Event Marketing in the Context of Higher Education Marketing and Digital Environments (Handel und Internationales Marketing Retailing and International Marketing) 365829261X, 9783658292614

Citation preview

Handel und Internationales Marketing Retailing and International Marketing Bernhard Swoboda · Thomas Foscht Hanna Schramm-Klein Hrsg.

Florian Neus

Event Marketing in the Context of Higher Education Marketing and Digital Environments

Handel und Internationales Marketing Retailing and International Marketing Series Editors Bernhard Swoboda, Trier, Germany Thomas Foscht, Graz, Austria Hanna Schramm-Klein, Siegen, Germany

Die Schriftenreihe fördert die Themengebiete Handel und Internationales Marketing. Diese charakterisieren – jedes für sich, aber auch in inhaltlicher Kombination – die Forschungsschwerpunkte der Herausgeber. Beide Themengebiete werden grundsätzlich breit aufgefasst; die Reihe bietet sowohl Dissertationen und Habilitationen als auch Tagungs- und Sammelbänden mit unterschiedlicher inhaltlicher und methodischer Ausrichtung ein Forum. Die inhaltliche Breite ist sowohl im Sinne eines konsumentenorientierten Marketings wie auch einer marktorientierten Unternehmensführung zu verstehen. Neben den Arbeiten, die von den Herausgebern für die Schriftenreihe vorgeschlagen werden, steht die Reihe auch externen wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten offen. Diese können bei den Herausgebern eingereicht und nach einer positiven Begutachtung publiziert werden. The book series focuses on the fields of Retailing and International Marketing. These two areas represent the research fields of the editors—each of them as a single research area, but also in combination. Both of these research areas are widely understood. Consequently, the series provides a platform for the publication of doctoral theses and habilitations, conference proceedings and edited books, as well as related methodological issues that encompass the focus of the series. The series is broad in the sense that it covers academic works in the area of consumer-oriented marketing as well as the area of marketoriented management. In addition to academic works recommended by the editors, the book series also welcomes other academic contributions. These may be submitted to the editors and will be published in the book series after a positive assessment.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/12697

Florian Neus

Event Marketing in the Context of Higher Education Marketing and Digital Environments

Florian Neus Marketing and Trade University of Siegen Siegen, Germany Dissertation, University of Siegen, 2019

ISSN 2626-3327 ISSN 2626-3335  (electronic) Handel und Internationales Marketing Retailing and International Marketing ISBN 978-3-658-29261-4 ISBN 978-3-658-29262-1  (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29262-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer Gabler imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

Acknowledgments The present dissertation contains the output of several research projects that were conducted during my time as a research assistant at the chair of marketing and retailing at the University of Siegen. During that time, I had the pleasure of meeting and working with all the people who contributed a great deal to the successful completion of my work. In the following, i would like to pay tribute to the contribution they and others have made to this dissertation. Most importantly, I want to thank my supervisor, Hanna Schramm-Klein, for her valuable support. She allowed me to pursue the topics that I felt a passion for and assisted me throughout the entire process. Her constant feedback and contribution as supervisor and co-author, especially in the last few months, have enormously contributed to the completion of this dissertation. I would also like to thank Volker Stein and Arnd Wiedemann for their work on this dissertation as members of the advisory committee. Their courtesy and flexibility were very important in order to meet the ambitious timeframe of the evaluation process. Katja Wagner, Robér Rollin, Kim-Kathrin Kunze, Gunnar Mau, Florentine Frentz and especially Frederic Nimmermann have contributed time and effort to the individual paper that make up this book and I greatly appreciate their work as co-authors. Overall, I could not have hoped for better colleagues / friends to experience this journey with. Gerhard Wagner, Anne Fota, Tobias Röding, Theresia Mennekes, Sascha Steinmann, Carmen Richter, Eric Schell, Paul Marx, the previously mentioned co-authors and collegues from other chairs and departments were always available to discuss ideas, provide feedback and support whenever I asked for it (or seemed to need it). In addition, we ran through the mud, played soccer, challenged ourselves in the gym, digged holes, partied, explored countries, discussed the weirdest topics during our lunch breaks and genuinely had fun together. These ‘distractions’ were deeply appreciated and were the reason why hard times always came to an end, eventually. I would also like to thank my friends outside out of work and my family for their support, before, during and after the work on my dissertation. Although I am not sure they will ever read these lines or the dissertation itself, I am convinced that I would not have been able to complete this process without these people in my life.

VI

Acknowledgments

Lastly, I would like to thank my girlfriend, Corinna Brune, who has had to endure my complaints and mischievousness more than anyone else, and who has remained the most positive influence in my life. Florian Neus

Contents Acknowledgments ............................................................................................... V Figures ................................................................................................................ XI Tables............................................................................................................... XIII List of Abbreviations .........................................................................................XV

1

Introduction...................................................................................... 1 1.1

Relevance and Focus ......................................................................... 1

1.2

Literature Review .............................................................................. 3 1.2.1 Forms of Event Marketing .................................................... 3 1.2.2 Single Events vs. Portfolio of Events .................................... 6 1.2.3 Research Objects ................................................................... 7 1.2.3.1 Higher Education Market .................................... 7 1.2.3.2 Digital Environments .......................................... 9

1.3

Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Model............................... 10

1.4

Structure of Papers and individual Contributions ............................ 13 1.4.1 Focus of Papers and Overview over Research Characteristics .................................................................... 13 1.4.2 Paper 1: Events as a Customer Touchpoint in Student Life ..................................................................................... 15 1.4.3 Paper 2: Events to connect with Stakeholders of Higher Education Institutions......................................................... 16 1.4.4 Paper 3: Building Event Portfolios for Higher Education Institutions .......................................................................... 17 1.4.5 Paper 4: Event Portfolio Management for Higher Education Institutions......................................................... 18 1.4.6 Paper 5: Differences and Similarities in Motivation for Offline and Online eSports Event Consumption ................ 20 1.4.7 Paper 6: Interaction in Social Live Streaming Services ...... 21

VIII

2

3

4

Contents

Events as a Customer Touchpoint in Student Life – Creating valuable Experiences and Lasting Impressions .......... 23 2.1

Introduction ..................................................................................... 23

2.2

Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Model............................... 24

2.3

Hypotheses Development ................................................................ 25

2.4

Method, Measures, and Procedure ................................................... 27

2.5

Hypothesis Testing and Discussion ................................................. 30

2.6

Conclusion ....................................................................................... 32

Connecting the Stakeholders of Higher Education Institutions via Event Marketing – A Case Study Comparing Two Events ................................................................. 33 3.1

Introduction ..................................................................................... 33

3.2

Events and Stakeholders of Higher Education Institutions .............. 35

3.3

Conceptual Model and Theoretical Background ............................. 36

3.4

Hypotheses ...................................................................................... 38

3.5

Methodology.................................................................................... 40

3.6

Measures and Procedure .................................................................. 41

3.7

Results and Discussions ................................................................... 44

3.8

Conclusions and Implications .......................................................... 48

Building Event Portfolios for Higher Education Institutions – Results of a Choice-based Conjoint Experiment ...................... 49 4.1

Introduction ..................................................................................... 49

4.2

Conceptual Model and Research Goals ........................................... 50

4.3

Literature Review ............................................................................ 51 4.3.1 Higher Education Marketing ............................................... 51 4.3.2 Event Marketing .................................................................. 52 4.3.3 Fit and Type of Event .......................................................... 53 4.3.4 Event Portfolios .................................................................. 53

4.4

Study: Choice-based Conjoint Experiment ...................................... 54 4.4.1 Methodology ....................................................................... 54

Contents

IX

4.4.2 4.4.3

4.5

5

6

Measures and Procedure ..................................................... 54 Results ................................................................................. 55

Conclusion ....................................................................................... 57

Event Portfolio Management – The Case of Higher Education Institutions ................................................................... 59 5.1

Introduction ..................................................................................... 59

5.2

Literature Review and Conceptual Model ....................................... 61 5.2.1 Event Portfolios .................................................................. 61 5.2.2 Effects of Event Portfolios in the Context of Higher Education Institutions......................................................... 62 5.2.3 Perceived Fit ....................................................................... 63 5.2.4 Event (Portfolio) Quality .................................................... 65

5.3

Methods ........................................................................................... 66

5.4

Study 1 ............................................................................................. 68 5.4.1 Design and Procedure ......................................................... 68 5.4.2 Results and Discussion........................................................ 69

5.5

Study 2 ............................................................................................. 71 5.5.1 Design and Procedure ......................................................... 71 5.5.2 Results and Discussion........................................................ 73

5.6

Conclusion ....................................................................................... 76

Differences and Similarities in Motivation for Offline and Online eSports Event Consumption ............................................. 79 6.1

Introduction ..................................................................................... 79

6.2

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development ............................ 81 6.2.1 Conceptual Framework ....................................................... 81 6.2.2 Motivation as Needs for Sports Consumption .................... 81 6.2.3 Hypothesis Development .................................................... 85

6.3

The empirical Study......................................................................... 91 6.3.1 Measures and Procedures .................................................... 91 6.3.2 Results and discussion ........................................................ 94

6.4

Conclusion ....................................................................................... 97 6.4.1 Summary of Findings .......................................................... 97 6.4.2 Implications and Limitations............................................... 97

X

Contents

7

Interaction in Social Live Streaming Services – Importance and influential Factors ............................................ 101

8

7.1

Introduction ................................................................................... 101

7.2

Background .................................................................................... 103 7.2.1 Social Live Streaming Services ........................................ 103 7.2.2 Social Tie of Users Interacting in Online Communities ... 104 7.2.3 Conceptual Model and Hypotheses Development ............ 106

7.3

Study 1: Importance of Interaction Possibilities ............................ 110 7.3.1 Design ............................................................................... 110 7.3.2 Measures and Procedure ................................................... 111 7.3.3 Results ............................................................................... 112

7.4

Study 2: Influential Factors on Interaction Intentions ................... 113 7.4.1 Methodology ..................................................................... 113

7.5

PLS-SEM Model ........................................................................... 116

7.6

Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................ 118

General Conclusion...................................................................... 121 8.1

Core Results ................................................................................... 121

8.2

Limitations and Implications for Research .................................... 123

8.3

Managerial Implications ................................................................ 126

References ............................................................................................ 131

Figures Figure 1: General conceptual model ............................................................... 11 Figure 2: Conceptual Model............................................................................ 24 Figure 3: Results of the structural equation model .......................................... 31 Figure 4: Conceptual model ............................................................................ 36 Figure 5: Conceptual model ............................................................................ 51 Figure 6: Conceptual model ............................................................................ 61 Figure 7: Conceptual model ............................................................................ 81 Figure 8: Conceptual model .......................................................................... 106

Tables Table 1:

Topics addressed by individual papers ............................................ 14

Table 2:

Research methods included in the individual papers ....................... 14

Table 3:

Constructs ........................................................................................ 28

Table 4:

Discriminant validity ....................................................................... 30

Table 5:

Constructs ........................................................................................ 42

Table 6:

Discriminant validity ....................................................................... 44

Table 7:

Results of the PLS-SEM .................................................................. 46

Table 8:

Conjoint analysis result.................................................................... 57

Table 9:

Event portfolios used in the experiment .......................................... 68

Table 10: Results of the choice-based conjoint experiment ............................. 70 Table 11: Included measures ........................................................................... 71 Table 12: Mean comparison of included constructs ........................................ 74 Table 13: Group comparison (low vs high fit) ................................................. 75 Table 14: Constructs ........................................................................................ 92 Table 15: Hypothesis testing............................................................................ 94 Table 16: Attributes and Levels included in the Conjoint Experiment .......... 112 Table 17: Average Importance of provided Attributes .................................. 113 Table 18: Measurements ................................................................................ 115 Table 19: Discriminant validity ..................................................................... 116 Table 20: Results of PLS-SEM ...................................................................... 117

List of Abbreviations ANOVA AtE AtI AVE EQ ESL eSports EU LCS F Fav H HEI(s) M MSSC N n.s. NFI p PF PLS R2 RQ SD SEM SLSS(s) SNS(s) S-O-R SPSS SRMR VIF WOM.

Analysis of Variance Attitude towards the Event Attitude towards the Institution Average Variance Extracted Event Quality Electronic Sports League Electronic Sports European League of Legends Championship Series F-statistic Favorability Hypothesis Higher Education Institution(s) Mean Motivation Scale for Sports Consumption Sample Size Not Significant Normed Fit Index p-value Portfolio Partial Least Squares R-squared (Coefficient of Determination) Research Question Standard Deviation Structural Equation Model Social Live Streaming Service(s) Social Networking Site(s) Stimulus-Organism-Response Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Standardized Root Mean Square Residual Variance Inflation Factor Word of Mouth

1 Introduction 1.1

Relevance and Focus

Marketing events are tools that companies utilize to, e.g., introduce new products or generally strengthen the relationship with their target group (Drengner et al., 2008). As a source of entertainment and a chance for networking and experience, events, generally, serve multiple purposes and are hosted for many occasions and themes. Companies build on this wide range of opportunities as a form of “interactive communication of brand values […] in which consumers are actively involved [...] and which would result in their emotional attachment to the brand,” as event marketing is defined (Whelan and Wohlfeil, 2006). Companies like “Red Bull” or “Go Pro” are well known examples of event-heavy marketing strategies. The overall investment of companies in events is rising and is expected to grow continuously in the coming years (Drengner et al., 2008; EventMB, 2019). This development is observed not only in the actions of large and wellestablished companies but also of smaller companies and other institutions that are increasingly implementing this tool to reach potential and current customers (Schneider, 2012). This dissertation aims to widen the existing literature on marketing events and their effectiveness to evoke consumer behavior in favor of a brand that is connected to the event. Building on existing literature and theory, six individual papers investigate different aspects of event marketing as a marketing tool. With these papers, the impact of marketing events that are conducted in specific environments will be analyzed. The papers focus on events of higher education institutions (HEIs) that differ from more traditional for-profit event marketing as well as digital environments. Although events have always played a special role in the communication strategies of HEIs, the intensifying competition in the market has provided new reasoning to utilize events as a tool of communication (Sung and Yang, 2008; Palmer et al., 2016). With HEIs becoming aware of this tool, an accurate understanding of the effectiveness of events in this special field is needed (Schneider, 2012). Due to the circumstances that surround HEIs, e.g., the actions of numerous stakeholders inside and outside of the organization and different departments that act in connection with the brand, events, and their individual effects on brand perception are hardly predictable (Webber, 2018). Presumably, some of the research conducted in the for-profit market can also be applied to this sector, © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020 F. Neus, Event Marketing in the Context of Higher Education Marketing and Digital Environments, Handel und Internationales Marketing Retailing and International Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29262-1_1

2

1 Introduction

yet a thorough assessment that takes the special circumstances of HEIs into account is missing. Digitization has led to new developments that have changed the ways in which events are consumed (e.g., through interactive live stream online). Furthermore, new industries, purely based on technological developments, have started to utilize events as a means for reaching their customers. A popular example of this can be found in the competitive gaming industry – electronic Sports (eSports) (Seo, 2013). This once purely digital industry has started to reach out to consumers via big events in stadiums and arenas, thereby creating new options in addition to the existing digital consumption through interactive social live streaming services (SLSS) (Scholz, 2019). The motives of digital event consumption, the differences in online and offline event experiences, and the interaction behavior of SLSS users have not been thoroughly assessed yet and have merely created a gap in research. In addition to the focus on specific environments (events in the higher education market and digital environments), there is also a shift in perspective that will be taken into account in this dissertation. Thus far, the literature on events and connected studies is commonly focused on the assessment of just one event (e.g., Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008). Yet, the number of events organized by an organization is oftentimes quite numerous. Referring, e.g., to the case of HEIs, it is common to have events on campus regularly and, subsequently, evaluating just one event would not be sufficient to arrive at accurate conclusions (Galotti and Mark, 1994; Abubakar et al., 2010). Therefore, some scholars argue that events should be examined and planned as a portfolio of events that share a strong connection (Ziakas, 2013b). Although similar perspectives are quite common for companies and their portfolios of products (e.g., Day, 1977), this approach is relatively new to event management (Gration et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2018). Nevertheless, with more events being hosted, analyzing just one event in connection with one brand seems outdated (Ruth and Simonin, 2003, 2006). Ziakas (2013b) introduced a holistic, theoretical approach of event portfolio management, which states that event portfolios should be designed for social and economic efficiency and to make synergetic use of resources. Furthermore, he conducted numerous field studies that explore the connection between the events of a region (Ziakas, 2016; Ziakas and Costa, 2011b; Ziakas, 2013a). However, there are few research articles that deal with the attendees’ perception of event portfolios and very few of these articles feature a comprehensive quantitative study (e.g., Chalip and McGuirty, 2004). Thus, the concept of event portfolios needs further assessment and research to provide a better understanding of the connections between different events and, most importantly, the coherent effects on consumers need to be explored.

1.2 Literature Review

1.2

3

Literature Review

1.2.1

Forms of Event Marketing

The possibilities to utilize events to boost a brand have been known and studied for quite some time. Scholars have developed multiple traits of research that focus on several aspects of events and their power to connect people with brands. Three examples of these traits will be presented in the following. First, event marketing activities of companies will be discussed. Second, sponsorship as another means for bringing together brand and event will be presented and, third, events as a tool of destination and tourism marketing will be introduced. Generally, this dissertation builds on the concept of event marketing and on events hosted by an institution that wants to evoke a positive reaction of attendees in its own favor. The insights from event marketing literature, from sponsorship research and destination, and tourism marketing research will be transferred to the context of events of HEIs and digital environments. In addition, they will be transferred to event portfolios. According to Wohlfeil and Whelan (2005), marketing events are subject to four main features:    

Experience-orientation Interactivity Self-initiation Dramaturgy

Event marketing offers the chance to create a guided experience for potential customers. This experience can be organized in a manner that is suitable to the brand and strengthens the consumers’ perception of the brand (Wohlfeil and Whelan, 2005). Martensen and Gronholdt (2008) emphasized the challenges associated with these efforts. A connection in the mind of the consumer needs to be established based on the events, yet the experience itself should not entirely rely on conveying a brand message. Instead, the event should emphasize the connection while engaging the potential customer with a worthwhile experience that, by itself, is attractive enough to get people to attend (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008). Subsequently, the potential to actually assess the success rate of these experiences is very low and money spent on this tool should be well considered. Nevertheless, marketing events are a very common occurrence and companies are still relying heavily on events in their communication efforts. Furthermore, the reach that companies have developed through social media has added to the potential success of marketing events by extending the amount of people that can potentially experience the event (Huh, 2018).

4

1 Introduction

In contrast to using events as marketing tools, sponsorship is a potential means for connecting with customers through events not organized by the sponsor itself (Whelan and Wohlfeil, 2006). Generally, sponsorship is defined as “investments in causes or events to support corporate objectives…” (Dean, 2002). Building on this definition, sponsorship is not necessarily limited to events, and companies can choose to support, e.g., individual players, teams, or organizations (d′Astous and Bitz, 1995). Sponsoring of individual events or a series of events is a very common form of sponsorship and even the sponsorship of a specific team is highly supportive of events the team is involved with (Thomas, 2014). Therefore, sponsoring is arguably a very important trait of event-related marketing efforts. Gwinner and Bennett (2008) show the manifold objectives that can be reached via sponsoring: raising general brand awareness, creating a worldwide presence, improving the attitude and image of the brand among potential customers, and creating a connection with customers based on their own lifestyle. These effects have been investigated and demonstrated in numerous studies, thereby indicating the worth of sponsorship engagements (e.g., Gwinner and Eaton, 1999; Alexandris et al., 2012; Azadi et al., 2016; Gross, 2015; Meenaghan, 2001). Events are still a very important focus of sponsoring engagements; consequently, research has addressed this aspect in great detail. Wakefield et al. (2007) identified four key factors that influence the potential success of sponsorship:    

fit of brand and event prominence of the brand exposure of the brand at the event involvement of attendees with the event

These characteristics further indicate the challenges facing companies that engage in sponsorship activities. Oftentimes, these characteristics are hard to manage for companies, given that they are not actively involved in organizing the events. Many of the decisions relevant to these factors are made by the organizer of the event and can rarely be influenced by a brand. Therefore, sponsored events often pose risks for sponsoring brands as they are not fully in control of the content of the event and, subsequently, could lead to an unwanted connection or unfavorable perception of the brand (Henseler et al., 2009; Thomas, 2014). Although not officially deemed as such, the events organized at HEIs are also subject to very similar issues. At HEIs, departments or (student) clubs also organize events that are clearly connected to the institutions’ brand without allowing or asking them to actually design the content of the event (Schneider, 2012). Even if there is no transfer of funds involved, similarities with regular event-sponsoring activities (e.g., presentation of a brand in connection with an

1.2 Literature Review

5

event) can be found, thus presenting similar risks and advantages for these institutions. Another field of interest for event-related research can be found in destination and tourism marketing. Events utilized to promote a city or region supposedly work in a similar manner as the previously discussed forms of event-related marketing (i.e., event marketing of for-profit brands and sponsoring) (Jago et al., 2003). Nevertheless, differences in their connection to the brand of the object remain, and the connection between brand and event can be considered to be coincidental rather than planned (Köhler, 2014). Biggest difference between the previously discussed means of event utilization (i.e., event marketing of forprofit brands and sponsoring) can be found in the different goals connected with the events. Where sales and profit are the main goals of profit-oriented sponsorship and event-marketing efforts, regions and cities aim to boost, e.g., the number of attendees (Osti et al., 2012). Furthermore, the connection between brand and event itself does differ. When sponsoring occurs, the logo of the brand is embedded in, e.g., advertisements for the event and can ideally be seen throughout the event venue (Grohs and Reisinger, 2005; Johar et al., 2006). However, cities are generally connected to the event by the location of the event venue and only in rare cases, a true communication of the city can be found in event advertisements (Chalip and McGuirty, 2004). Therefore, a connection between event and location is inevitably drawn in the mind of the attendees. Scholars have argued that the level of attractiveness of the event will play an important role in the success of these connections. Major events, e.g., the Olympic games, will by themselves draw people to the location where the event is held and a city or region should try to connect itself to this event by more than just the venue (Chung and Woo, 2011; Jin et al., 2013). In addition to attendees of the event, the sheer publicity of these high-profile events will lead to additional media exposure of the city and oftentimes issues not seemingly connected to the event will be pushed into the focus of the public (e.g., political or infrastructural issues of the host city) (Green et al., 2003). Adverse effects related to events hosted in a city or region will sometimes occur almost randomly and only to a small extent be manageable by official representatives of a city or region (Osti et al., 2012; Sung Moon et al., 2011). Nevertheless, being attached to big events or organizing events has helped destinations improve their tourism activities, and events should be considered a powerful means for boosting the image/popularity of cities or regions (Wang and Jin, 2019). In a similar fashion, events hosted by, e.g., a student club on the campus of an HEI, will also connect event attendees of the event with the HEI. Depending on the surrounding circumstances, the buildings of HEIs are oftentimes used to organize large-scale events (e.g., sport arena used for a game of teams that are

6

1 Introduction

not originating from the HEI), thus establishing a connection between the HEI and event. 1.2.2

Single Events vs. Portfolio of Events

A key element of this dissertation lies in the clear distinction between single events and a portfolio of events that is utilized in connection with a brand. Thus far, most of the studies on any form of event-related marketing (e.g., event marketing or event sponsoring) have examined the connection between one brand (e.g., connected as sponsor, organizer or host) and one single event. Nevertheless, reality is oftentimes more complex and usually more than one brand is attached to an event (Ruth and Simonin, 2003). Moreover, most events do not necessarily stand by themselves. Especially, regarding the marketing efforts, the number of events utilized in connection with the brand is oftentimes very high. Therefore, most studies have emphasized the necessity of a more holistic understanding of event management and argued for comprehensive event portfolio management (Ziakas, 2013b). Arguably, this perspective is relevant for managers as well as consumers. Managers should be aware of potential synergies and potential risks that come with different events hosed in connection with the same brand (Ziakas, 2014). Attendees should be able to form a connection with a brand when their expectations are met repeatedly and having a portfolio of events to rely on to form an impression would help strengthen or form a bond with the brand (Ziakas and Costa, 2011b). Scholars have emphasized the influence of event type on the connection of brand and event and argued that it is likely to influence the desired outcome (e.g., influencing attribute or image of the brand) (Kim et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2004). Event type is a crucial instrument to potentially guide the overall attitude formation of attendees based on different impressions and scattered pieces of information where each individual event yields an individual piece (Anderson, 1971). Researchers have, furthermore, shown the importance of consistency in order to portray a message properly and avoid contradictions in the mind of the consumer (Sengupta and Johar, 2002). Consequently, the implication arises that portfolios that are meant to promote a brand, ideally utilize a similar type of event (e.g., only sporting event). Yet, this is oftentimes not the case in practice and a proper assessment of this affect for event marketing efforts is, thus far, missing. Chalip and McGuirty (2004), however, assessed a combination of multiple events as a means for promoting the host destination and found respective differences regarding the outcome. Their findings suggest that thematically contradicting events can very well be combined as long as an underlying connection is properly portrayed (Chalip and McGuirty, 2004). Ziakas (2013b), generally, argues that event managers should utilize a holistic portfolio approach to organ-

1.2 Literature Review

7

ize events. Monetary funds and human resources should be allocated to properly plan the overarching connection between different events and, consequently, strengthen the connection between individual events within the portfolio (Ziakas, 2013b). He and Costa (2011b) presented a case study of a small region in the USA, where multiple events were organized. The results indicate that a mixture of cultural and sport events delivered a symbiotic approach that helped push tourism, strengthen social development, and create synergies between the individual events (Ziakas and Costa, 2011b). Consequently, the implications drawn from theory and the results from research somewhat contradict each other, warranting further assessment. Furthermore, the few studies, unfortunately, are mostly based on conceptual elaborations or qualitative case studies (e.g., Ziakas and Costa, 2011a; Andersson et al., 2017). A more comprehensive evaluation could potentially yield more general implications and help find a wider perspective on this matter. Consequently, this dissertation includes quantitative assessments of portfolio management and, moreover, addresses the challenges and differences in different event types utilized to promote a brand. 1.2.3

1.2.3.1

Research Objects Higher Education Market

As indicated in the introduction, this dissertation utilizes specific environments as research objects. One of these environments is the higher education market. Events, generally, are considered a valuable touchpoint for stakeholders (e.g., students) and HEIs, which is being increasingly utilized by the latter to reach their marketing goals (Khanna et al., 2014). For a long time, HEIs had little to no reason to invest time and money in any marketing efforts. Students and other stakeholders did not need to be officially addressed and supply of potential students oftentimes exceeded the capacity of HEIs (Steiner et al., 2013). However, with the rising influence of privately owned HEIs and a growing global community of schools, the competition began to intensify (Palmer et al., 2016). HEIs are subject to many more influential factors and strive to rely less on governmental funding (Wæraas and Solbakk, 2009). Therefore, the need to address interesting groups of stakeholders (e.g., potential students) has forced HEIs to implement new tools of communication (Thuy and Thao, 2016; Bowden and Wood, 2011). HEIs are now required to adopt a professional approach for their marketing efforts and students are now considered to be mere “customers”, symbolizing the change within the sector of higher education (Tavares and Cardoso, 2013). Among other tools, events are one way to position an HEI and the coherent brand. HEIs have always been very active in this regard and events have always been hosted on campus. Nevertheless, these efforts were made to satisfy individ-

8

1 Introduction

ual needs and were not necessarily thought of as a marketing tool. Fundraising events, e.g., have always been a viable means for attracting funds and connecting with alumni or other potential donors (Sung and Yang, 2009). Yet, HEIs have recently recognized that events generally can be seen as a valuable touchpoint with students in order to strengthen their relationship with the institution (Shields and Peruta, 2018). Loyalty to the HEI has often been found to be influenced not only by academic success but also by the quality of life on campus (Paswan and Ganesh, 2009; Holdsworth and Nind, 2006). Events can play an important role in order to satisfy these needs for existing students and increase the chances of a stronger bond being formed (Bowden and Wood, 2011). Thus, events are utilized to address and cater to different needs of different stakeholders and address them individually (Webber, 2018). International students, e.g., have different expectations and demands when it comes to events and are likely to appreciate special offerings (Fleischman et al., 2015; Abubakar et al., 2010). Furthermore, potential students experiencing an event hosted by an HEI can potentially form their first impressions of the whole HEI through the event (Yost and Tucker, 1995). Generally, events offer a potential to strengthen the relationship with existing stakeholder and form contacts with newer ones (Watkins and Gonzenbach, 2013). Winter and Thompson-Whiteside (2017) point out that even events hosted by the city the HEI is located at, provide a reasoning for potential students to consider the HEI as a place to study. Especially in times of social media, allowing instant reporting on events happening, the power of events should not be underestimated (Sheeran and Cummings, 2018; Peruta and Shields, 2017). Seeing that events are hosted by official departments of HEIs as well as loosely connected groups (e.g., student club), the connection between brand and event does vary from event to event. The concepts and ideas of events being organized in a similar fashion to sponsorship arrangements, event marketing, and destination marketing are all common occurrences for HEIs. Consequently, this area yields an interesting example with very specific requirements. Nevertheless, events as a part of the communication toolkit of HEIs have rarely been scientifically addressed. Although many scholars have recognized their importance in connection with studies surrounding the field of higher education marketing, a thorough assessment of their effectiveness has not yet been carried out (Klein et al., 2001; Huesman et al., 2009; Shields and Peruta, 2018). Especially interesting is the development within the German higher education market. There, the increasing amount of new private institutions on the market as well as a demographic change that has reduced the supply of potential students has recently changed the higher education market (Schneider, 2012). Given that fundraising events and big sport events, typical for, e.g., the higher education market in the USA are not common occurrences on German campuses, the experiences in this realm are limited (Huml et al., 2018). The possibility of using

1.2 Literature Review

9

events as a communication tool, especially for German HEIs, remains almost unknown. This dissertation will bring forward results of studies that deal with this issue and, therefore, present inputs to further develop this neglected topic. 1.2.3.2

Digital Environments

Besides the higher education market, new digital environments are also addressed as research objects within this dissertation. Digital environments are contexts enabled by digital devices that can be considered a cultural and communicative environment that influences, e.g., communication habits (Tomei et al., 2018). The coherent technological advances achieved in recent years have had significant effects on several industries. New paths of digital consumption have altered or extended traditional means of consuming (Bründl et al., 2017). Furthermore, new ventures and industries have developed. Generally, almost all aspects of life and work have been affected and event consumption and perception have been altered due to new technologies (Papacharissi and Rubin, 2010). These developments have changed the way events are generally consumed and experienced by attendees, and new industries are using the technological advances to create completely new themes of events (Scholz, 2019; Zhang and Byon, 2017). Both of these observations will be addressed in this dissertation. One of the most popular examples of new industries, purely based on the technological advances of recent years, can be found in eSports (Hallmann and Giel, 2018), which has developed into a multimillion dollar industry that attracts millions of viewers and participants worldwide (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). eSport, at first, was a niche development that emerged with the first advancements in the realm of personal computers. Digital games that were played at home in the early 1940s are, nowadays, considered the very origin of eSports (Scholz, 2019). Allowing for competitive gaming of two or more players, these early games provided the basis for the future development of more complex games. Yet, it was not until personal computers became a common object in almost every household that eSports flourished to become the international phenomenon it is today (Scholz, 2019). When the first multiplayer gaming titles were introduced and the internet enabled users to connect with one another globally, eSports quickly became a promising business venture for many companies (Scholz, 2019; Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). Furthermore, new streaming options and platforms helped spread eSports content across the internet and fans were suddenly able to follow their favorite team or player online (Donghun and Schoenstedt, 2011). Subsequently, players achieved professional skills and viewers quickly became consumers of entertainment products. Famous eSports titles like Starcraft or CounterStrike helped the industry gain many fans and in some

10

1 Introduction

countries, eSports was quickly emerging to a level of popularity exceeding that of traditional sports (e.g., soccer or basketball) (Cheung and Huang, 2011). Based on this popularity, eSports has long overcome the state of a purely digital phenomenon that people can follow exclusively online. In recent years, big competitions are held in arenas and stadiums across the globe and millions of fans attend these real-life events to experience eSports live on site (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). Although live streaming options are a popular option for many sports, eSports poses as a unique case in this regard (Zhang and Byon, 2017). eSports, as indicated, has its roots in a digital environment, whereas most other sports originated in the analogue world of consumption. Therefore, the transformation process is differently and consumers are likely to take different aspects into consideration when choosing a consumption form, as their usual habits may differ (Pizzo et al., 2018). Research has, thus far, not really addressed this specific issue of eSports consumption. Moreover, the concept of digital vs. non-digital event consumption has not yet been thoroughly assessed. In light of this gap in existing literature, this dissertation will address this issue and outline the motivation behind the consumption forms and patterns of attendees (Katz et al., 1973a).

1.3

Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Model

Figure 1 provides a general overview of the conceptual model of this dissertation and the relationships that are the subject of the papers herein. The subject of most studies conducted for this dissertation deals with explaining consumer behavior that has been evoked by events or a portfolio of events. The form of consumption, event quality, and the level of congruency are taken into account to explain the formation of attitude and, subsequently, the behavior of consumers. Digital environments and the higher education market are the research objects in the conducted studies. As indicated in the general conceptual model, the stimulus-organismresponse (S-O-R) model is utilized as the framework (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). The S-O-R model has been used to explain the behavior of consumers regarding numerous marketing efforts (e.g., advertisements); for instance, Nufer (2002) utilized the framework for his assessment of marketing events, thus demonstrating the applicability of the model for this context. Following the basic assumptions of this model, a stimulus will be processed by an organism (i.e., the consumer), which then responds to the stimulus (i.e., behavior). The processing of this stimulus by the organism is mostly based on an interplay of cognitive processes, activating processes and attitude (Nufer, 2002;

1.3 Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Model

11

Figure 1: General conceptual model

Foscht et al., 2017). Activating processes include, e.g., emotions and motivation of the organism and cognitive processes are understood as, e.g., perception and input from memory (Foscht et al., 2017). For the given context, quality perceptions and evaluation of perceived congruency are incorporated as influential factors for the organism. Furthermore, the form of consumption will be taken into account as an additional factor, that supposedly influences the processing of the organism. In summary, along with the stimulus (i.e., events or portfolio of events), the motivation and emotions, level of congruency, event and portfolio quality, and attitude and behavior will be the essential subjects of the papers included in this dissertation. The reasoning behind extending the view on events from single entities to a combined portfolio can be explained by information integration theory (Anderson, 1971). According to this theory, the formation of attitude towards any object is based on the addition of numerous touchpoints and coherent impressions (Anderson, 1971). Anderson (1971) did not specifically address the topic of events, but marketing events are designed to be a touchpoint with a brand and, therefore, form a partial impression of the brand in the mind of the attendee. Subsequently, any additional event will also have an effect on the attendee and only by taking into account all of these events, the overall attitude can be explained. Thus far, research has widely focused on single events and brands. Yet, the implied comprehensiveness of attitude formation drawn from information integration theory argues that a different approach is necessary. The information integration theory also explains how the formation of attitude towards a number of objects (i.e., event or connected brand) can help to form behavioral intention (Anderson, 1971; Dees et al., 2006; Martensen and

12

1 Introduction

Gronholdt, 2008; Speed and Thompson, 2000). By adding additional pieces of information (i.e., through contact with an additional event), the experiences of attendees will influence the formation of attitude towards the event and the connected brand. The subsequent behavior can be seen as a result of the formed attitude (Shanteau and Anderson, 1972; Jaccard and Becker, 1985). Attitude plays a role in capturing the effects of events and the papers included in this dissertation, therefore, draw on the attitude towards the event or portfolio of events. Additional theoretical insights can be found in the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). The formation of attitude is subject to existing beliefs and the expected consequences of subsequent actions (Bagozzi, 1986). This extension provides an additional perspective on the possible influences on the formation of attitude. Both theories are centered on the attitude towards objects (i.e., events and brands) and provide the reasoning for influences on the resulting response (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Anderson, 1971). However, the quality of events and portfolios as well as the level of observed congruency, e.g., might be potential factors that influence the perception of events and the subsequent formation of attitude. The congruency or fit of two objects is described as a “perception of similarity” of two (or more) objects (Osgood and Tannenbaum, 1955). The theory suggests that consumers seek harmony within their thoughts and feelings and, furthermore, strive for uniformity between these aspects (Jagre et al., 2001; Rifon et al., 2004). In the context of event marketing and in regard to the connection between attitude from one object to another (i.e., event and brand), the adjustment of expectation and reality are important to the consumer. A connection that does not meet these expectations could potentially hinder the desired result, yielding negative reactions for both objects (i.e., brand and event) because of the discrepancy (Jagre et al., 2001). Within the realm of event marketing, the importance of congruency has been addressed in numerous cases and settings (e.g., Gwinner et al., 2009; Low and Pyun, 2016). Given its importance to explain the connections between brand and event, this dissertation will also take into account the perceived level of congruency between event and brand to investigate the effectiveness of events and portfolios of events in influencing consumer behavior. Most papers in this dissertation center around events in two special areas of practice: the higher education market and digital environments (e.g., eSports). Within digital environments, the form of event consumption will also be assessed as a potentially influential factor. The uses and gratification theory suggests that consumers choose a form of media consumption based on their specific needs and interests (Katz et al., 1973a). Consequently, the theory argues that users are actively pursuing a specific form of event consumption (e.g., via live streaming) because this media provides advantages over other forms of con-

1.4 Structure of Papers and Individual Contributions

13

sumption (e.g., attending the event onsite). Thus far, research has rarely addressed the potential implications of different means of consumption for events. The few exceptions center around traditional events (e.g., table-tennis matches) and focus on identifying consequences of consumption form on consumer behavior (Zhang and Byon, 2017). Yet, the uses and gratification theory suggests that the event and the form of consumption are strongly connected and that consumers’ choice of consumption form should be considered to yield valuable information (e.g., on the advantages of the media) (Katz et al., 1973a; Blumler and Katz, 1974; Hamari et al., 2018). Given that eSports was once existing in a purely digital format that has been taken offline to be consumed in an analogue setting, eSports is a unique field where both consumption forms are equally established (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017; Scholz, 2019). Consequently, eSports poses an exception to more traditional sports and the connection between eSports event perception and form of consumption will, therefore, be assessed within this dissertation. These theoretical elaborations yield a common ground for the individual papers and the depicted conceptual model visualizes an overarching perspective on the combined intention of these papers. In the following, the individual contributions of the papers will be presented.

