estimated the size of the industry in 2008 to be approximately $213 billion, more than twice the size of the US auto industry and seven times the size of the movie industry[1]. A sizable proportion of these revenues are attributed either directly or indirectly to the sports fans. Without question, spectator sports are big business. And, like any business, it depends principally on its most loyal and dedicated consumers/sports fans. Fan avidity is dened (DeSarbo, 2009, 2010) as the level of interest, involvement, passion, and loyalty a fan exhibits to a particular sports entity (i.e. a sport, league, team, and/or athlete). As noted by Syracuse (2008, p. 1):
Avid fans are those that have an emotional connection to the game people whose interest, enthusiasm, and passion for the product defy the norm. From a Marketing standpoint, these individuals are dream customers because they are eager consumers of all things associated with the sport.

Avid sports fans have been found to spend considerably more money, time, and effort for sports-related activities and goods than their non-avid fan counterparts, as indicated in the various survey-based sports polls conducted by Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS)

Journal of Modelling in Management Vol. 6 No. 1, 2011 pp. 79-99 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1746-5664 DOI 10.1108/17465661111112511

JM2 6,1

80

and TURNKEY Sports & Entertainment. The concept helps explain why such teams as the New York Knicks National Basketball Association (NBA) basketball team, the Toronto Maple Leafs National Hockey League (NHL) hockey team, the Chicago Cubs major league baseball (MLB) baseball team, and the Cleveland Browns National Football League (NFL) football team have high game attendance gures, yet have not won major league championships in their respective sport in decades. Avid fans are more likely to stick with their team(s) even through long droughts of losing seasons. Indeed, the notion of fan avidity and its measurement has been the focus of applied research in the sports industry for the past decade. Research suppliers such as TNS, TURNKEY Sports & Entertainment, Scarborough Sports Marketing, etc. have been instrumental in promoting and implementing the concept of fan avidity. For example, Scarborough Sports Marketing has quantied the various major US cities and has identied Columbus (Ohio) as having the greatest percentage of overall avid sports fans (66 percent), followed by Boston (64 percent), Pittsburgh (63 percent), and Buffalo (63 percent). According to The Press Box, in 2006, some 32 million fans identied themselves as avid NFL fans with college football second at 23 million, followed by MLB (19.6 million), college basketball (15.8 million), National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (15.1 million), the NBA (14.3 million), gure skating (13.1 million), extreme sports (11.4 million), boxing (10.2 million), the Professional Golf Association (10 million), and the NHL (6.5 million). And the fan avidity concept has caught on with the individual teams where, for example, the Cleveland Browns NFL professional football organization had recently created a formal organizational management position titled Coordinator of fan avidity (Cleveland Browns web site). While there is a rather extensive literature in the Marketing and Sports Business journals on fan loyalty (Hill and Green, 2000; Bauer et al., 2008; Funk and James, 2006; Bee and Kahl, 2006), very little is published in the academic literature dealing with the topic of fan avidity. For the most part, previous research measuring fan avidity has utilized survey methodologies that employ discretely scaled single attitude or self-description measures (e.g. avidity, interest, involvement, etc.). Thus, the focus of these studies has been predominantly on psychological constructs. Missing in much of this published academic research is the extensive actual fan manifestations or behavioral expressions of fan avidity, i.e. games attended, merchandise purchased, watching the games on TV, reading about the team in the newspaper, playing fantasy sports, etc. In this manuscript, we explore the dimensionality of the many expressions of fan avidity, as well as the heterogeneity of these manifestations across a sample of sports fans. In particular, we demonstrate empirically that there are many different pathways to becoming an avid fan. And these alternative pathways have different revenue implications and marketing implications for the team or league involved. We show that single-item attitudinal measures are insufcient to capture this complexity of actual avid sports fan behaviors. We address this shortcoming by presenting a spatial choice model that uncovers the latent dimensionality in expressions of fan avidity. By so doing, we demonstrate how behavioral measures pertaining to specic sports fan actions may be employed by practitioners to model the richness and diversity of the fan experience. The manuscript proceeds as follows: we begin by examining the behavioral foundation of fan avidity by conceptualizing sports fandom as a type of consumer subculture that is dened by specic rituals, symbols, and a distinct hierarchical social structure. We then discuss that underlying fans commitment to a sports entity

is a sense of social identication characterized by certain normative behaviors intended to strengthen their sense of connectedness to the group. We discuss the measurement of the many expressions of fan avidity, and introduce a spatial choice multidimensional scaling (MDS) methodology as a means of uncovering the latent dimensionality of sports fans behavior and expressions of fan avidity. We then describe the study conducted with student college football fans from a large US university, and present the results of the spatial analysis. Finally, we discuss the implications of our results for marketing practice. Fan avidity: background Consumer fanaticism represents an affective attachment that is sometimes so profound that it implies a religious fervor in which the object takes on aspects of the sacred (Belk et al., 1989). Like any consumer subculture, sports fanatics have a set of shared beliefs and values, unique jargons, rituals, and modes of symbolic expression (Schouten and McAlexander, 1995). For example, Pimentel and Reynolds (2004) found that highly aligned fans regularly engage in a variety of proactive sustaining behaviors such as participating in game rituals (e.g. watching games with friends, tailgating), displaying team symbols (e.g. team memorabilia, licensed clothing), and even constructing shrines in their homes paying allegiance to their favorite team (Pimentel and Reynolds, 2004). Also typical of a subculture, fan avidity is characterized by a hierarchical social structure in which expressions of attachment vary. For example, Hunt et al. (1999) developed a conceptual typology based on fans attachment to a sports team. At the lowest level are temporary fans whose attachment is time constrained. These fans follow a team only when it is winning or when a favorite player is on the roster. Local fans are bounded by geographic constraints. Fans attachment at this level is with their geographic region rather than the team and will fade if they were to move away. Devoted fans have a stronger sense of attachment that is not bounded by temporal or geographic constraints. This fan remains committed regardless of team performance. At the highest level of attachment is the fanatical fan. These fans engage in ritualistic expressions of avidity that far exceed those of even the devoted fan. Yet, family and friends accept these expressions because they are considered to be supportive of the sports property. Underlying fans attachment to a sports property is social identity theory which suggests that people dene themselves in part by their memberships and afliations to various social groups (Hogg and Abrams, 1988; Tajfel and Turner, 1986; Turner, 1982). According to Abrams and Hogg (1990, p. 2), (S)ocial identity is self-conception as a group member. Increased levels of identication are related to a greater sense of oneness or connectedness to the salient group. An individuals self-concept is comprised of many self-identities, each varying along a continuum ranging from individual characteristics at the personal end of the spectrum to social categorical characteristics at the extreme social end. An individuals identication with a particular team or athlete represents a single aspect of social identity. People behave as group members in those circumstances where social categorization is made salient and as individuals when personal identity is made salient (Turner, 1982). As with personal identity, people seek to maintain a positive social identity in order to enhance their own self-esteem. In those situations where group identity is made salient, in-group members engage in a variety of normative behaviors aimed at maintaining

