Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
College Student Attendance at Collegiate Sporting Events:
The Importance of Constraints
June 2018
Report Compiled by:
Jason Simmons, PhD University of Cincinnati
Nels Popp, PhD
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Chris Greenwell, PhD University of Louisville
This report summarizes the findings of the 2017-18 college student athletic event attendance study conducted on behalf of NACMA, and in conjunction with sport administration faculty members at the University of Cincinnati, the University of North Carolina, and the University of Louisville. The purpose of this study was to assess the relative importance of constraints on the likelihood of student attendance at college football and college men’s basketball games. An online questionnaire was distributed to NACMA member institutions opting into the study in two separate waves. The football version of the questionnaire was distributed in October 2017, while the men’s basketball version of the questionnaire was distributed in December 2017. The questionnaire featured eight scenarios in which student respondents were presented seven marketing-related constraints: ticket price, seat location, opportunities to socialize in the venue, student section atmosphere, food and drink affordability, Wi-Fi signal strength, and alcohol availability. In each scenario, students were asked to rate their likelihood of attending a football/men’s basketball game given the presence/absence of various constraints. Data were also collected on fan passion (Wakefield, 2016) and respondent demographics to allow for comparative analysis. Conjoint analysis was utilized to determine the relative importance of each constraint in a student’s decision-making process when considering attending a football or men’s basketball game. Separate analyses were conducted for the football and men’s basketball samples. The sample size for football respondents was 15,696 with 28 schools participating. The men’s basketball sample size was 7,459 with 32 schools participating. The report is organized into five sections: • Key findings • Demographics • Basis for this study – summary of prior work • Conjoint analysis explained • Results and interpretations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
1. For both the football and men’s basketball samples, ticket price, seat location, and atmosphere were the the most important constraints affecting student likelihood of attendance. Individually, each of these constraints was twice as important to student attendance decisions compared to Wi-Fi signal strength, alcohol availability, and concessions prices.
2. Students are not a homogenous group. High passion fans care most about seat location and atmosphere relative to the other constraints tested. For low passion fans, however, ticket price is more than twice as important as any other constraint. More than anything, findings from this study suggest segmenting students into smaller subsets to better meet the wants/needs of each group.
3. At Power 5 schools, for football, ticket price, seat location, and student section atmosphere stand out as the three most important constraints, more than double the importance of any of the remaining four constraints considered. At group of 5 and FCS schools, however, ticket price is easily the most importance constraint to attendance. For the basketball sample, ticket price was far and away the most important constraint across all levels of conference affiliation.
4. Few variations exist in constraint importance based on year in school. Across the board, ticket price and seat location are the most important constraints affecting attendance relative to the seven constraints considered in this study. That said, alcohol availability at games became increasingly more important as students progressed through school. As freshmen, for both football and men’s basketball samples, alcohol availability was the least important constraint. For seniors though, alcohol availability was the fourth and third most important constraints for football and men’s basketball, respectively.
**Note: Results from this study offer a macro-level view of the relative importance of constraints to student attendance at football and men’s basketball games. The constraints considered are not meant to represent all possible constraints affecting student attendance. Each school will face its own set of unique constraints which should be identified and considered. Seven constraints were considered for this analysis. These constraints were chosen based on findings from prior research and those most within the control of collegiate athletic marketers. Given the specifications of the full factorial conjoint analysis conducted, seven was the maximum number of constraints allowable to maintain the integrity of the study with eight scenarios.