1.4 1.4.1

Structure of Papers and Individual Contributions Focus of Papers and Overview over Research Characteristics

The papers in this dissertation address different aspects of the depicted conceptual model and use different research objects. Through these papers, the proposed gaps and research interests will be addressed and new insights, developed. Each paper, furthermore, delivers insights through coherent studies and subsequent analysis. Table 1 provides an overview of the individual papers and the topics addressed by the associated studies. To achieve the different goals of research, a variety of studies were conducted, and several methods of analysis were utilized. Table 2 provides an overview of the research objectives, study design, and the methodology of each individual paper. The sample size of the conducted studies is also stated. Overall, 2,442 respondents were contacted to address the objectives of the individual papers. The methods implemented to analyze the gathered data are also illustrated. The objectives summarize the goal of each paper.

14

1 Introduction

Table 1: Topics addressed by individual papers







Paper 3



Paper 4



Form of consumption

Motivation / emotions

Level of congruency



Paper 2

Event / portfolio quality

Paper 1

Organism

Portfolio of events

Stimulus Single event

Digital environment

Higher education market

Research object





 





Paper 5



Paper 6





 







Table 2: Research methods included in the individual papers Main objective

Design

Sample Size

Methodology

Paper 1

Validate existing concepts of event marketing for events of HEIs

Field study

N = 298

PLS-SEM

Paper 2

Further assess the influence of type of event and target group regarding events of HEIs

Study 1: Field study Study 2: Field study

Study 1: N = 145 Study 2: N = 172

PLS-SEM

Paper 3

Assess the importance of different type of events for portfolios of HEIs

Online survey

N = 275

Choice-based conjoint experiment

Paper 4

Identification of influential factors to event portfolio management for HEIs

Study 1: Online survey Study 2: Online survey

Study 1: N = 150 Study 2: N = 246

Choice-based conjoint experiment; ANOVA

Paper 5

Identify the influence of form of consumption on motivation to attend an eSports event

Field study conducted online and offline

N = 637

t-tests

Paper 6

Characterize the influential factors of interaction intention in digital environments

Study 1: Online survey Study 2: Online survey

Study 1: N = 301 Study 2: N = 218

Choice-based conjoint experiment; PLSSEM

1.4 Structure of Papers and Individual Contributions

1.4.2

15

Paper 1: Events as a Customer Touchpoint in Student Life

The first paper focuses on the effectiveness of event marketing as one possible approach for HEIs to strengthen their relationship with a their main and most fluctuating target group, i.e., the students. Previous research has shown that having a successful HEI brand and being attractive for students can be achieved by introducing and maintaining elements such as fun or excitement (Syed Alwi and Kitchen, 2014; Bennett and Ali-Choudhury, 2009). Event marketing, therefore, can cater to these ideas and help develop the HEI brand. To gain insights into this special field of event marketing efforts, established factors and effects from the field of event marketing were tested at two similar events of two German HEIs. Specifically, the emotions towards the event and the HEI were utilized to understand the attitude of attendees towards the event as well as the HEI (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008). As an additional and subsequent outcome variable, identification with the HEI was also included in the study. A standardized questionnaire that was distributed to participants present the events was used to gather data. In order to achieve comparability, similar event types (job fair organized by members of the HEI) was selected. Both events were advertised in advance with clear connection to the HEI and were held on campus. The attendees were asked to answer the questionnaire immediately after they left the event venue. In all, 298 participants answered the questionnaire; 50.7% of the participants were female and 49.3% were male. The average age was at 22.36 years, representing the typical age structure of the target group. The majority of the students were undergraduate students (60.7%). Data analysis, conducted with SmartPLS 3.0, shows that most of the assumptions could be verified and emotions, negative as well as positive, had a major influence on the formation of attitude towards the event as well as the HEI. However, the influence of attitude towards the event on the attitude towards the HEI could not be found clearly. The events tested in this study were, taken by itself, not strong enough to influence the attitude of students towards their HEI. Quality of education, quality of research as well as additional factors are important aspects for the attitude of students towards their HEI and could have a strong effect on the measurements recorded (Watkins and Gonzenbach, 2013). Nevertheless, identification with the HEI can, in fact, be influenced by HEI events. By participating in the activities on campus, the students could feel a brief connection to the HEI. By living the brand message, conveyed by the events, they feel a stronger identification with the HEI. Participation therefore leads to a briefly felt connection to the HEI but has no immediate influence on the student’s overall attitude towards the HEI. The results of the study indicate the general value of events for HEIs. Moreover, the lack of attitude transfer of event and brand raises questions in

16

1 Introduction

regard to the specific effects of events in the field of higher education marketing, which will be further addressed in the following papers. 1.4.3

Paper 2: Events to Connect with Stakeholders of Higher Education Institutions

The second paper further develops the basic understanding of events as a mean for HEIs to connect with students. Building on the insights derived in paper 1, additional influential factors are taken into account and a more profound conceptual model is developed here. Event quality, a key characteristic for attendees is added to gain a better understanding of the formation of attitude towards the event (Kelley and Turley, 2001; Ko et al., 2010). The perceived fit of event and brand (i.e., the HEI) has been found to be an important influencing factor for event success as a communication tool for connected brands (Speed and Thompson, 2000). Therefore, this factor is also included in the conducted study. A key element of the model is the suggested influence of attitude towards the event on the attitude towards the HEI, based on the assumptions made by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). Favorability and WOM about the HEI are added as outcome variables and age, gender, and mood are taken into account as controls. The derived conceptual model is tested with two different types of events to gain a better understanding of the influences of different events. However, both events utilized are advertised in clear connection to the HEI and serve their purpose to promote the brand. Moreover, the events address key groups of stakeholders. A film festival, mainly addressing students, yielded 145 respondents. The second event assessed was the official fair of the HEI, yielding 172 participants. The model was tested for both events and the comparison of the results shows that the effectiveness of both events differs and that the different groups of stakeholders respond differently to the individual events. Especially in regard to the outcome variables, interesting differences can be derived. Students’ attitude towards the film festival was less influential on their attitude towards the HEI than the fair attendees’ attitude towards the event. Furthermore, favorability of the HEI was only significantly influenced by the attitude towards the HEI for participants of the film festival, whereas favorability was significantly influenced by the attitude towards the fair for its attendees. Consequently, the event becomes more important to form an opinion of the HEI, when it is the presumably one the first contact points with the HEI. Students will define their attitude towards the HEI through these events, but the event itself has little to no effect on the favorability of the HEI. The results bring further input to the overall value of events in the realm of higher education marketing and also address some important issues of differenti-

1.4 Structure of Papers and Individual Contributions

17

ating between different types of events. Seeing that the type of event and the stakeholder addressed do, in fact, lead to considerable differences, the need for a consciously planned combination of different events to address all stakeholders properly and take advantage of the individual type of event is emphasized. The third paper will address this challenge in detail. 1.4.4

Paper 3: Building Event Portfolios for Higher Education Institutions

Generally, HEIs are subject to different stakeholders (e.g., departments, student clubs or chairs) taking initiative and organizing individual events in connection to the HEI brand. Hence, the overall event portfolio of HEIs may consist of a variety of different events which are most likely organized independently from each other. Thus far, little research concerning event portfolios, in general, and event marketing of HEIs, specifically, has been conducted (Ziakas, 2014, 2013b). Paper 3 addresses these shortcomings and presents a study conducted to evaluate the value of specific types of events for HEIs and derives insights into potential influential factors. The overall research goal lies in the identification of an ideal event portfolio, consisting of different types of events offering the best combination of events to the HEIs main target group (i.e., students). Fit is taken into account as an influential factor, based on research in the area of event marketing and sponsorship, indicating that fit is a factor that enhances the desired effects (e.g., use or WOM) (Speed and Thompson, 2000). A choice-based conjoint experiment was conducted to identify the importance of different types of events for an HEI. Thereby, the individual contribution of respective types of events could be determined and indications about the utility of corresponding events could be derived. To identify relevant types of events, a thorough market analysis was conducted. Information about numerous events hosted by HEIs was gathered. Subsequently, these events were categorized based on similar key characteristics (e.g., active or passive participation). In this process, four different types of events (sport, career & networking, culture, fun & party) with three to four corresponding events (e.g., football tournament, musical, pub crawl) were identified, all of which were included in the experiment. Additionally, measures to evaluate the perceived fit of the events and the HEI were included. A short pretest with 34 participants was conducted to ensure the applicability of the measures and events included. Participants of the main study were given a short introduction and asked to choose one of three HEIs, solely based on the presented event portfolio that was stated for each HEI. The final sample consisted of 275 participants; 42.5% of the sample was female and the average age was 24.24 years (SD = 3.77).

18

1 Introduction

Data from the choice-based conjoint experiment was analyzed using the derived importance values, indicating the influence of the individual type of event (e.g., fun & party or career & networking) as well as utility values that provide information on the influence of the individual event (e.g., job fair) for the respective category. Overall, the category “fun & party” was found to be most important for students. Nevertheless, all types of events yielded at least an importance value of 15%, showing that a portfolio of events at an HEI can certainly be very diverse. Regarding the influence of perceived fit, the proposed connection was only shown for a few events. Although all of the events included in our study all scored values above an average of 3.5 on a 7-point scale (i.e., indicating a general perception of fit of event and HEI), the events deriving higher values of fit did not necessarily yield a stronger utility value in their perspective category. Therefore, the value of fit as an indicator for suitable portfolio compositions could not be verified. Moreover, a significant influence of gender on the event preferences was found. Interestingly, female participants did, e.g., prefer the fun & party category while male participants showed a preference for categories such as sport. The results show that all included types of events are generally suitable to attract students to an HEI. Nevertheless, events that can be considered to cater to utilitarian aspects of student life seem to be more attractive to male students, whereas female students tend to favor more hedonic facets of student life. Offering a well-structured event portfolio could, therefore, be a crucial option to strengthen the relationship with existing and future students. Following the overall results of the choice-based conjoint experiment, portfolios with a majority of “fun & party” events would likely be preferred by students. Additionally, the results also support the assumption about the role of thematic fit in event marketing settings. Thus far, very few studies have looked at the perceived fit of object (i.e., event) to an institution. Although some of the results indicate that fit has a potential influence on the decisions made, the results also show that a limited amount of decisions can potentially be explained through fit. 1.4.5

Paper 4: Event Portfolio Management for Higher Education Institutions

The fourth paper further investigates the complexity of event portfolios in the realm of higher education marketing. Based on the results of a more comprehensive choice-based conjoint experiment and additional survey, the influence of fit and the possible composition of events to build a portfolio are examined here. Furthermore, additional factors that could influence portfolio evaluation are developed on the basis of motivation research. To accomplish the goals, three

1.4 Structure of Papers and Individual Contributions

19

potential event portfolios are designed based on market analysis and a pretest. Two portfolios are designed to include either a very hedonic or a highly utilitarian set of events. Additionally, a mixed portfolio is tested, containing two highly hedonic events and two highly utilitarian events. HEIs are in a very intense competition for talent and their overall success is eventually based on their ability to attract new students (Sung and Yang, 2008). Therefore, anything that could potentially influence the decision of students in their favor is valuable. The choice-based conjoint experiment conducted with 150 participants (Mage = 23.85 (SD = 4.885), 57.3 % of which were male and 42.7 % female) addresses the potential influence of the designed event portfolios on the choice process of students. The results show that events can, indeed, influence the decision of potential students. Although not as important as, e.g., course suitability, the events are among the most influential factors for students. Furthermore, the results indicate that the highly utilitarian portfolio yields the highest perception of fit. However, the mixed portfolio shows the strongest positive influence on the decision-forming process. To further investigate these issues, a second study (N = 246) was set up as a one-factorial between-subject experiment and included three different event portfolios as factors, thereby allowing a more thorough investigation of the individual portfolios incorporated in the study. Once again, the results show that a mixed portfolio of hedonic as well as utilitarian elements yields the strongest values for the included outcome variables. Furthermore, the previously made indications about the role of fit are retained in this second study. Generally, highly utilitarian events were considered the most congruent occurrence for HEIs and yet, the highest values for the outcome variables were derived by the mixed portfolio. Consequently, fit seems to work differently when assessing event portfolios. The assumptions drawn from prior work in the field of event marketing are only partially reproducible in this special setting. Based on different dimensions of motivation, a measure of portfolio quality was also included in the experiment. Building on the works of Crompton and McKay (1997) and Lee et al. (2004), the dimensions novelty, escape, attraction, socializing, and cultural exploration were adapted to the study. Data indicates, that in most cases the mixed portfolio results in the highest overall ratings for these dimensions. Furthermore, the hedonic portfolio, consistently outperforms the utilitarian portfolio in regard to the dimensions of event quality. Overall, the results indicate that HEIs should try to provide a diverse set of events that cater to hedonic as well as utilitarian aspects of student life. Furthermore, the data indicate the possibilities that come with proper event portfolio management. HEIs should be communicating these efforts clearly and utilize the possible effects on potential students (Pringle and Fritz, 2018).

20

1.4.6

1 Introduction

Paper 5: Differences and Similarities in Motivation for Offline and Online eSports Event Consumption

The fifth paper emphasizes the possible differences between offline and online event consumption. Based on the previously depicted argumentation regarding the uses and gratification theory, eSports was chosen as an environment to assess the connection between event perception and form of consumption (i.e., online via live stream or onsite). Hamari and Sjöblom (2017) investigated the general motivation to consume eSports but did not look into possible differences between online and offline consumption. Nevertheless, based on their adaptation of the Motivation Scale for Sports Consumption (MSSC), a study was designed to address this research gap. Additionally, the effects of the form of consumption on the attitude towards the event, satisfaction with the event, and intended behavior of participants were measured and assessed. The corresponding survey was distributed to on-site visitors and stream followers (N = 637) of a big eSports event in Berlin, Germany. After data collection, t-tests were conducted to assess the differences between the two groups. In regard to their motivation, on-site attendees showed significantly stronger interests in social exchange with other attendees. Online participants were very keen on gaining knowledge about the game and enjoyed the details of the matches being played. Escape and drama motivation were equally important for both groups. Furthermore, the attitude towards the event did not differ between the groups. Satisfaction with the event was significantly stronger for on-site attendees. The results underline the advantages of on-site as well as online participation. The digital environment of a streaming platform enhances the users’ possibilities to follow the game in detail. Thus, users are enabled to learn from the players’ actions and get a better understanding of their skillset. On-site participants strive to experience more possibilities to actively engage in social exchange and are capable of enjoying a face-to-face experience with other fans and players. Since the attitude towards the event of attendees to the event and followers of the stream do not significantly differ and both groups indicated that they would like to remain with their previously chosen form of consumption, it can be assumed that substantial personality traits guide the choice of consumption form. Practitioners should address these issues while advertising their event to the audiences online as well as offline. By adding additional features to the stream or the experience in the arena, the advantages of the consumption form could be further highlighted. Furthermore, research should focus on understanding the potential shortcomings of social interaction in digital environments in general and when consuming online streams specifically.

1.4 Structure of Papers and Individual Contributions

1.4.7

21

Paper 6: Interaction in Social Live Streaming Services

The sixth paper extends the research conducted in paper 5 and addresses the aspect of social interaction in SLSS as they have, especially with the spread of additional bandwidth and other technological advances, become common to most users. Thus far, research has not yet assessed the general importance of interaction possibilities for the overall use of an SLSS. Furthermore, the distinct interaction with other users and the broadcaster of a stream have not been taken into account. Hence, paper 6 tries to widen the common knowledge regarding SLSSs. Building in part on the social identity theory and an extensive literature review on social networking sites (SNS) as well as SLSS, two studies were designed. The first study, a choice-based conjoint analysis, aimed to determine the importance of interaction possibilities in regard to other characteristics of SLSS (e.g., picture quality). The corresponding study was distributed online to SLSS users and a sample of 301 participants was generated. The derived importance values show that picture quality, price, and language are the most relevant drivers for users to choose one stream over another. Interaction with other users and interaction with the broadcaster each accounted for around 5% of importance. Study 2, an online survey (N = 218), focused on the influential factors guiding the interaction intentions in SLSS. Building on the social identity theory and the potential ties of users, interaction motivation, perceived usefulness of SLSS, and participation benefits were taken into account as potential influencers in the interaction. The results indicate that social ties do, in fact, play an important role in the interaction in SLSS. Furthermore, the interaction intention with other users was significantly influenced by the included constructs and the explanatory power of the overall model further strengthens the value of the conducted study. The interaction with the broadcaster was not as well explained through the model but showed a satisfactory level of explained variance as the outcome variable. However, the perceived usefulness of an SLSS did not influence interaction with broadcasters. Overall, social interaction is a valuable part of SLSS usage and mangers should consider including potent tools to enhance the overall possibilities of users to engage with it. Furthermore, interaction with the broadcaster and other users may share some similarities, but the results indicate differences (e.g., the influence of perceived usefulness). Research should address these differences in additional studies and identify other aspects to guide this process. Social connection has shown value in this regard, but other aspects might be of importance (Bründl et al., 2017).

2 Events as a Customer Touchpoint in Student Life – Creating Valuable Experiences and Lasting Impressions 2.1

Introduction

HEIs are nowadays challenged with intensified competition amongst each other as well as an ongoing battle for additional funds and students. Especially within Western Europe, the introduction of bachelor’s and master’s degrees has led to higher student mobility and international competition. Therefore, HEIs are being challenged more than ever to find new ways to approach prospective students and, furthermore, retain their existing students (Maringe, 2006; Drewes and Michael, 2006). Generally, HEIs cater to numerous stakeholders and are therefore judged by very different perspectives. Therefore, acting out of a strong and well-defined brand image can only help deal with the rising market pressure (Celly and Knepper, 2010; Maringe and Gibbs, 2009). In addition to traditional marketing tools like advertisements in magazines or TV commercials, HEIs are implementing new forms of advertising as well as event marketing in their marketing mix in order to ensure their success (Chapleo, 2010). Such new marketing tools have generally become valuable because consumers become less responsive to more traditional forms of advertising (Belch and Belch, 2009). Previous research has shown that events support the strategic positioning of a HEI (Kavaratzis, 2005; Florida, 2007). HEIs, in this context, must fit with the requirements of their target groups. While on the supply side, they need to differentiate themselves from other HEIs and research institutes by shaping their strengths in research and education, on the demand side, they are confronted with different stakeholders having different needs and interests. By means of events, HEIs aim to increase their stakeholders’ awareness level, positively influence the attitude towards their services, and improve their image (Leisen, 2001). Even though events have a long history at HEIs, recently, HEIs have begun to use event marketing as a strategic tool to enrich the connection to their stakeholders (e.g., create experiences for their students) (Schneider, 2012). Event marketing, in general, is well studied. However, with regard to the specific importance of events for HEIs, there is a need for further research (Watkins and Gonzenbach, 2013). Generally, the effectiveness of events as a marketing tool for profit oriented companies has been the subject of many studies (e.g., Weihe et al., 2006; Martensen et al., 2007). These research results yield insights (e.g., © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020 F. Neus, Event Marketing in the Context of Higher Education Marketing and Digital Environments, Handel und Internationales Marketing Retailing and International Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29262-1_2

24

2 Events as a Customer Touchpoint in Student Life

knowledge about influential factors) on the field of events at HEIs and, presumably, similarities are likely. This paper builds on existing literature and theories applicable to the field of event marketing. We present a study conducted at similar events at two German HEIs. The results indicate that emotional responses to the event and the HEI itself influence attendees’ subsequent attitude formation and that events of HEIs suitable tools to increase attendees’ identification with the HEI.

2.2

Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Model

The theoretical framework builds on appraisal theory and the theory of reasoned action. Both provide reasoning for the effectiveness of events. Figure 2 summarizes the overall conceptual model and furthermore shows the proposed interdependencies.

Figure 2: Conceptual Model

Appraisal theory has often been used to describe the possible effects of events and event marketing (Moors et al., 2013; Scherer et al., 2001). This theory argues that consumers tend to react to different situations (i.e., events) with corresponding emotions that influence the situational response. Emotions are regarded as a person’s assessment of a stimulus that influences, e.g., the overall wellbeing of this person (Moors et al., 2013). Based on this stimulus, negative as well as positive emotional responses are developed and any reaction to the stimulus is based on these emotions (Scherer, 1999). Stimuli in this context may be, for example, events and thus, events of HEIs are likely to trigger attendees’

2.3 Hypotheses Development

25

emotional responses (Ortony et al., 1999). The conceptual mode, therefore, is based on the initial emotional response of attendees. While appraisal theory helps us understand the immediate reaction of attendees to the event, the theory of reasoned action provides indications on how a subsequent outcome can be explained. Generally, this theory assumes that attitude is formed via beliefs and expected consequences (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Subsequently, the formed attitude influences behavioral intention and, ultimately, coherent behavior. Scholars have assessed numerous possible outcomes to event-related marketing efforts and found that preference for the connected brand or buying intentions are positively affected by the event and the coherent attitude formation process (Speed and Thompson, 2000; Weihe et al., 2006; Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008). For HEIs, however, the desirable outcome variables differ from these of profit-oriented brands, and constructs, such as willingness to donate funds or enroll in additional classes, are more important (Sung and Yang, 2009; Schneider, 2012). Palmer et al. (2016) argue that the most valuable outcome of marketing efforts for an HEI is identification with the HEI because it supports numerous other positive effects and functions as an antecedent of subsequent behavior (e.g., recommending the HEI), thus contributing to overall success (He et al., 2012). In accordance with the theory of reasoned action, we propose that attitude will lead to behavioral intention as manifested in the identification with the HEI. We thus did not focus on a specific behavioral outcome (e.g., enrolling in additional classes). Mael and Ashforth (1992) showed that identification with the HEI is a key element for subsequent behavior and emphasized its value for the relation between student and HEI. HEIs should strive to improve this relationship and our study, consequently, examines how events can contribute to strengthen identification with the HEI (Mael and Ashforth, 1992; Palmer et al., 2016). Based on the depicted theories and explanations, we assume that the emotional response to the event and the HEI will manifest in the formation of attitude, which will subsequently lead to a higher level of identification. In the following, the incorporated hypotheses will be derived through an additional literature review.

2.3

Hypotheses Development

Events are experiences that foster a high level of engagement by attendees (Getz, 2016). By being incorporated in the event and actively engaging with the involved brand as well as the event itself and, as an immediate reaction to these experiences, attendees show emotional responses (Berridge et al., 2019). In a previous study, Hansen (1997) discussed the connection between these emotion-

26

2 Events as a Customer Touchpoint in Student Life

al responses and the general success of events. Scholars have shown that human behavior is strongly guided by emotional responses and the contact with an event yields similar effects (Hansen, 2005; Dalgleish, 2004). Therefore, we regard the emotional response of attendees as a valuable indicator of the overall assessment of an event (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008). Romani et al. (2012) pointed out that it is necessary to differentiate between positive and negative emotions because the valence is likely to lead to different consumer reactions. Continuing these arguments with the indications drawn from the appraisal theory, we regard emotions as important factors that influence event as well as brand. Attitudes towards the respective objects (i.e., brand or event) are one potential indicator of a subsequent manifestation of an emotional response (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008). Emotions, in contrast are considered a fast and “primitive” response that are consciously processed into a more stable perception (Hansen, 2005). Consequently, the experiences of event participants (positive as well as negative) lead to emotional responses that are likely to influence their attitudes toward the event as well as the connected brand (i.e., the HEI) (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008; Ratten et al., 2010; Mao and Zhang, 2013). Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses: H1a: A higher positive emotional response toward the event has a positive impact on the attitude toward the event. H1b: A higher negative emotional response toward the event has a negative impact on the attitude toward the event. H2a: A higher positive emotional response toward the HEI has a positive impact on the attitude toward the HEI. H2b: A higher negative emotional response towards the HEI has a negative impact on the attitude toward the HEI. Regarding the effectiveness of traditional advertisements and their connection to the brand, Du Plessis (2010) argues that impressions and memories are linked in the mind of the consumer. In addition, Hansen (1997) found that new impressions (i.e., attitude toward the event) are linked to older memories and connected factors (i.e., attitude toward the HEI). In general, we regard the transfer of positive or negative perceptions from the event to the HEI as an essential connection in the proposed model. Attitude research suggests that attitude formation toward an object relies on available information and impressions of that object (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Therefore, impressions gathered at the event are likely to affect the attitude towards the HEI. This link has been tested in a multitude of events and ad related studies (e.g., Weihe et al., 2006; Martensen et al., 2007;

2.4 Method, Measures, and Procedure

27

Dees et al., 2006). We, therefore, assume a similar relationship for events of HEIs: H3: The attitude toward the event has a positive impact on the attitude toward the HEI. As indicated, attitude formation also relates to the subsequent behavioral intention (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 1991). In our study, we analyzed the impact on identification with the HEI. Balmer and Liao (2007) showed that student identification with the HEI heavily relied on experiences made in connection with the HEI (i.e., events hosted by the HEI). Events, generally, provide a multitude of impressions and especially for events of HEI, academic and social experiences are likely to occur. Palmer et al. (2016) argue that these aspects are important drivers of identification with the HEI itself. Stephenson and Yerger (2014), moreover, show that identification and contact with the HEI (i.e., through an event) are positively linked with each other, a notion that was also found by Mael and Ashforth (1992), when assessing the antecedents of alumni and HEI relations. Therefore, we propose that attitudes toward the event as well as the HEI are beneficial to the overall identification with the HEI and formulate our hypotheses as follows: H4: The attitude toward the event has a positive impact on identification with the HEI. H5: The attitude toward the HEI has a positive impact on identification with the HEI.

2.4

Method, Measures, and Procedure

To empirically test our conceptual model, we developed a standardized questionnaire that was distributed across participants of HEI events. For our study, we interviewed students during two events of two German HEIs, one large HEI with around 60,000 students and one middle-sized HEI with nearly 20,000 students. To achieve comparability, we chose a similar event type (job fair organized by members of the HEI). Both events were advertised in advance with a clear connection to the HEI and were held on campus. Attendees of these events were asked to participate right after leaving the event venue. We collected data of 298 participants at the events, 50.7% of which were female and 49.3% male. The average age was at 22.36 years, thus representing the typical age structure of our target group in the student sample. The majority of the students in our sample were undergraduate students (60.7%).

28

2 Events as a Customer Touchpoint in Student Life

We developed our measurement scales based on previous research. Emotions were measured using seven positive and six negative items that were previously tested and developed by Hansen (2005). Attitude towards the event and attitude towards the brand were measured using scales developed by Martensen et al. (2007). To measure identification with the HEI, a scale based on O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) as well as Mael and Ashforth (1992) was used. All measurement scales were adjusted in their wording to fit the scenario. All items were measured using seven-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). The constructs related to the attendee’s emotions were captured using formative measurement models, while the constructs regarding attitude and identification were measured with reflective models. Measurement scales were assessed for reliability and validity to determine their applicability in our study. All reflective scales yielded sufficient values for Cronbach’s alpha (above .7) as well as the average variance extracted (AVE) (above .5.) and we, therefore, assumed convergent validity (Hair et al., 2017). Furthermore, the factor loadings of the respective indicators all yielded sufficient levels (above .4) (Hair et al., 2017). Table 3 provides an overview of the utilized constructs and measurement scales. Moreover, the variance inflation factors (VIF) were all below 5, indicating no multicollinearity of constructs (O’brien, 2007). Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggest that the AVE should exceed squared correlations of constructs, which was the case in our data. Consequently, we assume satisfying discriminant validity for the dataset. Table 4 provides an overview of the coherent data. Table 3: Constructs Formative Instruments Positive emotions (HEI/Event) To what extent do you have the below emotions toward …?

Mean/Outer Weights Brand

Event

4.226

4.442

Joy

.298

.407

Success

.327

.526

Pretty

.062

.056

Stimulation

.029

.151

Fine

.146

.202

Wanted

.369

.135

Expectation

.215

.017

2.4 Method, Measures, and Procedure

Formative Instruments

29

Mean/Outer Weights Brand

Event

Negative emotions (HEI/Event) To what extent do you have the below emotions toward …?

3.034

2.556

Sad

.476

.096

Critical

.135

.207

Annoyed

.227

.325

Boring

.280

.683

Doubt

.061

.526

Worry

.245

.262

Reflective Instruments

Mean /Outer Loadings

Attitude towards the HEI (Cronbach’s alpha = .887; Composite reliability = .917)

4.66

I think that the HEI is good.

.881

I think that this HEI has some advantageous characteristics compared to other HEIs.

.873

I have a positive attitude towards this HEI.

.839

This HEI offers a better quality of education than other HEIs.

.763

I think that this HEI is reliable and credible.

.802

Attitude towards the event (Cronbach’s alpha = .822; Composite reliability = .894)

4.592

The event was entertaining.

.841

The event was well organized.

.870

The event was capable of involving me.

.836

Reflective Instruments

Mean /Outer Loadings

Identification with the HEI (Cronbach’s alpha = .853; Composite reliability = .889)

3.538

When someone criticizes the HEI, it feels like a personal insult.

.746

I am very interested in what others think about the HEI.

.676

When I talk about this HEI, I usually say “we” rather than “they”.

.671

This HEI’s success is my successes.

.852

When someone praises this HEI, it feels like a personal compliment.

.860

If a story in the media criticizes the HEI, I would feel embarrassed.

.759

30

2 Events as a Customer Touchpoint in Student Life

Table 4: Discriminant validity Attitude towards the HEI

Attitude towards the event

Identification with the HEI

Negative event emotions

Positive event emotions

Negative HEI emotions

Positive HEI emotions

Attitude towards the HEI

.815

.089

.110

.013

.0615

.178

.446

Attitude towards the event

.299

.849

.045

.107

.456

.0416

.06

Identification with the HEI

.332

.213

.749

.008

.030

.021

.176

Negative event emotions

-.114

-.328

.089

-

.16

.057

.001

Positive event emotions

.248

.678

.174

-.400

-

.02

.085

Negative HEI emotions

-.425

-.204

-.144

.238

-.143

-

.221

Positive HEI emotions

.668

.245

.419

-.035

.292

-.470

-

Note: Diagonal elements represent the AVE for reflective construct. Correlations are underneath the diagonal; squared correlations are above the diagonal.

2.5

Hypothesis Testing and Discussion

We tested the model using PLS structural equations modeling via SmartPLS 3.0. The results are presented in Figure 3. The R2 and Q2 values of the outcome variables show acceptable predictive and explanatory power of the model. Regarding H1a and H1b, the results indicate that the proposed relation between emotional response and attitude toward the event can be confirmed. However, the path coefficients imply that the influence of positive emotions (ß = .618) on attitude toward the event is much stronger than the impact of negative emotions (ß = -.110). The same pattern emerges with regard to the influence of emotions on the attitude toward the HEI. While H2a and H2b are supported by

2.5 Hypothesis Testing and Discussion

31

Figure 3: Results of the structural equation model

our data, positive emotions (ß = .554) have a stronger impact on attitude towards the HEI than negative emotions (ß = -.173). Thus, emotions, as expected, are important drivers of attitude toward the HEI as well as attitude toward the event. While we can state that, according to our results, the influence of negative emotions is not as strong as the influence of positive emotions, participants in our sample have generally associated the events and HEIs with more positive than negative emotions. One could argue, therefore, that an event that provokes negative rather than positive emotions might yield a stronger impact on the attitude toward the event as well as the HEI. However, as indicated in Figure 3, our results do not support H3. We thus cannot support the supposed positive relationship between attitude toward the event and the attitude toward the HEI. With regard to the influence of the attitude toward the event on identification with the HEI (ß = .207) as well as the influence of the attitude toward the HEI on identification with the HEI (ß = .225), the findings support H4 and H5. The results do show that most of the assumptions made previously are in fact supported by this study. The missing link between the attitude towards the event and the attitude towards the HEI does not conclude with those assumptions but could be explained with the special setting of the brand association of HEIs. In contrast to companies operating and dealing with products in the traditional sense, HEIs are subject to a more diverse field of influences (Palmer et al., 2016). Attitude towards the HEI may very well be built up through many different indicators that are relevant to a student’s life. Quality of education, quality of research, personality of the faculty, and fellow students as well as additional factors are important aspects for the attitude of students toward their HEI (Wat-

32

2 Events as a Customer Touchpoint in Student Life

kins and Gonzenbach, 2013). The events tested in this study, taken by themselves, are not strong enough to exert a strong influence on long-term attitude of students, as reflected in our survey. Nevertheless, identification with the HEI can, in fact, be influenced through HEI events. By participating in the activities on campus, students feel a brief connection to the HEI. By living the brand message, conveyed by the events, they feel a stronger identification with the HEI. Participation therefore leads to connection and identification with the HEI, but in this case, it has no influence on the attitude.

2.6

Conclusion

Overall, most of the hypotheses were supported by our data. The study results show that events can be utilized as a marketing tool by HEIs and that identification with the HEI is benefited by these efforts. Furthermore, it was verified that emotions are an important indicator to measure the overall event perception. Although complex and mostly utilized as an indicator of brief impressions, their effect on attitude was substantial for all assumed connections (Oatley et al., 2006). Thereby, the assumptions taken from the appraisal theory were also verified, thus adding to the existing knowledge on the theory’s value for event marketing assessment (Moors et al., 2013; Scherer et al., 2001). In a similar fashion, the indications drawn from Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) about the formation of attitude and connection to the subsequent behavioral intention was mostly verified. However, one of the most essential connections, the proposed link of attitude towards the event and attitude towards the HEI, was not found. HEIs, anyhow, seem to benefit in terms of higher levels of student identification with each event on their campus but do not necessarily directly profit from stronger attitude toward their brand by the event attendees. Additional research to further investigate the connection between events and outcomes in favor of the HEI as well as their influence on the different stakeholders of HEIs need to be conducted to provide a more thorough assessment. The overall assumptions were derived on the basis of specific types of event (e.g., a job fair). Scholars have argued about the potential differences between different types of events (e.g., Kim et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2004) and especially for HEIs, this influence needs to be more thoroughly assessed. Furthermore, especially the vast variety of possible events organized on a typical campus over a semester leads to an obvious research gap. The assessment of single events should be seen as a clear limitation of the current and previous studies. For institutions offering a multitude of events, a more comprehensive approach should be taken. Ziakas (2013b) and other scholars argue that a portfolio perspective is needed to properly assess the effectiveness of event-related marketing efforts.

3 Connecting the Stakeholders of Higher Education Institutions via Event Marketing – A Case Study Comparing Two Events 3.1

Introduction

Higher education marketing has undergone a number of changes during the past decades (Khanna et al., 2014; Perin et al., 2012). Competition for talent and funds among HEIs has become intense, requiring the utilization of professional tools to enhance communication efforts (Missaghian and Pizarro Milian, 2018; Hemsley‐Brown and Oplatka, 2006). Common tasks for HEIs are to attract, e.g., new students, new business partners and/or new investors and to establish and maintain strong relationships with these and other stakeholders (Sung and Yang, 2009; Rauschnabel et al., 2016; Joseph et al., 2012). Events hosted by HEIs cater to many of these demands and offer valuable touchpoints with target audiences (Khanna et al., 2014). Due to the variety of possibilities (e.g., types of events), events can, for instance, be used to make first contact with potential students, strengthen relationships with existing students or reinforce fundraising efforts with alumni (Missaghian and Pizarro Milian, 2018; Klein et al., 2001; Fleischman et al., 2015). Event marketing is defined as “interactive communication of brand values by staging marketing events […] in which consumers are actively involved [...] and which would result in their emotional attachment to the brand” (Whelan and Wohlfeil, 2006). Previous research has assessed factors that influence and determine the benefits of event marketing for profit-oriented companies and brands (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008; Weihe et al., 2006). Although it is likely that the main relationships also apply to HEIs, the findings of this research cannot simply be transferred to HEI events (Ko et al., 2017) because HEIs are organized differently than business companies. In particular, HEIs are often structured as decentralized units, i.e., different colleges, clubs, organizations, chairs or departments, that are actively pursuing not only the HEI’s agenda but also their own objectives. In such structures, it is difficult to implement and uniformly enforce HEI-wide integrated marketing strategies by the dean or the dean’s office. Thus, such strategies may not necessarily be strictly followed by all of the HEI’s diverse actors (Watkins and Gonzenbach, 2013). Transferred to our context of event marketing, HEI events may be hosted by any decentralized unit as a potential organizer in an HEI and might be perceived as a marketing effort of the © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020 F. Neus, Event Marketing in the Context of Higher Education Marketing and Digital Environments, Handel und Internationales Marketing Retailing and International Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29262-1_3

34

3 Connecting the Stakeholders of Higher Education Institutions via Event Marketing

HEI; however, because of the decentralized structures and the differences between the central vs. decentral objectives, they do not necessarily follow strict uniform rules that might ensure that the HEI brand is portrayed in the desired or uniform manner. Additionally, when comparing HEI events (e.g., party, job fair, theatrical performance) with those of companies such as “Red Bull” or “GoPro”, it becomes obvious that the latter mainly engage in one specific type of event (e.g., action-heavy sporting events) that is best suited to their brand. Researchers have advocated the importance of the event type and have demonstrated the existence of potential problems when mixing different types; however, in HEIs, different event types are usually used (Kim et al., 2016; Crompton and McKay, 1997; Gross and Wiedmann, 2015). Events are an important part of everyday campus life, and numerous stakeholders organize and participate in events (e.g., parties, sports events, readings, job fairs) that are strongly connected to the HEI brand; however, because of decentralized event organization, these events often are only loosely connected with each other. Therefore, participants can easily come in contact with very different events that are officially connected with the same HEI brand but that portray very different parts of it. Because of the oftentimes decentralized structures of HEIs, events are usually less streamlined, and not all events are organized by the same (knowledgeable) team. Thus, the fashion in which events are organized and the level of professionalism regarding the planning and execution of events differ. Furthermore, event marketing in business companies, despite relationship building, is often utilized to promote new products or to generally boost sales (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008; Martensen et al., 2007). For HEIs, the goal (and content) of events is usually not directly related to sales or monetary goals and may vary among the diverse types of events from fundraising to building relationships with internal stakeholders (e.g., students or faculty), external stakeholders (e.g., community relations) or providing information (e.g., job fairs). Based on these considerations, we analyze the event success of HEIs. We suppose that because of the differences between profit-oriented companies and HEIs, HEI event marketing success builds on other pillars and is influenced differently. Generally, building on previous research and taking into account the specifics of HEIs, we build on a comprehensive literature review as well as theoretical implications and present a case study comparing two events at a German HEI. The results of this explorative research show that event success differs with regard to the event type and target groups of HEI events. By assessing the influence of fit on the attitude towards the event as well as the HEI, we thoroughly elaborate on these differences. Target groups show distinctive effects regarding the favorability of the HEI as well as intention to engage in positive word of mouth (WOM) about the HEI. Events that target new audiences (i.e., potential

3.2 Events and Stakeholders of Higher Education Institutions

35

students or citizens) of HEIs have a much stronger influence in this regard in comparison to events that target existing audiences with prior contact with the HEI (i.e., students). Practitioners should be aware of these differences and cater to the specific demands of the target groups. By inducing a stronger connection between the event and the HEI, thus potentially influencing the perception of fit, the desired effects can be influenced positively. In the following, based on a literature review, we develop our conceptual model. Subsequently, we present the method and results of our case study. In conclusion, we discuss the implications and limitations for research and management.