Fan avidity in sports marketing 81

JM2 6,1

82

positive distinctiveness. Social identication is enhanced through positive distinctiveness when ones own group is perceived to be different and better than that of an out-group on dimensions generally considered to have social value or which matter to the in-group. In an effort to achieve positive distinctiveness, members will be compelled by referent informational inuence to conform to group norms (Hogg and Turner, 1987). Such normative behavior is intended to promote the groups welfare. For example, research has found that the largest contributor to intentions to buy products from a corporate sponsor of a favorite team was group norms, followed by team identication (Madrigal, 2000). In addition, a structural equation model by Fisher and Wakeeld (1998) found that team identication mediated the effect of sport involvement, team performance, and player attractiveness on a number of normative behaviors including attendance, purchase of licensed merchandise, and displays of team support (e.g. wearing clothes with the team logo). The normative inuence of team identication has also been linked to intentions to engage in aggressive and violent behaviors (Branscombe and Wann, 1992a, b; Wann and Pierce, 2003). Aside from the normative inuence of team identication on intentions and behavior, a number of other topics related to fan avidity have appeared in the sports marketing literature. One such topic is the motives underlying fans interest in watching sports (Gantz and Wenner, 1991; Hunt et al., 1999; Sloan, 1989; Wann, 1995). Research has also considered the in situ consumption of sporting events using ethnography (Holt, 1995) and survey (Madrigal, 2006) methods. Studies have also considered fans use of counterfactual thinking and hindsight judgments (Roese and Maniar, 1997), and how biased processing affects their interpretation of game information (Hastorf and Cantril, 1954; Madrigal, 2008; Wann and Schrader, 2000). Empirical research concerning the measurement of fan avidity expressions have utilized check lists of various fan consumption behavior involving the allocation of money and/or time towards following a specic sport, league, team, and/or player. For example, the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network (ESPN)/TNS sports poll, a syndicated continuous tracking survey of US teenagers and adults that runs continuously (360 days/year) considered by many as the industry standard for monitoring the overall health of sports, collects such binary responses to a limited set of fan behaviors by type of sport. Subsequent analysis of such data are then typically limited to examining the descriptive frequencies of each measure. Our primary research objective is to examine the multidimensionality and heterogeneity of more extensive expressions/manifestations of fan avidity. To do this, we collect survey data from student sports fans of a large US universitys football team to measure fan avidity and the various activities undertaken by these students in following and supporting their football team. We apply a spatial choice MDS model to uncover these latent dimensions, and individual student representation in the resulting joint space to explore the heterogeneity of such fan avidity expressions. The spatial choice MDS model Our primary objective here is to uncover the latent dimensionality in the binary (check list) expressions of fan avidity in terms of the different activities selected by sports fans (as in the ESPN/TNS sports poll) with respect to their avidity for a specied sports team. As mentioned in Bowles et al. (2005), responses to binary items are not normally

distributed and therefore violate a key assumption of standard factor analysis (i.e. the normality of the unique factors). Previous research has demonstrated that factor analyses of dichotomous items can yield biased factor loadings (Parry and McArdle, 1991) or generate spurious factors (McDonald and Ahlawat, 1974). Here, we seek a joint spatial representation of both selected activities and sports fans such that their geometric relationship implies aspects of each fans activity selection process. The spatial procedure utilized should be tied into a well-accepted theory of how sports fans make actual activity choices. For these purposes, we adapt the DeSarbo and Cho (1989) spatial MDS choice model which we summarize in some detail below for the convenience of the reader in order to interpret the resulting analyses[2]. Let: t 1, . . . ,T dimensions (extracted in an MDS context); i 1, . . . ,I fans; j 1, . . . ,J sports activities; ( 1 if fan i chooses activity j; yij 0 otherwise; Pij ait ci bjt the probability that fan i choses activity j; the t-th vector terminus coordinate for fan i; an additive constant for fan i; and the t-th coordinate for activity j.