KEY FINDINGS
3
4
DEMOGRAPHICS
Sex Football Basketball Male 7,033 (44.8%) 2,984 (40.0%) Female 7,259 (46.2%) 3,208 (43.0%) Other 77 (0.5%) 61 (0.8%) Did Not Respond 1,327 (10.0%) 1,206 (16.2%)
Year in School Football Basketball Freshman 3,996 (25.5%) 1,561 (20.9%) Sophomore 2,675 (17.0%) 1,356 (18.2%) Junior 3,017 (19.2%) 1,336 (17.9%) Senior 3,231 (20.6%) 1,467 (19.7%) Graduate Student 1,443 (9.2%) 531 (7.1%) Did Not Respond 1,334 (8.5%) 1,208 (16.2%)
Living Status Football Basketball On Campus 6,280 (44.0%) 3,105 (41.6%) Off Campus (walk/bike/shuttle) 4,648 (29.6%) 1,421 (19.1%) Off Campus (Commute) 3,447 (22.0%) 1,729 (23.2%) Did Not Respond 1,321 (8.4%) 1,204 (16.1%
Ethnicity Football Basketball American Indian/Alaskan Native 84 (0.5%) 47 (0.6%) Asian 527 (3.4%) 218 (2.9%) Black 495 (3.2%) 502 (6.7%) Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 52 (0.3%) 16 (0.2%) Hispanic/Non-White 628 (4.0%) 195 (2.6%) White/Hispanic 1,566 (10.0%) 499 (6.7%) White/Non-Hispanic 10,489 (66.8%) 4,537 (60.8%) Other 498 (3.2%) 226 (3.0%) Did Not Respond 1,357 (8.6%) 1,219 (16.3)
Attendance Intentions Football 0-1 Games 1,833 (11.7%) 2-4 Games 3,910 (24.9%) 5+ Games 9,129 (58.2%) Did Not Respond 824 (5.2%)
5
DEMOGRAPHICS
Football Basketball School Level Cell Size # of Schools Cell Size # of Schools Power 5 11,450 (72.9%) 19 1835 (24.6%) 5 Group of 5/7 (Big East, A10) 2,580 (16.4%) 6 1639 (22.0%) 9 FCS/Other 215 (1.4%) 3 3641 (48.8%) 17 Did Not Respond 1,451 (9.2%) 344 (4.6%)
Football Basketball Passion Level Cell Size Passion Mean Cell Size Passion Mean Low Passion (1.00 - 2.99) 3,604 (23.0%) 1.92 3,180 (42.6%) 1.77 Moderate Passion (3.00 - 5.00) 7,001 (44.6%) 4.05 2,896 (38.8%) 3.94 High Passion (5.01 - 7.00) 4,617 (29.4%) 5.97 1,062 (14.2%) 5.94 Did Not Respond 474 (3.0%) 321
FOOTBALL Attendance Intentions Passion Level 0-1 Games 2-4 Games 5+ Games Low Passion 1,403 1,298 815 Moderate Passion 362 2,071 4,407 High Passion 68 541 3,907 **Note: Basketball attendance intentions data not available
SUMMARY OF PRIOR WORK (Simmons, Popp, McEvoy, & Howell, 2017)
6
CONSTRAINT MEAN (7.0) STADIUM Wi-Fi Reliability 2.24 Traffic/Parking 2.99 Seating Location 2.31 Seating Comfort 2.57 Stadium Accessibility 2.36 COMMITMENTS Work 2.80 Friend 3.43 Family 2.42 Significant Others 2.31 School 4.03 INTRAPERSONAL Nobody to go to game with 2.25 Difficult to socialize at game 2.11 No interest in football 3.47 Not a fan of the team 2.79 Inappropriate fan behavior 2.24 Football is too violent 1.82 Poor experience at a prior game 2.03 EVENT Weather 2.28 Poor/Unattractive opponent 2.66 Time of day 2.89 Time commitment 3.09 Team performance 2.78 Low student interest on campus 2.83 MARKETING Food cost at games 3.06 Beverage cost at games 3.25 Don't like concessions 2.38 Ticket cost 2.24 No Interest in pregame festivities 2.76 No interest in in-game entertainment 2.73 Didn't know about game 2.35 SUBSTITUTION Watch game on TV 3.19 Follow game via social media/online 3.41 Watch other games on TV 2.50
• Tested the effect of 33 constraints on student attendance at college football games during the 2016 season.
• Data collected on six college campuses (2 Power Five, 2 Group of Five, 2 FCS) during actual game.
• Utilized intercept sampling to survey students not in attendance at game (N = 472).
• Tested for differences based on conference tier affiliation, frequency of attendance, passion level, and timing of attendance decision.
• Across the board, mean scores for constraints were relatively low. Students are not constrained by 33 distinct factors. Need to approach constraint research differently.
TOP 6 School Commitment: 4.03
No Interest in FB: 3.47 Friend Commitment: 3.43 Follow Game on SM: 3.41
Beverage Cost: 3.25 Watch Game on TV: 3.19
BOTTOM 6 FB Too Violent: 1.82
Poor Prior Experience: 2.03 Difficult to Socialize: 2.11
Ticket Cost: 2.24 Unreliable Wi-Fi: 2.24
Inappropriate Fan Bhv.: 2.24
Since it is difficult to create products that offer consumers the optimal level of every feature, it is important to understand which product features (or attributes) are most important to the consumer. The attributes considered in this study are linked to constraints to attendance: ticket price, seat location, opportunity to socialize, student section atmosphere, concessions costs, Wi-Fi signal reliability, and alcohol availability.