3.2

Events and Stakeholders of Higher Education Institutions

Although HEI communication efforts are spread widely among traditional marketing instruments (Bowden and Wood, 2011), events play an important role in HEI marketing. Events are hosted by almost every organizational unit and internal stakeholder group of HEIs (e.g., researchers, students, departments). The diverse events, among other marketing instruments, serve as the means to form stronger relationships with HEI stakeholders (Steiner et al., 2013; Beerli Palacio et al., 2002). As it is often argued that HEIs are forced to engage in relationship building, they are currently oriented towards satisfying their “customers”, especially (potential) students (Tavares and Cardoso, 2013). In addition, a variety of other stakeholders are important, e.g., researchers, potential staff, potential investors, research funding agencies, politicians, alumni, research institutions, and research groups (Pedro et al., 2018; Rindfleish, 2003). HEIs need to raise (brand) awareness in potential customers, push “sales” for new or existing “customers” (i.e., attracting new students, students applying for additional classes or next level degrees or attracting research funds), and create robust relationships with their customers for “long term sales” (i.e., donations by alumni). The more diverse the stakeholders are, the more diverse the goals that HEIs associate with each of these individual groups are. As a result, HEIs often offer a number of different events that target different stakeholder groups. Examples of typical events are job fairs, parties, theatrical performances or sports competitions. However, offering a diversity of events, despite its potential to correspond with stakeholder-specific needs, might also harm the HEI brand image. Combining different types of events and target groups might potentially threaten the overarching goal of HEIs to deliver a similar brand message because diverse and uncoordinated event messages might lead to diverse impressions of the HEI being formed in the mind of attendees (Kerr and May, 2011; Buch et al., 2011).

36

3.3

3 Connecting the Stakeholders of Higher Education Institutions via Event Marketing

Conceptual Model and Theoretical Background

Our research focuses on HEI success, and our conceptual model (see Figure 4) mainly builds on attitude and fit theories. Attitude has been argued to be a strong indicator of consumer perceptions and has been shown to strongly relate to consumer behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 2005). Based on the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991, 1985), we suppose that attitudes towards the event as well as attitudes towards the HEI as a brand impact stakeholders’ behavioral intentions.

Figure 4: Conceptual model

Previous studies have shown that events exert a positive influence on attitudes towards the brand (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008). For example, in the context of sponsoring events, a number of studies have shown a positive influence of attitude towards events on attitude towards the brand (Dees et al., 2006; Speed and Thompson, 2000). Research has also emphasized the relevance of event characteristics as antecedents of event success. Event quality can be regarded as a holistic concept that captures the perception of attendees (Jae Ko et al., 2011). Often simplified to “service quality”, event quality incorporates aspects of the planning and organization of events (Getz, 2005; O’Neill et al., 1999). Event quality can, e.g., relate to staff working at concession stands as well as the design and layout of event venues and other tangible factors (Ko et al., 2010). While there is no standardized approach to capturing this aspect of event management yet, Gwinner (1997) showed that the attendees’ perceptions of event characteristics, such as the event venue or the event size, are important

3.3 Conceptual Model and Theoretical Background

37

elements of event quality. Chen et al. (2013) and Yoshida and James (2010) regard staff professionalism as an element of event quality. Previous research has often used individually adapted measures to capture event quality and has analyzed its impact on event success (Hall et al., 2016; Papadimitriou, 2013; Stricklin and Ellis, 2018). In addition, based on fit theories (Osgood and Tannenbaum, 1955), we suppose that the perceived fit or congruence between an event and an HEI is important as an antecedent as well as a moderator of event and HEI attitude formation. Martensen and Gronholdt (2008) define fit as a “consumer’s experienced relevance and consistency between the universe of the event and the brand’s image.” Venkatraman (1989) provided a framework that differentiates between six different forms of fit. Among others, this author emphasized the role of fit as a moderator of relationships (e.g., strengthening the transfer of attitudes from one object to another) and proposed fit as a matching concept that relies on similarities of two (or more) objects (Venkatraman, 1989). Previous research has shown the relevance of the fit between an event and a (potential) sponsor (Becker-Olsen and Hill, 2006; Gwinner and Bennett, 2008; Koo et al., 2006) and investigated fit between event marketing endeavors and the sponsoring brand (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008). Fit was found to positively influence the desired effects (e.g., transfer of attitude). Moreover, Abreu Novais and Arcodia (2013) reviewed several image transfer concepts in the realm of event marketing and identified fit as a common factor that was included in all the models. However, with regard to the event portfolios of HEIs, we suppose that if institutions provide a wide variety of events, as is often the case for HEIs, this might be a threat to developing a uniform HEI brand image because mixing different types of events affects the overall impression of returning attendees and hinders a consistent perception of fit (Gwinner, 1997). Previous research has shown that events are likely to provoke behavioral changes in attendees. Events seem to be able to both lead to monetary advantages (e.g., higher sales) as well as awareness and publicity that work in favor of the brand (Pope et al., 2009). For example, in the case of fast moving consumer goods, events were shown to raise consumers’ purchase intentions of the promoted brand (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008). Furthermore, events (e.g., in the field of sponsorship) seem to raise brand favorability (Speed and Thompson, 2000). Favorability is a measure to determine the likeability, as a general perception, of the brand that exceeds the sheer interest in the brand but does not include a behavioral component (e.g., buying the product) (Speed and Thompson, 2000). HEIs should benefit from similar effects as profit-oriented brands. However, outcome variables that are relevant to HEIs differ from the FMCG sector. Stakeholder loyalty (e.g., student loyalty) to their HEI, for example, is an important goal in the current marketing of HEIs (Brown and Mazzarol, 2009). Events, in

38

3 Connecting the Stakeholders of Higher Education Institutions via Event Marketing

this context, are used to form relationships with HEI stakeholders. Events have even been argued to shape the perception of an HEI for decades (e.g., victories in important championship games) and to create long-lasting impressions for attendees (Steiner et al., 2013). Events also serve as the means to influence donors’ and business partners’ perceptions and intentions to fund an HEI or to conduct business with an HEI (Sung and Yang, 2009). Based on this discussion, we include the favorability of the HEI as well as the intention to engage in word of mouth (WOM) about the HEI as outcome variables in our research model. The favorability of the HEI captures a general perception of the HEI (Speed and Thompson, 2000), and WOM refers to the intention to recommend the HEI to other people and measures the attendees’ willingness to “talk up” the HEI (Rauschnabel et al., 2016). Studies about the choice process of students in regard to HEIs indicate that the recommendations of others are an important factor, thus providing further reasoning for WOM as a desirable outcome variable of eventrelated communication efforts (Broekemier and Seshadri, 2000; Dawes and Brown, 2002; Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2015).

3.4

Hypotheses

Based on our theoretical discussion, we suppose that the perception of salient attributes of events, i.e., the evaluation of event quality, is likely to serve as an antecedent of event attitude. The effects of event quality have been assessed by a number of previous studies. Ko et al. (2010) and Papadimitriou (2013) confirmed the significant influences of event quality components on the satisfaction of attendees. Furthermore, Sung Moon et al. (2011) found that event quality influences the image of the connected brand. Hussein (2016) tested the influence of event quality on revisit intention but could not support any significant influence. We therefore suppose that event quality influences attitudes towards the event but does not necessarily directly impact behavioral intentions: H1: Perceived event quality has a positive effect on the attitude towards the event. With our research model, we differentiate between attitudes towards the event and attitudes towards the HEI. We suppose that attitudes towards the event are more specific but contribute to HEI attitudes, and we thus suppose, based on attitude theory (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), that attitudes towards an event are important in forming overall attitudes towards the HEI brand. This relationship has been elaborated in studies of event marketing efforts (Weihe et al., 2006; Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008), and we thus propose the following:

3.4 Hypotheses

39

H2: The attitude towards the event has a positive effect on the attitude towards the HEI. Martensen and Gronholdt (2008) emphasized that the transfer of attitude towards the event to attitude towards the brand depends on the authenticity and credibility of the connection between the event and brand. We thus suppose that the fit between an HEI event and the HEI as a brand exerts positive influences on both the attitude towards the event and the attitude towards the HEI. H3: The perceived fit of an event and the HEI has a positive effect on the attitude towards the event. H4: The perceived fit of an event and the HEI has a positive effect on the attitude towards the HEI. Building on Venkatraman’s (1989) conceptualization of fit, however, we suppose that fit not only directly impacts event and HEI attitudes but also influences attitude formation. For example, Speed and Thompson (2000) argue that fit moderates attitude transfer in the context of event success. Additionally, the fit between the event and the HEI is also likely to moderate the relationship of event quality and attitude towards the event given that attendees tend to judge event quality based on expectations and prior involvement (Jae Ko et al., 2010). We therefore propose the following: H5: The perceived fit of the event and the HEI has a positive effect on the impact of attitude towards the event on the attitude towards the HEI. H6: The perceived fit of the event and the HEI has a positive effect on the impact of event quality on the attitude towards the event. With our research model, we regard WOM and HEI favorability as outcome variables that serve as indicators for event success. While we do not specifically focus on actual behavior, Speed and Thompson (2000) have argued that the favorability of an object is connected to consumer behavior. Based on attitude theory, we suppose that attitudes towards the event as well as towards the HEI positively impact WOM intentions as well as favorability, which has been shown in several studies regarding event-related marketing efforts (e.g., sponsorship) (Speed and Thompson, 2000; Gwinner, 1997; Martensen et al., 2007). We therefore suppose the following: H7: The attitude towards the event has a positive effect on the favorability of the HEI.

40

3 Connecting the Stakeholders of Higher Education Institutions via Event Marketing

H8: The attitude towards the event has a positive effect on WOM about the HEI. H9: The attitude towards the HEI has a positive effect on the favorability of the HEI. H10: The attitude towards the HEI has a positive effect on WOM about the HEI. In addition, we suppose that favorability serves as an antecedent of WOM intentions. Speed and Thompson (2000) argued that favorability evokes action from event attendees. Such activities are, for example, the intentions of attendees to actively engage in WOM about the HEI. Thus, we propose the following: H11: The favorability of the HEI has a positive effect on WOM about the HEI.

3.5

Methodology

To test our hypotheses, we collected data at two different events of a German HEI. To ensure suitability for this study, we chose events that incorporate the HEI brand, were organized by official HEI members and addressed HEI stakeholders. To capture events that address different stakeholders, we chose events of different types that focus on different main attendees. To ensure that the event selection process was guided by unbiased opinions, we conducted a qualitative preliminary study and performed in-depth interviews with 20 students (Mage = 24.65 (SD = 1.87), 45% female) of the German HEI. Participants were tasked to provide their opinions on the events they visited or knew of and to name specific events that they held in high esteem. Based on these interviews, we identified two suitable events for our study, and the interviews were used to verify the relevance and structure of the proposed research model. For the events, we chose a film festival and a HEI fair. For our purpose, it was important that these were recognizable as events of the HEI and attracted a certain number of attendees. Both events are publicly advertised in connection with the HEI, are held annually, do not address niche target groups, are generally accessible by everyone interested and have more than 1,000 attendees. The fair features individual stands of projects and departments of the HEI, a stage with multiple live performances by members of the HEI and a number of food stalls. Both internal (i.e., students, employees, researchers) and external (e.g., general society, companies, potential students) HEI stakeholders visit the event, with citizens and (potential) students representing the main attendees. The film festi-

3.6 Measures and Procedure

41

val features an “Oscar-like” award show, awarding films made by students. The festival is open to the general public and is visited both by internal and external HEI stakeholders; however, students represent the main audience (regularly more than 80% of the overall attendees).

3.6

Measures and Procedure

Data were collected at the two events. Attendees were approached and interviewed when leaving the event venue. The film festival yielded a sample of 145 respondents with Mage = 23.13 (SD = 2.8); 71.3% of the respondents were female. At the fair, we collected a sample of 172 respondents (Mage = 26.71 (SD = 13.34), 58.5% female). While the respondents at the HEI fair represent a slightly older population, the sample gathered at the film festival is, in terms of age and gender distribution, representative of students in Germany; however, the high age variance among the fair attendees results from the audience mix that includes a number of older citizens as well as younger, potential students. All the measurement scales were based on previous scales and, if necessary, were adapted to the context of HEI events. To capture attitude towards the event as well as the attitude towards the HEI, we used semantic differentials based on previous studies from Batra and Ahtola (1991) and Heise (1970). Favorability and fit were measured following Speed and Thompson (2000). To capture WOM, we used Rauschnabel et al.’s (2016) measurement. To measure event quality, we developed a scale based on Yoshida and James (2010), Gwinner (1997) and results from the preliminary study. Seven items were utilized, which are suitable for both events (e.g., location and staff). As control variables, we captured age and gender. In addition, we controlled for the participant’s mood when filling out the questionnaire because research has shown its relevance in influencing respondents’ evaluations and perceptions (Batra and Stayman, 1990; Batson et al., 1992). The scale to capture mood was adapted from Swinyard (1993) (4 items, e.g., “sad / happy”). While event quality was operationalized as a formative construct, all the other scales were captured via reflective measurement scales. All the items were measured using seven-point Likert scales, which were anchored at 1 (e.g., strongly disagree) and 7 (e.g., strongly agree). We assessed all the measurement scales for reliability and validity (see Table 5 and Table 6). For all the reflective scales, the Cronbach’s alpha values exceeded the proposed threshold of .7, and the average AVE of all the constructs yield values above .5; thus, we assume convergent validity (Hair et al., 2017). Hair et al. (2017) propose that all the items with a factor loading above .4 should

42

3 Connecting the Stakeholders of Higher Education Institutions via Event Marketing

be kept as long as the corresponding construct shows an AVE value greater than 0.5. All of the included measurements fulfil these recommendations. In addition, all VIFs are below 10, and we, therefore, suppose that collinearity is not an issue with our data (O’brien, 2007). Moreover, based on the examination of cross loadings as well as Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion that demands that the AVE should exceed the squared intercorrelations of the construct with any other construct in the model, we suppose that there is discriminant validity with regard to our data. Table 5: Constructs Formative instrument (Film festival/Fair)

Mean (SD) / Outer weights Film festival

Fair

Event quality

4.951 (1.152)

5.497 (.898)

The event staff was always friendly.

.106

.272

The event staff was always helpful.

.007

.198

The event venue was organized in a fashion that made orientation easy.

-.123

.041

The atmosphere at the event was good.

.094

.107

The program of the event was communicated clearly.

.107

.084

The event gave me pleasure.

.574

.451

The price payed and the service received are proportionate to one another.

.343

.247

Reflective instruments (Film festival/Fair)

Mean (SD) / Outer loadings Film festival

Fair

Attitude towards the event (Cronbach’s alpha = .912 / .905; Composite reliability = .933 / .905)

4.680 (1.059)

5.703 (.999)

Dull / Exciting

.893

.811

not Delightful / Delightful

.879

.839

Unhelpful / Helpful

.810

.707

not Thrilling / Thrilling

.872

.835

Boring / Interesting

.889

.804

Impractical / Practical

.648

.701

3.6 Measures and Procedure

Reflective instruments (Film festival/Fair)

43

Mean (SD) / Outer loadings Film festival

Fair

Attitude towards the HEI (Cronbach’s alpha = .89 / .901; Composite reliability = .917 / .924)

5.238 (.932)

5.701 (.821)

Dull / Exciting

.877

.824

not Delightful / Delightful

.869

.868

Unhelpful / Helpful

.680

.734

not Thrilling / Thrilling

.835

.887

Boring / Interesting

.839

.865

Impractical / Practical

.717

.726

Fit (Cronbach’s alpha = .908 / .871; Composite reliability = .931 / .906)

5.278 (1.192)

5.910 (.884)

There is a logical connection between the event and the HEI.

.831

.797

The image of the event and the image of the HEI are similar.

.845

.871

The HEI and the event fit together well.

.898

.875

The HEI and the event stand for similar things.

.884

.799

It makes sense to me that the HEI organizes this event.

.813

.707

Favorability (Cronbach’s alpha = .959 / .84; Composite reliability = .973 / .899)

5.395 (1.249)

5.262 (1.188)

I feel favorable towards the HEI.

.968

.881

I have a positive perception of the HEI.

.965

.833

I like the HEI.

.950

.882

WOM (Cronbach’s alpha = .938 / .842; Composite reliability = .961 / .904)

5.061 (1.514)

5.333 (1.234)

Talk to your friends about positive aspects of the HEI.

.962

.866

Encourage friends to enroll at the HEI.

.917

.849

Talk to other people about the positive features of the HEI.

.951

.897

44

3 Connecting the Stakeholders of Higher Education Institutions via Event Marketing

Table 6: Discriminant validity Film festival (N = 145) Event Quality

Attitude tow. Event

Attitude tow. HEI

Fit EventHEI

Favorability

WOM

Event Quality

-

.654

.136

.203

.065

.138

Attitude tow. Event

.809

.7

.159

.223

.051

.091

Attitude tow. HEI

.369

.399

.65

.15

.461

.493

Fit Event-HEI

.451

.472

.387

.73

.099

.137

Favorability

.255

.226

.679

.314

.924

.546

WOM

.371

.301

.702

.370

.739

.89

Event Quality

Attitude tow. Event

Attitude tow. HEI

Fit EventHEI

Favorability

WOM

Event Quality

-

.507

.297

.316

.404

.239

Attitude tow. Event

.712

.616

.507

.317

.399

.243

Attitude tow. HEI

.545

.712

.672

.278

.246

.341

Fit Event-HEI

.562

.563

.527

.660

.233

.186

Favorability

.636

.632

.496

.483

.749

.194

WOM

.489

.493

.584

.431

.440

.758

Fair (N = 172)

Note: Diagonal elements represent the AVE for the reflective construct. Correlations are underneath the diagonal; squared correlations are above the diagonal.

3.7

Results and Discussions

Since the model featured formative as well as reflective measures and the sample size for the individual events was limited, we used Smart PLS 3.0 to conduct structural equation modelling (Reinartz et al., 2009; Ringle et al., 2015). As the data were collected at two different events, we first calculated separate models for both subsamples (see Table 7). Model 1 includes all the proposed main effects, model 2 includes main effects and controls, and model 3 includes main

3.7 Results and Discussions

45

effects, controls and moderating effects. To assess the comparability and generalizability of the results, we also performed PLS-multigroup analysis (MGA), following the three step procedure proposed by Henseler et al. (2016), to compare the results between the two subsamples. Both the Stone-Geisser criterion (Q2-values) and the R2-values of the outcome variables show satisfying results with regard to the predictive and explanatory power of our models (Stone, 1974; Geisser, 1974). Our results show that most of our hypotheses can be supported based on our data (see Table 7). With regard to the control variables, neither age nor gender or mood have a significant impact. As expected, event quality yields a significant influence on the attitude towards the event for both subsamples, and H1 can thus be verified. Interestingly, the influence of event quality is significantly higher for the film festival than for the fair and explains more of the observed variance for attitude towards the event (see Table 7). We can also confirm the positive influence of attitude towards the event on attitude towards the HEI for both subsamples. Again, we observe a significant difference between both samples, and in addition, the share of the variance explained in the case of the fair is higher than that of the film festival. A reason for this result might be that, with regard to the attendees of the fair, it is likely that they experience their first contact with the HEI at the fair. In contrast, students, who represent the main audience of the film festival, are subject to numerous contacts with the HEI, and therefore, attitude towards the HEI is influenced by more than just the experiences at the event (e.g., quality of the campus, staff behavior) (Jillapalli and Jillapalli, 2014; Beerli Palacio et al., 2002). Thus, the influence of the event is smaller when forming (or changing) attitudes towards the HEI. Furthermore, at the fair, the HEI gives more information about the HEI itself (e.g., through the portrayal of different departments), while the film festival only yields experiences connected to the HEI and, more specifically, the department of media studies, thus providing limited information about the HEI. Nevertheless, H2 can be confirmed based on our data. The proposed impact of fit on attitudes (H3 and H4) can be confirmed for both subsamples as well as for both attitude towards the event and towards the HEI. There are no significant differences between the path coefficients observed in both subsamples, thus emphasizing the importance of the fit between the event and the HEI. Regardless, the fair yields a higher mean value of fit (see Table 5), indicating that the fair is perceived as offering a better fit to the HEI. Despite our assumptions, we cannot confirm any moderating impacts of fit. Our data instead implies that there is only a direct influence of fit on attitudes. We therefore cannot confirm H5 and H6.

46

3 Connecting the Stakeholders of Higher Education Institutions via Event Marketing

Table 7: Results of the PLS-SEM Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Path Coefficients Path

Film Festival

Fair

 Paths

Film Festival

Fair

 Paths

Film Festival

Fair

 Paths

EQ  AtE

.749**

.578**

.171*

.749**

.578**

.171*

.749**

.577**

.172*

Fit  AtE

.135*

.238**

.104

.135*

.238**

.104

.135*

.235**

.1

Fit  AtI

256*

.184*

.072

.256*

.184*

.072

.287*

.19*

.097

AtE  AtI

.278*

.609**

.331*

.278*

.609**

.331*

.291*

.616**

.325*

AtE  Fav.

-.053

.565**

.618**

-.053

.565**

.618**

-.053

.565**

.618**

AtE  WOM

.051

.055

.003

-.004

.051

.056

-.004

.051

.056

AtI  Fav.

.7**

.093

.607**

.7**

.093

.607**

.7**

.093

.607**

AtI  WOM

.348**

.456**

.109

.356*

.449**

.093

.356**

.449**

.093

Fav.  WOM

.491**

.179*

.312*

.487**

.182*

.304*

.487**

.182*

.304*

Fit(EQ AtE)

-

-

-

-

-

-

.002

-.016

.018

Fit  (AtE AtI)

-

-

-

-

-

-

.119

.019

.1

Age  WOM

-

-

-

-.046

.046

.092

-.046

.046

.092

Gender  WOM

-

-

-

.019

-.118

.137

.019

-.118

.137

Mood  WOM

-

-

-

.091

.003

.089

.091

.003

.089

AtE

.67

.545

-

.67

.545

-

.67

.546

-

AtI

.21

.53

-

.21

.53

-

.232

.531

-

Fav.

.463

.403

-

.463

.403

-

.463

.403

-

WOM

.623

.372

-

.63

.385

-

.63

.385

-

R2 - Values

3.7 Results and Discussions

47

Q2 – Values AtE

.446

.315

-

.446

.315

-

.445

.312

-

AtI

.129

.339

-

.129

.339

-

.139

.333

-

Fav.

.412

.272

-

.412

.271

-

.412

.272

-

WOM

.533

.266

-

.535

.268

-

.535

.268

-

.074

.087

-

.075

.083

-

.075

.081

-

682

1,018

-

1,048

1,292

-

1,103

1,326

-

.827

.732

-

.777

.704

-

.769

.7

-

Model Fit SRMR Chi

2

NFI

Note: * p < .05; ** p < .001; Bootstrapping procedure: 5,000 samples; EQ = Event quality; AtE = Attitude towards the Event; AtI = Attitude towards the Higher Education Institution; Fav. = Favorability of the Higher Education Institution; WOM = Word of Mouth; Film festival (N = 145); Fair (N = 172)

Regarding H7 and H9, our data do not fully confirm the proposed relationships. Attitude towards the event shows a significant effect on favorability in the case of the fair but not in the case of the film festival. Attitude towards the HEI exerts the proposed positive impact on favorability only in the subsample of the film festival. With regard to its impact on WOM, attitudes towards the event and the HEI show the expected positive and significant effects in both sub samples, thus supporting H8 and H10. These differences reveal important challenges for HEI event marketing. The reactions of the different stakeholders might enhance event effectiveness: Potential students, citizens or the general public with little to no prior contact with the HEI might draw their expectations and impressions of the HEI mainly based on the event. For students with more experience with the event as well as the HEI, favorability is not necessarily dependent on the attitude towards the event. Taking into account the differences in the explanatory power of our models strengthens this assumption, as it is higher in the fair subsample than in the film festival subsample. With regard to the effect on WOM, for both subsamples, we can confirm a significant and positive impact that favorability has on WOM, thus supporting H11.

48

3.8

3 Connecting the Stakeholders of Higher Education Institutions via Event Marketing

Conclusions and Implications

Overall, our results widen the existing knowledge about event marketing, event management and higher education marketing and close a gap in the literature by providing first insights into the effectiveness of events in the realm of HEIs. In our study, we can confirm the relevance of events as communication tools for HEIs. Events hold specific value for HEIs as they can help to build desired brand images and strengthen bonds with existing stakeholders. By examining two different types of events with different main audiences, we took into account the fact that HEIs usually sponsor a number of different events that serve diverse goals. Our results imply that the effects of events are strongly connected to the different stakeholders and the event itself. Our results demonstrate the advantage of utilizing multiple events with different themes and topics to serve the needs of different stakeholders and thus to strengthen relationships with internal and external stakeholders. However, the differences in effectiveness (i.e., forming favorability or WOM intentions) show that events must fit the desired target group. Although we are keen to include relevant determinants of event success, the explorative and case study nature of our study yields limitations that should be addressed by further research as our study was conducted at a German HEI, which has a specific governmental and cultural background that differs from that of other countries. In addition, while HEIs around the world are subject to a similar level of competition, the specific possibilities to actively engage in event marketing might differ. Furthermore, the type of HEI is likely to play an important role with regard to the impact and effects of events (Peruta and Shields, 2017). As we only included one HEI and no other form of HEI, conducting similar studies in different countries as well as including different forms of HEIs is essential to further widen the knowledge about HEI event success. In HEIs, numerous events are usually hosted and planned. With our study, we highlight the importance and the differences in event types. However, following Ziakas (2014), we suppose that examining and comparing individual events is not sufficient; future research needs to analyze the interdependencies of HEI event portfolios that need to be holistically planned. In summary, our results show that HEI events are suitable marketing instruments. However, because of HEIs’ decentralized structures, it is difficult to manage (or even oversee) all the events held and organized in connection with an HEI brand. Seeing that each contact of an HEI with its stakeholders might be valuable, events are valuable contact points that need to be well organized to achieve the intended effects. HEI practitioners should therefore address stakeholders with suitable events that cater to their specific demands.

4 Building Event Portfolios for Higher Education Institutions – Results of a Choicebased Conjoint Experiment 4.1

Introduction

Over the last decades, the competition in the higher education sector has intensified and HEIs are well aware of the fact that a strong brand can be a key element for long-term success (Brown and Mazzarol, 2009). In order to find new ways to attract students, researches and practitioners have long argued on the necessity of applying existing concepts of marketing practices to the higher education sector (Rauschnabel et al., 2016; Wæraas and Solbakk, 2009). Even though the market of HEIs is often regulated by national laws and conditions, the students that HEIs are competing for, have become well aware of the wide range of opportunities. Institutions that do not know how to compete in this global market will, in the long run, fail to survive (Arambewela and Hall, 2009). Therefore, they should be keen on positioning their own brand and articulating their strengths to potential students (Thuy and Thao, 2016). In many ways, HEIs have adapted tools and means from the private sector to take on this particular challenge (HemsleyBrown et al., 2016). They are perceiving their students as customers and are also starting to treat them as such, even further demonstrating the change of perspective in the field (Tavares and Cardoso, 2013). This is especially important for the idea that HEIs are trying to retain their students for as long as possible, trying their best to ensure that they will stay on for another degree or maybe even join the faculty (Nguyen et al., 2016). Therefore, in addition to market-oriented branding philosophies and concepts, HEIs have also made attempts to strengthen their general relationship with students through social events that keep students at various levels attached to the institution (Steiner et al., 2013). As a strong indicator of an HEI’s culture and a very intense form of interaction between the HEI brand and their customers, events can generally be a valuable tool for HEIs to obtain their goals (Kerr and May, 2011; Galotti and Mark, 1994). Due to their capabilities in regard to a possible image transfer from event to sponsor or organizer, events have been used for a long time to gain more attention and win new customers. Researchers have commonly addressed these issues in the private sector and found numerous factors that influence the success of such endeavors (Speed and Thompson, 2000; Gwinner, 1997; Gwinner et al., 2009; Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008). Alt© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020 F. Neus, Event Marketing in the Context of Higher Education Marketing and Digital Environments, Handel und Internationales Marketing Retailing and International Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29262-1_4

50

4 Building Event Portfolios for Higher Education Institutions

hough the basic assumptions and ideas are still valid for the field of HEIs, some factors differ, making this issue complex. Higher education marketing in general and the role events could play in that very field have not been in the focus of research and only few attempts have been made to scientifically study underlying factors that HEIs have to deal with, when professionally applying such tools to their efforts (Wæraas and Solbakk, 2009; Rauschnabel et al., 2016). Probably, the biggest challenge for HEIs is to deal with the diversity of stakeholders in general and within their main target group, students, specifically. As opposed to private organizations that convey the brand message of one brand or one product to a specific group of potential customers, HEIs must often address the needs of many different groups of students. Therefore, HEIs tend to organize multiple events for different audiences, leading to mixed impressions to attendees of more than one event. The possible effects and connections between various and numerous events organized by the same institution have not yet been assessed. Even within other fields of research, the combination of different events and their effects on possible visitors have rarely been studied (Gration et al., 2016). Hence, our research focuses on the issue of event portfolios for HEIs and how the combination of different types of events should be chosen to address the needs of potential students.

4.2

Conceptual Model and Research Goals

By building on a choice-based conjoint study, we aimed to (a) identify the importance of known event types for HEIs to form an event portfolio and (b) assess the potential influence of the fit of event and HEI for this choice process. Figure 5 depicts the conceptual model. As indicated, four different types of events were utilized for this study and the coherent events are part of the resulting portfolio. Based on the assumptions of the congruency theory (Osgood and Tannenbaum, 1955), we assumed that the perceived fit (level of congruence) of event and HEI will have a positive influence on the preferences of students in regard to event portfolios. Therefore, events that meet the expectations set for events of HEIs would be preferred in comparison to events that do not meet these expectations. In the following sections, underlying concepts and ideas of this research approach will be presented. In order to properly assess this field of research, we drew from studies from various fields connected to the presented issues. Hence, research in the fields of event marketing, higher education marketing, tourism management, and sponsoring all yielded valuable inputs. To understand the underlying goals of any event portfolio, we first need to provide the reasoning for its application in this field and then demonstrate the necessity of specific re-

4.3 Literature Review

51

search to assess the connected possibilities. Furthermore, the method and included study objects (i.e., event types and events) will be presented.

4.3 4.3.1

Literature Review Higher Education Marketing

The basic idea of higher education marketing is being researched for quite a while now and many attempts have been made to gain a better understanding of the processes that are responsible for the behavior of students while interacting with HEIs, one of the primary topics in this field (Sung and Yang, 2009; Hemsley‐Brown and Oplatka, 2006; Hemsley-Brown et al., 2016). Branding, for example, has been one of the important issues in this field and has been scientifically reviewed in order to identify influential factors that can be used to strengthen the image of HEIs (Brown and Mazzarol, 2009; Joseph et al., 2012; Thuy and Thao, 2016). A key element of this strand of research has been the issue of multiple stakeholders and how to approach them (Watkins and Gonzenbach, 2013).

Figure 5: Conceptual model

Many researchers have focused on students and their experience with HEIs, which has also been discussed in various perspectives. Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001) focused their efforts on gaining insights into student loyalty and how it can be managed. One of their key findings was that next to obvious academic aspects of a student’s life, the social elements are also important factors that explain the loyalty of a student to the institution. Studies that dealt with the choice process of students in regard to their HEI have also identified the influ-

52

4 Building Event Portfolios for Higher Education Institutions

ence of social factors and argued that these play an important role in a student’s overall behavior (Maringe, 2006; Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2015; Chapman, 1981; Douglas et al., 2006). Our research builds on these aspects and argues that events, as social happenings, can have similar effects on a student’s relationship with the institution. 4.3.2

Event Marketing

Generally, event marketing has been used as a tool that allows a brand to engage with (potential) customers in order to let them experience the brand message and truly get involved with other customers and the brand itself (Whelan and Wohlfeil, 2006). Although the events organized by HEIs are not always organized for the sake of self-promotion, they generally serve this very purpose. Therefore, one can draw from research conducted in the private sector to further understand the underlying effects of these means. Building on this, we can assume that the effects observed to gain insights into the general image transfer of an event and a connected brand, e.g., a sponsor, is very important to the basic idea of event marketing measures of an HEI as well. Generally, many studies have shown the positive effect of such an endeavor and have found support for the basic idea of building stronger connections to customers, generate new sales or boosting the brands image through event related marketing efforts (Speed and Thompson, 2000; Abreu Novais and Arcodia, 2013; Close et al., 2006; Dean, 1999, 2002; Martensen et al., 2007). Further insights can be derived from event management studies that are often focused on a big event and its effects on the host region or city (Chung and Woo, 2011; Florek et al., 2008; Green et al., 2003; Jones, 2001; Woosnam et al., 2016). Furthermore, research has focused on explaining the general motivation of event visitors to fully understand their connection to the event. The results show that these motivations vary from event to event and that the desired image transfer is also heavily connected to these varying motivational factors (BáezMontenegro and Devesa-Fernández, 2017; Kulczynski et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2004; Li and Petrick, 2005; Seo and Green, 2008; Trail and James, 2001; Wohlfeil and Whelan, 2006). The social dimensions of individual motivation play an important role, showing that event attendees are interested in the possibilities of meeting peers and interacting with others that share a similar interest in the presented topic. Building on these results, we can assume that events have the potential to draw students together, enhancing their knowledge about an HEI’s brand and enabling them to interact socially with other students.

4.3 Literature Review

4.3.3

53

Fit and Type of Event

One of the more important and frequently researched topics in regard to possible effects of brand-related events is the role of perceived fit of brand and event. In its core, fit can be seen as a match or level of similarity of two brands (Venkatraman, 1989). Although researchers have found arguments for different ways in which this fit can influence the customers’ perspective, the general importance was hardly ever doubted (Fleck and Quester, 2007). Especially with events and their sponsors, this issue has been tested thoroughly and shown to be important numerous times. Many desired goals of event marketing, i.e., satisfaction with the sponsor or event, purchase intention of sponsoring brand, and effectiveness of image transfer relate positively to fit (Gross and Wiedmann, 2015; Ruth and Simonin, 2003; Shu et al., 2015; Becker-Olsen and Hill, 2006; Speed and Thompson, 2000). Hence, it is arguable that the effectiveness of higher education events is also related to the fit of brand and event. Furthermore, events organized by HEIs should meet the expectations of students or other stakeholders in order to be effective. The type of event does play an important part in this issue and is one way for HEIs to manage the fit between brand and event. The importance of the event type has been discussed by researchers in regard to the motivation of visitors (Crompton and McKay, 1997), the satisfaction of event goers (Wang and Cole, 2016) as well as general image transfer (Gwinner, 1997; Gross and Wiedmann, 2015), expanding the perspective of other studies that focus on the image transfer itself without recognizing the influence of the type of event. 4.3.4

Event Portfolios

By expanding our view on the possibility of using the type of event to meet certain expectations of students and stakeholders, an event portfolio can be defined as a strategically chosen combination of multiple events (Gration et al., 2016). Unfortunately, in many cases, these portfolios exist by pure coincidence and event managers are not aware of possible interactions between the combined events and do not manage them as the bundle they truly are, thus missing out on possible gains through thoughtful management (Chalip and McGuirty, 2004). This factor also holds true for most institutions of higher education, where, often, several departments organize their events without coordinating their efforts. Research on event portfolios is scarce and related to a specific brand or event. Chalip and McGuirty (2004) identified the best portfolio for an Australian sports event, Ziakas (2013a) analyzed a regional event portfolio, and Gration et al. (2016) gathered the residents’ evaluation on another regional event portfolio for a pilot study. These studies provide insights into the general concept of event

54

4 Building Event Portfolios for Higher Education Institutions

portfolios, but for the field of higher education marketing and events hosted by HEIs, this issue is not yet explained. Examination of previous research has given reasoning to assume that the combination of different types of events to form a suitable portfolio can provide strategic advantages for HEIs to strengthen their connection to students. Building on these ideas, the following study was conducted to provide insights on how this event portfolio should look.