Fan avidity in sports marketing 83

DeSarbo and Cho (1989) assume that the choice process of fan i choosing or expressing activity j is Bernoulli, with probability of choice P given by Pij. As mentioned in DeSarbo and Cho (1989), unlike the conditional logit j Pij 1 (McFadden, 1976) and conditional probit (Hausman and Wise, 1978), there need not be the constraint that since the sum of the probabilities across activities is the expected numbers of picks for fan i which in most cases will exceed 1. By not requiring this constraint, the model can be utilized to accommodate choice situations where multiple activities are engaged in with correspondingly high probabilities. Let us dene a latent, unobservable utility index mij as:

mij

T X t1

ait bjt ci eij ;

  2 distribution with: where eij is an error term assumed to have a N 0; sij ( 2 sij if r t i; s u j; Covers ; etu 0 else:

The right-hand side of equation (1) contains the scalar product of the i-th fans vector coordinates with the j-th activitys coordinates. That is, equation (1) denes an MDS vector model (Tucker, 1960) of utility where fans are represented by vectors and sports activities by coordinate points in a T-dimensional joint space. The orientation of a fans vector provides information as to the direction in the derived joint space of higher utility

JM2 6,1

84

or probability of being selected. The projection of an activity onto a fans vector indicates the degree or magnitude of utility the larger the scalar products (i.e. the higher the projection of an activity onto a fans vector), the higher is the utility of that activity for that fan (Slater, 1960). Figure 2 shows the workings of this spatial choice model for two dimensions, three fans (labeled 1-3), and four activities (labeled A-D). Each fan is represented in this hypothetical latent space by a vector whose direction indicates increasing utility for that fan. Each sports activity is represented by a point. One orthogonally projects each activity onto each fan vector (i.e. their scalar product), and the intersection onto each fan vector indicates a cardinal utility value. For example, consider fan 1 in Figure 2. Projecting the four activities onto this fans vector indicates that activity B has the highest probability of expression or choice by this fan since it projects the furthest in the direction of increasing utility, followed by activities C, A, and D, respectively. The threshold value (for fan 1) denoted in Figure 2 shows the utility barrier that must be passed for there to be a choice for this particular fan. In Figure 1, activities B and C are predicted to be chosen, while activities A and D not chosen. In two dimensions, the iso-probability contour is a straight line perpendicular to the fan vector, i.e. any activity lying on such a perpendicular line has equal probability of being expressed by that fan. Fan heterogeneity is represented by the variation in these vector orientations across fans. Given only the activity choice data and a trial value of the dimensionality, the objective is to estimate this type of joint spatial representation. Thus, in the DeSarbo and Cho (1989) model framework, uij is specied such that if 2 uij # d2 i then we observe yij 0 (no choice), and if uij . di we observe yij 1 (a choice). 2 Here, di is a threshold parameter (confounded with the additive constant) which varies by fan. Therefore:

Dimension II

Activity A Fan 2 Threshold 1

Activity B Fan 1

Dimension I Activity C

Activity D

Figure 1. An illustration of the spatial choice model

Fan 3

Pyij 0 P uij #

d2 i

T X t1

! ait bjt ci eij # d* i 3

T X ait bjt di P eij # 2 t1

! Fs;

Fan avidity in sports marketing 85

where di d2 i 2 ci , and F(s) represents the standard normal cumulative distribution function evaluated at: P di 2 T t1 ait bjt s : 4 sij One must restrict sij si above since there is insufcient data to estimate all the model parameters. As such, one can set si 1 for all i here without loss of generality as an individual level scale factor can be normalized out of expression (4) above. That is, there is no need to estimate the variance term since it is not identiable. Similarly: ! T X 2 Pyij 1 P uij . di P eij . 2 ait bjt di 1 2 Fs Pij : 5
t1

Thus, one can assume that a latent utility variable exists which, after reaching an individual specic threshold value, produces the observed choice yij 1. As noted in DeSarbo and Cho (1989), this general specication is quite common in the econometrics literature (Chow, 1983; Maddala, 1986) where discrete choice models are tied into latent, indirect utility scores, and threshold values. In fact, this specication above can be viewed as a bilinear spatial probit type of model. The theoretical justication for such a specication can be found in Lewin et al. (1944), Siegel (1957), Simon (1959), and other research on aspiration levels and decision making. According to Simon (1959, 1978), economic agents engage in satisfying behavior rather than maximizing behavior. Simon (1959, p. 264) claims that economic agents form thresholds or aspiration levels which denes a natural zero point in the scale of utility. When the economic agent has alternatives to it that are at or above its aspiration level, this theory predicts that the agent will choose amongst these alternatives as opposed to those alternatives below this level. This appears to also be congruent with multistage decision-making/choice processes which combine compensatory and conjunctive rules (Coombs, 1964; Dawes, 1964; Einhorn, 1970; Green and Wind, 1973). The resulting likelihood function can be expressed as: J I Y Y L2 1 2 Fsyij Fs1 2 yij ; 6
i1 j1

and the log likelihood as: K2 ln L*

J I X X i1 j1

yij ln1 2 Fs 1 2 yij ln Fs:

Thus, given Y (yij) and a trial value of the dimensionality (T), one wishes to estimate A (ait), B (bjt), and d (d1) to maximize K * in expression (7).

JM2 6,1

86

The DeSarbo and Cho (1989) spatial model can accommodate external analysis where A and/or B are given/specied from, say, some previous analysis, or it can estimate both sets of coordinates (internal analysis). Several options also exist with respect to estimating d, including xing these thresholds all to zero, estimating one common threshold, or estimating a separate threshold value per fan. Note, the model dened in expressions (3) and (5) can also be generalized to incorporate additional data in the form of fan and/or activity background variables. The coordinates for fans (vector termini) and/or activities, as the case might be, can be reparameterized as linear functions of background variables (see deLeeuw and Heiser (1980) for constraining MDS spaces). If activity attribute data is available, then bjt can be reparameterized as: bjt
K X k1

