Review by Patrick Pelletier in KIN 332 (Section 2)
The article I chose to read was titled Revolutionizing the Market: Innovative Electronic Branding Strategies within NCAA Athletic Departments, and was published in the International Journal of Sport Management. This article describes a very scientific approach to get a better idea of the electronic strategies that Division I athletic departments use to build brand equity.
The importance of brand loyalty is simple: the stronger the brand loyalty among consumers, the more likely it is these consumers will remain fans even while the team or school is struggling to win. That is why researchers Cooper, Ross, and Southall conducted this survey-style research. They wanted to know what athletic administrators were doing to build a brand electronically. The researchers sent out surveys to 64 athletic departments representing all 11 FBS conferences. The survey consisted of 16 Likert-type questions, in which the administrators were asked to indicate which strategy they thought was most useful in today’s industry on a scale of 1 to 6. For example the mean response for the relevancy of using video broadcasts on department websites was a 5.32 (1 was strongly disagree, 6 was strongly agree). The results showed that for department websites, administrators felt that using video broadcasts was the most effective (5.32) and that the use of message boards was least effective (3.03). The researchers also found that video sharing (4.53), text messaging (4.49), and social networking sites (4.47) were effective tools used by athletic departments when dealing with independent technologies.
These results were not surprising to me because of the constant desire for information in the sporting world. Video broadcasts online are a great tool, and I think most universities utilize this by uploading highlights and interviews, or even streaming live game footage. However, I am somewhat surprised that the numbers from the independent technologies section were not higher. Sites like Facebook and Twitter are used by universities on a daily and even hourly basis, and I think that adds a lot of value to their athletic departments. For example, JMU uses Twitter very effectively by updating followers with game updates, and news about current and former athletes. As a consumer I value that kind of information and it adds a little more loyalty to the JMU brand.
---
Review by Brent Henchen in KIN 332 (Section 2)
In “Revolutionizing the Market: Innovative Electronic Branding Strategies Within NCAA Athletic Departments” by Coyte Cooper, Stephen Ross, and Richard Southall these men set out to quantitatively determine the importance of electronic media on college brands. They wanted to give the sports world some guidance as to what marketing vehicles to use since “several scholars have emphasized the importance of the realization of strong brand equity for sport organizations looking to maximize their financial endeavors.” Brand equity is the primary goal of many sports marketers. Increasing the positive connotation associated with a brand will in turn increase sales. “Researchers in the business field have illustrated that strong brand equity is directly correlated with the following consumer benefits: enhanced product value, improved purchase intention, and immunity to product-associated crises.” This carries over to increased immunity from declining sales when a team is underperforming. According to Gladen & Funk, 2001, “Scholars have expanded on pervious findings when explaining that consumers with a strong brand loyalty are more likely to remain fans when a team struggles from a performance standpoint.”
Since “investigating brand equity in web or Internet contexts is a relatively new research area” these three men decided to take it upon themselves to do some substantial research in this area. They sent out survey invites to NCAA Athletic Departments and ended up with 64 participants. All the participants were asked to identify, on a scale of 1 to 6, “the e-branding strategies that are most relevant in today’s competitive entertainment industry.” The strategies were divided into 2 groups: Department Websites and Independent Technologies. In the Department Website category participants were asked to rank the following: video broadcasting, audio broadcasting, podcasts, newsletters, blogs, interactive chat, interactive fan poll, and message boards. In the Independent Technologies category the vehicles ranked were: video sharing, text messaging, social network sites, podcasts, blogs, twitter, and message boards. The research found that when talking about department websites video & audio broadcasts were the two most important marketing ploys and the message boards were the least important strategies. For independent technologies the most important marketing ploys are video sharing and text messaging; with the least important category being message boards, again.
This research can increase the workload for sports marketers but also prevent a ton of headaches. Message boards are hard to police and are usually dominated by fans with extreme views. But if this data is taken as truth, sports marketers do not have to worry as much about message boards anymore. Unfortunately, now the fun starts in trying to make text messaging, video, and audio broadcasts current and plentiful. Video and Audio broadcasts take more effort to create than texts but do not need to be numerous. Texts messages, on the other hand, require minimal effort but need to by abundant.
Looking at the statistical analyses I was a little disappointed. I appreciate the work they put into the research but a few things pop out at me. Why did they interview the marketers and not the consumers? Wouldn’t interviewing a consumer tell you exactly what influences their image of a brand? Also, why did they use a scale 1-6? I always try to use an odd number so that responders can choose “neutral/neither.” The last problem I had with the result is the random p-values. Where did they come from? No hypothesis was being tested so there shouldn’t be a p-value to test for statistical significance. The p-value is the percent chance that you falsely rejected the null hypothesis. So, in order to have a p-value you must be comparing an expected value against an observed value. In the research paper there was no expected value or expected mean for the grading system. They simply observed and measured the values without guessing what the result would be. Therefore, I cannot determine why there is a p-value associated with the mean value in each category. Communication with the authors would be the only step to solving this problem.