4.4 4.4.1

Study: Choice-based Conjoint Experiment Methodology

As a preliminary study, we conducted a choice-based conjoint experiment. Through this experiment, we aimed to further explain the overall behavior and choice process of students in regard to events hosted by an HEI. Generally, a choice-based conjoint experiment is used to assess the overall product utility that is generated by different levels of the attributes of the product in question. By displaying different attribute-level combinations in every option presented, the participant is presented clearly stated options to choose. They were asked multiple iterations to decide between a set of 3 or 4 options that represent different versions of the product or service being investigated and an additional “skip” option that represents the choice to buy or use neither one of the presented options. Based on the answers given by the participants, it is possible to determine the average utility of every attribute level (i.e., event) regarding the research subject. Researchers rely on this method because of its simplicity and comparability to real-life marketplace situations that participants can easily relate to (Hauser and Toubia, 2005; Currim and Sarin, 1984). Soutar and Turner (2002) used this method to analyze students’ preferences of HEI choice, and Chalip and McGuirty (2004) also based their event portfolio study on a conjoint experiment, providing some evidence for its suitability to the present context. 4.4.2

Measures and Procedure

To properly execute a choice-based conjoint experiment, we needed to identify the types and categories of events that should be included in the study. These “attributes and levels”, however, need to clearly identify different options and should be as close as possible to the characteristics of existing events (Sawtooth Software, 2013). In order to meet these requirements, a thorough market research was conducted. By examining the events hosted by HEIs in Germany, a pool of

4.4 Study: Choice-based Conjoint Experiment

55

more than 40 events was build. Afterwards, these events were placed under categories and analyzed for similarities to identify the possible type of events. Three experts were asked to look through the collected data and the combination of their work led to a finalized list of 14 events divided into 4 categories, that were included in the experiment. Table 8 provides an overview of these events and the coherent categories. In order to avoid the influence of a city or HEI, all events were described without any hints of places, people, or otherwise influential factors. To test the list, a small pretest was conducted among students (N = 10) to find misleading or unclear terms that could influence our study. After the list of events was finalized, we used Sawtooth Software Lighthouse Studio 9, a leading tool for conjoint experiments to conduct the study (Sawtooth Software, 2013). The participants were given a short introduction and asked to form a decision for 1 of 3 HEIs, based on their event portfolio formed by 4 events, one in each category. In addition to the experiment itself and the demographics, we also included measurements to evaluate the participants’ perceived fit of the HEI and the respective events in accordance with Drengner et al. (2011) and Sturm (2011) (How well does fit to an HEI?, measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “bad fit” to “good fit”). The final data set was analyzed using two different methods that are commonly used when working with choice-based conjoint experiments. First, through a hierarchical Bayes routine, we estimated the perceived utility of each attribute level as well as the overall average importance of the attributes themselves (Arora and Huber, 2001). The wider the range between the utility values of the attribute levels the more important the attribute was for users, since they clearly had strong preferences for certain characteristics of that attribute. The allocation of these values presented an overall utility indicator for a product. These values can, furthermore, be compared to the received input of the participants and lead to an overall assessment of the model. This procedure was followed by the application of the “counts method”, a click frequency-based approach, that provides statistical output to identify significant differences in the individual levels for each attribute and is commonly used to validate the results of the hierarchical Bayes routine (Sawtooth Software, 2013). 4.4.3

Results

The questionnaire was disseminated via social media and via email. The final sample consisted of N = 275 participants; 42.5% of the sample was female and the average age was 24.24 years (SD = 3.77). Table 8 depicts the results of the choice-based conjoint analysis. Based on the gathered data, we can see that the relative importance of the categories fun & party (28.27) and sport (27.05) seem to be more important for students than the

56

4 Building Event Portfolios for Higher Education Institutions

categories of career & networking (20.55) and culture (24.13). On examining the utility values of the individual events, we can see that some events clearly outperformed other events of the category. Especially within the category of career & networking, we can observe some vast differences between the utility values of job fair and alumni-network day. The averaged fit indices demonstrate that all the chosen events are generally seen as suitable for an HEI. The highest values were yielded by the events related to career & networking, including job fair that yielded the highest perceived fit among all the events presented in our study. The fit values only seem to be partially relatable to the importance of the event categories as well as individual utility. Reading, for example, was rated as the best fit in the culture category, but its utility level was the worst within the category. Although other cases seem to confirm the previously made assumptions about the influence of fit (e.g., job fair), the results show no general influence of fit on the utility and importance values. Numerous studies have addressed the possible influence of gender in regard to the choice process of students and their overall behavior while attending HEIs (Mansfield and Warwick, 2006; Shank and Beasley, 1998; Judson et al., 2004). Therefore, a comprehensive review of gender influences was also included in the present study. As shown, the importance of the categories differs between gender and even within the categories, the utility of events changed according to the gender of the participants. Although in some cases one might argue about personal preference for the event, which might be connected to gender bias, being responsible for some of the observed shifts, this aspect cannot be ascribed full responsibility for the observed portfolio evaluations. Once again, we examined the influence of perceived fit. We were able to identify four events where male and female respondents differed significantly in regard to their fit evaluation. In 3 out of 4 cases, we could see that the difference in fit evaluation led to more than 20% difference in the average utility of the event (e.g., Employer speeddating). The fourth event, theatrical performance, showed a difference in utility values, but only with minor differences. Although these values give reason to believe that fit has a general influence on these evaluations, other events with differences in utility values between the two genders (e.g., Open air Festival) did not show any significant differences in the perceived fit, therefore contradicting the previously made assumptions.

4.5 Conclusion

57

Table 8: Conjoint analysis result Event Category

27.05 (29/26.2)

Sport

Career & Networking

Culture

Fun & Party

Relative Importance (m/f)

20.55 (24.43/17.94)

24.13 (23.28/24.99)

28.27 (23.29/30.87)

Event

Average Utility (m/f)

Perceived Fit (m/f)

Sports day

17.85 (7.32/21.58)

5.18 (5.12/5.22) n.s.

Football tournament

-6.84 (28.24/-29.85)

4.65 (4.63/4.67) n.s.

Volleyball tournament

0.34 (-13.81/9.07)

4.65 (4.5/4.77) n.s.

Running Competition

-11.36 (-21.75/-0.8)

4.72 (4.49/4.89) *

Employer speed dating

8.02 (-1.47/16.31)

5.74 (5.56/5.87) *

Job fair

20.31 (26.01/15.07)

6.28 (6.21/6.33) n.s.

AlumniNetwork Day

-28.33 (-24.55/-31.38)

6.01 (5.86/6.13) n.s.

Theatrical Performance

4.25 (4.11/5.14)

4.75 (4.5/4.94) **

Musical

20.73 (9.96/24.87)

4.25 (4.09/4.36) n.s.

Poetry slam

9.01 (13.28/6.3)

5.27 (5.12/5.37) n.s.

Reading

-33.99 (-27.33/-36.37)

5.56 (5.38/5.68) n.s.

Pub Crawl

5.78 (22.94/-6.37)

5.31 (5.6/5.09) **

Open air Festival

32.90 (11.7/47.09)

4.92 (4.91/4.92) n.s.

Profs@ Turntable

-38.69 (-34.65/-40.71)

4.99 (4.79/5.14) n.s.

* .05 < p < 0.1; ** p < .05; *** p < .001; n. s. = not significant; fit was measured by a seven-point Likert scale

4.5

Conclusion

In our research, we were able to gain insights into the idea of event portfolios and their potential role in a student’s life. Through the choice-based conjoint study and market research, four different types of events were identified and data about their respective role in a portfolio was derived. The subsequent examination of the gathered data revealed further insights into the potential of proper event management for an HEI. Practitioners will be able to build on these results and form event portfolios or adjust their work in accordance to our results.

58

4 Building Event Portfolios for Higher Education Institutions

The differences between genders was an unexpected finding and could be of significance when examining the issue further. It seems reasonable to believe that the ideal event portfolio of male and female students differs, and practitioners should keep these findings in mind when planning new events. Further research should also address this issue and identify the reasons behind these differences in event preferences. Additionally, the results are not completely in accordance with most research approaches in regard to the influence of fit. Although the general assumptions about influence hold true in several cases, the data provided new reasoning that rules out fit as the sole influence of success in these matters. Research should address this issue and may reevaluate the role of fit in order to identify more influential factors to fully explain the observed results. One clear limitation of the presented study is the restriction to the German higher education landscape. Many researchers have addressed the issue of cultural influences and with regard to event portfolio, the influence could be significant (Laroche et al., 2004). Considering the fact that the higher education sector of Germany differs from the higher education sector of the United States, we can assume that portfolio analysis might present different results when conducted abroad (Sung and Yang, 2009).

5 Event Portfolio Management – The Case of Higher Education Institutions 5.1

Introduction

Events are an important part of many institutions’ communication efforts (Jago et al., 2003), which are used to foster relationships with their stakeholders and serve to portray the institutions’ brand message (Andersson and Getz, 2008; Dees et al., 2006). In HEIs’ marketing mix in particular, events have an outstanding role. HEIs have a very complex structure, and the high number of stakeholders (e.g., students, researchers, lecturers, research partners, sponsors, society as a whole) usually consist of different departments, and an additional number of members of the HEI, such as students, associated institutions or centers, can potentially host events in connection to the institution that are open to various stakeholders of the HEI (Wæraas and Solbakk, 2009). As a result, the number of events at an HEI might be very high, and their respective themes may differ substantially from one another. Consequently, the image perceived by attendees of these diverse events might also vary greatly, as different events held by the various units of an HEI usually serve different goals (e.g., promoting each unit’s specific objectives) and thus promote different images of the HEI’s brand (Hall et al., 2016). However, this diversity differentiates HEIs’ events from those of traditional brands. For example, brands of fast moving consumer goods, such as Red Bull or GoPro, usually streamline their events, organize events of similar kinds that address specific target groups and focus on similar event topics. Research has mostly assessed success factors of individual events, and most studies that have been conducted in this context have reviewed single events of one corresponding object (e.g., a brand) (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008). Few studies, however, have analyzed event portfolios. For example, Ziakas and Costa (2011a, 2011b) delivered a more comprehensive approach via focusing multiple events and discussing their combined perception as a portfolio of events. Although some similar studies and papers can be found (Chalip and McGuirty, 2004; Andersson et al., 2017; Ziakas, 2013a; Gration et al., 2016), the majority of event-related research to date remains focused on single events. Moreover, the existing literature on event portfolios often centers on developing theoretical background or studying very specific types of event portfolios (Ziakas, 2014; Chalip and McGuirty, 2004). Additionally, previous studies often focus the interplay of the events involved while not providing insight into the role of the event portfolio and its overall effect on the brand. However, examples, such as © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020 F. Neus, Event Marketing in the Context of Higher Education Marketing and Digital Environments, Handel und Internationales Marketing Retailing and International Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29262-1_5

60

5 Event Portfolio Management – The Case of Higher Education Institutions

the HEI sector, show that it is necessary to further understand the role of event portfolios in influencing brand images. However, broader and more generally applicable studies are scarce. Among other factors, brand and event fit has become an important factor that contributes to event success, e.g., in terms of enhancing participants’ intention to buy or to recommend the brand (Speed and Thompson, 2000; BeckerOlsen, 2003). This aspect has been evaluated in numerous studies and multiple scenarios. Most of the existing studies focus on the congruence of two objects but rarely take into account multiple objects (e.g., more than just one event) at play (Chien et al., 2011; Ruth and Simonin, 2003). It remains uncertain how the concept of fit influences the success of event portfolios, because not only is it likely that event-brand fit is important, but fit between events of the portfolio might also play a role in contributing to brand success. Consequently, the goal of this research is to fill this gap in the literature. Given the need to further assess the effectiveness and potential influence of different types of events in terms of their interplay in event portfolios, we have chosen an explorative research approach. We conducted two studies in the HEI sector, because, as indicated, HEIs are subject to varying demand by different stakeholders and offer different events with a focus on these diverse groups and their varying goals; they are often conducted without any responsibility of the HEI’s diverse units, which do not always cooperate or coordinate their events. Although these events are possibly organized by different departments or units of the HEI, all events are connected with the same HEI in the mind of the attendees. As a result, events both of a hedonic and an exciting nature (e.g., a concert or pub crawl) as well as events with a more utilitarian character (e.g., a job fair) are usually part of HEI event portfolios. Such event portfolios, therefore, often incorporate a very diverse range of events, which means that HEIs serve as a suitable example to study multifaceted event portfolios. Therefore, we use HEIs as research object. Via two studies, we analyze three different event portfolios that incorporate either very hedonic events, very utilitarian events, or a mixture of both events. We use a choice-based conjoint experiment in study 1 to determine the influence of event portfolio characteristics on participants’ HEI choice and to demonstrate how event portfolios contribute to HEI choice and what role differences between the portfolios play. The second study follows a quantitative approach in which participants are divided into three groups. Each group is tasked with evaluating one of the previously derived portfolios. The results show that fit of event portfolios to the HEI can be regarded as one of the most important drivers of HEI success. However, it is not the portfolio with the highest fit to the HEI that delivers the best results; rather, our data indicate that, although generally yielding weaker values for perceived fit to an HEI, a mix of hedonic and utilitarian events contributes most to HEI success. In the following sections, we discuss the theoretical

5.2 Literature Review and Conceptual Model

61

background of our studies and present details of two empirical studies that we conducted within the HEI context. Furthermore, we discuss the results and implications for event management and research.

5.2

Literature Review and Conceptual Model

In our research, we analyze the impact of different types of event portfolios on consumer behavior. Based on information integration and congruency theory, we suppose that the effects on consumer behavior do not only result from event portfolio evaluation, but perceived fit of the event portfolios with the brand – in our research context, with an HEI – plays an important role. With regard to consumer behavior, we relate to the work of Speed and Thompson (2000) and analyze the influence of event portfolios on word of mouth (WOM), liking of the brand and behavioral intentions, such as use. Our conceptual model is presented in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Conceptual model

5.2.1

Event Portfolios

Event portfolios are considered to be strategic tools that are planned and implemented by companies or institutions (Ziakas, 2014); despite being a complex issue, efficient event portfolio management, when conducted correctly, can be utilized to strengthen brand images (Ziakas, 2013b; Ziakas and Costa, 2011b). Thus far, a specific theoretical framework that examines the possible perception of event portfolios on consumers has not been introduced. We have therefore

62

5 Event Portfolio Management – The Case of Higher Education Institutions

developed our conceptual models based on implications drawn from information integration theory and previous research on marketing events to provide a theoretical framework to understand the possible implications of event portfolios. One of the first theoretical frameworks for event portfolio management was developed and presented by Ziakas (2013b). Previous research had mainly differentiated between two unique management perspectives that deliver reasoning for a comprehensive approach to managing event portfolios. First, there is the sociocultural anthropological perception of portfolios. This perception emphasizes the relevance of human capital that can be allocated best by connecting the organization of different events and utilize, e.g., work-related knowledge gained by the event staff. Thereby, better connection of the events can be ensured (Handelman, 1998). Second, a managerial-economic reasoning has been discussed, which analyzes how synergies between different events emerge in event portfolios and how they contribute to brand success (e.g., utilizing similar venues or concession stands to ensure a more profitable deal) (Ziakas, 2014; Chalip and McGuirty, 2004). Building on these views, Ziakas (2013b) argues that event portfolios should be analyzed following a holistic approach. Events should thus not only feature a strong connection in terms of efficient and synergetic organization but also be thematically tuned and sensitive to properly addressing the desired target group (Ziakas, 2013b; Laing, 2018; Gration et al., 2016). HEIs frequently fail to follow these theoretical implications and, subsequently, miss opportunities for proper portfolio management and coherent benefits. 5.2.2

Effects of Event Portfolios in the Context of Higher Education Institutions

A number of previous studies on event portfolios refer to communities (e.g., cities or regions) and are connected to destination marketing studies (Getz, 2005; Andersson et al., 2017; Gration et al., 2016). Research results from this sector can be transferred to the HEI context because HEIs feature similar characteristics as communities, such as a high number of stakeholders involved, different event types that are used and frequently limited resources to holistically plan a portfolio of events (Mazzarol et al., 2001). Nevertheless, HEIs are challenged by different expectations and a more complex and dynamic demand by their main group of stakeholders (i.e., (potential) students). Furthermore, events hosted on the campus of an HEI are perceived by attendees as being connected to the brand of the HEI, regardless of which unit of the HEI organizes the event. However, the individual departments and groups of an HEI that organize events often put forward their own events, often with little to no collaboration with other units or the guidance of HEI management with regard to HEI brand presentation (Paswan and Ganesh, 2009; Winter and Thompson-Whiteside, 2017).

5.2 Literature Review and Conceptual Model

63

Information integration theory implies that an individual forms its overall perception of an object by merging impressions that are gathered at different instances (Anderson, 1971), e.g., different brand contacts or – in our research context – different events. With regard to event portfolios, we suppose that the integration of information gathered at different events of this portfolio will lead to HEI stakeholders who attend different events to subsequently form overall HEI perceptions that are based on their multiple contacts with the HEI via HEI events. HEIs, however, often are subject to a ‘forced-upon’ portfolio, which has not been consistently planned by HEI management but which emerges as a result of diverse events that are organized by the HEI members. However, stakeholders are likely to perceive this multitude of events as an event portfolio. Similarities can be found in the general goals that communities (i.e., cities or regions) and HEIs share. In contrast to profit-oriented companies, where events are generally used as a means of increasing sales of products or services (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008), HEIs usually strive for nonmonetary objectives. Following Speed and Thompson (2000), we regard as important three outcome variables that relate to consumer attitudes and loyalty. First, overall liking of the HEI represents an attitudinal factor that captures positive thinking about the HEI and can be regarded as an indicator of general perception (Simmons and Becker-Olsen, 2006). Second, the intention to ‘use’, i.e., to choose the HEI as place of study, refers to behavioral intentions and is an indicator of HEI success. Third, HEI loyalty, which can be measured via the intention to recommend the HEI, for example, is regarded as a further important success factor. Engaging in positive WOM about the HEI is a valuable act for the HEI given that recommendations have been identified to positively affect enrollment (Tavares and Cardoso, 2013; Rauschnabel et al., 2016). Such success factors have been reviewed in a number of studies that analyze single events’ performance (Speed and Thompson, 2000; Gwinner, 1997; Martensen et al., 2007). We propose that portfolios are equally effective in evoking consumer behavior. Consequently, it is assumed that the behavioral intention, the WOM about the HEI and the liking of the HEI, will all be influenced through portfolios. 5.2.3

Perceived Fit

With regard to the effects of event portfolios, information integration theory and previous research imply that consumer behavior is influenced by further aspects that relate to the relationship between the events that are included in an event portfolio. In similar contexts, a number of studies have shown that perceived fit or the level of congruency between brand and event is important to increase brand success (e.g., Gwinner and Bennett, 2008; Koo et al., 2006). This “percep-

64

5 Event Portfolio Management – The Case of Higher Education Institutions

tion of similarity” of two (or more) objects has been addressed in a number of research contexts and has been shown to be important in influencing the perception of consumers in various settings (Osgood and Tannenbaum, 1955; Venkatraman, 1989). Generally, congruence theory suggests that consumers develop certain expectations about objects (i.e., brands) and that observed connections are measured by the level by which these expectations are met by a second object (i.e., the event) (Osgood and Tannenbaum, 1955). In the realm of event management, fit has been described as “consumer’s experienced relevance and consistency between the universe of the event and the brand’s image.” (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008) and has, in most cases, shown to positively contribute to the desired outcomes of sponsorships or other event related marketing efforts (e.g., Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008; Speed and Thompson, 2000). Additionally, for the context of event portfolios, we,, therefore suppose that fit of brand (i.e., the HEI) and event portfolio, as well as portfolio internal event-to-event fit, will also have a positive influence on the HEI and that, furthermore, fit will relate positively to the included outcome variables regarding consumer behavior (e.g., WOM). The relevance of fit between brand and events has been discussed in the literature, and many brands are actively pursuing a communication strategy that involves focusing on a certain type of event that has shown to suit the perception of the brand and delivers high value of fit between event type and brand in the eyes of event attendees (Smith et al., 2008; Ruth and Simonin, 2006). Research that relates to sponsorship deals that feature a long-term commitment, for example, and events that are strategically planned by brands supports these positive effects of brand-event-fit and provides insights that can be transferred to our context of HEI event portfolios. However, contrary to commercial brands, for HEIs it might be more difficult to create an event portfolio in similar strategic fashion. Due to the previously discussed complexity, an HEI’s events are usually manifold and rarely based upon the same theme. Moreover, the multifaceted objectives of event holding units of the HEI and the different expectations of the diverse groups of stakeholders involved with the HEI might even lead to event portfolios that include events of almost contradicting types (Watkins and Gonzenbach, 2013). For example, student quality of life (on campus) has been found to be a very important factor for the potential success of students, and events that allow for a brief escape from a student’s daily routine and that deliver hours of joy and fun are, therefore, a very common event type at any HEI (Abubakar et al., 2010; Veloutsou et al., 2004). Nevertheless, HEIs also host events that cater to students’ curricula and serve functional purposes (e.g., connecting students with potential employers) and therefore can be considered to serve more utilitarian aspects of student life (i.e., events based on the content of a lecture) (Sung and Yang, 2009). Santini et al. (2017), however, show that such a multitude of

5.2 Literature Review and Conceptual Model

65

events – despite their contradictory topics – might be suitable for HEIs because student satisfaction in higher education is connected to utilitarian as well as hedonic features of student life. Although not always clearly separable into purely hedonic and purely utilitarian events, events that serve both aspects, therefore, can be found in HEIs’ event portfolios (Gursoy et al., 2006), resulting in event portfolios featuring both events that serve more utilitarian objectives (e.g., job fairs, scientific readings and discussions) and events with a clear hedonic purpose (e.g., parties on campus). That said, just dividing events into two categories of utilitarian vs. hedonic might not be suitable because event visitors have both hedonic and utilitarian experiences when participating in an event. For example, Gursoy et al. (2006) utilized utilitarian and hedonic aspects to determine attendees’ perception of a festival and showed that they feature both elements and thus are not mutually exclusive serving only one objective. Nevertheless, for most events, either utilitarian or hedonic attitudes will dominate attendees’ perceptions (Gursoy et al., 2006). 5.2.4

Event (Portfolio) Quality

Properly evaluating portfolios of events is important to analyze the effects of event quality. One possible approach can be seen in terms of their ability to fulfill event visitors’ motivations to participate at an event (e.g., Kulczynski et al., 2016; Crompton and McKay, 1997). Previous research has identified several different motivations that event attendees strive for when visiting an event. While quantity, content and valence of motivational dimensions in previous studies vary, a number of motivational dimensions that are evaluated by event visitors when assessing event quality can be regarded as general dimensions that play an important role for visitors of different events. The first aspect is perceived novelty of the event, which relates to event visitors’ striving for something new. To fulfill such a motivation, events should offer something new and unknown to attendees (Crompton and McKay, 1997; Nicholson and Pearce, 2001). Related to novelty, events can offer attendees the opportunity to escape daily routines and recover from the chaos and stress inherent in their day-to-day activities, which has been identified as a second dimension of event quality (Nicholson and Pearce, 2001; Lee et al., 2004). A third factor that previous studies have analyzed is the attraction offered by events. Events can, for example, allow for spectacular and unique experiences and atmospheres (Crompton and McKay, 1997; Li and Petrick, 2005). For HEIs and their students in particular, such characteristics are regarded as important, as satisfaction with an HEI has been shown to be influenced by activities that go beyond the usual curriculum (Santini et al., 2017). Consequently, events can be considered to cater to these aspects of student life and, therefore, can be judged

66

5 Event Portfolio Management – The Case of Higher Education Institutions

by their ability to offer a change of pace. A fourth dimension of event quality is the possibility of social interaction among attendees (Woosnam et al., 2016; Formica and Uysal, 1995). To meet likeminded people and engage in social exchange while enjoying the event together is an important motivation to attend events (Formica and Uysal, 1995; Delamere, 2001). In the context of HEI events, Al-Fattal and Ayoubi (2013) argue that students and their social exchange is a valuable input for student life. Moreover, (potential) social experience has been identified to influence an HEI’s choice of potential students (Capraro et al., 2004). Consequently, socialization via events offered in an event portfolio also contributes to event quality. A fifth aspect that serves as a driver to participate at events is the opportunity to extend one’s knowledge and explore new facets of a specific topic (Crompton and McKay, 1997; Woosnam et al., 2016). Especially in the context of HEIs, this aspect is important and represents an additional dimension of an event (Fleischman et al., 2015). These five dimensions (novelty, escape, portfolio attraction, socializing, and cultural exploration) represent important aspects of event portfolio quality that attendees evaluate when assessing HEI event portfolios and forming behavioral intentions toward an HEI. We propose that the evaluation of these dimensions will contribute to the overall perception of the portfolios and, subsequently, impact consumer behavior with regard to the HEI. Generally, we expect a positive influence of perceived event quality with regard to each of these quality dimensions on consumer behavior.

5.3

Methods

To explore the effects of HEI event portfolios on consumer behavior, we conducted two experimental studies in which three different event portfolios were included. We first evaluated the relevance of event portfolios by performing a choice-based conjoint experiment because conjoint analysis is able to help provide information on the best configuration of HEI event characteristics and has been utilized in prior studies to determine the importance of HEI attributes (e.g., in the choice process of potential students) (e.g., Soutar and Turner, 2002; Walsh et al., 2015; Hooley and Lynch, 1981). While previous studies mainly assessed attributes of the HEI (e.g., distance from home, academic reputation, teaching quality), different events have not been taken into account in these studies. We therefore conducted a choice-based conjoint experiment based on the experimental design developed by Soutar and Turner (2002) to which we added different event portfolios. We were therefore able to assess the influence of event portfolios on students’ HEI choices.

5.3 Methods

67

Building on the results of study 1, we designed a second study as an experiment with a three factor between subject design, in which participants evaluated one out of three different event portfolios. For both experiments, we did not feature a specific HEI, to avoid influences based on prior contact, but generally focused on the German higher education market. In both studies, relevant instructions were provided, and students familiar with the higher education sector were the target group of both studies. Consequently, the events included were those targeting this important group of HEI stakeholders. To develop suitable portfolios for the studies, we first conducted a market analysis of events in the German higher education sector. Data about events hosted in connection with different HEIs were gathered and analyzed. We were thereby able to identify 21 different types of events. As with our study, we wanted to explore the relevance of events with either utilitarian or hedonic characteristics in HEIs’ event portfolios that address students, so we conducted a quantitative pretest to determine the perceived utilitarian and hedonic value of each event type. We collected a student sample with 36 participants (Mage = 22.33 years, 54.43% male) who evaluated the 21 event types based on single item measures via a seven-point Likert scale designed to assess the level of hedonic and utilitarian characteristics for each of the events. To gain insights to the relevance of utilitarian and hedonic events, three portfolios based on the event types were constructed to portray somewhat extreme peculiarities of hedonic and utilitarian aspects as well as a mixed approach. Our intention was to capture the influence of such different types of portfolios on student evaluations of HEIs. The first portfolio was designed to feature only events that were perceived as highly hedonic. Most of these events that were perceived as highly hedonic featured less serious topics and were not bound to a curriculum. Therefore, a pub crawl and a concert, for example, were included in this first portfolio. A second portfolio was constructed to capture events that were perceived as highly utilitarian. Such events showed a closer connection to career and studies; networking events to meet potential employers or to get an internship were included into this portfolio as examples for our study. Furthermore, a third portfolio was designed as a mixed portfolio that included both hedonic and utilitarian events. To do so, we combined the two most extreme events of both categories (i.e., highly utilitarian and hedonic). To construct distinct and unequivocal event portfolios, we only included those types of events that showed the highest values for either the utilitarian or the hedonic dimension. Therefore, of the 21 events extracted via our pretest, only eight were included into our three portfolios for our experiments (see Table 9).

68

5 Event Portfolio Management – The Case of Higher Education Institutions

Table 9: Event portfolios used in the experiment Portfolio 1 (PF1)

Portfolio 2 (PF2)

Portfolio 3 (PF3)

Public Viewing

Internship-Exchange-Event

Internship-Exchange-Event

Movie Night

Job fair

Job fair

Pub Crawl

Pub Crawl

Reading

Concert

Concert

Alumni-Networking-Day

PF1 represents the hedonic event portfolio that includes events with the highest values for hedonism, and PF3 represents the utilitarian event portfolio and consists of those events yielding the highest values for utilitarianism. PF2 represents a mixed portfolio of events and includes both kinds of events. We used these three portfolios to assess the influence of event portfolios on students’ choice process (study 1) and their overall evaluation of HEI conducting such events (study 2). A manipulation check was conducted that confirmed that participants evaluated the event portfolios as intended (Evaluated hedonism: PF1 – 5.43, PF2 – 4.9, PF3 – 3.29 | F = 61.012 and evaluated utilitarianism: PF1 – 3.74, PF2 – 5.2, PF3 – 5.82 | F = 53.688; post hoc tests indicated significant differences between all three portfolios for both hedonistic and utilitarian evaluation with p < .05).

5.4 5.4.1

Study 1 Design and Procedure

As indicated, this first study consists of an extended replication of Soutar and Turner’s (2002) study. Soutar and Turner (2002) included type of HEI, location, quality of education, academic reputation, course suitability and friends into their study and evaluated their influence on student HEI choice. The characteristics included in their study were validated and verified in a number of subsequent studies (e.g., Tavares and Cardoso, 2013; Briggs and Wilson, 2007; Ruhanen and McLennan, 2010; Petruzzellis and Romanazzi, 2010). Consequently, we included these attributes in our experiment and added event portfolio as an additional HEI attribute in our choice-based conjoint design (see Table 2 for a list of all attributes and levels). To perform the choice-based conjoint experiment, we used Sawtooth Software Discover Solution (Sawtooth Software, 2013). Participants were approached online through message boards and Facebook. Generally, the choice-

5.4 Study 1

69

based conjoint experiment scenario was set within the German higher education sector, and respondents were told to imagine themselves looking for a suitable HEI for a bachelor’s or master’s degree. In line with Soutar and Turner (2002), participants were asked to choose between three different HEIs that were described via the six general HEI attributes and an event portfolio of the HEI. By allowing participants to skip a final decision, the influence of forced choices can be eliminated, therefore, a “none” option was included in our design (Haaijer et al., 2001). The choice process was repeated 12 times. Afterwards, the perceived fit of the individual portfolios and the participants’ expectations of an HEI was measured through a single item measurement (1 (poor fit) to 7 (good fit)). In addition, we collected information on respondents’ demographics. 5.4.2

Results and Discussion

Our sample consisted of N = 150 participants with Mage = 23.85 years (SD = 4.885), 57.3% of which were male and 42.7% female. The levels of importance and the utility of each attribute that we included into our choice-based conjoint are summarized in Table 10. As shown, the results demonstrate that course suitability, academic reputation, quality of teaching and distance from home are the most important factors for students in choosing an HEI. These results are generally in accordance with those of Soutar and Turner (2002) and subsequently conducted research (e.g., Lee et al., 2018; Le et al., 2019). Event portfolios contribute to choice by 9.7%, and thus seem to be more important in driving choice than, for example, recommendations of friends or the type of HEI. Overall, the results confirm that event portfolio types seem to influence the decision for or against an HEI. Furthermore, the utility values demonstrate that PF2 positively influenced the choice of participants, while PF1 and PF3 exert slightly negative influences. It thus seems that neither highly utilitarian nor highly hedonic portfolios are the ideal choice as event portfolios of HEIs. Nevertheless, the mean values of fit perception indicate that PF3 is considered to be the best fit for an HEI. PF1 and PF2, on the other hand, show significantly lower levels of fit with the HEI. Based on previous research that focused on single events, we expected that the highest level of fit that would result in the highest level of utility (Speed and Thompson, 2000; Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008), but our study implies that this is not the case when studying event portfolios. To further examine this phenomenon, with study 2, we focused more precisely on each of the individual portfolios. While in study 1, participants were asked to compare the portfolios directly and, furthermore, evaluate the HEI as a whole, in study 2 we chose a between subject design to allow for a more detailed evaluation of each individual event portfolio.

70

5 Event Portfolio Management – The Case of Higher Education Institutions

Table 10:

Results of the choice-based conjoint experiment

Attribute and levels Type of HEI

Relative importance and average utility 5.1%

New / modern

8.2

Old / traditional

-8.2

Course suitability

28.2%

Offers courses that are just what I want

91.37

Offers courses that are more or less what I want

8.52

Offers courses that are not really what I want

-99.88

Distance from home

11.9%

Is close to home (less than 15 km)

21.60

Is a moderate distance from home (15-50 km)

7.92

Is far from home (more than 50 km) Academic reputation

-29.52 16%

Weak

-54.78

Average

11.72

Strong

43.06

Quality of teaching

22.4%

Weak

-81.66

Average

13.70

Strong

67.96

Friends

6.7%

Is where my friends will be going.

14.81

Is not where my friends will be going.

-14.81

Event portfolio

9.7%

PF1 (hedonic)

-4.7

PF2 (mixed)

7.0

PF3 (utilitarian)

-2.2

5.5 Study 2

5.5 5.5.1

71

Study 2 Design and Procedure

In our second study, we performed a one-factorial between subject experiment and included our three different event portfolios as factor. To perform our experiment, we chose a setting similar to study 1, in which participants were tasked to imagine themselves in a situation, in which they were looking for an HEI for their studies. This time, however, participants were provided with a basic description of an HEI (stating, e.g., a good level of course suitability). Then, randomly, one of the three event portfolios that we also used in study 1 was presented to each subject. Participants evaluated the five dimensions of event portfolio quality and perceived fit between the event portfolio and the HEI. Each participant judged these constructs based on the one portfolio to which she or he had been randomly assigned. To evaluate event portfolio performance, we included WOM, behavioral intention and liking as outcome variables. Liking was measured with three items, adapted from Becker-Olsen and Simmons (2002). Measures for behavioral intention were adapted from Speed and Thompson (2000) and the WOM scale was adapted from Rauschnabel et al. (2016). To capture perceived fit of an HEI and event portfolio, we used semantic differentials that we adapted from Becker-Olsen (2003). The five dimensions of event portfolio quality were measured using a scale that we adapted from Lee et al. (2004) and Crompton and McKay (1997). All items were measured via sevenpoint Likert scales. All items are summarized in Table 11. In addition, we collected respondents’ demographics. The questionnaire was distributed online via message boards and social media platforms (e.g., Facebook). Table 11:

Included measures

Novelty (Cronbach’s alpha = .834) The events… are adventures. are something new. are exciting. arouse curiosity. are beneficial to my personal needs. are unique.

72

5 Event Portfolio Management – The Case of Higher Education Institutions

Escape / Recover (Cronbach’s alpha = .929) The events… offer an escape from routine life. relieve boredom. are a change of pace from everyday life. relieve daily stress. reduce built-up tension, anxieties and frustrations. allow to recover from a usually hectic pace. Portfolio attraction (Cronbach’s alpha = .848) The events… are something special. offer new and different things. offer a unique mood. offer a unique atmosphere. Socialization (Cronbach’s alpha = .876) The events offer the possibility… to be with people who are enjoying themselves. to be with people who enjoy the same things I do. to be with a group. to see my friends. to meet new people. Cultural exploration (Cronbach’s alpha = .859) The events offer the possibility… to increase my cultural knowledge. to learn about the culture of the HEI. to experience local customs and cultures. to enjoy new experiences. to enjoy interesting performances. Perceived fit of HEI and events (Cronbach’s alpha = .945) The events and your perception of an HEI (are)… similar / dissimilar consistent / inconsistent typical / atypical representative / unrepresentative complementary / not complementary low fit / high fit make sense / do not make sense

5.5 Study 2

73

Use (Cronbach’s alpha = .898) How likely are you to… choose the described HEI for your studies? consider this HEI when looking for a new HEI? visit the HEI in general? Liking (Cronbach’s alpha = .922) How would you evaluate the described HEI? negative / positive unfavorable / favorable bad / good WOM (Cronbach’s alpha = .866) How likely are you to… talk to your friends about positive aspects of the described HEI? encourage friends to enroll at the described HEI? talk to other people about the positive features of the HEI?

5.5.2

Results and Discussion

We collected a sample of 246 participants (56.5% female, Mage = 23.66 years (SD = 4.04)), almost equally distributed among our 3 experimental conditions. Our sample represents the population of students, which represents our target group. No significant differences regarding age or gender could be observed between the subjects in our experimental settings. To test if event portfolios had the expected influence on perceived event portfolio quality and performance, we conducted several ANOVAs to assess mean value differences between the reflective constructs. Furthermore, post hoc tests were conducted to identify differences between the groups. Table 12 summarizes our results. In general, our results show that event portfolios seem to be evaluated as significantly different with regard to all included evaluation criteria. With regard to fit between event portfolios and the HEI, we can observe that while evaluated significantly lowest with regard to all event portfolio quality criteria, PF3 is the one event portfolio that fits best with the HEI. As values of the Bonferroni post hoc test show significant differences between all three event portfolios with regard to fit, one might suggest that event PF3, which is regarded as the most utilitarian event portfolio, might offer the most suitable form of events for students in terms of fit. Highly utilitarian portfolios of events might be somewhat expected to be held at an HEI. Content close to courses or in connection to career seem to be perceived as having the best fit with an HEI. However, when

74

5 Event Portfolio Management – The Case of Higher Education Institutions

Table 12:

Mean comparison of included constructs Mean (SD)

Construct

Evaluation

PF 2 (N = 87) 4.03 (1.08)3

Escape

3

4.78 (1.21)

3

Portfolio attraction

4.55 (1.23)3 3

F-Value

PF 3 (N = 80)

3.73 (1.12)

Novelty

3.6 (1.2)2

3.15*

4.55 (1.06)

3.2 (1.31)1,2

40.73**

4.4 (1.16)3

3.6 (1.24)1,2

14.06**

3

1,2

Socializing

5.34 (.95)

5.18 (.98)

3.78 (1.11)

56.51**

Cultural exploration

4.44 (1.16)3

4.37 (1.12)3

3.47 (1.17)1,2

17.36**

1,3

2,3

1,2

Fit Outcome

PF 1 (N = 78)

4.49 (1.14) Use

4.55 (1.14)2 2

WOM

4.31 (1.09)

Liking

4.68 (1.07)2

4.95 (1.1)

5 (1.02)1,3 1,3

4.73 (1.09)

5.32 (.77)1

5.42 (1.19)

4.47 (1.31)2 2

13.1** 5.07*

4.28 (1.51)

3.41*

5.04 (1.04)

9.18**

Note: * p < .05; ** p < .001. Elevated numbers indicate significant difference (Bonferroni post hoc p < .05) to enumerated portfolio (PF). Event portfolio 1 (PF 1) features hedonistic events, event portfolio 2 (PF 2) features a mix of hedonistic and utilitarian events and event portfolio 3 (PF 3) consists of utilitarian events.

assessing the outcome variables, these assumptions are somewhat challenged. For all outcome variables, i.e., for WOM of the HEI, liking and behavioral intention towards the HEI, PF2, i.e., the mixed portfolio, yields the highest values. These findings, again, challenge those of previous studies that only focused on single events and their fit with the brand (e.g., Speed and Thompson, 2000; Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008). In our two studies, we show that it is not the highest fit between event portfolios and the HEI that results in positive reactions, but seems to be rather the balance of events, combining both utilitarian and hedonic elements that provides the most value for potential students. Further details on the weaknesses and strengths of the diverse event portfolios can be extracted by comparing event portfolio quality evaluations. Participants evaluated the novelty of all portfolios as being relatively low. PF2 and PF3 show the highest (significant) differences regarding this dimension. Given that the included events were based on real-life examples from German HEI, this result does not come as a surprise. PF3 offers the least amount of escape form daily routines, whereas PF2 and PF1 are evaluated well in this regard. Interestingly, there are no significant differences between PF2 and PF1. The two hedonic events included in PF 1 seem to be almost as effective for escaping as are the four hedonic events included in PF1. A similar pattern can be found regarding the attraction of the portfolios, which also indicates the disadvantages of PF3.