Xjk gkt ;

where xjk is the value of attribute k(k 1,. . . K , J) for activity j, and gkt is the impact of feature k on dimension t. As in CANonical DEcomposition with LINear Constraints (Carroll et al., 1979), three-way multivariate conjoint analysis (DeSarbo et al., 1982), and GENFOLD2 (DeSarbo and Rao, 1984, 1986), one can model the location of the activities to be a direct function of their respective features or attributes if available. Thus, the xjk are quantied features which are related to subjective attributes (Lancaster, 1966, 1979). Similarly, when fan background data are available, ait can be reparameterized as: ait
R X r1

zir art ;

where zir is the value of characteristic r(r 1, . . . ,R , I) for fan i, and art is the impact of the r-th individual characteristic on dimension t. When both activity and fan background data are available, both sets of coordinates can be reparameterized. Note, one always has the option of performing general property tting analyses in the non-reparameterized model with A and/or B (via correlation and/or regression analysis) to enhance the interpretation of the derived dimensions and A and/or B. Maximum likelihood methods are utilized by DeSarbo and Cho (1989) to maximize K * ln L * in expression (7) with respect to the given set of unknown parameters specied in the particular model of interest. The method of conjugate gradients (Fletcher and Reeves, 1964) with automatic restarts (Powell, 1977) is utilized for this optimization problem. The specic steps or phases of the algorithm are described in DeSarbo and Cho (1989). The Akaike information criterion (AIC) statistic (Akaike, 1974) is recommended by DeSarbo and Cho (1989) as a method of model selection (e.g. choice of dimensionality, constrained vs unconstrained models, etc.). Here, it is dened as: AIC D 2Q; 10

where Q is the effective number of independent or free parameters estimated in the model, and D is the deviance measure (2 2K2 ). Such an information heuristic trades off goodness of t (D) with model complexity (the number of independent model parameters). In this context, one selects the model/solution with the minimum value of AIC as the best or most parsimonious solution.

College football fan avidity study The study Initially, a number of in-depth interviews were conducted with various students at a large US university (which we will designate as University XXX) to examine the nature of student fan avidity for the universitys football team. It is a university where football is the dominant sport on campus (average home game attendance averages over 100,000 fans) and where national prominence is achieved each year as reected by typical top 20 ratings in the national polls each year. In 2009, it is estimated that this sport was responsible for the generation of nearly $100 million in revenue to this university. The highly visible head coach of the football team has achieved iconic status in the sport. Here, we wish to examine the different ways or activities student fans choose to express their avidity for their football team. Over 50 in-depth interviews were initially conducted with representative undergraduate students[3], as well as athletic staff associates from this university, to understand how student fans of the universitys football program follow their team. Questions were asked to evaluate their interest, involvement, avidity, attitudes, and opinions about themselves and the XXX football program, background information, as well as open questions to tally the various ways they stated they follow the team (if at all). Initially, some 42 different activities were stated from this process. We focused on the subset of activities that were mentioned by at least two of these 50 individuals and reduced the set to some 35 different activities or expressions/manifestations of fan avidity as it pertained to their following of the football team. These activities are listed in Table I with their associated labels and were worded (in line with a number of major sports polls) in terms of whether or not (i.e. binary) the student selected that particular activity in following the football team during the 2008 season. This list in Table I is much more extensive than those utilized in any commercial sports poll. Note that there was no constraint placed as to the number of activities to be selected by the student respondent so that this data can be characterized as pick any/N. A questionnaire was developed and pretested with a set of 20 different students for wording, comprehension, and relevance. The questionnaire contained measures of fan avidity, interest, involvement, the inventory of these 35 activities, attitudinal and psychographic questions, and demographics. After several revisions and additional pretesting, we distributed the questionnaire to undergraduate students at this university in a number of subject pools for which they received additional credit towards their grade in a marketing course they were all taking at the time. In all, 307 completed questionnaires were obtained. Figure 2 shows the percentage of the 307 students who selected each of the 35 activities utilized in the study and listed in Table I. As shown, there is substantial variation in these proportions ranging from 1 percent who actually stated they tried out for the dance team that entertains stadium fans to 96 percent who state they watch the team play on television. Other highly selected activities include wearing the school football colors during the football games (92.51 percent), reading the college newspaper about the football team (90.81 percent), attending at least one home football game (89.58 percent), and tailgating at the stadium (88.60 percent). Analysis The analysis employing the DeSarbo and Cho (1989) spatial choice MDS model to examine ` -vis a joint space representation of both fans the latent dimensionality of this data vis-a

Fan avidity in sports marketing 87

JM2 6,1

88

and activities was conducted in T 1, . . . ,5 dimensions. Table II presents the associated goodness-of-t values including the log likelihood and AIC values. Using the AIC criterion to select the dimensionality, we see its minimum value occurs at four dimensions. Figure 3 shows the four-dimensional space (presented one dimension at a time) for just the activities in order to best interpret these derived latent dimensions. For dimension I, let us concentrate on those activities which load heavily positive such as tries out or becomes a member of the marching band, tries out or becomes a member of the dance team, tries out or joins the football team, tries out or becomes a member of the cheerleading squad, or helps to clean the stadium after the football game. These all dene on-eld active participation in the universitys football-related activities. Note also that these activities have the lowest frequency of being selected by this sample as seen in Figure 2. At the opposite extreme on this dimension dene non-eld participation activities which tend to be much more frequently selected. We therefore label this dimension as distinguishing
Plot code A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 A22 A23 A24 A25 A26 A27 A28 A29 A30 A31 A32 A33 A34 A35 Activity description Attends at least one home game? Attends at least one away game? Listens to the games on local radio? Reads about the XXX football team in the school newspaper? Purchases XXX football merchandise? Attends the post-season bowl game? Reads about the XXX football team in the local newspaper? Purchases 2008 XXX football season tickets? Plays as XXX football team in video games? Watches XXX football game on TV at home? Collects XXX football memorabilia? Joins or tries out for the XXX football team? Purchases sports magazines to read on the leagues football? Uses the internet to follow XXX football or the league? Participates in friendly wagers on the results of the XXX game? Watches XXX football game on TV at restaurant or bar? Attends the open practice football game in spring? Purchases XXX football clothing? Listens (radio) to the XXX football games over the internet? Watches (streaming video) the XXX football games over the internet? Watches the league channels football coverage? Attends XXX football pep rallies? Tailgates at the stadium at games? Purchases or subscribe to XXX football magazine? Uses school color face or body paint during a XXX football game? Participates in post-game celebrations or parties? Tries out or becomes a member of the XXX cheerleading squad? Tries out or becomes a member of the XXX marching band? Tries out or becomes a member of XXX dance team? Wears school colors (clothing) during the XXX football game? Helps tutor XXX football players with their studies? Joins the football sports club (you or a member of your family)? Camps out for good seats the night before the game? Works at XXX football games? Helps to clean the stadium following the game?