Conjoint analysis is a marketing research technique using realistic situations to force consumers to evaluate product attributes in combination rather than isolation. This method allows the researcher to understand which attributes consumers value and contribute most to their overall preference.
WHAT IS CONJOINT ANALYSIS?
7
Constraint Scenario #1
1. Student tickets to the game are expensive 2. Student seating is in the lower bowl with a good view of the field 3. The stadium does not offer areas to socialize with friends away
from your seats 4. The student section creates a great atmosphere at games 5. Food and drink options at the game are affordable 6. The Wi-Fi signal at the game is strong 7. Alcohol is not available to purchase at the game How likely would you be to attend this home football game at your school? (1: Not likely; 10: Very likely)
Constraint Scenario #2
1. Student tickets to the game are cheap 2. Student seating is in the lower bowl with a good view of the field 3. The stadium does not offer areas to socialize with friends away
from your seats 4. The student section atmosphere is lacking 5. Food and drink options at the game are expensive 6. The Wi-Fi signal at the game is strong 7. Alcohol is available to purchase at the game How likely would you be to attend this home football game at your school? (1: Not likely; 10: Very likely)
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION Overall Sample
8
FOOTBALL SAMPLE Overall Sample Constraint Part Worth Range Factor Importance Ticket Price 1.53 21.25% Seat Location 1.56 21.67% Socialize 0.86 11.94% Atmosphere 1.38 19.17% F/D Affordability 0.52 7.22% Wi-Fi Signal Strength 0.69 9.58% Alcohol Availability 0.66 9.17%
BBALL SAMPLE Overall Sample Constraint Part Worth Range Factor Importance Ticket Price 2.19 30.27% Seat Location 1.18 16.25% Socialize 1.00 13.82% Atmosphere 0.90 12.36% F/D Affordability 0.59 8.08% Wi-Fi Signal Strength 0.67 9.19% Alcohol Availability 0.73 10.02%
• According to the regression model, all seven constraints were significant predictors of likelihood to attend both football and men’s basketball games.
• Part worth range is an estimate of the overall preference for utility associated with each level of the constraint attribute (i.e. expensive tickets/cheap tickets; seats close to field/seats far away from field, etc..).
• The larger the range value, the more important the constraint attribute is to the decision-making process.
• Factor importance reveals how important each factor is in the decision-making process relative to each other. Factor importance values add up to 100%.
• For the football sample as a whole, ticket price, seat location, and student section atmosphere were the most influential constraint attributes for students among the seven constraints tested.
• For the men’s basketball sample as a whole, ticket price influenced 30.27% of decision-making, nearly twice that of the second-most important constraint attribute, seat location (16.25%).
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION Student Passion Level
9
FOOTBALL SAMPLE Low Passion Moderate Passion High Passion Constraint PW Range Importance PW Range Importance PW Range Importance Ticket Price 1.95 26.75% 1.63 21.42% 1.08 16.22% Seat Location 0.95 13.03% 1.64 21.55% 1.93 28.99% Socialize 1.10 15.09% 0.91 11.96% 0.59 8.86% Atmosphere 1.13 15.50% 1.49 19.58% 1.46 21.93% F/D Affordability 0.69 9.47% 0.55 7.23% 0.36 5.38% Wi-Fi Signal Strength 0.76 10.43% 0.74 9.72% 0.58 8.71% Alcohol Availability 0.71 9.74% 0.65 8.54% 0.66 9.91%
• Students are NOT a homogenous group. They differ with respect for their intensity of passion towards their school’s team. Not surprisingly, the influence of constraints on attendance varies depending on student passion level.
• For high passion fans, where they are sitting is the most important factor among the constraints tested. They want to sit close to the field and be part of the student section atmosphere. They may even be willing to pay more to do so, particularly with football as seat location is almost twice as important as ticket price.
• For lesser passionate fans, ticket price is easily the most important constraint factor. When considering the seven constraints tested, these students are interested in attending games, are not as concerned with where they sit or the atmosphere, but are more likely to be constrained by the cost to attend.