5.5 Study 2

75

In previous research, socializing has been found to be a strong and important aspect of events in general and an important factor in the quality of life of students (Balduck et al., 2011; Barrera et al., 1981; Capraro et al., 2004; Delamere, 2001). The highest values for socializing are achieved by PF1 and PF2, whereas PF3 is perceived as significantly less valuable in terms of socializing. Cultural exploration and the notion of experiencing different aspects of an HEI was also judged as the weakest for PF3. Generally, events that allow for more social contact are also perceived to offer more cultural experience and exchange due to the input generated by the interaction with people with a different cultural background (Lee et al., 2004). Abubakar et al. (2010), furthermore, showed that the importance of events can also differ based on a student’s heritage. Consequently, events offering more social exchange should have also been perceived to offer more cultural exploration. However, this notion cannot be observed for the gathered data. The results indicate that event portfolio quality evaluation might outweigh the perception of fit. Students seem to assess the fit of the events and the HEI based on their own experiences and, thus, judge the utilitarian events as providing the best overall fit to an HEI. However, the particular preferences of participants towards events seem to play a more important role with regard to their behavioral intentions (i.e., WOM or liking). To further investigate the results and their indications, a median split of the sample was conducted, and two groups consisting of participants indicating low and high fit were created. A 3 (PF) x 2 (Fit Group) differentiation was then used to analyze differences regarding use, WOM and liking of the HEI (see Table 13). Table 13:

Group comparison (low vs high fit)

Group (Fit)

Use

WOM

Liking

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

PF1

PF2

PF3

PF1

PF2

PF3

PF1

PF2

PF3

1 (low)

4.33 (1.15)

4.77 (.92)

4.15 (1.24)

3.98 (1.24)

4.56 (.98)

3.73 (1.27)

4.46 (1.2)

5.25 (.76)

4.65 (.95)

2 (high)

4.83 (1.04)

5.36 (1.02)

4.75 (1.31)

4.76 (.63)

4.99 (1.14)

4.76 (1.53)

5.07 (.84)

5.48 (.82)

5.36 (1.01)

F(PF)

7.34*

5*

9.38**

F(Group)

16.2**

26.53**

19.24**

Note: * p < .05; ** p < .001

76

5 Event Portfolio Management – The Case of Higher Education Institutions

Generally, the group containing individuals who perceived the lower fit of portfolio and HEI expectations was also less likely to use or like the HEI and less likely to engage in positive WOM about the HEI. Therefore, the general effectiveness assumptions about the influence of fit do seem to also apply to the given case. Nevertheless, the conducted tests also strengthen the previously made observations, and the generally less fitting second portfolio yields the highest mean values for all the outcome variables for all groups tested. The differences observed are sometimes just of minor size and could not be significantly shown in the post hoc-analysis; however, the basic tendencies could be found for all possible combinations of the two groups (low and high fit) and the three tested portfolios. Therefore, the assumption arises that fit does play an important role and generally help to obtain important goals of event portfolio management of HEIs. Nevertheless, this influence seems to weaken at a certain point, and later, a better fit does not yield better outcomes. Utilitarian events are perceived as the best fit for HEIs and yield outcome variables superior to the data derived for purely hedonic portfolios, but neither of these two options grants the success of a mixed portfolio that emphasizes both traits of events. Although the existing event literature argues for the importance of a certain level of homogeneity when creating a portfolio in support of events, our results, thus far, show the value of heterogeneous event portfolios. Another interpretation could be that the variety seeking behavior (McAlister and Pessemier, 1982) of students might play a role. The notion of having a change of pace and experiencing different impressions of the same HEI might be a reason for students to favor a more diverse portfolio of events.

5.6

Conclusion

Building on the presented results, the previously discussed implications, and the literature review, single event evaluation and event portfolio evaluation should be addressed differently. Our results indicate that perceived fit works differently for portfolios. Brands evaluated in connection with a single event (e.g., sponsorship) has been shown to thrive based on a high fit of brand and event (Speed and Thompson, 2000; Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008). Nevertheless, the event portfolios connected to an HEI seem to be evaluated differently. According to our data, fit does generally seem to benefit WOM, behavioral intentions and liking. However, a more diverse portfolio, even though yielding lower fit, seems to more suitable for driving liking, behavioral intention and engaging in positive WOM about the HEI. Fit is certainly an important driver of event success, and future research should address the aspect regarding event portfolios in more depth. Only a few studies have been conducted to address the issue of fit in com-

5.6 Conclusion

77

bination with more than two different objects and events, and our study adds to this field (Ruth and Simonin, 2003). HEIs portray a special field for event management that demands specific care and targets different groups of society (Watkins and Gonzenbach, 2013). Generally, offering a variety of events might be considered the greatest challenge for HEIs. Our study provides insights with regard to the basic understanding of the different events and demonstrated the differences of hedonic and utilitarian events in the realm of HEIs. Notably, neither option can be considered an ideal approach for HEIs. In contrast, the results of both studies indicate that the portfolio with a mixture of both hedonic and utilitarian elements surpasses the two onesided portfolios. Consequently, HEI managers need to cater to the demands of students in a diverse and manifold way. The utilization of just one type of event, as is sufficient for many companies, does not provide a solution for HEIs. Nevertheless, the ideal combination of events cannot be determined by the conducted experiments. As indicated by Ziakas (2013b), event portfolio management should be considered an holistic task, which needs to incorporate many aspects of the underlying environment. Therefore, the complexity of an HEI (i.e., different needs of different stakeholders) needs to be taken into account and addressed sufficiently when designing an event portfolio for HEIs. Wang and Cole (2016) identified different types of attendees when examining multiple events. The results of that study indicate that even among a seemingly unique group of stakeholders, differences can be found. Moreover, the experience of attendees with a similar portfolio should not always be considered equal, and almost everyone experiencing an entire portfolio of events will obtain a unique experience and image. These issues should be further examined in general, and for HEIs specifically. HEI managers can draw on our results and utilize the input to strengthen their offerings and the communication of these efforts. Initially, the sheer number of events and the lack of proper control of their communication appeared to be a weakness of HEI event portfolio management. HEI managers should be inclined to support any event efforts, but, furthermore, HEI managers should try to properly connect these diverse events to the brand of the HEI. Through intense communication of a heterogeneous portfolio, e.g., through social media, potential students could potentially be reached and choice processes could be influenced (Ramasubramanian et al., 2003; Clark et al., 2017). Lee et al. (2004) as well as Bouchet et al. (2011) segmented event attendees to gain further insights into their motivation and develop a better understanding of the marketing potential for the individual groups. A similar procedure could potentially be valuable for the case of HEIs. It is likely that different preferences of portfolios might be found for different groups. Identifying these groups and developing offerings that suit their specific demand could enhance the positive effects of events for HEIs.

6 Differences and Similarities in Motivation for Offline and Online eSports Event Consumption1, 2 6.1

Introduction

Roughly defined as “a form of sports where the primary aspects of the sport are facilitated by electronic systems”, eSports is already a key phenomenon of the modern digital area (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). Organized in leagues and ladders around different games of various genres, eSports is a very successful business venture and still growing year by year (Warman, 2017). Through streaming options on various platforms (e.g., twitch.tv or youtube.com), eSports can be consumed by users all over the world (Yu et al., 2018). These streams are extremely popular amongst eSports fans and are often consumed by millions of users (Warman, 2017). Additionally, eSports events, often hosted in big arenas and stadiums, allow thousands of eSports fans, who are willing to leave the purely digital environment of the internet, to consume eSports content in a completely new setting (Hallmann and Giel, 2018). Where users were previously constrained to consume eSports alone at home in front of their personal computer, they now fill arenas to watch their favorite team compete on stage (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). Hence, the digital barriers and limitations have vanished, and the overall experience has been enhanced to fulfill aspects of traditional events. The basic content, following two or more teams competing in a digital environment, remains the same for the event as well as the stream. Nevertheless, many of the surrounding factors do vary and might change the overall experience. In this context, uses and gratifications theory proposes that consumers decide on the basis of their needs (e.g., escape from reality) which form of media consumption is preferred and chosen (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017; Katz et al., 1973a; Katz et 1

2

An earlier version of this paper was pubslished under: Neus, F.; Nimmermann, F.; Wagner, K. & Schramm-Klein, H.: “Differences and Similarities in Motivation for Offline and Online Esports Event Consumption”, Proceedings of the 2019 52th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Maui, USA: Association for Information Systems, 2019. Reprinted by Permission from Springer Nature Customer Service Centre GmbH: Springer Nature “Congruency, Expectations and Comsumer Behavior in Digital Environments” by Frederic Nimmermann [COPYRIGHT] (2020).

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020 F. Neus, Event Marketing in the Context of Higher Education Marketing and Digital Environments, Handel und Internationales Marketing Retailing and International Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29262-1_6

80

6 Differences and Similarities in Motivation

al., 1973b). Hence, this choice leads to a process which underlies the relationship between needs, the chosen consumption form and the gratifications obtained satisfying these needs (Palmgreen et al., 1985). Thus, the question arises how users are choosing a form of consumption, and what motivates them to attend the event on-site or follow the stream online. Answering these questions is of importance especially for streaming service design (e.g., chat possibilities, custom camera views or other personalization options) and marketing potential e.g., for advertisers to align their advertising efforts to the consumer needs in the specific context. Research, thus far, has focused on a variety of aspects of general eSports consumptions but did not deal with the different forms of eSports consumption. Macey and Hamari (2017), Hallmann and Giel (2018) and Heere (2018) offered classification approaches of eSports with respect to other phenomena, as well as traditional sports, arguing for its general importance and overall social influence. The general consumption motivation of eSports has been assessed by Hamari and Sjöblom (2017), who developed a motivation scale that especially caters to eSports. Furthermore, Pizzo et al. (2018) as well as Donghun and Schoenstedt (2011) have analyzed the differences between sports and eSports consumption. Surprisingly, a comparison of the previously described two forms of eSports consumption is missing. Yet, literature regarding general sports consumption indicates possible differences between different forms of consumption which is predominantly indicated through differences in the motivation to follow the event (Hu et al., 2017; Seo and Green, 2008; Zhang and Byon, 2017). Thus, to get a more profound view on differences between both consumption forms and therefore, be able to derive implications, our first research question reads as follows. RQ1: What differences can be observed in the motivation of onsite participants and online participants of eSports events? Moreover, studies have indicated that these differences might also impact important aspects of event success (Zhang and Byon, 2017). Relevant factors like satisfaction with the event and a corresponding attitude towards the event experience might, therefore, also be subject to the different forms of consumption. Thus, to get a more thorough view that goes beyond the differences in motivation regarding the event success, we strive to answer the following second research question in the context of eSports events: RQ2: What differences can be observed in the attitude towards the event and the satisfaction with the event between online and offline consumption form?

6.2 Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

81

By answering those two research questions, our study will widen knowledge on eSports consumption and assess the differences in off- and online consumption of eSports. To find explanatory ground for our research, we conducted a study at a league of legends event in Berlin. In the following, we will present the fundamentals of our research, the results of the study and derive implications for management and research.

6.2 6.2.1

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development Conceptual Framework

Figure 7: Conceptual model

Our conceptual model (see Figure 7) builds on motivations for eSports consumption in regard to the uses and gratifications, social-cognitive and general needs theory such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, two-factor theory and acquiredneeds theory. In general, we believe that choosing a specific form of consumption of an eSports event is driven by the actual motivation for eSports consumption, because consumers have specific needs, that they expect to be fulfilled via a specific media form. Interactions with the environment will lead to an evaluation of consumers, if their needs are satisfied by the consumption form and consequently, a positive or negative confirmation affects future media consumption behavior. 6.2.2

Motivation as Needs for Sports Consumption

In general, uses and gratifications theory is one of the most employed frameworks to understand media use and a related digital and nondigital consumption (Hamari et al., 2018; Salwen et al., 2004). Specifically, this framework helps to understand consumer motives for accessing and using a form of media consumption (Katz et al., 1973b). Consumers decide on the basis of interests (e.g., con-

82

6 Differences and Similarities in Motivation

text) and needs (e.g., escape from reality or entertainment) which media offer is consumed (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). The decision for a specific medium (i.e., in this context the consumption form for eSports) depends thus on the user’s motivations and expectations that their needs are satisfied by the media offered and therefore, a congruency between needs and an expected fulfillment (Severin and Tankard, 2014). In general, motivations are understood as a predisposition that drives human behavior with the ultimate goal to fulfill basic to more complex needs (Maslow, 1943; McDonald et al., 2002). Li and Petrick (2005) emphasize that the link between socio-psychological needs of consumers and their resulting motivation to participate in specific events has created a significant basis for studies on event motivation research (Crompton, 2003). Based on twofactor and acquired-needs theory literature supposes that the motivation of consumers participating at events is shaped by their needs and the expectations to fulfil these socio-psychological needs (Getz, 1991; Li and Petrick, 2005). Extending these assumptions by the social-cognitive theory, literature suggests that enactive learning renders this evaluation of fulfillment and therefore, affects related behavior (Larose et al., 2001). Enactive learning describes how humans learn from experience and consequently, how interactions with the environment (e.g., consumption form) influence media presence by (continuously) reforming expectations and evaluations of the likely outcomes of future media consumption and the related behavior (Bandura, 1986; Larose et al., 2001). It is therefore a process that describes the relationship between gratifications sought, media behavior, and gratifications obtained (Palmgreen et al., 1985). Consequently, the expectations of satisfaction of needs lead to the choice of a specific consumption form and consequently, the exposure to this specific media environment determines future behavior due to consumers’ evaluations (Kaye et al., 2018; Larose et al., 2001; Sundar and Limperos, 2013). Hamari et al. (2018) emphasize that the uses and gratifications framework has been used by research from various domains to investigate motives associated with different contexts and especially in the context of video games, such as video games in general (Chen and Leung, 2016; Kim and Ross, 2006; Merhi, 2016), online video game streaming (HilvertBruce et al., 2018; Sjöblom and Hamari, 2017) and eSports in particular (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). Moreover, differences in offline and online consumption motivation (e.g., news consumption form) have been assessed by taking the uses and gratifications concept into account (Salwen et al., 2004). General motivations to attend events have been studied for several years and researchers strived for a more profound knowledge to understand the different groups of attendees to better meet their needs. To do so, research focused on developing scales that include the relevant motivation dimensions. For instance, Uysal et al. (1993) were among the first to develop a scale that dealt with the different dimensions of event attendees’ motivations. Specific elements of spec-

6.2 Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

83

tator motivation were identified through additional research and coherent measurements derived (McDonald et al., 2002; Wann, 1995). Versions of the scale were adapted to various settings and tested at numerous events, showing its general usefulness to describe the event participation motivation. Moreover, Scholars utilized different dimensions of motivation to, e.g., segment different groups of visitors (Backman et al., 1995; Formica and Uysal, 1995). Trail and James (2001), subsequently, build on the known scales and coherent dimensions of motivation to develop the MSSC, that was designed to measure the general motivation for sport consumption (e.g., basketball or soccer), independent from a specific event. Their work, subsequently, was verified through numerous studies that assessed broader aspects of sport consumption and related behavior, e.g., the differences of male and female sport fans (Byon et al., 2010; Ridinguer and James, 2002) and, thus, demonstrating the range of possible applications for the scale to assess motivation. Recently, Hamari and Sjöblom (2017), build on the MSSC to develop a tool that was applicable to eSports. Consequently, they are able to derive insights about the comparability of eSports and traditional sports and extend the knowledge about eSports consumption. Nevertheless, the form of eSports consumption (i.e., digital or analogue) is not subject to their assessment. Yet, the motivation for eSports consumption and the related decision for a media form is particularly interesting, because eSports roots in digital environments, whereas classical sports (e.g., soccer or basketball) originated from an analogue world of consumption (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017; Zhang and Byon, 2017). Thus, the online consumption form of eSports existed before offline consumption forms (i.e., non-purely digital events) were introduced (Scholz, 2019). Consequently, we build on the work of Hamari and Sjöblom (2017) and assess differences of the eSports consumption forms based on the adapted version of the MSSC. This scale consists of the dimensions taken from the original MSSC by Trail and James (2001), however, adapted to the eSports context: 



The dimension social interaction refers to the notion that people consuming eSports seek contact with like-minded individuals (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). Generally, the possible association with an (unknown) group or individuals and socializing opportunities with friends, business partners or other acquaintances has been found to be an important driver for event attendance and sport consumption alike (Crompton and McKay, 1997; McDonald et al., 2002). Experiencing vicarious achievements through, e.g., successful games by a player or team is the second motivation dimension (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). Witnessing how the favorite player wins an important game or successfully executes an important play evokes positive feelings for the spec-

84











6 Differences and Similarities in Motivation

tating fan (Trail and James, 2001). The desire, to experience these feelings and be part of the moment, potentially drives fans to follow events. Especially for attendees that are also playing the game at home, the possibility to acquire knowledge might be of importance as a motivation to consume eSports. By following the live gameplay of a professional eSports game, where the most skilled players are competing with one another, spectators can learn new strategies or tactics that enable them to strengthen their own gaming performance (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). Spectators might also be interested in experiencing the skillset of professional players and enjoy the performance of the high level of gameplay (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). The importance of this dimension can especially be found for active players, as they can truly appreciate and evaluate specific skills by comparing the gameplay with their own performance in the game (McDonald et al., 2002). Likewise connected to the game itself is the perceived aesthetics of the sport. This dimension relates to the grace and beauty that is coherent in the game (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). Especially for sporting activities like ice skating or gymnastics, this aspect can be very important to draw a crowd to the event (Milne and McDonald, 1999). Relating to eSports, the maneuver of in-game characters or the beauty of the displayed scenery might evoke similar feelings for possible attendees, motivating them to attend or follow an eSports event (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). A more general dimension of motivation to attend or follow an eSports game can be found in the desire to escape from daily routines. The game, the event and the, for most, unusual occasion of experiencing it live deals as a distraction from regular life (Gantz and Wenner, 1995). Reducing stress by escaping to another environment and switch into another mindset as long as the event lasts has been found to be an important reason for actively participating as well as spectating an event (Milne and McDonald, 1999). Lastly, the coherent drama of undecided games and close competition amongst rivals also motivates visitors to attend an event (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). Enjoying the atmosphere of important games (e.g., championship finals) evokes emotional reactions that attendees were found interested in experiencing (Trail and James, 2001).

These dimensions (social interaction, vicarious achievements, acquisition of knowledge, skillset of professional players, aesthetics, escape and drama) build the MSSC that was already utilized to measure general eSports consumption (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017; Katz et al., 1973b). However, based on previous research, we propose that the actual environment of consumption impacts the overall experience (Seo, 2013) so that different forms of participation (i.e., pure digital online vs. offline at the event venue) might shape different expectations

6.2 Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

85

regarding which form of consumption satisfies the needs best. Hence, in the following we will present reasoning for potential influences of these motivational factors on the choice of consumption form and derive respective hypotheses. 6.2.3

Hypothesis Development

One key element of events is related to interaction of people with one another. Often, groups of friends or family attend an event together and use the provided content as a platform for their social interaction with each other (Kerr and May, 2011; Pons et al., 2006). This is something that also holds true for eSports in general (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). Nowadays, technology allows for interaction with other users in virtual places. Streaming platforms, e.g., twitch.tv, have integrated features that allow contact with other individuals while consuming an eSports stream (Bründl et al., 2017; Scheibe et al., 2016). Therefore, the basic possibility of interaction is provided in both consumption scenarios. However, researchers have argued that the virtual interaction with peers or family is often seen as a substitute for real life interaction (Seo and Green, 2008). Users of streams could certainly be interested in using interaction features of provided platforms, but the social connection is much more relatable to a real-life interaction provided by event. Hence, we argue that there will be differences in offline and online eSports consumption in the social dimensions of motivation. H1: Social motivation to participate in an event will be significantly higher for offline than for online participants. Next to the socialization with other visitors or users of an eSports event, the perceived social connection to the players is also an important motivational factor for (e)sport consumption. Experiencing a victorious achievement and celebrating the success of a favorite player is considered to be an important motivational factor of all sport spectators (Dale et al., 2005; Fink et al., 2002; Gantz and Wenner, 1995). When comparing the two consumption possibilities of eSports, one can argue that the offline consumption allows for a stronger connection with other fans and spectators, while the online consumption enhances the perceived connection to victorious players. eSports has been an online phenomena and most active players are still using websites, social media and other virtual communities to present themselves (Seo, 2013; Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). Events are a sort of exception to these normal representations, that are hosted irregularly and sometimes far away from specific fans (Seo and Jung, 2016). Nonetheless, fans of specific players will be able to follow their favorite team or player online. In a successful game, their fan-based perceived connection will, as it does in most sports, lead to a perceived level of combined success, where the victory

86

6 Differences and Similarities in Motivation

will in turn be perceived as a personal achievement (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017; Wann, 1995; Wann and Branscombe, 1993). Attendees of the event will certainly not be free of this motivational dimension, but the perceived achievement of online users will be, based on this reasoning, significantly higher: H2: Achievement motivation to participate in an event will be significantly higher for online than for offline participants. Moreover, gaining knowledge has been shown to be a relevant factor for sport consumption, e.g., learning about the players or teams and sharing this information in conversations about sports or to improve own skills in the respective sport (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). Attending any form of sporting event generally offers different forms of knowledge acquisition. One aspect can be found in the possibility of attendees to inform themselves about the venue, players and teams (Gantz and Wenner, 1995; Wenner, 2013). Furthermore, information about the sport in general, e.g., tactics or play styles, can be obtained by attendees (Karp and Yoels, 1990). Users following the stream, or people attending the event, are also very likely to play this game themselves. Experiencing other (professional) players playing the game offers the possibility to extend their own degree of knowledge about the game and possible strategies and tactics. Both dimensions are, therefore, expected to influence any form of eSports consumption. However, Hamilton et al. (2014) have discussed the importance of knowledge sharing in online media consumption settings and stated that new streaming platforms offer enormous potential to exchange expertise about the issue. Yet, differences in acquisition of knowledge should be a key difference between the two consumption forms, leading to different ways of game portrayal. People at the event will most likely not be as close to the action as streaming users. Building on additional features of twitch and similar websites, users are enabled to follow the action intensively and learn about the game, the players’ tactics and strategies. Therefore, we assume that the motivation to obtain knowledge will be significantly higher for stream users: H3: Acquisition of knowledge motivation to participate in an event will be significantly higher for online than for offline participants. Opportunities to experience the skillset of players are provided for online and offline consumption forms (Pizzo et al., 2018). However, the provided features of streaming platforms exceed the event attendees’ point of view in the arena, e.g., to improve own skills (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). Where event attendees are, by design, forced to follow a broader overview of the game and the related action, stream users are enabled to follow the game closely and appreciate the

6.2 Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

87

skillset of players (van Hilvoorde and Pot, 2016; Weiss and Schiele, 2013). The implemented platforms even allow users to switch between different viewpoints, enabling them to exclusively follow individual players and obtain a better understanding of their tactics. For instance, stream viewers can actively switch and choose between different game perspectives. Thereby, they can, e.g., utilize third-person and first-person views (e.g., seeing directly what the athlete sees), which are unique to eSports and which affect remarkably how the consumer can follow a match. Here, some event broadcasts even offer complete freedom to move within the in-game environment (e.g., Defense of the Ancients II), which is superior to traditional broadcasting means such as soccer or basketball. Hence, these digital environments offer static streaming broadcasts, where multiple camera angles are chosen by the moderator. However, they also offer active environments where the observer can directly choose the camera perspective. Consequently, the online consumption of an event offers more comprehensive opportunities to follow individual players and performances in comparison to offline consumption. Therefore, the motivation to appreciate the skillset of the involved players will be significantly higher for online participants. H4: The motivation to experience the skillset of professional players will be significantly higher for online than for offline participants. Another aspect of the game, that motivates potential spectators, is the aesthetic demonstration of players. Relating to the elegance or excellence of the sport, this motivational trait is especially influential in very visual sports that allow spectators to observe a detailed form of sport (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). Therefore, sports that allow, or even generally include the judgement of strong visual elements, e.g., gymnastics, are commonly considered to attract viewers with a strong aesthetic motivation (Fink et al., 2002; Trail and James, 2001; Wann, 1995). Here, Hamari and Sjöblom (2017) found that eSports consumption was negatively influenced by the aesthetic motivation of users. They argued that the basic link between this motivational dimension and the eSports consumption was very well given, but that the form of utilization as well as the game genre in question would play an important role. In deference to traditional forms of sport, most games played feature long and intensive battles. Therefore, the possibility to enjoy and observe specifics of the players’ skillset are rather limited. Other forms of sports, e.g., gymnastics or golf, do offer a relaxed setting that allows spectators to observe the performance of a single athlete while most games played in eSports are based on interaction of two or more teams with almost no break. Because of a continuous gameplay and interaction of players, the opportunities of spectators to focus on a single player’s performance is limited. Nevertheless, a general possibility of enjoying an aesthetic performance is certainly given in both forms of consumption and build on the discussed advantages of the

88

6 Differences and Similarities in Motivation

existing platforms. One example of these eSports aesthetics might be the players’ performance with the mouse and keyboard, i.e., the so-called (and often depicted) actions per minute. However, these actions need close ups of the players’ hands, which are more usually broadcast within streams (e.g., by picture in picture), whereas the offline consumption, i.e., the big screen at the event, mostly focuses on the actual gameplay. Thus, we argue that the online participants will show a significantly higher aesthetic motivation based on the consumption possibilities: H5: Aesthetics motivation to participate in an event will be significantly higher for online than for offline participants. Moreover, based on previous research into sports event consumption, we argue that an escape from daily routines is another dimension of motivation. The content observed might be used as a distraction from problems and issues that might bother the individual (Gantz and Wenner, 1995). Sports consumption in general, and eSports consumption specifically, have been shown to cater for this dimension of motivation (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017; Trail and James, 2001). Offline and online consumption of eSports events should, therefore, be able to provide possibilities for escapism to users and attendees alike. However, recent research shows that the actual environment of consumption impacts the overall experience (Seo, 2013; Seo and Jung, 2016). Thus, consuming a stream at home might be less effective in creating an escape perception, because the environment (e.g., in front of a PC or television) is still like other daily experiences. On the other hand, visiting an event on-site (e.g., arena) offers new and as yet unknown impressions and thus, should be sought by consumers with a more distinct desire for escape. Based on the assumptions of Kahneman (1973) regarding attention and efforts, we propose that new impressions lead to a need of higher capacities to process the surrounding information and thus, reduce the probability to think about mundane things. Hence, we hypothesize: H6: Escape motivation to participate in an event will be significantly higher for offline than for online participants. Moreover, the drama of a match is another dimension of motivation and might be very similar to the previous dimension in the case of the impact of an offline event. Drama refers to the uncertain outcome of games. A close game that offers a lot of excitement to viewers is a key element of (e)sport consumption (Pizzo et al., 2018; Pons et al., 2006; Trail and James, 2001), since the content provided offline and online is identical and allows both groups to experience the game and its outcome. However, drama might be interpreted as multidimensional and thus, should be affected by more influential factors than just the outcome of a match.

6.2 Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

89

For instance, the overall atmosphere in an arena with thousands of spectators following an extremely thrilling game situation should intensify the perceived drama. Similar results can be observed, for example, in research into basketball or other forms of sport consumption (Chen et al., 2013; Zhang and Byon, 2017). Thus, eSports enthusiasts with a more distinct need for drama, should seek offline event participation: H7: Drama motivation to participate in an event will be significantly higher for offline than for online participants. The attitude towards the event has been identified as a key factor to explain event-related behavior and measure the overall success of events (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008). Especially in regard of sponsoring effects, the attitude towards the event and the related brand have shown significant influence (Carrillat et al., 2005; Ruth and Simonin, 2003). Therefore, eSports events and offerings should be keen on understanding the influential factors of attitude towards the event and how it is related to the form of consumption (Macey and Hamari, 2017; Seo, 2013). Hence, we argue that the attitude towards an eSports event is also an important factor to be assessed when analyzing the different consumption forms. Gursoy et al. (2006) introduced the concept of two dimensional attitude towards an event. With the distinction of utilitarian and hedonic aspects, they argue, the different factors of event consumption can better be described this way (Gursoy et al., 2006). Similar approaches have also been brought forward in digital environments where Salehan et al. (2017) have found reasoning that both dimensions are also relevant to explain the behavior of users in social networking services. Hedonic attitude of event consumption relates to aspects of enjoyment and perceived fun yielded through the event (Gursoy et al., 2006). These aspects may be perceived differently from individual to individual, but a general understanding that this dimension plays a vital part in explaining attitude towards an event is assumed (Gursoy et al., 2006). In digital environments, hedonic attitude has been connected to self-enhancing and joyful experiences, that are also perceived individually (van der Heijden, 2004). In particular, research into SNS has addressed this issue and concluded that the social features (e.g., connecting with other users) are very relevant to explain the perceived enjoyment of involved users (Salehan et al., 2017). In regard to electronic gaming, research has also identified social interaction to play a vital role in explaining the hedonic attitude of users (Salehan et al., 2017). As previously stated, the environmental setting of offline consumption will enhance the perceived connection of attendees. Therefore, we argue that the overall attitude towards the event will be significantly higher for offline participants:

90

6 Differences and Similarities in Motivation

H8: Hedonic attitude towards the event will be significantly higher for offline than for online participants. Utilitarian factors relate to the possibility of event attendees or stream users to utilize the experience to their advantage (Gursoy et al., 2006). In digital environments, e.g., SNS, users tend to advance their career by connecting with possible employers online, or sharing and gathering job-related information (Salehan et al., 2017). Furthermore, users tend to visit websites as a source of knowledge that enhances their private or professional life (Ardichvili et al., 2003). Similar effects can be expected in regard of streaming options of eSports events. Websites are often conceived as a tool that enables users to enhance their personal or private life. Therefore, users’ utilitarian attitude towards the event is likely to be higher for online participants as their focus of consumption is likely to be strongly connected to factors such as knowledge gain and aesthetic appreciation to enhance their own skillset: H9: Utilitarian attitude towards the event will be significantly higher for online than for offline participants. Moreover, event related satisfaction has been considered to be connected to the game and the service satisfaction (Kim et al., 2016; Yoshida and James, 2010). Game-related satisfaction would be tangible in both consumption forms, while service satisfaction would certainly be conceived differently in both settings. Yoshida and James (2010) argue that the atmosphere is a strong indicator for overall satisfaction. Within online environments the satisfaction might, therefore, be related to the community and their connection with one another, but real perceived atmosphere is only conceivable within offline forms of consumption (Steinmann et al., 2015). Therefore, we postulate: H10: Satisfaction with the event will be significantly higher for offline than for online participants. Forthcoming event success is highly related to positive behavioral intention of visitors. Through their revisiting intention, they can positively influence the long-term success of events. Kim et al. (2016) found that revisiting intentions are strongly related to the experiences made while attending the event. Therefore, we assume that either form of consumption will lead to visiting intentions of the participants. Furthermore, we argue that event attendees on site are more likely to show an intention to visit the event on-site again, while online consumers might tend to higher interest in watching another streamed version of an eSports event. Nevertheless, it should be noted that consumers will tend to participate in forthcoming events either way if the needs are satisfied (e.g., cross media usage),

6.3 The empirical Study

91

however, consumers will tend to show a higher level of loyalty to participate in an environment that satisfies best their consumption needs (Larose et al., 2001). H11: The intention to visit an event on site will be significantly higher for offline than for online participants. H12: The intention to consume a stream of the event will be significantly higher for online than for offline participants.

6.3 6.3.1

The empirical Study Measures and Procedures

To test our hypotheses, we prepared a questionnaire for the EU LCS Event in Berlin, Germany in early 2018. Riot Games, organizer of the event, offered exclusive live coverage of the event through lolsports, youtube and twitch.tv. However, the actual content (i.e., the video stream) was similar on all three websites. The same applies, for instance, to the interaction possibilities (e.g., chat), so that these three websites can be classified as highly comparable. The coverage included commentated gaming content as well as shots from inside the event venue. This is a standard form of eSport online event coverage and provides the desired background for our study. In accordance with the language spoken at the event and in the online stream, the survey was conducted in English. Hence, everyone following the stream was able to take part in our survey. By utilizing international, game-related message boards (e.g., reddit and twitter) to reach online participants, we furthermore ensured that a representative, international sample could be drawn. On-site participants were randomly approached with a similar paper and pencil version of the questionnaire. At the beginning of the questionnaire, participants were asked what form of consumption they had chosen, i.e., on-site or online consumption, to ensure that participants could be unequivocally assigned to either one of the two groups. Moreover, participants were clearly instructed to only access the previously selected event form to guarantee a high degree of discriminatory power. In addition to demographics, we used measures that related to the postulated hypotheses. The motivational dimensions were operationalized in accordance with Hamari and Sjöblom (2017) and the MSSC of Trail and James (2001) in the context of eSports. Both dimensions of attitude were measured with five items each, taken from Gursoy et al. (2006). Satisfaction with the event was adapted from Voss et al. (1998). Intentions were measured with one item taken from Wakefield (1995).

92

6 Differences and Similarities in Motivation

The measurement was performed using well established multi-item scales with a seven-point Likert scale and all reflective constructs satisfy the Cronbach’s alpha threshold of > 0.70. For a detailed overview in regard to the measures used in this paper, see Table 14. The final sample, both on-site and online, consisted of N = 637 participants (81.7 % male, mean age M = 21.40, standard deviation SD = 5.59). Of these, online viewers: n = 482 respondents (86.9% male, age M = 21.01, SD = 4.65), and on-site participants: n = 155 respondents (65.1% male, age M = 22.73, SD = 7.79). Table 14:

Constructs

MSSC Achievement (Cronbach’s alpha = .87) I feel proud when my preferred player does well. I feel a personal sense of achievement when my preferred player does well. I feel like I have won when my preferred player wins. Aesthetics (Cronbach’s alpha = .9) I appreciate the beauty inherent in video games. I enjoy the natural beauty in gaming. I enjoy the gracefulness associated with gaming. Escape (Cronbach’s alpha = .73) Watching eSports is a change of pace from what I regularly do. Watching eSports provide an escape for me from my day-to-day routine. Watching eSports provides a diversion from “life’s little problems” for me. Drama (Cronbach’s alpha = .76) I enjoy the drama of a close match. I enjoy it when the outcome is not decided until the very end. I prefer watching a close game rather than a one-sided game. Player skills (Cronbach’s alpha = .86) The skills of the players are something I appreciate. I enjoy a skillful performance by the players. I enjoy watching a well-executed gaming.

6.3 The empirical Study

MSSC Social (Cronbach’s alpha = .87) I enjoy interacting with other spectators at the game. I enjoy talking with others at the match. I enjoy socializing with people sitting near me while I watch the match. Gain knowledge (Cronbach’s alpha = .82) I increase my understanding of the strategies by watching matches. I increase my knowledge about a particular game when I watch it. I can learn about the technical aspects of a game by watching it. Attitude Utilitarian (Cronbach’s alpha = .85) Necessary / Unnecessary Effective / Ineffective Functional / not Functional Practical / Impractical Helpful / Unhelpful Hedonic (Cronbach’s alpha = .89) Dull / Exciting not Delightful / Delightful not Fun / Fun not Thrilling / Thrilling Boring / Interesting Satisfaction Satisfaction with the event (Cronbach’s alpha = .91) I am satisfied with the Event. I am happy with the Event. I am delighted with the Event. Intention to participate In the future, how often will you attend EU LCS events? very infrequent / very frequent In the future, how often will you watch EU LCS events online? very infrequent / very frequent

93

94

6.3.2

6 Differences and Similarities in Motivation

Results and discussion

To verify our hypotheses, we used multiple t-tests with on-site (i.e., offline) participation form and online consumption via stream as independent variables. The reason for choosing t-tests is that research has shown t-tests to be robust against violation of statistical requirements (e.g., different group sizes or nonnormal distribution) (Glass et al., 1972; Sawilowsky and Blair, 1992). In addition, as we are comparing two groups, i.e., offline versus online consumption, using t-tests seems appropriate. Table 15 shows the results of our analysis. Results show significant differences with regard to almost all variables under review. Most hypotheses can bevalidated via the derived results. Firstly, regarding motivation, we mostly observe the expected differences. Here, the social dimension is more pronounced in case of offline events. This dimension can, therefore, be considered as more relevant in an offline environment and seems to be more likely to be supported by a traditional form of event consumption, i.e., meeting friends and family at an event. However, social interaction cannot be described as the primary driver of consumption, as it tends to be less important in comparison to the remaining dimensions. Thus, the result is also interesting in terms of knowledge gain and the observation of player's skills. Both dimensions are more distinctive of stream consumption. The latter might be explained by the details within the digital stream, i.e., player close ups and direct screen capturing directly on the screen at home, which enables the consumers to follow the matches in detail. In comparison, offline participants, who can “only” follow the match on a huge canvas, do not get that level of detail. This assumption might also be supported by taking the results of the aesthetic dimension into consideration. Nonetheless, it should be mentioned that while all the dimensions differ significantly, the size of the effect is rather small. Table 15:

Hypothesis testing

Dependent variable

Mean (SD)

t-value (p-value)

Hypothesis

Social

Online: 4.32 (1.70) Offline: 4.75 (1.76)

T(633) = 2.721 (p = .007)

H1 

Achievement

Online: 5.08 (1.55) Offline: 4.78 (1.77)

T(633) = 2.086 (p = .037)

H2 

Motivation to attend

6.3 The empirical Study

95

Dependent variable

Mean (SD)

t-value (p-value)

Hypothesis

Gain knowledge

Online: 5.95 (1.05) Offline: 5.46 (1.30)

T(633) = 4.761 (p < .001)

H3 

(Physical) skills

Online: 6.52 (0.75) Offline: 6.19 (1.14)

T(633) = 4.028 (p < .001)

H4 

Aesthetics

Online: 5.56 (1.29) Offline: 5.08 (1.49)

T(633) = 3.873 (p < .001)

H5 

Escape

Online: 4.57 (1.47) Offline: 4.70 (1.67)

T(633) = .923 (p = .357)

H6 

Drama

Online: 6.16 (1.03) Offline: 6.04 (1.27)

T(633) = 1.171 (p = .242)

H7 

Hedonic attitude

Online: 6.19 (0.96) Offline: 6.18 (1.18)

T(633) = 0.012 (p = .990)

H8 

Utilitarian attitude

Online: 5.26 (1.09) Offline: 5.31 (1.08)

T(633) = .512 (p = .609)

H9 

Satisfaction with the event

Online: 5.65 (1.10) Offline: 6.00 (1.21)

T(633) = 3.364 (p = .001)

H10 

Attend offline

Online: 2.16 (1.69) Offline: 4.41 (2.06)

T(633) = 13.588 (p < .001)

H11 

Attend online

Online: 6.21 (1.18) Offline: 5.69 (1.86)

T(633) = 4.007 (p < .001)

H12 

Attitude and satisfaction

Behavior

Note: 1 = totally disagree / negative evaluation, 7 = totally agree / positive evaluation, insignificant results are italic

96

6 Differences and Similarities in Motivation

Surprisingly, we do not find any effect regarding the attitude dimensions towards the event. Generally, the data shows that the event, in both consumption forms, is considered to yield hedonic as well as utilitarian features. For hedonic, M = 6.19 and 6.18 and for utilitarian, M = 5.26 and 5.31 (online vs. offline, respectively), the overall values for hedonic attitude are more pronounced in comparison to the derived values for utilitarian attitude. eSports is, first of all, based on a game that obviously is played for the enjoyment it yields. Nevertheless, the high value for utilitarian attitude demonstrates that eSports also offers a lot of useful aspects to its fans. In accordance to the data received for the motivational subscales that relate to utilitarian aspects (e.g., knowledge gains), the analysis generally indicated the importance of these factors. Prior research indicated that most events and products can very well cater to both dimensions of attitude, and our research supports those claims (Batra and Ahtola, 1991; Gursoy et al., 2006). Nonetheless, the proposed differences between the two consumption methods cannot be observed, leading to the assumption that the overall attitude towards the event manifests on a different level and is not directly determined by the chosen form of consumption. As hypothesized, the satisfaction with the event does in fact differ among the two forms of consumption. Generally, the perceived satisfaction of the participants is relatively high in both groups, indicating a positive reaction to the event. Building on the argument and research of Yoshida and James (2010), we argued that the atmosphere and surrounding factors (e.g., form of broadcast in the arena) have a more positive influence on the level of satisfaction than the surrounding factors of online consumption. Here, satisfaction in regard to digital experiences is generally considered to be highly dependent on the surrounding factors that users create for themselves (Anderson and Srinivasan, 2003). Therefore, the possibilities for event organizers concerning streaming options are limited to the utilized platform. Everything else is ultimately left to the users’ own efforts to enhance the experience. On the other hand, the factors influencing event satisfaction for visitors on-site are much more tangible for the organizers (Yoshida and James, 2010). Event-related research has indicated numerous factors that, directly or indirectly, influence the perceived satisfaction with the event, all of which can and should be addressed by the event organizers (Chen et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2016). Regarding the behavior of the participants, we see differences in both variables examined. While both groups intend to watch another event online, participation in an offline event reveals a different result. Offline participants would tend to participate again, whereas the results show that online participants would continue to stick to the stream only. Online streaming has become easily accessible for almost everyone with a fast enough internet connection (Bründl et al., 2017; Chen and Lin, 2018). Hence, there are few obstacles to witness another

6.4 Conclusion

97

eSports event online. Fans of the game and the event series will always be interested in witnessing another event. Streaming certainly seems to be perceived as the more convenient option. However, on-site event participation does offer additional features of personal connection and atmosphere, but the main consumption method for most attendees and followers seems to remain within the digital environment.