Table I. Football activity descriptions

A35 A34 A33 A32 A31 A30 A29 A28 A27 A26 A25 A24 A23 A22 A21 A20 A19 A18 A17 A16 A15 A14 A13 A12 A11 A10 A9 A8 A7 A6 A5 A4 A3 A2 A1 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 (%) 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00

Fan avidity in sports marketing 89

Figure 2. Sample percentages for college football-related activities

on-eld participation from more non-active involvement. Note, it is also inversely related to choice share. Regarding dimension II, we see high loadings for reading about the team in the local newspaper, following the team and its division on the internet, listening to the football games over the internet, reading about the team in the college newspaper, and listening to the games on the local radio. This dimension denes a very passive following of the football team. Dimension III is dened at the positive extreme by such items as purchasing the schools football merchandise, purchasing the schools football clothing,

JM2 6,1

90

purchasing/collecting football team memorabilia, and joining an expensive football booster club. Clearly, this dimension describes a purchasing construct which obviously results in active revenue generation for the university. Finally, dimension IV is characterized at the positive end by purchasing season football tickets, attending at least one away game, using school-colored body paint during the football game, subscribing to the football magazine, attending at least one home game, and attending the pep rallies. This describes a social dimension related to the stadium experience which is also related to revenue generation (e.g. ticket sales, concessions, etc.) for the university. Thus, these four dimensions describe very different manifestations of fan avidity amongst these students. And, as seen in the correlations between these activities dimensions presented in Table III, the derived dimensions are nearly orthogonal lacking any signicant correlation between each other indicating they are describing rather independent aspects of the data[4]. Figures 4 and 5 show the four-dimensional joint space via two joint space plots displaying dimensions 1 vs 2 in Figure 4, and dimensions 3 vs 4 in Figure 5. As discussed in the illustration in Figure 1 earlier, the activities are represented by coordinate points with their plot label, whereas each fan is represented by a vector whose orientation points in the direction of greater utility and correspondingly higher probability of activity selection. As is common in most vector MDS joint space plots, we normalize the length of the student fans vectors to equal length in each plot for convenience. Exploring rst Figure 4 and this rst two-dimensional joint space, we see that the fan vectors appear to be mostly concentrated in a 758 arc located in the center of quadrants 3 and 4 indicating that the vast majority of student fans here do not typically engage in the on-eld participation activities. This is also veried by the frequency plot in Figure 2 where such aggressive participation activities are much smaller expressions of fan avidity. We do witness much higher variation/heterogeneity along the second dimension where this student fan sample appears to display a wider variety of passive vs non-passive expressions of fan avidity. In Figure 5, we see much wider variation/heterogeneity in the vector orientations across all 3608, although there is a somewhat higher concentration of fan vectors in quadrant 3. It is clear that watching the football on TV at home is highly preferred by most of these student fans. As mentioned in the introduction, many sports marketing research rms measure overall fan avidity by means of survey measurement single-item attitude scales on avidity, interest, or involvement. In order to examine the association of such items we collected[5] and the four dimensions of fan avidity expression, we correlated these measurements as shown in Table IV. We also created a variable called sum, which totals the number of activities chosen by each respondent, and included that variable in the analysis as well to illustrate a point. A number of interesting ndings can be gleaned from
T 1 2 3 4a 5 4c Q 649 990 1,330 1,669 2,007 457 K* 2 2,995.9 2 2,645.1 2 2,156.0 2 1,766.3 2 1,521.1 2 3,210.7 AIC 7,289.9 7,270.2 6,972.1 6,870.5 7,056.1 7,335.4

Table II. Goodness-of-t values

Note: aDenotes minimum AIC solution

3.500

A7

A14

A3 A18 A5 A19 A2 A8 A25

3.000

A28 A31

Fan avidity in sports marketing 91

A29 A12 A27 A28 A19

2.500

A4

A11

A24 A1 A11 A22

2.000
A34 A6

A3 A9 A24

1.500

A32 A21 A27 A24 A33 A25 A20 A2 A29 A16 A32 A12 A22 A26 A28 A6 A20 A25 A6 A13 A29 A21 A2 A16 A7 A35 A24 A28 A22 A34 A27 A31 A1 A30 A23 A12 A14 A15 A33 A26 A8 A17 A6 A33 A7 A5 A32 A17 A9 A27 A31 A14 A29 A35 A34 A23 A26 A19 A20 A30 A3

1.000

A33

A19 A20 A2

0.500

A15

A10 A13

A32 A13 A15

0.000
A3 A7 A9 A22 A25 A8 A11 A17

A18 A28 A13 A12

0.500

A17

0.000

A11

A16 A26 A31 A5 A34 A18 A35

A4 A21 A15 A10 A16

A9 A4

1.500

A8 A23 A21

2.000

A23 A30 A1 A10

2.500

A30

3.000
A5 Dimension I: On-field participation Dimension II: Passive following Dimension III: Purchasing Dimension IV: Social

