1 / 17

In pursuit of satisfaction & fortification: Stakeholder Perceptions of NCAA Wrestling Entertainment Value

In pursuit of satisfaction & fortification: Stakeholder Perceptions of NCAA Wrestling Entertainment Value. Coyte G. Cooper, Ph.D. West Virginia University Erianne Weight, Ph.D. Bowling Green State University. Introduction to Research. Introduction Review of Related Literature

ebony
Download Presentation

In pursuit of satisfaction & fortification: Stakeholder Perceptions of NCAA Wrestling Entertainment Value

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. In pursuit of satisfaction & fortification: Stakeholder Perceptions of NCAA Wrestling Entertainment Value Coyte G. Cooper, Ph.D. West Virginia University Erianne Weight, Ph.D. Bowling Green State University

  2. Introduction to Research • Introduction • Review of Related Literature • Methodology • Purpose of Research • Results • Discussion • Conclusion/Questions NCAA Wrestling Entertainment (i)

  3. I. Introduction to Research • The dire situation facing amateur wrestling • Program eliminations: 363 in 1981 to 234 in • 2005 (Student-athlete, 2006) • Recent eliminations: Four college programs in first • month of 2009 (Moyer, personal interview, January • 26, 2009) • Blaming Title IX? • How to improve sustainability? • Improve revenues realized at local level • Enhancement of marketing efforts • Critical: Analysis of core product NCAA Wrestling Entertainment (1)

  4. II. Review of Literature (Theoretical Framework) • Customer Satisfaction Theory: • “A judgment that a product or service feature, or the product • or service itself, provided (or is providing) a pleasurable level • of consumption-related fulfillment” (Oliver, 1997). • Implications: • Enhancement of loyalty levels (Trail, Anderson, & Fink, 2005; Oliver, 1977; Oliver, Rust, & Varki, 1997) • Increased revenues through repeat purchases (Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994; Anderson & Mittal, 2000; Laverie & Arnett, 2000) • Increase in positive word-of-mouth advertising (Kotlar, 1994) NCAA Wrestling Entertainment (2)

  5. Review of Literature (Importance of Entertainment) • Core product is made up of the following elements (Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2007): • Game form (rules/techniques) • Players (athletes/coaches) • Equipment and apparel • Venue • “In game” rules have a significant impact on the • entertainment value offered at sport events (Aylott & • Aylott, 2007; Partori & Corredoira) • Must implement rules that increase action and • scoring to maximize consumer interest (Paul & • Weinbach, 2007) NCAA Wrestling Entertainment (3)

  6. III. Purpose of Research • Purpose: To survey stakeholders of college wrestling to identify their level of satisfaction with the core wrestling product being offered in intercollegiate athletics • Implications • Gain base understanding of fan’s perceptions of core product being offered • Understanding of fan’s perceptions based on segmentation • Suggestions for improvements • Improve core product to maximize consumer appeal NCAA Wrestling Entertainment (4)

  7. IV. Methodology • Survey Instrument: • Wrestling Consumer Satisfaction Scale (WCSS): • based on past similar scales (Tsuji et al., 2007) • Construct validity: Four collegiate wrestling • coaches, four collegiate wrestlers, four • professors, and one survey compilation specialists • Survey Distribution: • Stratified: national message board; regional • message boards • Test-Retest reliability (Correlation; Spearman- • Brown Coefficient) NCAA Wrestling Entertainment (5)

  8. V. Results • Surveys returned (n=1095); Usable surveys • (n=1023 [93.4%]) • Demographics: • Gender (Male = 95.1%; Female = 4.9%) • Age (Mean = 26-34) • Background • Fan (n = 583; 53.6%) • High School Coach (n =475; 43.7%) • College Coach (n = 112; 10.3%) NCAA Wrestling Entertainment (6)

  9. Fan Satisfaction: Core Product NCAA Wrestling Entertainment (7)

  10. Fan Satisfaction: Rules & Regulations NCAA Wrestling Entertainment (8)

  11. Fan Segmentation (ANOVA’s – Age) NCAA Wrestling Entertainment (9)

  12. Fan Segmentation (ANOVA’s – Affiliation) NCAA Wrestling Entertainment (10)

  13. Suggestions for Change (Open-Ended Responses) NCAA Wrestling Entertainment (11)

  14. Summary of Key Points NCAA Wrestling Entertainment (12)

  15. VI. Discussion • Attempt to cease the elimination of college • wrestling programs (Cooper, 2008) • Importance of marketing effectively at all levels • in the future (emphasis: grassroots level) • Build your foundation first: You must have a • strong core product to build fan base effectively • in future years • Rules dictate action and level of entertainment • experienced at wrestling events (Paul & • Weinbach, 2007) • Continue to adapt as industry changes NCAA Wrestling Entertainment (13)

  16. VII. Conclusions • Limitations of study: • Sample limited to loyal wrestling fans (online) • Broad analysis of rules and regulations • Future research: • More specific analysis of rules (casual and loyal fans) • Marketing based assessment • Changes to college wrestling schedule • Academic progress • Athletic competition enhancement • Consumer interest NCAA Wrestling Entertainment (14)

  17. Thanks for your time! Any Questions?

More Related