6.4 6.4.1

Conclusion Summary of Findings

Overall, we were able to identify differences as well as similarities between both forms of consumption. The differences in motivation to consume provide further argumentation of the strengths and weaknesses of eSports events and streams. Keen observers and fans of the game, who are interested in playing themselves, seem to favor the streaming option, just to be able to examine the action closely. Events offer more emotional fans a great outlet for social interaction. Nevertheless, similarities in attitude and some motivation dimension show that the general perception of the event does not differ significantly between the two groups. Attending events on-site and following a stream online, based on our data, cannot be considered a substitute for each other. Each consumption method offers advantages, based on slightly differently motivated visitors and consumers. Given that even important outcome variables (e.g., satisfaction) differ for both forms of consumption, it is important to address the advantages of each form and cater to their strengths. These lead to interesting research questions and implications for managers. 6.4.2

Implications and Limitations

Building on recent research results in the fields of eSports, event marketing and online environment, our research helps to widen the existing literature in this new field of interest. eSports is a global and rising phenomenon with unique features that need to be addressed. The derived differences of both forms of consumption indicate that the motivational dimensions related to performance and the game itself were significantly higher for online participants. The question arises as to what characterizes these participants. Similar research into Chinese table tennis matches, for example, has shown that online participants demonstrate stronger feelings of fanship with players (Zhang and Byon, 2017). Further

98

6 Differences and Similarities in Motivation

examination of the participants should, therefore, be addressed in further research. Moreover, our study was conducted at a League of Legends event in Berlin and online. Due to this setting, a number of limitations arise. eSports includes numerous games of different genres (Seo and Jung, 2016). Therefore, it is very likely that the derived results differ when assessing a different game from a different genre (e.g., tactical shooter like Overwatch or Counter-Strike). The event type has been found to play a vital role in traditional event-related research, and similar aspects could be connected to the game played when dealing with eSports (Crompton and McKay, 1997; Kim et al., 2016). In this context it should also be mentioned that geographical and economic limitations might affect the present results (Backman et al., 1995; Chung and Woo, 2011). The latter could explain why, on the one hand, we find significant differences between offline and online eSports consumption motivation, but on the other only observe relatively small effect sizes. Here, event observers who answered the questionnaire regarding online participation might have an eSport motivation, which would lead to the conclusion that those gamers prefer on-site consumption. However, due to considerable economic expense (for example the cost of traveling from their own country, potentially a long way from the event), simply cannot participate offline. Hence, further research could address this issue and investigate the impact of an offline consumption willingness in context of a “forced” online participation, i.e., stream. Our sample portrays a common issue regarding eSports research. Most of the players and followers, thus far, are male (Hartmann and Klimmt, 2006). Although the issue of gender has been addressed by eSports-related research (Gray et al., 2018; Kaye et al., 2018), the male dominance of participation limits the possibilities to fully assess this influential factor, even though our sample represents the underlying population’s gender distribution and provides sufficient explanatory power for the conducted study. Although literature argues for a connection between motivational factors and attitude towards an event, our results show that the effect of the consumption form is only given in the motivational factors. Event-related research has, thus far, only assessed the motivational factors of event visitation (Backman et al., 1995; Kulczynski et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2004) or argued for the value of attitude to explain sponsorship effectiveness and other phenomena (Carrillat et al., 2005; Lee et al., 1997; Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008; Martensen et al., 2007). Future research endeavors should try to connect these issues and learn about the interplay of these two constructs. Human behavior in SLSS has been assessed through several studies, addressing factors such as platform representation, identification and interaction with streamers, and consumer expectations (Bründl et al., 2017; Oyedele and

6.4 Conclusion

99

Simpson, 2018; Scheibe et al., 2016). Assumptions derived from these studies build on the usage of twitch and similar platforms to follow an individual or a company. The special aspects of event consumption (i.e., eSports event consumption) has not yet been addressed. Social factors were among the few aspects of motivation that demonstrated stronger values for offline participation. Modern streaming platforms offer numerous options to communicate with other users (i.e., through direct message or chat), but these options are not yet fully capable of replacing real life experiences (Bründl et al., 2017; Hilvert-Bruce et al., 2018; Scheibe et al., 2016). Lim et al. (2012) evaluated the influence of the perceived psychological distance of streaming users, and their research indicates that there are a few things that platform designers could implement to strengthen the perceived tie of users. Accordingly, eSports managers could possibly enhance the social experience of users when streaming an event. Through group offerings, special chat rooms, and more interactive features the perceived social connection of users could be enhanced. Another aspect of possible social interaction could be seen in the connection between players and their fans. Our data also indicates that players, their skillset, and the possibility of knowledge gain are advantageous features of online consumption. These aspects could also be enhanced by a more personal connection between players and the audience. Seeing that these aspects seem to be of importance to eSports fans, additional offerings that allow for a more personal and intense interaction of attendees, users, and the players should lead to positive reactions of fans (Seo and Jung, 2016; Weiss and Schiele, 2013). Research has indicated that stream followers are often interested in a personal connection with the streamer and that the perceived connection can also enhance positively related features (e.g., trust or fanship) (Friedländer, 2017; Hu et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2018). Due to the digital origins of eSports and its connection to the streaming community, the personality of players should be considered as an asset that needs to be addressed more strongly by event organizers.

7 Interaction in Social Live Streaming Services – Importance and influential Factors 7.1

Introduction

In recent years, the digitization of our everyday life has been an increasingly important issue for researchers and society alike. Digital platforms with online communities have flourished and have helped users enhance their work and social lives (Tiwana et al., 2010; Bharadwaj et al., 2013). Innovative technologies and digital communities have not only introduced new methods of communicating, they have also heavily influenced our social interaction habits (Barrett et al., 2016; Baden-Fuller and Haefliger, 2013). SNS have become a part of our lives, with Facebook alone connecting more than 2.3 billion active users every month (Facebook, 2019). A newer form of SNS can be found in SLSS, which allow users to broadcast and consume live video streams through easily accessible platforms, created solely for this purpose (Scheibe et al., 2016). Specially-formed platforms allow users to produce and broadcast their own video streams that other users can consume. Market leader, Twitch, was sold for $970 million in 2014 and some of its broadcasters’ streams are followed by more than one million users, demonstrating the market power of this phenomenon (Bründl et al., 2017). Building on the success of Twitch and similar platforms, SLSS-like options have been introduced to traditional SNS (such as Facebook). SLSSs have become an almost common tool among society, easily accessible through multiple platforms (Zhang and Byon, 2017; Lingel and Naaman, 2012). Streamed content stretches from big events to small “let’s play” streams that are shared by companies and individuals alike (Colburn, 2013; Lingel and Naaman, 2012; Shen et al., 2014). Due to different options within platforms, users that consume a stream broadcasted by another user can use features to interact with those broadcasters, as well as other users who are also following the content (Scheibe et al., 2016; Friedländer, 2017). These options for social interaction are one of many means used to keep platform users engaged and connected to the underlying online community, which is very important for ensuring the platform’s success (Hess, 2014). Different to an SNS, the interaction on an SLSS works in two different directions: interaction with the broadcaster or producer of the video stream and interaction with other users consuming the broadcast. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020 F. Neus, Event Marketing in the Context of Higher Education Marketing and Digital Environments, Handel und Internationales Marketing Retailing and International Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29262-1_7

102 7 Interaction in Social Live Streaming Services – Importance and influential Factors

Researchers have tried to identify success factors for user engagement in online communities and explain users’ behavior in those communities (Ross et al., 2009; Hars and Ou, 2002; Meng et al., 2015; Tsai and Bagozzi, 2014). Studies focusing on the use of SNS have identified that social interaction quality, the size of the community and the social ties of users, are the main factors influencing the use of SNS and the interaction intention of users in those communities (Lin and Lu, 2011; Shen et al., 2014; Shriver et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2018). Although some of the key elements of SNS and SLSS are certainly comparable, there are important differences between these two types of digital environments. SNS are built to keep people entertained and focused, through connection and interaction with other users. Additional features may be present as well, but the key aspect of networking with other members of the SNS does not change. SLSS differ in this regard. Although the social features and interaction possibilities are also of importance, the key element of an SLSS is the video stream (i.e., the broadcast itself). Therefore, there are more things to consider when examining the choice processes of a user. The findings regarding SNS might not be applicable to SLSS. The interaction within an SNS is solely related to other users, who are also members of the SNS. When using an SLSS, interaction is not only possible with other users following a broadcast, but also with the broadcaster. Once again, the findings from SNS-related studies may not be applicable to SLSS. Thus far, the research conducted in the field of SLSS has examined the motivational factors of users as consumers and broadcasters, and their motivation to share within an SLSS (Bründl et al., 2017; Hamilton et al., 2014; Hilvert-Bruce et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2018). Numerous studies also included the interaction behavior of users, but were limited to either the interaction with other users or the interaction with the broadcaster (Yu et al., 2018; Scheibe et al., 2016; Hu et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2018; Lim et al., 2012). Although essential to fully understand behavior of users in SLSS, a comparison of the two interaction directions is still missing. Research has not yet assessed the importance of interaction possibilities for the overall use of an SLSS, especially in comparison to an SNS. Hence, our research tries to broaden the common knowledge regarding SLSSs and answer the following research questions. RQ1: How do the social features of an SLSS affect the choice process of users? RQ2: Which factors drive user interactions in an SLSS? RQ3: How does the interaction intention with the broadcaster differ from interaction intention with other users? Answering these questions would help to guide further research in the field SLSS and enable platform designers to better cater to the needs of their users. This paper will provide reasoning for the general importance of social ties when

7.2 Background

103

assessing user behavior on an SNS and an SLSS. It will also test the applicability of previous SNS-related studies within the field of SLSSs. Building on Social Identity Theory and an extensive literature review, two studies were designed and conducted. This research will help to examine the applicability of Social Identity Theory in this setting and identify future research areas within information systems, on the general behavior of users on an SLSS. Furthermore, we can derive managerial implications that will help to further develop new and existing platforms.

7.2

Background

To better understand the behavior of users on an SLSS, we refer to research results in two different areas. First, the role of the platform itself should be an important factor that limits or enhances the users’ intentions to interact. The perception of the platform and the users’ basic understanding of the presented system is key to their interaction. Second, the behavior of users in communities, especially on an SLSS, will play an important role for our studies. In the following section, relevant studies and theoretical models for both aspects will be presented. 7.2.1

Social Live Streaming Services

Streaming services in general are common among various social media platforms and other popular websites. They have, especially with the spread of additional bandwidth and other technological advances, become common to most users (Scheibe et al., 2016). Generally, these platforms are an extension of previous Web 2.0 developments that “allow the creation and exchange of user generated content” (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). Where the more traditional social media websites, such as Twitter or Facebook, were focused on the simple exchange of text and statements, newer platforms like Twitch are focused on exchange through video streams. This is an additional form of communication to the previously mentioned traditional forms of social media (Delerue et al., 2012; Hamilton et al., 2014; Macaranas et al., 2013; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2015). Due to technological development, the possibilities regarding video streaming are far more advanced and have reached a level that easily competes with traditional forms of broadcasting (Hamilton et al., 2014). Scheibe et al. (2016) differentiated two different types of SLSSs: general live streaming services that are not limited to any specific topic, and topic-specific live streaming services that are focused on a specific topic. Twitch is mostly used by individuals to broadcast their own gaming performances and broadcasting is therefore topic-related (Hamilton et

104 7 Interaction in Social Live Streaming Services – Importance and influential Factors

al., 2014; Bründl et al., 2017). Since SLSSs have only recently been developed, research in this field is scarce. Scheibe et al. (2016) focused on motivations of individuals following a user-generated broadcast, and how reward and gamification elements affected their behavior. Bründl et al. (2017) found that coexperience and effectance have an influence on the enjoyment of users when following a stream. Furthermore, Macaranas et al. (2013) have analyzed the behavior of users watching video content together, while connected through communication channels and how this influenced their connection to each other. The results indicate a positive influence on the perceived enjoyment. Hu et al. (2017) have focused their efforts on the watching intentions of users and how streaming services influenced the group identification of individuals. Zhu et al. (2015) determined the role of video quality on social relatedness of users. To summarize, research has not yet delivered results that combine information on interactions with other users and interactions with the broadcaster. 7.2.2

Social Tie of Users Interacting in Online Communities

In addition to the conclusions taken from the basic understanding of human behavior around an SLSS, our research also draws from interaction and participation studies of users in (online) communities in general. Due to the relation to a certain topic (e.g., eSports) it is highly likely that users who interact during a broadcast are part of a similar community (Dholakia et al., 2004). Therefore, a basic understanding of these phenomena is important to understand the intention of users in this specific setting. Seeing that this issue, in general, has been the focus of numerous studies, we draw from this gained knowledge to find explanatory ground for our context. A vast number of articles have been published on the interactions of individuals in various fields of digitalized environments, including online communities and, more specifically, social media (McKenna and Bargh, 1999; Chen et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2013; Putzke et al., 2010; Ray et al., 2014). A common theme among research in the field of social media is the special role of social connection between individuals and their perceived connection to each other (Harvey et al., 2011; Chai et al., 2011; Nambisan and Baron, 2010). Generally, the social connection or social tie of users refers to the relationship among them, the amount of contact and the time allocated to the communication (Huang et al., 2009). This “perceived togetherness” is an important influence on behavior. In accordance with Social Identity Theory, many studies investigated the effects of the proximity of community or organization members to each other (Monge et al., 1985; Constant et al., 1996; Kraut et al., 1988). Social Identity Theory provides reasons for users’ general interest in social interaction. Used to explain the behavior of individuals in groups and communities, researchers have

7.2 Background

105

long argued for its applicability in a digital environment (Gwinner and Swanson, 2003; Ray et al., 2014). However, Social Identity Theory developed by Tajfel is considered to provide basic explanations for human interaction within groups (Tajfel, 1974; Tajfel and Turner, 2004). Recent studies have shown that the social connection of individuals did have a significant influence on their overall interaction behavior, a fact that was studied and established for various other connections, like basic demographic similarities, or prior relationships (Constant et al., 1996; Zenger and Lawrence, 1989; Krackhardt and Brass, 1994). In some cases, even a weaker tie is advantageous, or at least not disadvantageous. Constant et al. (1996), for example, showed that within a company, individuals were helped by co-workers regardless of the relationship between the information seeker and the information giver. Generally, researchers have argued that the closer the connection gets, the more beneficial it can be for the community, leading to positive effects for members and optionally associated organizations alike (Nambisan and Baron, 2010). Users’ identification with the community elevates the value of the community and enhances users’ willingness to participate (Dholakia et al., 2004). Here, according to Social Identity Theory, individuals form different categories to classify themselves and others, based on certain characteristics and properties (Turner, 1985). Categories might be guided by age differences, organizational connections, affiliation to certain groups or even gender (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Tajfel and Turner, 2004). Overlapping characteristics and values can be one aspect of this identification process, leading to specific connections of users and, in this case, broadcasters of online video streams (Nambisan and Baron, 2010; Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). The group association of users consuming a broadcast would have comparable effects on the relationships of community members (Muniz and O'Guinn, 2001; McWilliam, 2000). Given that identification with a specific group has been described as an important aspect to enhance participation in general, this theory provides an explanation for our research and the possible interaction behavior of users when using an SLSS (Hogg and Terry, 2000; Zhu et al., 2015). Social connection and its importance to human behavior in online environments has been identified in several other studies (Dubois et al., 2016; Salehan et al., 2017; Pan et al., 2017). Word-of-mouth intention, the relationships between bloggers and their followers, and message-forwarding habits, have been connected to users’ perceived social ties to other users (Harvey et al., 2011; Godes and Mayzlin, 2004; Chai et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2013). Lin and Lu (2011) argue that the number of peers and members involved with a SNS will have a positive effect on user engagement.

106 7 Interaction in Social Live Streaming Services – Importance and influential Factors

7.2.3

Conceptual Model and Hypotheses Development

Two different studies were conducted to derive answers for the stated research questions. The first study, a choice based conjoint study, that is built to gain knowledge about the preferences of users in regrad to SLSS. The second study was designed as a partial least squares structural equation model (PLS SEM). By incorporating influential factors of interaction intentions within SNS and general website usage, study 2 was built to derive insights to the specifics of SLSS interactions and the differences between the two interaction possibilities (i.e., with the broadcaster and with other users). Figure 8 provides an overview of the conceptual model and includes the factors that are taken into account for the two studies. The two interaction possibilities are the key element of both studies as they aim to bring further understanding to the field of broadcasts and users’ interaction intentions. The first study is focused on the first research question and tries to explain the use of SLSS options. Hu et al. (2017), Barasch and Berger (2014), and Haridakis and Hanson (2009) argued for the importance of social connection to explain the behavior of users within an SLSS. Nysveen et al. (2005) argued for the possible influence of this factor when users choose a communication medium and Lin and Lu (2011) saw the size of a SNS to positively relate to the intentions of users. To examine their applicability within an SLSS, the first study has an explorative approach. It determines the importance of interaction aspects in the overall choice process for a broadcast option, in comparison to other, wellestablished, features of online streaming services. Therefore, the number of viewers of the broadcast, the number of subscribers of the channel, the price, the language and the picture quality are included as additional characteristics of SLSS.

Figure 8: Conceptual model

7.2 Background

107

To investigate users’ interaction intentions further, the influential factors of both variables were reviewed in study 2. As indicated in the conceptual model, the influence of non-social features (e.g., picture quality) was not considered when assessing the influence of SLSS interaction in study 2, which assesses the behavior of users after choosing the SLSS option. Therefore, it should be considered a chronological follow-up to the first study. Consequently, study 2 focuses solely on the social aspects of SLSS, deriving input to answer research questions two and three. The price or video quality may be of importance when users are asked to choose SLSS, but after they started following a broadcast, these aspects will no longer affect the interaction behavior. For the second study, we propose a connection between the social ties of users and the perceived usefulness of SLSS and the benefits of participating. We will explain and argue for our corresponding hypotheses for this research, linking to the general behavior in (online) communities, as well as the research results regarding streaming services discussed in the previous section. Building on Social Identity Theory, the social ties of users are the key element of our research model. Functioning as an indicator of social relations to other individual, social tie is defined as the strength of relationships, which can, e.g., be indicated through communication frequency of users (Chai et al., 2011). When looking at previous research, the discussed effects of a strong social tie can be categorized into three different traits. Users generally form a perspective on the utilitarian aspects of a website, which is connected to the social interaction possibilities of the website (Ko et al., 2005; Bendapudi and Leone, 2003). Clement et al. (2001) argued that, in social groups, a tool is needed to collaborate with each other. SNS and SLSS can be perceived as a useful tool by their users. An SLSS serves a purpose for those who seek to connect with other people. Song and Kim (2006) argue that social ties can enhance the perceived usefulness of a service or system. Therefore, users with strong ties to one another will perceive the SLSS (or SNS) as more useful, when it enables them to socially interact and connect (Kwon and Wen, 2010). Studies have also found that social ties can influence the perceived characteristics of a SNS or SLSS. When examining the use of an SNS, Lin and Lu (2011) found a connection between the perceived properties of the site and the size of the connected network. Barasch and Berger (2014) derived similar results when examining the sharing behavior of users on an SLSS. Furthermore, social ties can influence the attitude and perceived value of digital content (Chen and Lin, 2018). Therefore, a connection between social ties and the overall usefulness of an SLSS is proposed for the study: H1a: Strong user social ties have a positive influence on the perceived usefulness of SLSS.

108 7 Interaction in Social Live Streaming Services – Importance and influential Factors

The third trait of user social ties that is important for the present study is seen in the perceived benefits of the interaction. Researchers have argued that participating in social groups may also be enhanced when the participants perceive their interaction as beneficial for themselves (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). Individuals evaluate their social interactions based on cost and benefits, and the results of that evaluation will ultimately limit or extend their interaction behavior (Blau, 1986). In the context of online communities, benefits could be perceived as reputational gains or learning (Nambisan and Baron, 2010). Chai et al. (2011) evaluated the behavior of bloggers and saw a positive influence of social ties on knowledge-sharing behavior, arguing that the perceived benefits of the peerrelated interactions were a key factor of this connection. Chiu et al. (2006) emphasized that the actual and expected benefits of sharing in a virtual community were strongly connected to the social ties of users. Ellison et al. (2007) examined the SNS usage of students and found that the strength of social ties is influential in terms of the perceived benefits of interactions. Consequently, Kim et al. (2018) argued for a connection between an SLSS network and the perceived benefits of participation in an SLSS. The perceived benefits of participation are influenced by the social ties: H1b: Strong user social ties have a positive influence on the perceived participation benefit of users. The motivations of users to visit a website or actively engage in online communities differ, so we needed to differentiate between the “information motivation” and the “interaction motivation” (Ko et al., 2005). Early studies have determined that in some cases, users are just interested in gaining basic information from a website and any additional interaction or action on this website would hinder the re-visit intention of such a user (Ko et al., 2005). SNS and SLSSs are designed to cater to the interaction motivation of users. The passive consumption of information may also be possible, but would not be a sufficient factor to explain the interaction behavior of users. Individual motivation was identified to be extremely relevant for any kind of interaction activity (Wasko and Faraj, 2005; Berger and Schwartz, 2011). Researchers have deemed the interactivity of websites to be a positive influence on user intentions to visit a website (Cho and Cheon, 2012; McMillan and Hwang, 2002; Crilly, 2011). SLSSs allow for two directions of possible interaction and therefore cater to the idea of interactive aspects supporting the interaction motivation of users. In our context, the general interaction motivation when visiting an SLSS is important to explain the following behavior. Based on a users’ intentions to actively seek human-to-human interaction through a website or community, the probability of using the additional elements of interactivity has risen (Ko et al.,

7.2 Background

109

2005; Cho and Cheon, 2012). Considering this aspect, and the results of previous research, our research purpose leads to the following hypotheses: H2a: A high level of interaction motivation has a positive influence on the interaction intention of users with other users. H2b: A high level of interaction motivation has a positive influence on the interaction intention of users with the broadcaster. Researchers have argued that the motivation behind interacting and participating in certain processes might be connected to the self-serving bias of users (Bendapudi and Leone, 2003). This aspect also provides valuable insights for our research context. The interaction intention of users might be connected to the perceived gain or profit that the consumer might obtain by using an SLSS. Schulze et al. (2014) also identified this phenomenon and stated that the utilitarian aspects of the product will ultimately influence users’ behavior. Comparable examples can be found in studies that argue for such effects in regard to website usage in general and social media specifically, and the corresponding participation interest of users (Hoffman and Novak, 2012; Salehan et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2012). Lin and Lu (2011) identified a significant connection of perceived usefulness of SNS and the behavior of users. Bründl et al. (2017) also identified a significant influence of perceived usefulness of an SLSS on the behavior of users. Individuals who share strong social ties will find an SLSS more useful and will use the interaction possibilities of an SLSS to interact with other users (Song and Kim, 2006). The provided platform enables them to use the community and actively participate (Kwon and Wen, 2010). Consequently, the perceived usefulness of an SLSS will influence the interaction of users: H3a: A high level of perceived usefulness has a positive influence on the interaction intention of users with other users. H3b: A high level of perceived usefulness has a positive influence on the interaction intention of users with the broadcaster. Numerous online communities are based on the idea of users participating for free, spending their time supporting other members of the community (Dholakia et al., 2004). Open-source projects are a popular example of this behavior amongst community members. Through combined knowledge and work efforts, the community as a whole grows and members provide their individual knowledge to support the project (Hars and Ou, 2002). Ardichvili et al. (2003) conducted a qualitative study to identify drivers and barriers of participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities, and identified the need for perceived benefits, which can lead users to participate. Users often perceived the communi-

110 7 Interaction in Social Live Streaming Services – Importance and influential Factors

ty as beneficial for their own work and life and were keen on a strong community to gain benefits for themselves. Through their own engagement, they could help others and still see a benefit for themselves. Although SNS generally do not offer the opportunity to develop a new product or gather knowledge for a professional purpose, users are still looking for a benefit through participation. In this case, the benefit is more hedonic than utilitarian (Salehan et al., 2017). Similar effects are to be expected in an SLSS. Therefore, we postulate the following hypotheses: H4a: Perceived participation benefits have a positive influence on the interaction intention of users with other users. H4b: Perceived participation benefits have a positive influence on the interaction intention of users with the broadcaster.

7.3 7.3.1

Study 1: Importance of Interaction Possibilities Design

As previously stated, the different options for users to choose a live video stream are vast and research has not yet elaborated on the specific elements of video streams and the role they play in users’ choice processes. The goal of the following study lies in identifying the importance of interaction features in relation to other aspects of streaming services that might influence users to choose a broadcast option. To reach this goal, we conducted a choice-based conjoint experiment. Researchers used this approach because of its simplicity and comparability to real-life marketplace situations that participants can easily relate to (Hauser and Toubia, 2005; Currim and Sarin, 1984). The choice-based conjoint experiment helps us to determine the overall importance of individual attributes, and their corresponding levels, regarding users’ decisions on broadcast consumption. Generally, a choice-based conjoint experiment is used to assess the overall product utility that is generated by different attribute levels of the product in question. By displaying different attribute-level combinations in every option presented, the participant is provided with clearly stated options and is required to make a choice between them. The participant is asked numerous times to decide between a set of three or four options that represent different versions of the product or service being investigated and an additional “skip” option that represents their choice to buy or use none of the presented options. Based on the answers by the participants, it is possible to understand the importance of attributelevels regarding the research subject.

7.3 Study 1: Importance of Interaction Possibilities

7.3.2

111

Measures and Procedure

To execute a choice-based conjoint experiment we needed to identify the attributes of broadcasts and assign levels to these attributes. These attributes and levels needed to clearly characterize different options and should be as close as possible to characteristics of existing online platforms to ensure the best possible outcome (Sawtooth Software, 2013). To meet these requirements, a small preliminary qualitative study was conducted (N = 12). Participants were asked to name and explain key properties, that would guide their choice process when looking for SLSS. Through additional studies of popular platforms like YouTube or Twitch, the attributes and levels presented in Table 16 were derived. The attributes and corresponding levels were chosen for their authenticity and relevance to the context (e.g., the number of viewers and subscribers) or derived from other goods and services that are connected to online communities and digitalized content (e.g., the price ranges regarding mobile applications). We included standardized content descriptions (e.g., picture quality and language) that are found on any type of picture or video consumption. All attributes and levels were tested and approved in a pretest (N = 25). Table 16 provides an overview of the attributes and levels used. The list includes features related to social factors (e.g., interaction possibilities and size of audience), as well as technological features of the broadcast (e.g., picture quality). We chose not to include options regarding the broadcast theme or a specific platform (e.g., Twitch or YouTube), to free the experiment from possible bias. The experiment was programmed with Sawtooth, an established tool for choicebased conjoint experiments. Participants were tasked to imagine themselves to be looking for a possibility to consume a video stream that they usually would consume online. Thereby we ensured that participants would demonstrate their usual behavior of SLSS usage. Furthermore, any influences of genre or broadcaster would be rendered non-significant and the results would better summarize the actual world of SLSS. Afterwards they were given four different options with randomly assigned levels of the attributes shown in Table 16 and asked to pick their favorite. This procedure was repeated ten times. The finalized questionnaire was distributed on various social media platforms and posted in several forums. Overall, the answers of 301 participants were used to determine the influence of the individual attributes and levels. 57.1 % of the sample were male (Mage = 26.37 (SD = 9.12)).

112 7 Interaction in Social Live Streaming Services – Importance and influential Factors

Table 16:

Attributes and Levels included in the Conjoint Experiment

Attribute

Levels

Picture quality

low / medium / high

Interaction with other users

no interaction is possible / possibility to chat with other users / message board provided

Interaction with broadcaster

does not react to comments / reacts to comments

Number viewers of the broadcast

below 1,000 / up to 20,000 / up to 300,000

Number of subscribers of the channel

below 100 / up to 2,000 / up to 30,000

Price

free, without advertisements / free, with advertisements / 0.99€ / 1.99€ / 2.99€

Language

foreign language I do not understand / foreign language I understand / native language

7.3.3

Results

The final data set was analyzed based on two different methods that are commonly used when working with choice-based conjoint experiments. First, through a hierarchical Bayesian routine, we estimated the perceived utility of each attribute-level, as well as the average importance of the attributes themselves (Arora and Huber, 2001). The wider the range between the values of the attribute-levels, the more important an attribute seems to be for users, since they clearly had strong preferences for certain characteristics of the attribute. The allocation of those values delivers an overall utility indicator for a product. These values can be compared to the participants’ input and led to an overall assessment of the model. With a hit rate of 73%, we can testify that the overall prediction level of our approach and the resulting ideal configuration of a streaming option is fairly high. This procedure was followed by the application of the “counts method”, a click frequency based approach that provides statistical output to identify significant differences at individual levels for each attribute. This method is commonly used to validate the results of the Hierarchical Bayesian routine (Sawtooth Software, 2013). Table 17 depicts the average importance of the provided attributes. Based on the calculations we determined that the most important aspects (on average) of broadcast choice were 1) the price (31.35%), 2) the language (27.95%) and 3) the picture quality (18.15%). The included social indicators (e.g., interaction with broadcaster) of SLSSs derive around 5% of average importance. Therefore, we can assume that the social aspects are not unimportant when choosing a

7.4 Study 2: Influential Factors on Interaction Intentions

Table 17:

113

Average Importance of provided Attributes

Attribute

Average importance (%)

Price

31.351

Language

27.946

Picture quality

18.147

Interaction with broadcaster

5.834

Interaction with other users

5.681

Viewers of the broadcast

5.576

Subscribers of the channel

5.460

broadcast, but seem to function more as an additional feature that may mean the difference between otherwise equal broadcasts. Nevertheless, with over 20% of the average importance related to the provided interaction methods, we can state that these services have an influence on the choice processes of users in an SLSS. When looking at the respective utility values, we identified attributes where the different levels had different impacts. This indicates that users prefer a certain level relating to certain attributes (e.g., low vs. high picture quality). In this case, we can see that the interaction with the broadcaster does have a significant effect (p < .01), and that users strongly prefer broadcasters who react to their comments. After picture quality, language, and price, this was the only category with significant differences for the attribute-levels. Therefore, the results indicate a difference between interaction with users and interaction with broadcasters. While both types of interaction did account for approximately 5 percent of the overall choice, only the interaction with a broadcaster was significant in influencing the choice of users on a streaming option. Concluding, we were able to address our first research question and get an impression of the influences of social indicators on the SLSS usage of users. The second study will further investigate these differences by identifying the differences in the underlying factors that drive users’ interaction intentions.

7.4 7.4.1

Study 2: Influential Factors on Interaction Intentions Methodology

All measures of the present study were drawn from well-established sources to ensure the reliability of our study. Measurements of possible interaction intentions by participants were adapted from Ko et al. (2005), as was the scale for

114 7 Interaction in Social Live Streaming Services – Importance and influential Factors

interaction motivation. The social ties to other users was included in accordance with Chai et al. (2011). Perceived usefulness was measured with three items by Lin and Lu (2011). The participation benefits construct was adapted from Chan et al. (2010). All measures were measured reflectively and operationalized as seven-point Likert scales, anchored at 1 (e.g., strongly disagree) and 7 (e.g., strongly agree). In addition to these measurement scales, the participants were asked to provide demographic information at the end of the questionnaire (including age, sex and education). Participants for this study were recruited online. Prior to the first set of questions, minor introductions were given. Participants were asked to answer the questions regarding their SLSS usage and evaluate the measures accordingly. Throughout the questionnaire, all tasks and questions were explained to the participants to avoid any complications. The URL leading to the study was spread through social media platforms and forums to reach as many people as possible. The final sample consisted of 218 participants with Mage = 28.8 (SD = 10.1). Of the final sample, 50.5 % were female and 49.5 % male. To test our hypotheses and the overall measurement model, PLS-SEM was conducted. Due to its parameter consistency and accuracy for smaller sample sizes the analysis was conducted with SmartPLS 3.0 (Ringle et al., 2015; Reinartz et al., 2009). Table 18 and Table 19 provide the derived results regarding the measurement statistics. As indicated, the yielded values are satisfying, and construct validity can be assumed. The individual factor loadings were all above 0.7 and the AVE was above 0.5 for all constructs, indicating convergent validity (Hair et al., 2017). Discriminant validity was assessed through the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Additionally, the cross loadings of all indicators were assessed and showing sufficient values (Chin, 1998). The inner VIF of our constructs were below the threshold of ten and possible collinearity can be dismissed (Hair et al., 2017).

7.4 Study 2: Influential Factors on Interaction Intentions

Table 18:

115

Measurements

Reflective Instruments

Outer Loadings

Interaction motivation (Cronbach’s alpha = .848; Composite reliability = .898) I wonder what others have to say.

.839

I want to keep up with what’s going on.

.781

I want to express myself.

.852

I want to meet others with similar interests.

.841

Interaction intention with users (Cronbach’s alpha = .846; Composite reliability = .928) Likely / Unlikely

.946

Possible / Impossible

.914

Interaction intention with broadcaster (Cronbach’s alpha = .852; Composite reliability = .931) Likely / Unlikely

.945

Possible / Impossible

.921

Participation benefits (Cronbach’s alpha = .896; Composite reliability = .935) My participation helps me build a better relationship with others.

.907

My participation makes the interactions more enjoyable.

.936

My participation helps me receive relational approval from others.

.887

Social ties (Cronbach’s alpha = .925; Composite reliability = .947) I maintain close social relationships with other users.

.892

I spend a lot of time interacting with other users.

.908

I know other users on a personal level.

.920

I have frequent communication with other users.

.896

Perceived usefulness (Cronbach’s alpha = .854; Composite reliability = .911) Using SLSS enables me to acquire more information or know more people.

.870

Using SLSS improves my efficiency in sharing information and connecting with others.

.9

SLSS is a useful service for interaction between members.

.869

116 7 Interaction in Social Live Streaming Services – Importance and influential Factors

Interaction intention with users

Interaction intention with broadcaster

Participation benefits

Social ties

Perceived usefulness

Discriminant validity Interaction motivation

Table 19:

Interaction motivation

.687

.477

.350

.315

.581

.310

Interaction intention with users

.691

.865

.388

.3

.399

.277

Interaction intention with broadcaster

.592

.623

.871

.251

.342

.161

Participation benefits

.561

.548

.501

.828

.329

.220

Social ties

.762

.632

.585

.574

.817

.193

Perceived usefulness

.557

.526

.401

.469

.439

.774

Note: Diagonal elements represent the AVE for reflective constructs. Correlations are underneath the diagonal; squared correlations are above the diagonal.

7.5

PLS-SEM Model

The overall measurement model was assessed by examining the path coefficients and corresponding significance levels. Table 20 depicts the results regarding the first hypotheses, related to social ties. As shown in the table, all indicators are significantly influenced by user social ties. Although the path coefficients for H1a and H1b indicate a large effect of social ties (β = .438 and β = .575), the R2 values indicate that the amount of explained variance is rather low. Nevertheless, both hypotheses are validated, indicating the importance of social ties in an SLSS. The indications taken from SNS literature seem to be valuable indicators for SLSSs. Building on Social Identity Theory, the basic function for any form of social networking is reproducible for both SNS and SLSS. The second part of the analysis focused on the aspects of the two-way interaction possibilities. Table 20 illustrates the corresponding path coefficients and significance levels. With one exception, all hypotheses were verified through the PLS analysis. With over 50% of the variance for interaction intention with other users explained, the results seem to yield a sufficient amount of explanatory

7.5 PLS-SEM Model

Table 20:

117

Results of PLS-SEM Coefficient

Corresponding hypotheses

Social tie  Perceived usefulness

.438 ***

H1a 

Social tie  Participation benefits

.575 ***

H1b 

Interaction motivation  Interaction intention with other users

.491 ***

H2a 

Interaction motivation  Interaction intention with broadcaster

.432 ***

H2b 

Perceived usefulness  Interaction intention with other users

.159 **

H3a 

Perceived usefulness  Interaction intention with broadcaster

.05 n.s.

H3b 

Participation benefits  Interaction intention with other users

.198 **

H4a 

Participation benefits  Interaction intention with broadcaster

.235 **

H4b 

R2

Q2

Perceived usefulness

.191

.144

Participation benefits

.331

.266

Path

Interaction intention with other users

.532

.440

Interaction intention with broadcaster

.393

.323

Model fit SRMR

.099

Chi2

571.408

NFI

.812

* .05 < p < 0.1; ** p < .05; *** p < .001; n. s. = not significant; Bootstrapping procedure: 5,000 samples; N = 218 for PLS algorithm and bootstrapping

power. When looking at the interaction intention with the broadcaster, the R2 value of .393 is adequate, but other influences must be missing to fully explain this trait of interaction. Overall, the results indicate that there are parallels and differences between the two interaction possibilities. Interaction motivation and participation benefits are in both cases significant influences of interaction intentions in SLSS. When examining the path coefficients, the values for perceived usefulness derive the smallest amount of influence in the setting. In the case of interaction intention with the broadcaster, the proposed connection cannot be significantly

118 7 Interaction in Social Live Streaming Services – Importance and influential Factors

supported, forcing us to reject H3b. Although the derived results for both interaction traits are somewhat similar, their influence on perceived usefulness is certainly a key difference. Apparently, the overall perception of the usefulness of an SLSS does not necessarily determine users’ intentions to interact with the broadcaster. Lin and Lu (2011), when examining the influential factors of SNS usage, also derived a smaller influence of perceived usefulness of SNS in comparison to other factors. Although their influences yielded a significant path coefficient, the results are relatable to our setting, as similar results are derived for the interaction with other users. Users tend to see the main function of SLSS and SNS as the interaction possibility with other users. The option to interact with a broadcaster possibly relates to more hedonic aspects. Kim et al. (2018) found pleasure to be an important factor when giving a gift to a broadcaster and argued that this perceived enjoyment was a vital motivational trait for this form of interaction in SLSS.