3.500

Figure 3. College football activity dimensional space

this table of correlations. One, the study conrms the industry standard of using interest in the sport as a single-item proxy for overall fan avidity since the two measures have the largest association in the table. Two, the fan avidity variable is more highly correlated with the sum of the chosen activities than with any of the four derived dimensions individually. It appears that the sum measure is indicative of avidity intensity which can explain this nding. Three, the strongest correlations (negative here) between fan

JM2 6,1

92

avidity, interest, and involvement measures vs the four derived latent dimensions of fan vectors occur with respect to the rst dimension (on-eld participation). Given that this dimension is also inversely related to choice share, this nding makes intuitive sense given what we see with the sum variable and avidity. While other correlations with the other dimensions are statistically signicant, these single-item measures fail to explain more than 5 percent of the variation in dimensions II, III, and IV. In particular, given the two major dimensions related to revenue generation are the purchasing and social dimensions (dimensions III and IV), we see very low levels of association between these two revenue-related dimensions and overall fan avidity, interest, and involvement. In a different way of looking at this issue, we reran the spatial choice model in four dimensions where we constrained the fan vectors to be linear functions of fan avidity, interest, and involvement using expression (9). Table II displays the associated goodness-of-t statistics obtained by this solution (designated by 4c in the table). As clearly indicated by the comparison of the AIC heuristics, the four-dimension unconstrained solution clearly dominates this reparameterized, constrained solution. This indicates that fan avidity, interest, and involvement measures are incapable of properly ` -vis the actual capturing the variations and heterogeneity in expressions of fan avidity vis-a behaviors of fans regarding these 35 activities. In particular, these single-item aggregate measures alone are incapable of discriminating between the revenue vs non-revenue generating dimensions of the different expressions of fan avidity. As such, researchers and practitioners must be very guarded about using such aggregate measures of fan avidity, interest, and/or involvement alone in attempting to explain the variation of expressions of fan avidity, or to infer revenue potential by activity. Discussion We have described the sports industry as one of the top 10 business entities in the USA generating some $213 billion in annual revenue. Much of this revenue is generated from sports fans who consume tickets, merchandise, concessions, memorabilia, etc. We introduced the concept of fan avidity which is currently a very popular topic in this particular industry given the fact that avid fans consume much more than non-avid fans. The behavioral framework underlying the concept has been described in detail. We have presented a study involving the student fans of a well-known university football program and examined some 35 different expressions or manifestations of their fan avidity. Employing a vector MDS model for binary choice data, we uncovered four very distinct dimensions of such avidity expressions: on-eld participation, passive following, social, ` -vis the different and purchasing. And, we illustrate the nature of student heterogeneity vis-a vector orientations in this four-dimensional joint space. In essence, we demonstrate how there are different pathways to fan avidity. We aptly illustrated how single-item measures
Correlations Dim 1 Dim 2 0.018 Dim 3 0.015 2 0.023 Dim 4 0.013 2 .020 2 0.017

Table III. Correlations between the four dimensions of the sports activities

Dim Dim Dim Dim

1 2 3 4

Passive following

Fan avidity in sports marketing

A7

93

A14

A19 A4 A3 A9 A21 A10 A16 A A11 A26 A17 A25 A33 A13 A2A20 A15 A32 A24 A27 A29 A12 A28 A34 A23 A1 A30 A31 A35

A22 A6

On-field participation

A18 A5

Activites

Student fans

Figure 4. Joint space plot of dimensions 1 and 2

currently in use by many research practitioners regarding overall fan avidity, interest, and involvement do not adequately explain the heterogeneity of such avidity expressions. However, interest and involvement are more parsimonious indicators of overall fan avidity than the various dimensions derived from this spatial choice MDS model. Sports fans are consumers who express their avidity for their sport, team, league, player, university, etc. in a variety of different ways. Some of these expressions involve expenditure of money, while others involve more an expenditure of time and/or effort. As such, there are revenue implications associated with these various consumer behaviors. Our study has uncovered four distinct dimensions underlying the 35 different manifestations or

JM2 6,1

Social

94
A8 A2 A25 A24 A1 A22 A33 A7 A6 A32 A17 A9 A27 A28 A14 A31 A29 A13 A12 A35 A4 A26 A10 A16 A30 A15A23 A34 A21 A20 A19 A3 A18 A5 A11

Purchasing

Figure 5. Joint space plot of dimensions 3 and 4

Activities

Responses

expressions of fan avidity. Two of the four dimensions relate more closely to revenue streams for the university as noted above. One can use such an analysis as a basis for segmenting fans, and evaluating the value of these fans and derived market segments. This research can be extended in a number of interesting directions. One, further research needs to be aimed at understanding the theoretical process of fan avidity and how it develops and alters over time. Our purpose is to explore the outcomes of fan avidity in this manuscript, its multidimensionality, and the heterogeneity amongst fans. Two similar studies need to be conducted at the professional level and across different sport types. Obviously, the manifestations of fan avidity will vary depending upon the type and level of sport, as so will the derived dimensions. Our study is not meant to generalize to any other domain in the sports arena. Finally, cross-cultural analyses would be fascinating in terms of comparing how fans express their avidity, especially given the strong international interest in sports (e.g. soccer).