BBALL SAMPLE Low Passion Moderate Passion High Passion Constraint PW Range Importance PW Range Importance PW Range Importance Ticket Price 2.23 31.09% 2.37 31.21% 1.81 25.88% Seat Location 0.73 10.21% 1.45 19.12% 1.82 25.99% Socialize 1.14 15.85% 0.97 12.73% 0.75 10.71% Atmosphere 0.84 11.69% 0.96 12.65% 0.94 13.37% F/D Affordability 0.67 9.41% 0.56 7.36% 0.44 6.31% Wi-Fi Signal Strength 0.67 9.38% 0.67 8.84% 0.66 9.48% Alcohol Availability 0.89 12.36% 0.62 8.10% 0.58 8.25%
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION Conference Tier Affiliation
10
FOOTBALL SAMPLE FCS Group of 5 Power 5 Constraint PW Range Importance PW Range Importance PW Range Importance Ticket Price 2.04 25.64% 1.66 22.67% 1.51 20.92% Seat Location 0.93 11.72% 1.04 14.18% 1.69 23.41% Socialize 1.23 15.45% 1.17 16.01% 0.77 10.67% Atmosphere 1.16 14.59% 1.14 15.60% 1.46 20.23% F/D Affordability 0.71 8.96% 0.70 9.53% 0.48 6.65% Wi-Fi Signal Strength 0.85 10.69% 0.81 11.11% 0.68 9.39% Alcohol Availability 1.03 12.96% 0.80 10.90% 0.63 8.73%
• For the football sample, when all seven constraints are taken into account, seat location is much more important to student attendance decisions at P5 schools than at FCS or G5 schools. This constraint factor is more important than ticket cost.
• At FCS and Group of 5 levels, ticket price is the most important constraint (of those tested), followed by the opportunity to socialize in the venue outside of the student seating section.
• For the basketball sample, across all levels, ticket price is easily the most influential constraint to student attendance. At the larger schools, again, seat location appears to be more important to attendance decisions.
• Alcohol availability is more important in the football and basketball samples at Group of 5 and FCS schools.
BBALL SAMPLE FCS/Other Gp. of 7 (Big East/A10) Power 5 Constraint PW Range Importance PW Range Importance PW Range Importance Ticket Price 2.18 30.57% 2.08 27.51% 2.46 32.63% Seat Location 0.94 13.18% 1.38 18.34% 1.51 20.02% Socialize 1.04 14.67% 1.06 14.05% 0.90 11.98% Atmosphere 0.94 13.26% 0.77 10.26% 0.94 12.48% F/D Affordability 0.58 8.15% 0.69 9.17% 0.53 7.06% Wi-Fi Signal Strength 0.66 9.27% 0.76 10.07% 0.61 8.10% Alcohol Availability 0.78 10.90% 0.80 10.60% 0.58 7.73%
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION Year in School
11
FOOTBALL SAMPLE Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Constraint PW Range Importance PW Range Importance PW Range Importance PW Range Importance Ticket Price 1.49 20.52% 1.51 21.28% 1.57 21.21% 1.49 20.03% Seat Location 1.60 22.04% 1.64 23.11% 1.60 21.56% 1.62 21.66% Socialize 0.87 12.07% 0.80 11.27% 0.88 11.86% 0.88 11.82% Atmosphere 1.60 22.10% 1.49 21.00% 1.38 18.64% 1.33 17.80% F/D Affordability 0.58 7.96% 0.48 6.71% 0.54 7.27% 0.49 6.62% Wi-Fi Signal Strength 0.80 10.99% 0.68 9.61% 0.66 8.86% 0.67 8.98% Alcohol Availability 0.31 4.31% 0.50 7.02% 0.78 10.59% 0.98 13.08%
• A relatively similar pattern of constraint influence exists across year in school. For football, ticket price, seat location, and atmosphere are the most important of the seven constraints tested; however, as students age, alcohol availability becomes an increasingly more important constraint. This pattern of the increasing importance of alcohol availability is also evident with the men’s basketball sample.
BBALL SAMPLE Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Constraint PW Range Importance PW Range Importance PW Range Importance PW Range Importance Ticket Price 2.27 30.79% 2.36 31.69% 2.24 30.15% 2.24 30.13% Seat Location 1.35 18.33% 1.33 17.90% 1.14 15.30% 1.09 14.68% Socialize 1.07 14.50% 0.99 13.33% 1.01 13.64% 0.96 12.88% Atmosphere 1.04 14.09% 0.91 12.20% 0.96 12.86% 0.85 11.45% F/D Affordability 0.62 8.44% 0.57 7.63% 0.59 7.91% 0.56 7.58% Wi-Fi Signal Strength 0.63 8.61% 0.68 9.11% 0.70 9.41% 0.70 9.44% Alcohol Availability 0.39 5.24% 0.61 8.14% 0.80 10.73% 1.03 13.84%
College Student Attendance at Collegiate Sporting Events:
The Importance of Constraints
June 2018
Report Compiled by:
Jason Simmons, PhD ([email protected]) University of Cincinnati
Nels Popp, PhD ([email protected])
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Chris Greenwell, PhD ([email protected]) University of Louisville
