It seems that during each university sports season, we learn that at least a few players and coaches have been accused of unethical behavior. Researchers at Kennesaw State University, Murray State University, and University of Memphis explored effects these accusations have on fan interest in watching subsequent games of the team.
Their study results provided no evidence student athlete misconduct significantly influenced game attendance. However, news of a coach’s misconduct did influence attendance intentions. The researchers explain the difference as reflecting how consumers have higher expectations of the coach to be a representative of the organization. More leeway is granted to the student athletes not only because they are younger and less experienced in the world, but also because they carry less leadership responsibility.
The difference held when the data were analyzed taking account of the team’s win-loss record. The researchers conclude with a recommendation to punish in a fair way ethical transgressions of both coaches and student athletes, with greater tolerance toward the student athletes. The result should be more robust game attendance in the face of transgressions.
In a separate body of research, a University of Oregon paper used principles of increasing game attendance to suggest ways to increase retail store traffic. How nice it would be to have your customers chanting about your retail business throughout their conversations as would devoted fans who are expressing their sentiments about a favorite football team. That’s more likely when consumers are fans of shopping with you. It has to do with interior décor, the merchandise you carry, and most of all, the interpersonal interactions. When it all comes together, shopping gives a positive emotional charge approaching that from attending an exciting sports event.
Attention to the difference between the coach and the players can apply here. It is the supervisor more than the front-line employees who is viewed by consumers as representing the organization. And if the front-line employees are robotic devices instead of humans, let's say, the humans are considered more representative and more responsive.
When there’s a serious mistake, consumers are more likely to blame a human service provider than a robotic service provider, according to studies at University of Zaragoza and Eindhoven University of Technology. With the robot, consumers generally held the firm responsible. Because the human service provider who fails is more accessible than “the firm,” restoring trust after a mistake should be easier with the human.
Successfully influence the most prosperous & most loyal consumer age group. For the specific strategies & tactics you need, click here.
Click for more…
Generate the Excitement of a Football Game
No comments:
Post a Comment