Avid XXX How interested are How would you describe football sports you in XXX football your level of involvement fan Sum 0.675 * * 0.655 * * 0.669 * * 2 0.403 * * 2 0.431 * * 2 0.393 * * 2 0.397 * * 0.191 * * 2 0.038 0.171 * * 0.241 * * 2 0.033 0.593 * * 0.719 * * 0.578 * *

On-eld Passive participation following Purchasing 0.069 0.102 0.029 0.184 * * 0.353 * * 2 0.042

Social 0.154 * * 0.214 * * 0.166 * * 0.162 * * 0.199 * * 2 0.226 * * 0.117 *

How interested are you in XXX football How would you describe your level of involvement Avid XXX football sports fan Sum On-eld participation Passive following Purchasing

Note: Correlation is signicance at: *0.05 and * *0.01 levels (two tailed)

Fan avidity in sports marketing 95

Table IV. Correlations between the four fan dimensions and various single-item scales

JM2 6,1

Notes 1. Plunkett Research, Ltd forecasts the total size of the sports industry in the USA to be much higher at $410.6 billion in 2009. 2. Correspondence analysis is another spatial procedure that could have been employed here for the analysis of two-way binary data (see Ferreira et al. (2009) for an illustration of its use). However, this data analytic procedure is not tied into any theory of choice, is deterministic without decisive model selection tests, and contains issues with interpreting geometric relationships between row (fan) and column (activities) objects in the derived space. See also DeSarbo (2010) for a spatial unfolding model adapted to such binary data. 3. The athletic department of University XXX estimates that over 25 percent of their total revenue is attributable to its undergraduate students with respect to ticket sales. 4. The spatial choice model does not constrain the derived dimensions to be orthogonal unlike many MDS procedures based on singular value decomposition methods. 5. For the fan avidity scale, use a seven-point semantic differential scale to indicate the level of agreement with the statement I consider myself to be an avid XXX football fan. We used four-point response scales for interest (overall, how interested are you in XXX football?) and involvement (how would you describe your level of involvement with XXX football?). References Abrams, D. and Hogg, M.A. (Eds) (1990), An introduction to the social identity approach, Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 1-27. Akaike, H. (1974), A new look at statistical model identication, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. AC-19, pp. 716-23. Bauer, H.H., Stokburger-Sauer, N.E. and Exler, S. (2008), Brand image and fan loyalty in professional team sport: a rened model and empirical assessment, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 205-26. Bee, C.C. and Kahle, L.R. (2006), Sport consumer typologies: a critical review, Sports Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 102-10. Belk, R.W., Wallendorf, M. and Sherry, J.F. Jr (1989), The sacred and the profane in consumer behavior: theodicy on the odyssey, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16, June, pp. 1-38. Bowles, R.P., Grimm, K.J. and McArdle, J.J. (2005), A structural factor analysis of vocabulary knowledge and relations to age, The Journal of Gerentology Series B: Psychological and Social Sciences, Vol. 60, pp. 234-41. Branscombe, N.R. and Wann, D.L. (1992a), Physiological arousal and reactions to out-group members during competitions that implicate an important social identity, Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 85-93. Branscombe, N.R. and Wann, D.L. (1992b), Role of identication with a group, arousal categorization processes, and self-esteem in sport spectator aggression, Human Relations, Vol. 45, pp. 1013-33. Carroll, J.D., Pruzanksy, S. and Kruskal, J.B. (1979), CANDELINC: a general approach to multidimensional analysis of many-way arrays with linear constraints on parameters, Psychometrika, Vol. 45, pp. 3-24. Chow, G.C. (1983), Econometrics, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Coombs, C.H. (1964), A Theory of Data, Wiley, New York, NY. Dawes, R.M. (1964), Social selection based on multidimensional criteria, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 104-9.

96

de Leeuw, J. and Heiser, W.J. (1980), Multidimensional scaling with restrictions on the conguration, in Krishnaiah, P.R. (Ed.), Multivariate Analysis, Vol. 5, North Holland, New York, NY, pp. 501-22. DeSarbo, W.S. (2009), Measuring fan avidity can help marketers narrow their focus, Sports Business Journal, Vol. 21, December, pp. 13-14. DeSarbo, W.S. (2010), A spatial multidimensional unfolding choice model for examining the heterogeneous expressions of sports fan avidity, Journal of Quantitative Analysis of Sports, Vol. 6 No. 2. DeSarbo, W.S. and Cho, J. (1989), A stochastic multidimensional scaling vector threshold model for the spatial representation of pick any/N data, Psychometrika, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 105-29. DeSarbo, W.S. and Rao, V.R. (1984), GENFOLD2: a set of models and algorithms for the GENeral unFOLDing analysis of preference/dominance data, Journal of Classication, Vol. 1, pp. 147-86. DeSarbo, W.S. and Rao, V.R. (1986), A constrained unfolding model for product positioning analysis, Marketing Science, Vol. 5, pp. 1-19. DeSarbo, W.S., Carroll, J.D., Lehmann, D.R. and OShaughnessy, J. (1982), Three-way multivariate conjoint analysis, Marketing Science, Vol. 1, pp. 323-50. Einhorn, H.J. (1970), The use of nonlinear non-compensatory models in decision making, Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 73, pp. 221-30. Ferreira, M., Hall, T.K. and Bennett, G. (2009), Exploring brand positioning in a sponsorship context: a correspondence analysis of the Dew Action Sports Tour, Journal of Sports Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 734-61. Fisher, R.J. and Wakeeld, K. (1998), Factors leading to group identication: a eld study of winners and losers, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 15, pp. 23-40. Fletcher, R. and Reeves, C.M. (1964), Function minimization by conjugate gradients, Computer Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 149-54. Funk, D.C. and James, J.D. (2006), Consumer loyalty: the meaning of attachment in the development of sport team allegiance, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 189-217. Gantz, W. and Wenner, L.A. (1991), Men, women, and sports: audience experiences and effects, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Vol. 35, spring, pp. 233-43. Green, P.E. and Wind, Y. (1973), Multiattribute Decisions in Marketing: A Measurement Approach, Dryden Press, Hinedale, IL. Hastorf, A. and Cantril, H. (1954), They saw a game: a case study, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 129-34. Hausman, J.A. and Wise, D.A. (1978), A conditional probit model for qualitative choice: discrete decisions recognizing interdependencies and heterogeneous preferences, Econometrika, Vol. 46, pp. 403-26. Hill, B. and Green, C. (2000), Repeat attendance as a function of involvement, loyalty, and the sportscape across three football contexts, Sport Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 145-62. Hogg, M.A. and Abrams, D. (1988), Social Identications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes, Routledge, London. Hogg, M.A. and Turner, J.C. (1987), Social identity and conformity: a theory of referent information inuence, in Doise, W. and Moscovici, S. (Eds), Current Issues in European Social Psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Vol. 2, pp. 139-82.