7.6

Discussion and Conclusion

Through the two studies we found answers to the previously stated research questions. The results of Study 1 provided new information regarding the choice processes of users in an SLSS. Social features and indicators play a role when explaining the thought processes of users, but they are not as important as the technological features of an SLSS. Users value the social aspects of an SLSS, but their main motivation to use such services is to use the video stream as a means of entertainment. Therefore, the social exchange within an SLSS is an additional feature that enhances the experience of users but is not necessarily the reason for service use. Study 2 derived further insights on the comparability of SNS and SLSS. Out of the six proposed hypotheses, we verified five. Social ties, as expected, were a strong indicator for the stated influenced factors, showing that this aspect of SLSS usage is similar to a traditional SNS. Furthermore, the proposed differences between interactions with a broadcaster and interactions with other users were also indicated by the derived results. Path coefficients showed a strong relationship between the corresponding constructs, and both interaction traits were similarly affected by interaction motivation and participation benefits. The perceived usefulness of an SLSS did not significantly influence either direction of interaction. Therefore, we presume that there are differences between the two interaction traits and these need to be accounted for when assessing the field of SLSSs. Social Identity Theory guided our research. Its effectiveness in explaining user behavior in an SLSS and an SNS is certainly supported by the results of our research. In contrast to previous studies in the SNS field, we must limit the importance of the theoretical implications of social identity. The results

7.6 Discussion and Conclusion

119

of the first study indicate a difference between an SLSS and other forms of online communities, where Social Identity Theory might be sufficient to explain most of the human interaction behavior. The results enlighten the SLSS field, but many aspects of human behavior within an SLSS are still undetermined. Building on our research, the influential power of social ties should be further assessed. The choice-based conjoint experiment is efficient at gaining insights into this field, but different research approaches should be used to develop a better understanding of the influences on user choice regarding SLSSs. Further distinction should be made relating to the possible indicators of social connection. Our research design included interaction possibilities through message features, as well as network size. Kim et al. (2018) examined gift exchanges of users and broadcaster as another form of interaction. Their results indicate a strong relation to perceived social connection. Therefore, these elements should be included in future research designs. Broadcasters and their personality could potentially play an important role in the overall choice process. Some broadcasters on Twitch have a vast number of followers that enjoy the content provided by the broadcaster. It is possible that the use and interaction intentions of users is closely related to the perceived social ties with the broadcaster and only loosely related to social ties with other users (Zhao et al., 2018). Furthermore, we limited our research to the interaction intention of users with other users and broadcasters, not considering other possible outcome variables. A significant amount of research has been conducted regarding word-ofmouth in online environments and it is fair to assume that this phenomenon would also be a desirable outcome of SLSS activities (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Berger and Schwartz, 2011; Dubois et al., 2016; Godes and Mayzlin, 2004). Further research should investigate the relationship of SLSS usage and possible word-of-mouth user behavior. The results provide managerial implication in two different areas. First, an SLSS should provide capabilities to stream high-quality videos for a reasonable price (or for free), as this would reflect the ideal choice for users when using an SLSS. Since this is sometimes neither possible nor feasible, other forms of revenue, which do not lead to users being charged, should be implemented. Sponsoring, product placement, or simple advertisements could be possible solutions. Second, an SLSS should clearly emphasize the social factors of their platforms, and allow users to interact with one another. Through message boards, chat options or email possibilities, users might be able to connect with each other. Although unrelated to a specific video stream these features might strengthen the social ties of users, which might then affect the interaction intention. These interaction possibilities should be offered with an emphasis on potential benefit. The connection with other users in chat rooms and message boards will lead to more engagement. The inclusion of live streaming options in traditional SNS is

120 7 Interaction in Social Live Streaming Services – Importance and influential Factors

certainly a threat to SLSSs. Thus far, SLSSs have the advantage of advanced video technology, but the lack of social features could be a key factor in future competitiveness. Therefore, SLSSs should focus on their unique strength, the video stream, while enhancing their networking possibilities. The video is what users are coming for and the networking possibilities might be what they stay for. Broadcasters can also derive valuable insights from the results of our research. Although the technological infrastructure and the video quality depends on the platform, broadcasters could potentially enhance the users’ experiences through a professional form of video stream. The results of the count methods of Study 1 indicated that the interaction with the broadcaster was more influential if the broadcaster reacts to messages received. Broadcasters could gain more followers if they attempt to engage in conversations. The SLSS platform would also profit from this action.

8 General Conclusion 8.1

Core Results

This dissertation presents insights about the power of events as a tool to communicate a brand of higher education. On assessing a job fair and its attendees, it was found that the expected link between attitude toward the event and the HEI could not be shown for this specific case. Both attitudes, however, were found to have a significant influence on identification with the HEI. Therefore, it was assumed that the missing attitude transfer was based on previous impressions that may play an important role in forming an overall attitude toward an HEI. Nevertheless, as a short-term reaction, identification with the HEI was effective. Through the examination and direct comparison of two different event types, the notion that the effectiveness of single events was connected to the individual visitor and their prior engagement with the HEI was strengthened. Visitors with less information and fewer impressions of the HEI were affected more strongly by the event. The favorability towards the HEI was significantly influenced by attitude toward the event for attendees with no to little prior knowledge and significantly influenced by attitude towards the HEI for students and other stakeholders with better impressions of the institutions. Interestingly, with regard to WOM about the HEI, the events did not provoke different impacts. Therefore, WOM and identification seem to be aroused through events for both groups of stakeholders. As for the event itself, event quality and perceived fit of event and HEI are also significantly important for the formation of attitude toward the event. Consequently, the suggested effectiveness of single events as a means for influencing consumer behavior was also found for events of the higher education market. The attitude toward the event and the brand, as suggested by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), had a strong influence on the subsequent behavior in favor of the HEI. Furthermore, the overall attitude toward the event was, as expected, found to be subject the evaluation of the event (i.e., event quality). Also verified was the assumption that the perceived level of congruency was positively related to attitude to these single events. When assessing the more complex event portfolios, however, these results could not be fully verified. The choice-based conjoint experiment of paper 3 provided insights into the overall choice preferences of students in regard to events and aimed to gain an understanding of the combination of events within a portfolio. Here, the perceived congruence of event and HEI, could not be found © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020 F. Neus, Event Marketing in the Context of Higher Education Marketing and Digital Environments, Handel und Internationales Marketing Retailing and International Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29262-1_8

122

8 General Conclusion

to provide explanatory power to coherent choices of participants. Although the level of congruence and individual utility values of events often showed similar notions, a clear indication of their connection could not be derived. When examining the effects of the overall portfolios on the behavior of participants in regard to the HEI, these results were further investigated. Apparently, level of congruency influences the evaluation of portfolios, but the previously observed influence of single events, i.e., fit being a purely positive influence on event perception, could not be found for portfolios. In both experiments, the portfolio with the highest values for fit was not found to yield the highest values for the included outcome variables. The conceptualized portfolios, based on either hedonic or utilitarian events, were both outperformed by a portfolio that incorporated hedonic as well as utilitarian events. This was found for all included outcome variables, i.e., WOM, use and liking. Generally, utilitarian offers were perceived as the best fit for HEIs, showing that the obvious train of thoughts could be coming from the image of a rather utilitarian perspective focusing on the “core product” of education by which an HEI is measured. Yet, the notion of hedonic events is obviously a strong indicator for potential students, thus demonstrating the overall importance of HEIs in the lifetime of students. Subsequently, the hedonic and utilitarian combination of events leads to a compromise that offers chances for career advancement as well as leisure. Generally, single events as well as portfolios of events were found to be drivers of positive behavior in this special environment. Thereby, the theoretical assumptions regarding the effectiveness of events and coherent attitude formation could be verified. However, the results also indicate that not all of the proposed influences on event perception (i.e., level of congruency) are equally valid for single events as well as portfolios of events. The assessment and comparison of offline and online event consumption has shown that there are some advantages and disadvantages of using form of consumption, thereby expanding the implications drawn from the uses and gratification theory (Katz et al., 1973a). Based on the MSSC, the motivations of attendees to attended the event as well as followers of the stream were compared (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). The results show that attendees of the event onsite were keen on social interaction while attending the event, whereas online participants were significantly more interested in the skills of players, the aesthetics of the game, and the possibility of extending their own knowledge. For both groups, the motivation to escape and to experience drama was not significantly different. Generally, the values derived for all of the included dimensions of motivation to attend or follow the event indicated that there are strong similarities between the two forms of consumptions. Yet, subtle differences exist. Furthermore, the results showed that the attitude toward the event is not dependent on the form of consumption. Generally, the event itself is perceived equally by the groups, and

8.2 Limitations and Implications for Research

123

the forms of consumptions and their coherent advantages and disadvantages make consumers choose to attend online or offline. Consequently, the theoretical concept, introduced through the uses and gratification theory (Katz et al., 1973b), of making a conscious choice of a special consumption form could be verified for the case of eSports. The results indicate that consumption form and event perception are closely related and that consumers tend to take special possibilities and limitations of these outlets into consideration. Streaming of digital content on SLSS platforms offers unique features that enrich the experience of consumers. One of these features is the possibility to interact with other users or the broadcaster of a stream. Based on the social identity theory, it was found that the social tie of users is the foundation of interaction behavior. The survey, furthermore, revealed that the social tie of users is a powerful influential factor to the perceived usefulness of SLSS and the perceived benefits to the interaction. When examining the influential factors to the specific interaction intentions, it was found that all of the named constructs were also valuable indicators to explain the possible interaction with the broadcaster as well as other users. However, the perceived usefulness of SLSS only significantly influenced the interaction with other users, not the broadcaster.

8.2

Limitations and Implications for Research

The most significant and important implications of this dissertation should be considered in the field of higher education marketing and the potential that events hold in this area. As pointed out, the transfer of attitude was not always verifiable through the results derived from the surveys. This goes against the indications drawn from event marketing literature (e.g., Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008) as well as the reasoning from theory (Ajzen and Fishbein, 2005). A possible explanation for this missing link can be found in the utilization of different types of events. Scholars have emphasized the importance of the type of event, but a proper comparison of different types of events has rarely included surveys, and none of the few examples available were set in the higher education sector (Kim et al., 2016). Thus, this dissertation widens the knowledge about the influence of event type and the possible effects on the outcome of event-related marketing efforts (i.e., transfer of attitude). Research should build on the generated insights and study additional examples and type of events to gain a more thorough understanding of the individual influences. Furthermore, the target groups addressed and observed differences support the important influence of familiarity with the object or brand. This should also be addressed in more detail and taken into consideration in future research. Especially in the field of event marketing, the influence of prior attitude toward the brand (i.e., HEI) has not

124

8 General Conclusion

been assessed. Similar questions arise regarding the aspect of multiple event visits and how contact and impressions change throughout these contacts, an aspect which has also been found for fans of sport teams or players (Gantz and Wenner, 1995). Especially for events of HEIs that are often planned in accordance with, e.g., a specific point of time in a semester, this issue should be addressed. Building on this notion, the individual study progress of the participants should also be considered. Scholars have indicated that the expectations might change based on these issues, e.g., students close to the end of their studies or close to an important internship might show different interests and reactions to certain events (Huesman et al., 2009; Yost and Tucker, 1995). This influence should be addressed in future research. Additionally, the observed differences between gender and their preferences regarding events was unexpected and is not generally supported by existing literature (Bowden and Wood, 2011). Research should address this issue carefully and determine the influence of gender in this regard. A limitation of the overall approach and the surveys conducted is their strong connection to the German higher education sector. Although a general comparison should be justifiable, there are subtle differences between the individual higher education markets and these differences should, ideally, be addressed through additional studies. For instance, the higher education sector in the United States has been more conscious of events for a longer time. Especially due to the almost professional sporting events held on campus, HEIs in the United States regularly portray their brand through events on a national scale (Huml et al., 2018). Furthermore, fundraising and coherent events have been an important pillar of revenue for their HEIs (Sung and Yang, 2009). Therefore, an investigation that compares different international markets could help develop a more detailed understanding of long-term effects of event marketing efforts at HEIs. Generally, seeing that students nowadays move internationally, the effects of events for students visiting a different country should also be taken into account in forthcoming research (Abubakar et al., 2010). Visitors of events were selected to participate in the surveys and the results are based on their evaluation. However, research in regard to social media marketing of HEIs has emphasized that content portrayed online can help boost the brands’ image (Shields and Peruta, 2018). Furthermore, social media is also a powerful tool to attract different stakeholders and seek their individual attention (Sheeran and Cummings, 2018). Consequently, events might also work in favor of the HEI in the online arena. By presenting (live) content online, HEIs can probably arouse positive reactions among their followers, without having them attend the event itself. Research should, thus, extend the conducted experiments to gather insights into the possible influence of event type on the potential of this communication channel and general effectiveness of events as online content.

8.2 Limitations and Implications for Research

125

Thereby, the overall effects of these events could be strengthened, and a larger audience can be attracted. Critical implications and relevant insights can also be drawn from the portfolio investigations conducted in paper 3 and 4, especially in regard to the results on the influence of fit as an influential factor for event portfolio research. The two objects involved (i.e., HEI and event portfolio) were generally perceived as a fit in the eye of the participants. Yet, the purely positive tendencies found by single event research (e.g., Martensen and Gronholdt, 2008) could not be verified for event portfolios. However, the results of paper 4 generally implicate that the perceived fit has some influence, but the highest fit does not yield the highest values for the outcome variables. This slightly contradicts the assumptions taken from prior research and, therefore, adds to the knowledge about fit and its influence on events in general. Researchers should address this issue in additional surveys and develop a suitable understanding of the influence of fit for these more complex portfolios. The portfolio management perspective for events is an important asset to the whole industry and the results of the conducted studies generally support its importance for the assessed fields (Ziakas, 2013b). Expanding the existing literature on event portfolios and providing a further understanding of the complex connections of individual events should also be considered in future research. The third paper yielded some promising results on possible means to compose effective portfolios. Research should assess additional means to identify suitable combinations of events for objects. Generally, portfolio development regarding financial products or brands has been guided by directed research and coherent studies (Day, 1977; Nguyen et al., 2018). Yet, proper tools for combining different events and assessing their connection are absent. The research conducted in this dissertation was grounded on the theoretical thoughts of Ziakas (2013b) and built on the work of Chalip and McGuirty (2004), utilizing choice-based conjoint experiments to gather data. The results derived and the implications drawn demonstrate the possibilities to utilize this tool to determine possible portfolios for the incorporated objects. Yet, the identification of proper tools and the further development of theoretical background is necessary to strengthen event portfolio management as a research stream within event management. Furthermore, event management research should work on understanding the complexity of portfolios and identify means of assessing the motivation of attendees to guide management in developing new sources for attracting visitors and to extend the existing knowledge about human behavior in this regard. Research should adapt established features and measures to better address the more complex needs of portfolios. Papers 5 and 6 contribute to a different field of research. The results indicate that digital environments offer new possibilities and that these advantages

126

8 General Conclusion

can lead to significant changes in the way that events are currently consumed. Generally, the comparison of digital and analogue consumption forms delivered a better understanding about the advantages and disadvantages of the two means of consumption. Streaming is a tool for followers that want to see the action in detail and can do without the atmosphere and social connection of an arena or stadium. Research should assess these differences and determine the exact factors that yield the specific advantages. This could be done by identifying the characteristics of streaming platforms that positively influence these advantages. The level of interactive features and the motivation for a specific streaming offer should be the focus of research. Furthermore, the study was conducted in the realm of eSports and the results might also be valuable as first indicators for other fields, but a deeper examination might help develop a more sustainable impression of user’s motivation to follow an event online. eSports is a very specific and special field that often attracts people already keen on using the digital environment; consequently, the results of a similar study connected to a different setting (e.g., a different sport or event) might help broaden the existing knowledge about digital consumption of events (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). Furthermore, the conducted study generally observed results for online consumption without a clear distinction between the devices utilized to follow the event. Research has already identified differences between different devices and their application (e.g., smartphone vs. tablet) (Wagner, 2015). Therefore, it is highly likely that these differences could also be identified for this special field and the coherent usage of streaming platforms. The world of SLSS and coherent platforms should be explored further. The results of paper 6 demonstrate that social identity plays an important part in explaining the interaction of users with these settings. Yet, the results also indicate that other factors are certainly at play. Furthermore, a segmentation of users could give valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of platforms and shed more light on the motivation of users to interact with broadcaster or peers. Research has already looked into other forms of interaction (e.g., gifting) and extending the results to further differentiate between these forms of interaction could also lead to interesting results (Kim et al., 2018).

8.3

Managerial Implications

In addition to the stated implications for research, the conducted research also yields implications for management. Most importantly, practitioners in the field of higher education, especially within the German market, can derive valuable insights from the results of the presented studies. Overall, the data show the power of events in this realm and practitioners, might successfully utilize this

8.3 Managerial Implications

127

tool to attract new stakeholders and strengthen the relationship with existing ones. Throughout the papers, the complicated and complex field of higher education marketing has been discussed and the background of events is presented. Based on the described case, the HEIs might have feared that the events might yield negative effects as they occasionally fail to portray the desired traits and create an unwanted image of the HEI. Although this fear might be valid, the results clearly indicate that, generally, a diverse offer of events can be good for HEIs. Portfolio analysis clearly showed that an HEI can be associated with multiple events of different types and still achieve positive results. Consequently, HEIs should embrace events that are organized by different groups within the HEI and should be interested in supporting their efforts. By properly connecting the brand to the event and utilizing the groups’ effort to promote the HEI to an audience, positive effects could be derived. Official marketing departments organize events for HEIs, yet numerous events hosted e.g., by a student club, go unnoticed or get ignored by the official channels. Nevertheless, these events should be seen as missed opportunities to further promote the HEI. Students and other stakeholders are not, based on the results of papers 1 to 4, overly keen on always experiencing events that are in line with the curriculum. Hedonic as well as utilitarian aspects of events were valuable assets for HEIs and, consequently, marketers should be keen on offering both facets. Furthermore, the results also indicate that events work differently for different groups of stakeholders. Practitioners should be aware of these differences and plan their actions accordingly. Students should be addressed with specific information that widens their perspective on their own HEI (e.g., new projects or fields of studies). New students or other stakeholders should be offered the chance to experience the general aspects of the HEI. By implementing appropriate elements into the organized events, practitioners can ensure the success of the event and control the flow of information that ultimately manifests in attitude towards the HEI and connected actions (e.g., WOM). Generally, HEIs and other entities should understand the connections between these events and utilize the potential synergies between them. The perception of events as a portfolio and the coherent organization of those events is a valuable take-away from this dissertation. One important outcome could also be the potential to advertise numerous events with a combined advertisement or use the individual events to make people aware of the other events of the portfolio. For HEIs, the mix of different events seems promising and it is highly likely that other institutions could benefit from a similar approach. Yet, the results of this dissertation were derived within this special field and any form of generalization should be conducted carefully. Nevertheless, a reason to approach events as a portfolio should be taken from the results. The specific arrangement should be

128

8 General Conclusion

done by specialists of the field who can anticipate the expectations of potential stakeholders. The dissertation also addresses the potential consequences of different consumption forms and their connection with the attendees’ evaluation of events. Generally, digital consumption (especially through enriched platforms such as twich.tv) should be considered one of the most promising and meaningful developments. When done correctly, events can overcome barriers regarding audience size and geographical accessibility. eSports should be considered a unique industry that serves as a valuable example. Based on the results, each means of consumption caters to specific aspects of the event. Practitioners should, therefore, try to emphasize these characteristics when developing new platforms and general offerings. Seeing that the stream was more interesting for individuals that wanted to follow specific elements of the game, the industry should develop means of digital consumption that enable the user to interactively create a unique experience. By letting users switch between viewpoints or different commentators, the overall event evaluation might be positive, and a bigger audience can be drawn. However, this arena is lacking some elements that could be addressed by additional screens or even an app for your smartphone that attendees can use to gain access to more features. Television and other means of broadcasting means are somewhat inferior to the modern SLSS and, quite frankly, are addressing a different audience. At least for eSports, a very specific audience is looking for experiences on SLSS that are not common for a normal television broadcast. Yet, given the digital background of most eSport viewers, a familiarity with these newer methods can be expected (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017). Consequently, the implications for other sports should be taken into account with great caution. Offering new consumption forms on these newer platforms is generally a promising way to address a digitally competent audience that can be encouraged to follow the content online. These audiences would appreciate the additional features and are probably expecting these elements. The results of the choice-based conjoint experiment of paper 6 emphasize the fact that offerings should be of high quality and cater specifically to the expected audience (i.e., presented in the correct language). Practitioners should be aware of that and always try to fully utilize the potential of these platforms. SLSS are not mere substitutes for television broadcasts. These are superior platforms and should be offered as such, almost regardless of the content. One important aspect of SLSS is the social interaction through specific features built into these platforms. Social tie has been found to be key driver of these interactions and practitioners can gain insights from these findings. By offering special deals for groups watching these games or preparing special chat options for these groups, the offer can be made generally more appealing. Fur-

8.3 Managerial Implications

129

thermore, the possibility to engage in a conversation with the broadcaster was of importance for the surveys’ participants. Offering a direct line to the broadcaster can, therefore, be very valuable and a feature that can potentially generate additional profits. The coherent study also demonstrates that potential benefits are an influential factor for interaction intentions. Consequently, clearly stating and offering benefits (e.g., additional information), could lead to further willingness to use and pay for these features, Overall, the dissertation provides input for research and management alike. Yet, many aspects of these fields of research remain untapped and the results derived should also be seen as a call for additional research to further examine and ultimately guide these developments.

References Abreu Novais, M. and Arcodia, C. (2013), “Measuring the Effects of Event Sponsorship. Theoretical Frameworks and Image Transfer Models”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 308–334. Abubakar, B., Shanka, T. and Muuka, G.N. (2010), “Tertiary education: an investigation of location selection criteria and preferences by international students – The case of two Australian universities”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 49–68. Ajzen, I. (1985), “From Intentions to Actions. A Theory of Planned Behavior”, in Kuhl, J. and Beckmann, J. (Eds.), Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 11–39. Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179–211. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (2005), “The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior”, in Albarracín, D., Johnson, B.T. and Zanna, M.P. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes, Psychology Press, New York, pp. 173–221. Alexandris, K., Tsiotsou, R.H. and James, J.D. (2012), “Testing a Hierarchy of Effects Model of Sponsorship Effectiveness”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 363–378. Al-Fattal, A. and Ayoubi, R. (2013), “Student needs and motives when attending a university: exploring the Syrian case”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 204–225. Anderson, N.H. (1971), “Integration theory and attitude change”, Psychological Review, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp. 171–206. Anderson, R.E. and Srinivasan, S.S. (2003), “E-satisfaction and e-loyalty: A contingency framework”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 123–138. Andersson, T.D. and Getz, D. (2008), “Stakeholder Management Strategies of Festivals”, Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 199–220. Andersson, T.D., Getz, D., Gration, D. and Raciti, M.M. (2017), “Event portfolios. Asset value, risk and returns”, International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 226–243. Arambewela, R. and Hall, J. (2009), “An empirical model of international student satisfaction”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 555–569. Ardichvili, A., Page, V. and Wentling, T. (2003), “Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge‐sharing communities of practice”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 64–77. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020 F. Neus, Event Marketing in the Context of Higher Education Marketing and Digital Environments, Handel und Internationales Marketing Retailing and International Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29262-1

132

References

Arora, N. and Huber, J. (2001), “Improving Parameter Estimates and Model Prediction by Aggregate Customization in Choice Experiments”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 273–283. Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social Identity Theory and the Organization”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20–39. Azadi, R., Yousefi, B. and Eydi, H. (2016), “The Impact of the Sponsorship in the Sport Promoting Brand Equity of Sportswear Industry”, International Journal of Business & Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 19–32. Backman, K.F., Backman, S.J., Uysal, M. and Sunshine, K.M. (1995), “Event Tourism: An Examination of Motivations and Activities”, Festival Management and Event Tourism, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 15–24. Baden-Fuller, C. and Haefliger, S. (2013), “Business Models and Technological Innovation”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 419–426. Báez-Montenegro, A. and Devesa-Fernández, M. (2017), “Motivation, satisfaction and loyalty in the case of a film festival. Differences between local and non-local participants”, Journal of Cultural Economics, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 173–195. Bagozzi, R.P. (1986), “Attitude formation under the theory of reasoned action and a purposeful behaviour reformulation”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 95–107. Balduck, A.-L., Maes, M. and Buelens, M. (2011), “The Social Impact of the Tour de France. Comparisons of Residents’ Pre- and Post-event Perceptions”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 91–113. Balmer, J.M.T. and Liao, M.‐N. (2007), “Student corporate brand identification: an exploratory case study”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 356–375. Bandura, A. (1986), Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory, a social cognitive theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Barasch, A. and Berger, J. (2014), “Broadcasting and Narrowcasting. How Audience Size Affects What People Share”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 286– 299. Barrera, M., Sandler, I.N. and Ramsay, T.B. (1981), “Preliminary development of a scale of social support. Studies on college students”, American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 435–447. Barrett, M., Oborn, E. and Orlikowski, W. (2016), “Creating Value in Online Communities. The Sociomaterial Configuring of Strategy, Platform, and Stakeholder Engagement”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 704–723. Batra, R. and Ahtola, O.T. (1991), “Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 159–170. Batra, R. and Stayman, D.M. (1990), “The Role of Mood in Advertising Effectiveness”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 203–214.

References

133

Batson, C.D., Shaw, L.L. and Oleson, K.C. (1992), “Differentiating affect, mood, and emotion: Toward functionally based conceptual distinctions”, in Emotion, Review of personality and social psychology, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 294–326. Becker-Olsen, K. and Simmons, C.J. (2002), “When Do Social Sponsorships Enhance Or Dilute Equity? Fit, Message Source, and the Persistence of Effects”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 287–289. Becker-Olsen, K.L. (2003), “And Now, A Word from our Sponsor: A Look at the Effects of Sponsored Content and Banner Advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 17–32. Becker-Olsen, K.L. and Hill, R.P. (2006), “The Impact of Sponsor Fit on Brand Equity”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 73–83. Beerli Palacio, A., Díaz Meneses, G. and Pérez Pérez, P.J. (2002), “The configuration of the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 486–505. Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (2009), Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communications perspective, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York. Bendapudi, N. and Leone, R.P. (2003), “Psychological Implications of Customer Participation in Co-Production”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 14–28. Bennett, R. and Ali-Choudhury, R. (2009), “Prospective Students’ Perceptions of University Brands: An Empirical Study”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 85–107. Berger, J. and Schwartz, E.M. (2011), “What Drives Immediate and Ongoing Word of Mouth?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 869–880. Berridge, G., May, D., Kitchen, E. and Sullivan, G. (2019), “A study of spectator emotions at the Tour de France”, Event Management. Bharadwaj, A., Sawy, O.A.E., Pavlou, P.A. and Venkatraman, N. (2013), “Digital business strategy. Toward a next generation of insights”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 471–482. Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-Company Identification. A Framework for Understanding Consumers’ Relationships with Companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 76–88. Blau, P.M. (1986), Exchange and power in social life, 2nd ed., Taylor & Francis, New Brunswick. Blumler, J.G. and Katz, E. (1974), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research, Sage annual reviews of communication research, Vol. 3, SAGE Publications, Beverly Hills. Bouchet, P., Bodet, G., Bernache-Assollant, I. and Kada, F. (2011), “Segmenting sport spectators. Construction and preliminary validation of the Sporting Event Experience Search (SEES) scale”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 42–53.

134

References

Bowden, J. and Wood, L. (2011), “Sex doesn’t matter: the role of gender in the formation of student-university relationships”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 133–156. Briggs, S. and Wilson, A. (2007), “Which university? A study of the influence of cost and information factors on Scottish undergraduate choice”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 57–72. Broekemier, G.M. and Seshadri, S. (2000), “Differences in College Choice Criteria Between Deciding Students and Their Parents”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 1–13. Brown, R.M. and Mazzarol, T.W. (2009), “The Importance of Institutional Image to Student Satisfaction and Loyalty within Higher Education”, Higher Education, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 81–95. Bründl, S., Matt, C. and Hess, T. (2017), “Consumer use of Social Live Streaming Services: The Influence of Co-Experience and Effectance on Enjoyment”, in Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, June 510, AIS, Guimarães, pp. 1775–1791. Buch, T., Milne, S. and Dickson, G. (2011), “Multiple Stakeholder Perspectives on Cultural Events: Auckland’s Pasifika Festival”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 20 No. 3-4, pp. 311–328. Byon, K.K., Cottingham, M. and Carroll, M.S. (2010), “Marketing murderball: the influence of spectator motivation factors on sports consumption behaviours of wheelchair rugby spectators”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 71–89. Capraro, A.J., Patrick, M.L. and Wilson, M. (2004), “Attracting College Candidates. The Impact of Perceived Social Life”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 93–106. Carrillat, F.A., Lafferty, B.A. and Harris, E.G. (2005), “Investigating sponsorship effectiveness. Do less familiar brands have an advantage over more familiar brands in single and multiple sponsorship arrangements?”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 50–64. Celly, K.S. and Knepper, B. (2010), “The California State University: a case on branding the largest public university system in the US”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 3, 137-156. Chai, S., Das, S. and Rao, H.R. (2011), “Factors Affecting Bloggers’ Knowledge Sharing. An Investigation Across Gender”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 309–342. Chalip, L. and McGuirty, J. (2004), “Bundling sport events with the host destination”, Journal of Sport & Tourism, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 267–282. Chan, K.W., Yim, C.K. and Lam, S.S.K. (2010), “Is Customer Participation in Value Creation a Double-Edged Sword? Evidence from Professional Financial Services Across Cultures”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 48–64.

References

135

Chapleo, C. (2010), “What defines “successful” university brands?”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 169–183. Chapman, D.W. (1981), “A Model of Student College Choice”, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 52 No. 5, p. 490. Chen, C. and Leung, L. (2016), “Are you addicted to Candy Crush Saga? An exploratory study linking psychological factors to mobile social game addiction”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1155–1166. Chen, C.-C. and Lin, Y.-C. (2018), “What drives live-stream usage intention? The perspectives of flow, entertainment, social interaction, and endorsement”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 293–303. Chen, C.-Y., Lin, Y.-H. and Chiu, H.-T. (2013), “Development and psychometric evaluation of sport stadium atmosphere scale in spectator sport events”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 200–215. Chen, Y., Wang, Q.I. and Xie, J. (2011), “Online Social Interactions. A Natural Experiment on Word of Mouth Versus Observational Learning”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 238–254. Cheung, G. and Huang, J. (2011), “Starcraft from the stands. Understanding the Game Spectator”, in Tan, D., Fitzpatrick, G., Gutwin, C., Begole, B. and Kellogg, W.A. (Eds.), Conference proceedings and extended abstracts of the 29th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, May 5-12, ACM, New York, p. 763. Chien, P.M., Cornwell, T.B. and Pappu, R. (2011), “Sponsorship portfolio as a brandimage creation strategy”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 142–149. Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling”, in Modern methods for business research, Methodology for business and management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, pp. 295–336. Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H. and Wang, E.T.G. (2006), “Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities. An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 1872–1888. Cho, C.-H. and Cheon, H.J. (2012), “Korean vs. American Corporate Websites. Interactivity, Comparative Appeals and Use of Technology”, Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 79–101. Chung, W. and Woo, C.W. (2011), “The effects of hosting an international sports event on a host country. The 2008 summer Olympic Games”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 2–21. Clark, M., Fine, M.B. and Scheuer, C.-L. (2017), “Relationship quality in higher education marketing: the role of social media engagement”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 40–58. Clement, R., Noels, K.A. and Deneault, B. (2001), “Interethnic Contact, Identity, and Psychological Adjustment: The Mediating and Moderating Roles of Communication”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 559–577.

136

References

Close, A.G., Finney, R.Z., Lacey, R.Z. and Sneath, J.Z. (2006), “Engaging the Consumer through Event Marketing. Linking Attendees with the Sponsor, Community, and Brand”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 420–433. Colburn, S. (2013), Amateur Concert Filming for YouTube: Recalibrating the Live Music Experience in an Age of Amateur Reproduction, University of Sussex. Constant, D., Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1996), “The Kindness of Strangers. The Usefulness of Electronic Weak Ties for Technical Advice”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 119–135. Crilly, N. (2011), “The Design Stance in User-System Interaction”, Design Issues, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 16–29. Crompton, J.L. (2003), “Adapting Herzberg: A conceptualization of the effects of hygiene and motivator attributes on perceptions of event quality”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 305–310. Crompton, J.L. and McKay, S.L. (1997), “Motives of visitors attending festival events”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 425–439. Currim, I.S. and Sarin, R.K. (1984), “A Comparative Evaluation of Multiattribute Consumer Preference Models”, Management Science, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 543–561. d′Astous, A. and Bitz, P. (1995), “Consumer evaluations of sponsorship programmes”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 6–22. Dale, B., van Iwaarden, J., van der Wiele, T. and Williams, R. (2005), “Service improvement in a sports environment. A study of spectator attendance”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 470–484. Dalgleish, T. (2004), “The emotional brain”, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Vol. 5 No. 7, pp. 582–589. Dawes, P.L. and Brown, J. (2002), “Determinants of Awareness, Consideration, and Choice Set Size in University Choice”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 49–75. Day, G.S. (1977), “Diagnosing the Product Portfolio”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 29–38. Dean, D.H. (1999), “Brand Endorsement, Popularity, and Event Sponsorship as Advertising Cues Affecting Consumer Pre-Purchase Attitudes”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 1–12. Dean, D.H. (2002), “Associating the Corporation with a Charitable Event through Sponsorship. Measuring the Effects on Corporate Community Relations”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 77–87. Dees, W., Bennett, G. and Tsuji, Y. (2006), “Attitudes Toward Sponsorship at a State Sports Festival”, Event Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 89–101. Delamere, T.A. (2001), “Development of a Scale to Measure Resident Attitudes Toward the Social Impacts of Community Festivals, Part II. Verification of the Scale”, Event Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 25–38.

References

137

Delerue, H., Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2012), “Social media. Back to the roots and back to the future”, Journal of Systems and Information Technology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 101–104. Dholakia, U.M., Bagozzi, R.P. and Pearo, L.K. (2004), “A social influence model of consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 241–263. Donghun, L. and Schoenstedt, L.J. (2011), “Comparison of eSports and Traditional Sports Consumption Motives”, ICHPER-SD Journal of Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 39–44. Douglas, J., Douglas, A. and Barnes, B. (2006), “Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 251–267. Drengner, J., Gaus, H. and Jahn, S. (2008), “Does Flow Influence the Brand Image in Event Marketing?”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, p. 138. Drengner, J., Jahn, S. and Zanger, C. (2011), “Measuring Event–Brand Congruence”, Event Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 25–36. Drewes, T. and Michael, C. (2006), “How do students choose a university? An analysis of applications to universities in Ontario, Canada”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 47 No. 7, pp. 781–800. Du Plessis, E. (2010), The advertised mind: Ground-breaking insights into how our brains respond to advertising, Kogan Page, London. Dubois, D., Bonezzi, A. and Angelis, M. de (2016), “Sharing with Friends Versus Strangers. How Interpersonal Closeness Influences Word-of-Mouth Valence”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 712–727. Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. (2007), “The Benefits of Facebook “Friends. ” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 1143–1168. EventMB (2019), “100 Event Statistics (2019 Edition)”, available at: https://www.event managerblog.com/event-statistics (accessed 7 May 2019). Facebook (2019), “Company Info”, available at: https://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/ (accessed 27 June 2019). Fink, J.S., Trail, G. and Anderson, D.F. (2002), “Environmental Factors Associated with Spectator Attendance and Sport Consumption Behavior. Gender and Team Differences”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 11. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research, Addison-Wesley series in social psychology, Addison-Wesley, Reading. Fleck, N.D. and Quester, P. (2007), “Birds of a feather flock together…definition, role and measure of congruence. An application to sponsorship”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24.

138

References

Fleischman, D., Raciti, M. and Lawley, M. (2015), “Degrees of co-creation: an exploratory study of perceptions of international students’ role in community engagement experiences”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 85–103. Florek, M., Breitbarth, T. and Conejo, F. (2008), “Mega Event = Mega Impact? Travelling Fans’ Experience and Perceptions of the 2006 FIFA World Cup Host Nation”, Journal of Sport & Tourism, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 199–219. Florida, R.L. (2007), The flight of the creative class: The new global competition for talent, HarperCollins, New York. Formica, S. and Uysal, M. (1995), “A Market Segmentation of Festival Visitors. Umbria Jazz Festival in Italy”, Festival Management and Event Tourism, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 175–182. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39–50. Foscht, T., Swoboda, B. and Schramm-Klein, H. (2017), Käuferverhalten, 6th ed., SpringerGabler, Wiesbaden. Friedländer, M.B. (2017), “Streamer Motives and User-Generated Content on Social Live-Streaming Services”, Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 65–84. Galotti, K.M. and Mark, M.C. (1994), “How do high school students structure an important life decision? A short-term longitudinal study of the college decision-making process”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 589–607. Gantz, W. and Wenner, L.A. (1995), “Fanship and the Television Sports Viewing Experience”, Sociology of Sport Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 56–74. Geisser, S. (1974), “A predictive approach to the random effect model”, Biometrika, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 101–107. Getz, D. (1991), Festivals, Special Events, and Tourism, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Getz, D. (2005), Event management and event tourism, 2nd ed., Cognizant Communication Corporation, Elmsford. Getz, D. (2016), Event Studies: Theory, research and policy for planned events, Events Management, 3rd ed., Taylor and Francis, Berlin. Glass, G.V., Peckham, P.D. and Sanders, J.R. (1972), “Consequences of Failure to Meet Assumptions Underlying the Fixed Effects Analyses of Variance and Covariance”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, p. 237. Godes, D. and Mayzlin, D. (2004), “Using Online Conversations to Study Word-of-Mouth Communication”, Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 545–560. Gration, D., Raciti, M., Getz, D. and Andersson, T.D. (2016), “Resident Valuation of Planned Events. An Event Portfolio Pilot Study”, Event Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 607–622.

References

139

Gray, P.B., Vuong, J., Zava, D.T. and McHale, T.S. (2018), “Testing men’s hormone responses to playing League of Legends: No changes in testosterone, cortisol, DHEA or androstenedione but decreases in aldosterone”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 83, pp. 230–234. Green, B.C., Costa, C. and Fitzgerald, M. (2003), “Marketing the Host City. Analyzing Exposure Generated By a Sport Event”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 48–66. Grohs, R. and Reisinger, H. (2005), “Image transfer in sports sponsorships. An assessment of moderating effects”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 36–42. Gross, P. (2015), Growing Brands Through Sponsorship: An Empirical Investigation of Brand Image Transfer in a Sponsorship Alliance, SpringerGabler, Wiesbaden. Gross, P. and Wiedmann, K.-P. (2015), “The Vigor of a Disregarded Ally in Sponsorship. Brand Image Transfer Effects Arising from a Cosponsor”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 11, pp. 1079–1097. Gursoy, D., Spangenberg, E.R. and Rutherford, D.G. (2006), “The Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Attendees’ Attitudes Toward Festivals”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 279–294. Gwinner, K. and Bennett, G. (2008), “The Impact of Brand Cohesiveness and Sport Identification on Brand Fit in a Sponsorship Context”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 410–426. Gwinner, K.P. (1997), “A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 145–158. Gwinner, K.P. and Eaton, J. (1999), “Building Brand Image through Event Sponsorship: The Role of Image Transfer”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 47–57. Gwinner, K.P., Larson, B.V. and Swanson, S.R. (2009), “Image Transfer in Corporate Event Sponsorship. Assessing the Impact of Team Identification and Event-Sponsor Fit”, International Journal of Management and Marketing Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1–15. Gwinner, K.P. and Swanson, S.R. (2003), “A model of fan identification. Antecedents and sponsorship outcomes”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 275–294. Haaijer, R., Kamakura, W.A. and Wedel, M. (2001), “The’no-choice’alternative in conjoint choice experiments”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 93–106. Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed., SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne. Hall, S., Oriade, A. and Robinson, P. (2016), “Assessing Festival Attendees’ Behavioral Intentions Through Perceived Service Quality and Visitor Satisfaction”, Event Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 27–40.

140

References

Hallmann, K. and Giel, T. (2018), “eSports – Competitive sports or recreational activity?”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 14–20. Hamari, J., Malik, A., Koski, J. and Johri, A. (2018), “Uses and Gratifications of Pokémon Go: Why do People Play Mobile Location-Based Augmented Reality Games?”, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 804–819. Hamari, J. and Sjöblom, M. (2017), “What is eSports and why do people watch it?”, Internet Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 211–232. Hamilton, W.A., Garretson, O. and Kerne, A. (2014), “Streaming on twitch”, in Jones, M., Palanque, P., Schmidt, A. and Grossman, T. (Eds.), Conference proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Toronto, Assoc. for Computing Machinery, New York, pp. 1315–1324. Handelman, D. (1998), Models and mirrors: Towards an anthropology of public events, Berghahn Books, New York. Hansen, F. (1997), Quantifying Creative Contributions: Advertising Pretesting’s New Generation, Working paper (Copenhagen Business School. Department of Marketing), Copenhagen Business School, Department of Marketing. Hansen, F. (2005), “Distinguishing between feelings and emotions in understanding communication effects”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 10, pp. 1426– 1436. Haridakis, P. and Hanson, G. (2009), “Social Interaction and Co-Viewing With YouTube. Blending Mass Communication Reception and Social Connection”, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 317–335. Hars, A. and Ou, S. (2002), “Working for Free? Motivations for Participating in OpenSource Projects”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 25– 39. Hartmann, T. and Klimmt, C. (2006), “Gender and Computer Games: Exploring Females’ Dislikes”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 910– 931. Harvey, C.G., Stewart, D.B. and Ewing, M.T. (2011), “Forward or delete. What drives peer-to-peer message propagation across social networks?”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 365–372. Hauser, J.R. and Toubia, O. (2005), “The Impact of Utility Balance and Endogeneity in Conjoint Analysis”, Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 498–507. He, H., Li, Y. and Harris, L. (2012), “Social identity perspective on brand loyalty”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 648–657. Heere, B. (2018), “Embracing the sportification of society: Defining e-sports through a polymorphic view on sport”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 21–24. Heise, D.R. (1970), “The semantic differential and attitude research”, Attitude measurement, Vol. 4, pp. 235–253.

References

141

Hemsley-Brown, J., Melewar, T.C., Nguyen, B. and Wilson, E.J. (2016), “Exploring brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation (BIMIR) in higher education. A special section”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3019–3022. Hemsley-Brown, J. and Oplatka, I. (2015), “University choice. What do we know, what don’t we know and what do we still need to find out?”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 254–274. Hemsley‐Brown, J. and Oplatka, I. (2006), “Universities in a competitive global marketplace”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 316– 338. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D.D. (2004), “Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms. What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38–52. Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M.F. and Hansen, U. (2001), “Modeling and Managing Student Loyalty”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 331–344. Hennig-Thurau, T., Wiertz, C. and Feldhaus, F. (2015), “Does Twitter matter? The impact of microblogging word of mouth on consumers’ adoption of new movies”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 375–394. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), “Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 405–431. Henseler, J., Wilson, B. and Vreede, D. de (2009), “Can sponsorships be harmful for events? Investigating the transfer of associations from sponsors to events”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 47–54. Hess, T. (2014), “What is a Media Company? A Reconceptualization for the Online World”, International Journal on Media Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 3–8. Hilvert-Bruce, Z., Neill, J.T., Sjöblom, M. and Hamari, J. (2018), “Social motivations of live-streaming viewer engagement on Twitch”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 84, pp. 58–67. Hoffman, D.L. and Novak, T.P. (2012), “Need Satisfaction From Interacting with People Versus Content. The Roles of Motivational Orientation and Identification with Social Media Groups”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 203–208. Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.J. (2000), “Social Identity and Self-Categorization Processes in Organizational Contexts”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 121–140. Holdsworth, D.K. and Nind, D. (2006), “Choice Modeling New Zealand High School Seniors’ Preferences for University Education”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 81–102. Hooley, G.J. and Lynch, J.E. (1981), “Modelling the student university choice process through the use of conjoint measurement techniques”, European Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 158–170.

142

References

Hu, M., Zhang, M. and Wang, Y. (2017), “Why do audiences choose to keep watching on live video streaming platforms? An explanation of dual identification framework”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 75, pp. 594–606. Huang, C.-C., Lin, T.-C. and Lin, K.-J. (2009), “Factors affecting pass-along email intentions (PAEIs). Integrating the social capital and social cognition theories”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 160–169. Huesman, R., Brown, A.K., Lee, G., Kellogg, J.P. and Radcliffe, P.M. (2009), “Gym Bags and Mortarboards: Is Use of Campus Recreation Facilities Related to Student Success?”, NASPA Journal, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 50–71. Huh, C.-L. (2018), “Communication model of commitment and engagement: Illustrations of exhibition social media marketing”, Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, Vol. 19 No. 4-5, pp. 399–419. Huml, M.R., Pifer, N.D., Towle, C. and Rode, C.R. (2018), “If we build it, will they come? The effect of new athletic facilities on recruiting rankings for power five football and men’s basketball programs”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1–18. Hussein, A.S. (2016), “How Event Awareness, Event Quality and Event Image Creates Visitor Revisit Intention?: A Lesson from Car free Day Event”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 35, pp. 396–400. Jaccard, J. and Becker, M.A. (1985), “Attitudes and behavior: An information integration perspective”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 440–465. Jae Ko, Y., Kyoum Kim, Y., Kil Kim, M. and Hak Lee, J. (2010), “The role of involvement and identification on event quality perceptions and satisfaction”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 25–39. Jae Ko, Y., Zhang, J., Cattani, K. and Pastore, D. (2011), “Assessment of event quality in major spectator sports”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 304–322. Jago, L.E.O., Chalip, L., Brown, G., Mules, T. and Ali, S. (2003), “Building Events Into Destination Branding: Insights From Experts”, Event Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 3–14. Jagre, E., Watson, J.J. and Watson, J.G. (2001), “Sponsorship and congruity theory: A theoretical framework for explaining consumer attitude and recall of event sponsorship”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 439–445. Jillapalli, R.K. and Jillapalli, R. (2014), “Do professors have customer-based brand equity?”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 22–40. Jin, N., Lee, H. and Lee, S. (2013), “Event Quality, Perceived Value, Destination Image, and Behavioral Intention of Sports Events: The Case of the IAAF World Championship, Daegu, 2011”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 849– 864.

References

143

Johar, G.V., Pham, M.T. and Wakefield, K.L. (2006), “How Event Sponsors Are Really Identified. A (Baseball) Field Analysis”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 183–198. Jones, C. (2001), “Mega-events and host-region impacts. Determining the true worth of the 1999 Rugby World Cup”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 241–251. Joseph, M., Mullen, E.W. and Spake, D. (2012), “University branding. Understanding students’ choice of an educational institution”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1–12. Judson, K.M., James, J.D. and Aurand, T.W. (2004), “Marketing the University to Student-Athletes. Understanding University Selection Criteria”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 23–40. Kahneman, D. (1973), Attention and effort, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010), “Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media”, Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 59–68. Karp, D.A. and Yoels, W.C. (1990), “Sport and Urban Life”, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 77–102. Katz, E., Blumler, J.G. and Gurevitch, M. (1973a), “Uses and Gratifications Research”, The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 509–523. Katz, E., Haas, H. and Gurevitch, M. (1973b), “On the Use of the Mass Media for Important Things”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 164–181. Kavaratzis, M. (2005), “Place Branding: A Review of Trends and Conceptual Models”, The Marketing Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 329–342. Kaye, L.K., Pennington, C.R. and McCann, J.J. (2018), “Do casual gaming environments evoke stereotype threat? Examining the effects of explicit priming and avatar gender”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 78, pp. 142–150. Kelley, S.W. and Turley, L.W. (2001), “Consumer perceptions of service quality attributes at sporting events”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 161–166. Kerr, A. and May, D. (2011), “An exploratory study looking at the relationship marketing techniques used in the music festival industry”, Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 451–464. Khanna, M., Jacob, I. and Yadav, N. (2014), “Identifying and analyzing touchpoints for building a higher education brand”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 122–143. Kim, H.-W., Kankanhalli, A. and Lee, S.-H. (2018), “Examining Gifting Through Social Network Services: A Social Exchange Theory Perspective”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 779–1068. Kim, Y. and Ross, S.D. (2006), “An exploration of motives in sport video gaming”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 28–40.

144

References

Kim, Y.H., Kim, D.J. and Jai, T.-M.C. (2016), “One Destination and Two Events. A Comparative Analysis on Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Intention to Revisit”, Event Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 327–339. Klein, T.A., Scott, P.F. and Clark, J.L. (2001), “Segmenting Markets in Urban Higher Education: Community- Versus Campus-Centered Students”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 39–61. Ko, H., Cho, C.-H. and Roberts, M.S. (2005), “Internet Uses and Gratifications. A Structural Equation Model of Interactive Advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 57–70. Ko, Y.J., Chang, Y., Park, C. and Herbst, F. (2017), “Determinants of consumer attitude toward corporate sponsors. A comparison between a profit and nonprofit sport event sponsorship”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 176–186. Ko, Y.J., Kim, M.K., Kim, Y.K., Lee, J.-H. and Cattani, K. (2010), “Consumer Satisfaction and Event Quality Perception: A Case of us Open Taekwondo Championship”, Event Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 205–214. Köhler, J. (2014), “B Events im Regionalmarketing”, in Köhler, J. (Ed.), Events als Instrumente des Regionalmarketing: Entwicklung eines Bezugsrahmens zur regionalstrategischen Eventwirkungskontrolle, Markenkommunikation und Beziehungsmarketing, SpringerGabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 9–43. Koo, G.Y., Quarterman, J. and Flynn, L. (2006), “Effect of perceived sport event and sponsor image fit on consumers’ cognition, affect, and behavioral intentions”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 80–90. Krackhardt, D. and Brass, D.J. (1994), “Intraorganizational Networks: The Micro Side”, in Wasserman, S. and Galaskiewicz, J. (Eds.), Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 207–229. Kraut, R., Egido, C. and Galegher, J. (1988), “Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaboration”, in Greif, I. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, Portland, ACM, New York, pp. 1–12. Kulczynski, A., Baxter, S. and Young, T. (2016), “Measuring Motivations for Popular Music Concert Attendance”, Event Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 239–254. Kwon, O. and Wen, Y. (2010), “An empirical study of the factors affecting social network service use”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 254–263. Laing, J. (2018), “Festival and event tourism research: Current and future perspectives”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 25, pp. 165–168. Laroche, M., Ueltschy, L.C., Abe, S., Cleveland, M. and Yannopoulos, P.P. (2004), “Service Quality Perceptions and Customer Satisfaction: Evaluating the Role of Culture”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 58–85. Larose, R., Mastro, D. and Eastin, M.S. (2001), “Understanding Internet Usage”, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 395–413.

References

145

Le, T.D., Robinson, L.J. and Dobele, A.R. (2019), “Understanding high school students use of choice factors and word-of-mouth information sources in university selection”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 1–11. Lee, C.-K., Lee, Y.-K. and Wicks, B.E. (2004), “Segmentation of festival motivation by nationality and satisfaction”, Tourism Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 61–70. Lee, J., Ham, C.-D. and Kim, M. (2013), “Why People Pass Along Online Video Advertising. From the Perspectives of the Interpersonal Communication Motives Scale and the Theory of Reasoned Action”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1–13. Lee, M.‐S., Sandler, D.M. and Shani, D. (1997), “Attitudinal constructs towards sponsorship”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 159–169. Lee, S., Nguyen, H.N., Lee, K.-S., Chua, B.-L. and Han, H. (2018), “Price, people, location, culture and reputation: determinants of Malaysia as study destination by international hospitality and tourism undergraduates”, Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 335–347. Leisen, B. (2001), “Image segmentation: the case of a tourism destination”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 49–66. Li, X. and Petrick, J.F. (2005), “A Review of Festival and Event Motivation Studies”, Event Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 239–245. Lim, S., Cha, S.Y., Park, C., Lee, I. and Kim, J. (2012), “Getting closer and experiencing together: Antecedents and consequences of psychological distance in social mediaenhanced real-time streaming video”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1365–1378. Lin, K.-Y. and Lu, H.-P. (2011), “Why people use social networking sites. An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 1152–1161. Lingel, J. and Naaman, M. (2012), “You should have been there, man. Live music, DIY content and online communities”, New Media & Society, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 332–349. Low, X.T.B. and Pyun, D.Y. (2016), “Consumers’ Perceived Functions of and Attitude Toward Corporate Sponsors of Small-scale Amateur Sporting Events”, Event Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 227–238. Macaranas, A., Venolia, G., Inkpen, K. and Tang, J. (2013), “Sharing Experiences over Video. Watching Video Programs together at a Distance”, in Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J. and Winckler, M. (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Gabler, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 73–90. Macey, J. and Hamari, J. (2017), “Investigating Relationships Between Video Gaming, Spectating Esports, and Gambling”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 80, pp. 344– 353.

146

References

Mael, F. and Ashforth, B.E. (1992), “Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 103–123. Mansfield, P.M. and Warwick, J. (2006), “Gender Differences in Students’ and Parents’ Evaluative Criteria When Selecting a College”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 47–80. Mao, L.L. and Zhang, J.J. (2013), “Impact of consumer involvement, emotions, and attitude toward Beijing Olympic Games on branding effectiveness of event sponsors”, Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 226– 245. Maringe, F. (2006), “University and course choice”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 466–479. Maringe, F. and Gibbs, P. (2009), Marketing higher education: Theory and practice, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead. Martensen, A. and Gronholdt, L. (2008), “How events work: understanding consumer responses to event marketing”, Innovative Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 44–56. Martensen, A., Gronholdt, L., Bendtsen, L. and Jensen, M.J. (2007), “Application of a Model for the Effectiveness of Event Marketing”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 283–301. Maslow, A.H. (1943), “A theory of human motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 370–396. Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G.N. and Thein, V. (2001), “Critical Success Factors in the Marketing of an Educational Institution: A Comparison of Institutional and Student Perspectives”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 39–57. McAlister, L. and Pessemier, E. (1982), “Variety Seeking Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Review”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 311–322. McDonald, M.A., Milne, G.R. and Hong, J. (2002), “Motivational factors for evaluating sport spectator and participant markets”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 100–113. McKenna, K.Y.A. and Bargh, J.A. (1999), “Causes and Consequences of Social Interaction on the Internet. A Conceptual Framework”, Media Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 249–269. McMillan, S.J. and Hwang, J.-S. (2002), “Measures of Perceived Interactivity. An Exploration of the Role of Direction of Communication, User Control, and Time in Shaping Perceptions of Interactivity”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 29–42. McWilliam, G. (2000), “Building Stronger Brands through Online Communities - Consumer brand companies need new management skills, and brand managers must understand online behavior if they wish to develop strong, sustainable, and beneficial online communities around their brands”, Sloan management review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 43–54.

References

147

Meenaghan, T. (2001), “Understanding sponsorship effects”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 95–122. Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An approach to environmental psychology, MIT Press, Cambridge. Meng, M.D., Stavros, C. and Westberg, K. (2015), “Engaging fans through social media. Implications for team identification”, Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 199–217. Merhi, M.I. (2016), “Towards a framework for online game adoption”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 60, pp. 253–263. Milne, G.R. and McDonald, M.A. (1999), Sport marketing: Managing the exchange process, Jones and Bartlett, Sudbury. Missaghian, R. and Pizarro Milian, R. (2018), “A day at the university fair: ‘hot’ brands, ‘house of brands’ and promotional tactics in higher education”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 1–20. Monge, P.R., Rothman, L.W., Eisenberg, E.M., Miller, K.I. and Kirste, K.K. (1985), “The Dynamics of Organizational Proximity”, Management Science, Vol. 31 No. 9, pp. 1129–1141. Moors, A., Ellsworth, P.C., Scherer, K.R. and Frijda, N.H. (2013), “Appraisal Theories of Emotion: State of the Art and Future Development”, Emotion Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 119–124. Muniz, A.M. and O’Guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand Community”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 412–432. Nambisan, S. and Baron, R.A. (2010), “Different Roles, Different Strokes. Organizing Virtual Customer Environments to Promote Two Types of Customer Contributions”, Organization Science, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 554–572. Nguyen, B., Yu, X., Melewar, T.C. and Hemsley-Brown, J. (2016), “Brand ambidexterity and commitment in higher education. An exploratory study”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3105–3112. Nguyen, H.T., Zhang, Y. and Calantone, R.J. (2018), “Brand portfolio coherence: Scale development and empirical demonstration”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 60–80. Nicholson, R.E. and Pearce, D.G. (2001), “Why Do People Attend Events: A Comparative Analysis of Visitor Motivations at Four South Island Events”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 449–460. Nufer, G. (2002), Wirkungen von Event-Marketing: Theoretische Fundierung und empirische Analyse, Deutscher Universitätsverlag, Wiesbaden. Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E. and Thorbjornsen, H. (2005), “Intentions to Use Mobile Services. Antecedents and Cross-Service Comparisons”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 330–346.

148

References

O’brien, R.M. (2007), “A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors”, Quality & Quantity, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 673–690. O’Neill, M., Getz, D. and Carlsen, J. (1999), “Evaluation of service quality at events: the 1998 Coca‐Cola Masters Surfing event at Margaret River, Western Australia”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 158–166. Oatley, K., Keltner, D. and Jenkins, J.M. (2006), Understanding emotions, Understanding emotions, 2nd ed., Blackwell Publishing, Malden. O’Reilly, C.A. and Chatman, J. (1986), “Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 492–499. Ortony, A., Clore, G.L. and Collins, A. (1999), The cognitive structure of emotions, University Press, Cambridge. Osgood, C.E. and Tannenbaum, P.H. (1955), “The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change”, Psychological Review, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 42–55. Osti, L., Disegna, M. and Brida, J.G. (2012), “Repeat visits and intentions to revisit a sporting event and its nearby destinations”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 31–42. Oyedele, A. and Simpson, P.M. (2018), “Streaming apps: What consumers value”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 41, pp. 296–304. Palmer, A., Koenig-Lewis, N. and Asaad, Y. (2016), “Brand identification in higher education. A conditional process analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3033–3040. Palmgreen, P., Wenner, L.A. and Rosengren, K.E. (1985), “Uses and Gratifications Research: The Past Ten Years”, in Rosengren, K.E., Wenner, L.A. and Palmgren, P. (Eds.), Media Gratifications Research. Current Perspectives, SAGE Publications, London, pp. 11–37. Pan, Z., Lu, Y., Wang, B. and Chau, P.Y.K. (2017), “Who Do You Think You Are? Common and Differential Effects of Social Self-Identity on Social Media Usage”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 71–101. Papacharissi, Z. and Rubin, A.M. (2010), “Predictors of Internet Use”, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 175–196. Papadimitriou, D. (2013), “Service Quality Components as Antecedents of Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions. The Case of a Greek Carnival Festival”, Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 42–64. Paswan, A.K. and Ganesh, G. (2009), “Higher Education Institutions: Satisfaction and Loyalty among International Students”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 65–84. Pedro, I.M., Pereira, L.N. and Carrasqueira, H.B. (2018), “Determinants for the commitment relationship maintenance between the alumni and the alma mater”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 128–152.

References

149

Perin, M.G., Sampaio, C.H., Simões, C. and Pólvora, R.P. de (2012), “Modeling antecedents of student loyalty in higher education”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 101–116. Peruta, A. and Shields, A.B. (2017), “Social media in higher education. Understanding how colleges and universities use Facebook”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 131–143. Petruzzellis, L. and Romanazzi, S. (2010), “Educational value: how students choose university”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 139– 158. Pizzo, A., Baker, B., Na, S., Lee, M.A., Kim, D. and Funk, D. (2018), “eSport vs Sport: A Comparison of Spectator Motives”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 108–123. Pons, F., Mourali, M. and Nyeck, S. (2006), “Consumer Orientation Toward Sporting Events”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 276–287. Pope, N., Voges, K.E. and Brown, M. (2009), “Winning Ways. Immediate and Long-Term Effects of Sponsorship on Perceptions of Brand Quality and Corporate Image”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 5–20. Pringle, J. and Fritz, S. (2018), “The university brand and social media: using data analytics to assess brand authenticity”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 1–26. Putzke, J., Fischbach, K., Schoder, D. and Gloor, P. (2010), “The Evolution of Interaction Networks in Massively Multiplayer Online Games”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 69–94. Ramasubramanian, S., Gyure, J.F. and Mursi, N.M. (2003), “Impact of Internet Images: Impression-Formation Effects of University Web Site Images”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 49–68. Ratten, V., Bal, C., Quester, P. and Plewa, C. (2010), “Emotions and sponsorship”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 40–54. Rauschnabel, P.A., Krey, N., Babin, B.J. and Ivens, B.S. (2016), “Brand management in higher education. The University Brand Personality Scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3077–3086. Ray, S., Kim, S.S. and Morris, J.G. (2014), “The Central Role of Engagement in Online Communities”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 528–546. Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M. and Henseler, J. (2009), “An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 332–344. Ridinguer, L. and James, J. (2002), “Female and male sport fans: A comparison of sport consumption motives”, Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 260–278. Rifon, N.J., Choi, S.M., Trimble, C.S. and Li, H. (2004), “Congruence Effects In Sponsorship. The Mediating Role of Sponsor Credibility and Consumer Attributions of Sponsor Motive”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 30–42.

150

References

Rindfleish, J.M. (2003), “Segment profiling. Reducing strategic risk in higher education management”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 147–159. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.-M. (2015), SmartPLS 3, SmartPLS GmbH. Romani, S., Grappi, S. and Dalli, D. (2012), “Emotions that drive consumers away from brands: Measuring negative emotions toward brands and their behavioral effects”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 55–67. Ross, C., Orr, E.S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J.M., Simmering, M.G. and Orr, R.R. (2009), “Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 578–586. Ruhanen, L. and McLennan, C.-l.J. (2010), “‘Location, Location, Location’ — The Relative Importance of Country, Institution and Program: A Study of Tourism Postgraduate Students”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 44–52. Ruth, J.A. and Simonin, B.L. (2003), “Brought to You by Brand A and Brand B. Investigating Multiple Sponsors’ Influence on Consumers’ Attitudes toward Sponsored Events”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 19–30. Ruth, J.A. and Simonin, B.L. (2006), “The Power of Numbers: Investigating the Impact of Event Roster Size in Consumer Response to Sponsorship”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 7–20. Salehan, M., Kim, D.J. and Kim, C. (2017), “Use of Online Social Networking Services from a Theoretical Perspective of the Motivation-Participation-Performance Framework”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 141– 172. Salwen, M.B., Garrison, B. and Driscoll, P.D. (2004), “Uses and Gratifications of Online and Offline News: New Wine in an Old Bottle?”, in Online News and the Public, Routledge, pp. 241–256. Santini, F.d.O., Ladeira, W.J., Sampaio, C.H. and da Silva Costa, G. (2017), “Student satisfaction in higher education: a meta-analytic study”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1–18. Sawilowsky, S.S. and Blair, R.C. (1992), “A more realistic look at the robustness and Type II error properties of the t test to departures from population normality”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 352–360. Sawtooth Software, I. (2013), “The CBC System for Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis”, available at: https://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/cbctech.pdf (accessed 3 May 2017). Scheibe, K., Fietkiewicz, K.J. and Stock, W.G. (2016), “Information Behavior on Social Live Streaming Services”, Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 6–20. Scherer, K.R. (1999), “Appraisal Theory”, in Dalgleish, T. and Power, M.J. (Eds.), Handbook of Cognition and Emotion, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, pp. 637– 663.

References

151

Scherer, K.R., Schorr, A. and Johnstone, T. (2001), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research, Oxford University Press, New York. Schneider, A. (2012), “Events als Kommunikationsinstrument im Hochschulmarketing”, in Zanger, C. (Ed.), Erfolg mit nachhaltigen Eventkonzepten, SpringerGabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 37–54. Scholz, T.M. (2019), eSports is Business: Management in the World of Competitive Gaming, PalgraveMacMillan, Cham. Schulze, C., Schöler, L. and Skiera, B. (2014), “Not All Fun and Games. Viral Marketing for Utilitarian Products”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 1–19. Sengupta, J. and Johar, G.V. (2002), “Effects of Inconsistent Attribute Information on the Predictive Value of Product Attitudes. Toward a Resolution of Opposing Perspectives”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 39–56. Seo, W. and Green, C. (2008), “Development of the Motivation Scale for Sport Online Consumption”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 82–109. Seo, Y. (2013), “Electronic sports: A new marketing landscape of the experience economy”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 13-14, pp. 1542–1560. Seo, Y. and Jung, S.-U. (2016), “Beyond solitary play in computer games: The social practices of eSports”, Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 635–655. Severin, W.J. and Tankard, J.W. (2014), Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media, 5th ed., Pearson, Harlow. Shank, M.D. and Beasley, F. (1998), “Gender Effects on the University Selection Process”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 63–71. Shanteau, J. and Anderson, N.H. (1972), “Integration theory applied to judgments of the value of information”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 266– 275. Sheeran, N. and Cummings, D.J. (2018), “An examination of the relationship between Facebook groups attached to university courses and student engagement”, Higher Education, Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 937–955. Shen, H., Li, Z., Lin, Y. and Li, J. (2014), “SocialTube. P2P-Assisted Video Sharing in Online Social Networks”, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 2428–2440. Shields, A.B. and Peruta, A. (2018), “Social media and the university decision. Do prospective students really care?”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 1–17. Shriver, S.K., Nair, H.S. and Hofstetter, R. (2013), “Social Ties and User-Generated Content: Evidence from an Online Social Network”, Management Science, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 1425–1443. Shu, S.-T., King, B. and Chang, C.-H. (2015), “Tourist Perceptions of Event–Sponsor Brand Fit and Sponsor Brand Attitude”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 761–777.

152

References

Simmons, C.J. and Becker-Olsen, K.L. (2006), “Achieving Marketing Objectives Through Social Sponsorships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 154–169. Sjöblom, M. and Hamari, J. (2017), “Why do people watch others play video games? An empirical study on the motivations of Twitch users”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 75, pp. 985–996. Smith, A., Graetz, B. and Westerbeek, H. (2008), “Sport sponsorship, team support and purchase intentions”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 387– 404. Song, J. and Kim, Y.J. (2006), “Social influence process in the acceptance of a virtual community service”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 241–252. Soutar, G.N. and Turner, J.P. (2002), “Students’ preferences for university. A conjoint analysis”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 40–45. Speed, R. and Thompson, P. (2000), “Determinants of Sports Sponsorship Response”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 226–238. Steiner, L., Sundström, A.C. and Sammalisto, K. (2013), “An analytical model for university identity and reputation strategy work”, Higher Education, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 401– 415. Steinmann, S., Mau, G. and Schramm-Klein, H. (2015), “Brand Communication Success in Online Consumption Communities. An Experimental Analysis of the Effects of Communication Style and Brand Pictorial Representation”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 356–371. Stephenson, A.L. and Yerger, D.B. (2014), “Does brand identification transform alumni into university advocates?”, International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 243–262. Stone, M. (1974), “Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 111–147. Stricklin, M.-A. and Ellis, G.D. (2018), “Structuring Quality Experiences for Event Participants”, Event Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 353–365. Sturm, H.-J. (2011), Markenfit und Markenwirkung, Gabler, Wiesbaden. Sundar, S.S. and Limperos, A.M. (2013), “Uses and Grats 2.0: New Gratifications for New Media”, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 504– 525. Sung, M. and Yang, S.-U. (2008), “Toward the Model of University Image. The Influence of Brand Personality, External Prestige, and Reputation”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 357–376. Sung, M. and Yang, S.-U. (2009), “Student-University Relationships and Reputation. A Study of the Links between Key Factors Fostering Students’ Supportive Behavioral Intentions towards Their University”, Higher Education, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 787–811.

References

153

Sung Moon, K., Kim, M., Jae Ko, Y., Connaughton, D.P. and Hak Lee, J. (2011), “The influence of consumer’s event quality perception on destination image”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 287–303. Swinyard, W.R. (1993), “The Effects of Mood, Involvement, and Quality of Store Experience on Shopping Intentions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 271– 280. Syed Alwi, S.F. and Kitchen, P.J. (2014), “Projecting corporate brand image and behavioral response in business schools: Cognitive or affective brand attributes?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 11, pp. 2324–2336. Tajfel, H. (1974), “Social identity and intergroup behaviour”, Social Science Information, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 65–93. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (2004), “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior”, in Jost, T.J. and Sidandius, J. (Eds.), Key readings in social psychology: Political psychology: Key readings, New York, Psychology Press, pp. 276–293. Tavares, O. and Cardoso, S. (2013), “Enrolment choices in Portuguese higher education. Do students behave as rational consumers?”, Higher Education, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 297–309. Thomas, R.J. (2014), “An evaluation of the effectiveness of rugby event sponsorship. A study of Dove Men+Care and the Welsh Rugby Union”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 4/5, pp. 304–321. Thuy, V.T.N. and Thao, H.D.P. (2016), “Impact of students’ experiences on brand image perception. The case of Vietnamese higher education”, International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 7/8, p. 972. Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B. and Bush, A.A. (2010), “Research Commentary —Platform Evolution. Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 675–687. Tomei, L., Koutsopoulos, K.C., Doukas, K. and Kotsanis, Y. (2018), Handbook of Research on Educational Design and Cloud Computing in Modern Classroom Settings, IGI Global. Trail, G. and James, J. (2001), “The Motivation Scale for Sport Consumption. Assessment of the Scale’s Psychometric Properties”, Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 108–127. Tsai, H.-T. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2014), “Contribution behavior in virtual communities. Cognitive, emotional, and social influences”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 143– 164. Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464–476. Turner, J.C. (1985), “Social categorization and the self concept. A social cognitive theory of group behavior”, in Lawler, E.J. and Thye, S.R. (Eds.), Advances in Group Process, Vol. 2, 77-122.

154

References

Uysal, M., Gahan, L. and Martin, B.S. (1993), “An examination of event motivations: a case study”, Festival Management & Event Tourism, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 5–10. van der Heijden (2004), “User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 4, p. 695. van Hilvoorde, I. and Pot, N. (2016), “Embodiment and fundamental motor skills in eSports”, Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 14–27. Veloutsou, C., Lewis, J.W. and Paton, R.A. (2004), “University selection. Information requirements and importance”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 160–171. Venkatraman, N. (1989), “The Concept of Fit in Strategy Research. Toward Verbal and Statistical Correspondence”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 423–444. Voss, G.B., Parasuraman, A. and Grewal, D. (1998), “The Roles of Price, Performance, and Expectations in Determining Satisfaction in Service Exchanges”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 4, p. 46. Wæraas, A. and Solbakk, M.N. (2009), “Defining the Essence of a University. Lessons from Higher Education Branding”, Higher Education, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 449–462. Wagner, G. (2015), Multichannel e-commerce: consumer behavior across e-channels and e-channel touchpoints, Universität Siegen. Wakefield, K.L. (1995), “The pervasive effects of social influence on sporting event attendance”, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 335–351. Wakefield, K.L., Becker-Olsen, K. and Cornwell, T.B. (2007), “I Spy a Sponsor. The Effects of Sponsorship Level, Prominence, Relatedness, and Cueing on Recall Accuracy”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 61–74. Walsh, C., Moorhouse, J., Dunnett, A. and Barry, C. (2015), “University choice: which attributes matter when you are paying the full price?”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 670–681. Wang, W. and Cole, S.T. (2016), “A Comparative Analysis of Event Attendees’ Spending Behaviors, Satisfaction, and Information Search Patterns By Event Types at a Midwestern College Town”, Event Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 3–10. Wang, Y. and Jin, X. (2019), “Event-Based Destination Marketing: The Role of MegaEvents”, Event Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 109–118. Wann, D.L. (1995), “Preliminary validation of the sport fan motivation scale”, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 377–396. Wann, D.L. and Branscombe, N.R. (1993), “Sports fans. Measuring degree of identification with their team”, International journal of sport psychology, Vol. 24 No. 1, S. 1-17. Warman, P. (2017), “Esports revenues will reach $696 million this year and grow to $1.5 billion by 2020 as brand investment doubles”, available at: https://newzoo.com/ insights/articles/esports-revenues-will-reach-696-million-in-2017/ (accessed 24 April 2018).

References

155

Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2005), “Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35–57. Watkins, B.A. and Gonzenbach, W.J. (2013), “Assessing university brand personality through logos. An analysis of the use of academics and athletics in university branding”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 15–33. Webber, K.L. (2018), “Does the environment matter? Faculty satisfaction at 4-year colleges and universities in the USA”, Higher Education, pp. 1–21. Weihe, K., Mau, G. and Silberer, G. (2006), “How do marketing-events work? Marketingevents and brand attitudes”, in Diehl, S. and Terlutter, R. (Eds.), International Advertising and Communication, Forschungsgruppe Konsum und Verhalten, 1st ed., DUV, pp. 199–216. Weiss, T. and Schiele, S. (2013), “Virtual worlds in competitive contexts: Analyzing eSports consumer needs”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 307–316. Wenner, L.A. (2013), “Reflections on Communication and Sport”, Communication & Sport, Vol. 1 No. 1-2, pp. 188–199. Whelan, S. and Wohlfeil, M. (2006), “Communicating brands through engagement with ‘lived’ experiences”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 4-5, pp. 313–329. Winter, E. and Thompson-Whiteside, H. (2017), “Location, location, location: does place provide the opportunity for differentiation for universities?”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 233–250. Wohlfeil, M. and Whelan, S. (2005), “Consumer Motivations to Participate in MarketingEvents: the Role of Predispositional Involvement”, in Ekstrom, K.M. and Brembeck, H. (Eds.), European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, Association for Consumer Research, Goteborg, pp. 125–130. Wohlfeil, M. and Whelan, S. (2006), “Consumer Motivations to Participate in EventMarketing Strategies”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22 No. 5-6, pp. 643– 669. Woosnam, K.M., Jiang, J., van Winkle, C.M., Kim, H. and Maruyama, N. (2016), “Explaining Festival Impacts on a Hosting Community Through Motivations to Attend”, Event Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 11–25. Xu, L., Wang, T., Cui, N. and Su, S. (2012), “The impacts of customer participation and company reputation on customer-company identification”, International Journal of Networking & Virtual Organisations, Vol. 10 No. ¾, pp. 247–259. Yoshida, M. and James, J.D. (2010), “Customer Satisfaction with Game and Service Experiences. Antecedents and Consequences”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 338–361. Yost, M. and Tucker, S.L. (1995), “Tangible Evidence in Marketing a Service”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 47–68.

156

References

Yu, E., Jung, C., Kim, H. and Jung, J. (2018), “Impact of viewer engagement on giftgiving in live video streaming”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 1450– 1460. Zenger, T.R. and Lawrence, B.S. (1989), “Organizational Demography. The Differential Effects of Age and Tenure Distributions on Technical Communication”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 353–376. Zhang, B., Pavlou, P.A. and Krishnan, R. (2018), “On Direct vs. Indirect Peer Influence in Large Social Networks”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 292–314. Zhang, Y. and Byon, K.K. (2017), “Push and pull factors associated with the CTTSL game events between on-site and online consumers”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 48–69. Zhao, Q., Chen, C.-D., Cheng, H.-W. and Wang, J.-L. (2018), “Determinants of live streamers’ continuance broadcasting intentions on Twitch: A self-determination theory perspective”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 406–420. Zhu, Y., Heynderickx, I. and Redi, J.A. (2015), “Understanding the role of social context and user factors in video Quality of Experience”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 49, pp. 412–426. Ziakas, V. (2013a), “A Multidimensional Investigation of a Regional Event Portfolio. Advancing Theory and Praxis”, Event Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 27–48. Ziakas, V. (2013b), Event Portfolio Planning and Management: A Holistic Approach, Routledge Advances in Event Research Series, Taylor and Francis, Hoboken. Ziakas, V. (2014), “Planning and Leveraging Event Portfolios: Towards a Holistic Theory”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 327–356. Ziakas, V. (2016), “Fostering the social utility of events: an integrative framework for the strategic use of events in community development”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 1136–1157. Ziakas, V. and Costa, C.A. (2011a), “Event portfolio and multi-purpose development: Establishing the conceptual grounds”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 409–423. Ziakas, V. and Costa, C.A. (2011b), “The Use of an Event Portfolio in Regional Community and Tourism Development: Creating Synergy between Sport and Cultural Events”, Journal of Sport & Tourism, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 149–175.