Fan avidity in sports marketing 97

JM2 6,1

Holt, D.B. (1995), How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22, pp. 1-16. Hunt, K.A., Bristol, T. and Bashaw, R.E. (1999), A conceptual approach to classifying sports fans, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 439-52. Lancaster, K.J. (1966), A new approach to consumer theory, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 74, pp. 132-57. Lancaster, K.J. (1979), Variety, Equity, and Efciency, Columbia University Press, New York, NY. Lewin, K., Tamara, D., Festinger, L. and Sears, P.S. (1944), Level of aspiration, in Hunt, J.McV. (Ed.), Personality and the Behavior Disorders, Vol. 1, Ronald Press, New York, NY, pp. 333-78. McDonald, R.P. and Ahlawat, K.S. (1974), Difculty factors in binary data, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, Vol. 27, pp. 82-99. McFadden, D. (1976), Quantal choice analysis: a survey, Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Vol. 5, pp. 363-90. Maddala, G.S. (1986), Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Madrigal, R. (2000), The inuence of social alliances with sports teams on intentions to purchase corporate sponsors products, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 13-24. Madrigal, R. (2006), Measuring the multidimensional nature of sporting event performance consumption, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 38, pp. 267-92. Madrigal, R. (2008), Hot vs. cold cognitions and consumers reactions to sporting event outcomes, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 304-19. Parry, C.D.H. and McArdle, J.J. (1991), An applied comparison of methods for least squares factor analysis of dichotomous variables, Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 15, pp. 35-46. Pimentel, R.W. and Reynolds, K.E. (2004), A model for consumer devotion: affective commitment with proactive sustaining behaviors, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 5, pp. 1-45. Powell, M.J.D. (1977), Restart procedures for the conjugate gradient method, Mathematical Programming, Vol. 12, pp. 241-54. Roese, N.J. and Maniar, S.D. (1997), Perceptions of purpose: counterfactual and hindsight judgments at Northwestern Wildcats football games, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1245-53. Schouten, J.W. and McAlexander, J.H. (1995), Subcultures of consumption: an ethnography of the new bikers, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22, pp. 43-61. Siegel, S. (1957), Level of aspiration and decision making, Psychological Review, Vol. 64, pp. 253-62. Simon, H.A. (1959), Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science, American Economic Review, Vol. 49, pp. 253-83. Simon, H.A. (1978), Rationality as process as product of thought, American Economic Association, Vol. 68, pp. 1-16. Slater, P. (1960), The analysis of personal preferences, British Journal of Statistical Psychology, Vol. 13, pp. 119-35. Sloan, L.R. (1989), The motives of sports fans, in Goldstein, J.H. (Ed.), Sports, Games and Play: Social and Psychological Viewpoints, 2nd ed., Vol. 2, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 175-240.

98

Sports Business Journal (2009), The Sports Industry Annual Report, available at: www. sportsbusinessjournal.com/index.cfm?fuseactionpage.feature&featureId1492 (accessed June 11, 2009). Syracuse, A. (2008), The national hockey leagues power play, Target Marketing, November, p. 1. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), The social identity theory of intergroup behavior, in Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24. Tucker, L.R. (1960), Intra-individual and inter-individual multidimensionality, in Gulliksen, H. and Messick, S. (Eds), Psychological Scaling: Theory and Applications, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 155-67. Turner, J.C. (1982), Towards a cognitive redenition of the social group, in Tajfel, H. (Ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 15-40. Wann, D.L. (1995), Preliminary validation of the sport fan motivation scale, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, Vol. 19, pp. 377-96. Wann, D. and Pierce, S. (2003), Measuring sport team identication and commitment: an empirical comparison of the sport spectator identication scale and the psychological commitment to team scale, North American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 365-72. Wann, D.L. and Schrader, M.P. (2000), Controllability and stability in the self-serving attributions of sport spectators, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 140 No. 2, pp. 160-8. Further reading Bureau of Economic Analysis (2006), National Economic Accounts: Table II.IV.VU. Personal Expenditures by Type of Product, available at: https://bea.gov/beahome.html (accessed September 26, 2006). Christoffersson, A. (1975), Factor analysis of dichotomized variables, Psychometrika, Vol. 40, pp. 5-32. de ration Internationale de Football Association (2009), About FIFA: TV Data, available at: Fe www.fa.com/aboutfa/marketing/factsgures/tvdata.html (accessed May 28, 2009). Stewart, B., Smith, A.C.T. and Nicholson, M. (2003), Sport consumer typologies: a critical review, Sports Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 206-14. Street and Smiths Sports Group (2008), Sports Business Resource Guide & Fact Book, Street and Smiths Sports Group, Charolette, NC. Wann, D.L. and Branscombe, N.R. (1990), Die-hard and fair-weather fans: effects of identication on BIRGing and CORFing tendencies, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, Vol. 16, pp. 103-17. About the authors Wayne S. DeSarbo is the Smeal Distinguished Research Professor of Marketing at the Smeal College of Business of Pennsylvania State University in University Park, PA. Wayne S. DeSarbo is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: wsd6@psu.edu Robert Madrigal is Associate Professor of Marketing at the Lundquist College of Business at the University of Oregon in Eugene, Oregon, USA.

Fan avidity in sports marketing 99

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints