See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263616451

Understanding Segmented Spectator Markets of a Minor

League Baseball (MiLB) Team

Article in Event Management · December 2012

DOI: 10.3727/152599512X13539583375171

CITATIONS READS
17 1,888

2 authors:

Cindy Lee Doyeon Won

West Virginia University Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi
31 PUBLICATIONS 288 CITATIONS 104 PUBLICATIONS 1,787 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Cindy Lee on 10 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Event  Management,  Vol.  16,  pp.  351–362   1525-­9951/12  $60.00  +  .00
Printed  in  the  USA.  All  rights  reserved.   DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/152599512X13539583375171
Copyright  ©  2012  Cognizant  Comm.  Corp.   E-­ISSN  1943-­4308
  www.cognizantcommunication.com

UNDERSTANDING  SEGMENTED  SPECTATOR  MARKETS  

OF  A  MINOR  LEAGUE  BASEBALL  (MiLB)  TEAM

CINDY  LEE*  AND  DOYEON  WON†

*Sport  Management,  Department  of  Sport  Sciences,  West  Virginia  University,  Morgantown,  WV,  USA
†Department  of  Sport  &  Leisure  Studies,  Yonsei  University,  Seoul,  Korea

This   study   aimed   to   examine   different   segments   of   spectators   at   minor   league   baseball   games   in  
motivation,  external  factors,  and  their  consumption  behaviors.  Using  spectator  identification,  a  com-­
bined  scale  of  fan  identification  and  sport  identification,  spectators  were  grouped  into  four  clusters  
using   K-­means   cluster   analysis.   Multivariate   analysis   of   variance   and   chi-­square   tests   were   con-­
ducted  to  determine  group  differences.  The  results  showed  significant  mean  differences  in  the  dimen-­
sions  of  motivation  and  external  factors  by  clusters.  In  addition,  different  behavioral  patterns  were  
found  in  their  game  attendance  and  ticket  purchase.  The  implications  of  acknowledging  segmented  
spectator  markets  of  the  minor  league  baseball  were  discussed.

Key  words:  Minor  league  baseball;;  Leisure  activity;;  Motivation;;  External  factors;;  Sport  marketing;;  
Market  segment;;  Spectators

Introduction Attracting  spectators  to  game  stands  is  very  criti-­

cal  because  ticket  sales  are  one  of  the  main  revenue  
Understanding  fan  behavior  has  been  an  impor-­ sources   for   many   sport   organizations.   Given   that  
tant   task   for   sport   marketers   because   it   provides   fan  attendance  means  not  only  ticket  sales  but  also  
crucial   information   to   form   marketing   plans   and   other  auxiliary  revenues,  such  as  parking  and  con-­
strategies.   As   markets   get   more   segmented,   mar-­ cession,  the  significance  of  bringing  fans  to  stadi-­
keters  need  to  recognize  diverse  consumers’  needs   ums   and   arenas   is   even   greater.   Especially   for  
(Stern,  2008)  when  they  approach  each  segment  of   minor  league  sport  teams,  the  importance  of  admis-­
consumers.   Knowing   the   different   needs   of   sport   sion  is  even  bigger  since  they  do  not  have  lucrative  
consumers  and  satisfying  those  needs  is  becoming   media  deals  (Ross  &  James,  2006).
more   important   due   to   the   increased   number   of   Considering  a  sporting  event  as  a  product,  what  
entertainment   options   available.   Without   compre-­ spectators  want  might  vary  due  to  the  different  con-­
hending  and  satisfying  their  needs,  the  survival  of   text   of   the   sporting   events   such   as   major   league,  
sport   organizations   would   be   challenging   in   the   minor  league,  or  collegiate  games.  James  and  Ross  
competitive  sport  industry. (2002)  compared  the  motives  of  sport  consumers  in  
Address  correspondence  to  Doyeon  Won,  Ph.D.,  Department  of  Sport  &  Leisure  Studies,  Yonsei  University,  50  Yonsei-­ro,  Seodaemun-­gu,  
Seoul  120-­749,  Korea.  Tel:  +82-­2-­2123-­6191;;  E-­mail:  dwon@yonsei.ac.kr

351
352 LEE  AND  WON

major  and  minor  league  baseball  games,  and  found   attending  MLB  and  MiLB  games  is  huge—attend-­
that   spectators   of   major   league   baseball   (MLB)   ing  MLB  games  costs  three  times  more  than  attend-­
games  have  higher  levels  of  interest  in  team-­related   ing  MiLB  games.  Similarly,  Bernthal  and  Graham  
experience  while  spectators  of  minor  league  base-­ (2003)  found  that  spectators  of  MiLB  appreciated  
ball  (MiLB)  games  have  more  interest  in  entertain-­ the   provided   value   for   the   money   spent,   which   is  
ing   experiences.   In   the   study   of   comparing   fan   possibly  the  reason  for  the  growth  of  the  MiLB  in  
attendance   motivation   between   minor   league   and   the  economic  downturn.
collegiate   baseball   games,   Bernthal   and   Graham   In  regard  to  the  context  of  play,  minor  league  and  
(2003)   found   that   entertainment   and   value   (i.e.,   major  league  sports  are  quite  different  in  terms  of  
overall  cost  of  attending  a  game)  were  more  impor-­ the   level   of   competition   and   stadium   atmosphere  
tant  factors  for  MiLB  fans  compared  to  collegiate   even   though   both   are   considered   professional  
baseball  fans. sports.  These  differences  in  the  context  result  in  the  
Attending   MiLB   games   is   a   more   affordable   spectators’  different  expectations  when  they  go  to  
option  for  many  families  compared  to  MLB  games.   the   respective   games.   Compared   to   MLB,   MiLB  
As   a   reasonably   priced   live   entertainment   event,   emphasizes  the  entertainment  aspect,  which  is  not  
MiLB  has  been  successful  in  attracting  spectators   necessarily  centered  on  a  baseball  game  itself  (James  
even  during  the  economic  downturn.  MiLB  set  an   &  Ross,  2002).  A  typical  scene  for  a  MiLB  ballpark  
attendance  record  in  2008  with  over  43  million  and   would   normally   include   numerous   in-­field   activi-­
is   continuing   the   popularity   that   began   in   2004   ties,   theme   nights,   and   fireworks.   Thus,   it   can   be  
(MiLB.com,  2009).  While  the  popularity  of  MiLB   conceived  that  the  composition  of  MiLB  spectators  
has  been  increased,  a  majority  of  studies  have  still   would   be   somewhat   different   with   those   of   MLB  
focused  on  major  league  sports  or  collegiate  sports.   games.   This   point   is   well   illustrated   in   the   inter-­
Thus,  this  study  will  focus  on  the  much  overlooked   view  with  Mike  Veeck,  an  owner  of  the  Charleston  
spectators  of  MiLB.  The  purpose  of  this  study  is  to   RiverDogs,  a  single-­A  minor  league  baseball  team.  
compare   influencing   factors   on   the   attendance   of   He  said,  “If  you  depend  on  hardcore  baseball  fans,  
different  spectator  segments.  To  understand  differ-­ you  can’t  make  it.  They’ll  come  whether  you  pro-­
ent  spectator  segments  of  MiLB  games,  spectators   mote  or  not.  But  to  succeed  in  the  minors,  you  have  
were  divided  into  four  groups  using  spectator  iden-­ to  promote  the  fun  of  an  inexpensive  night  out  with  
tification   and   the   characteristics   of   each   segment   the  family”  (Bornstein,  2008,  p.  26).  This  interview  
were  investigated. is   in   the   same   vein   with   James   and   Ross’   (2002)  
finding   that   the   overall   entertainment   value   of  
Literature  Review attending  MiLB  games  is  important  for  its  specta-­
tors.   After   all,   spectators   of   MiLB   games   want   to  
Minor  League  Baseball  
have   a   fun   night   out   regardless   whether   the   team  
There  has  been  continued  growth  in  both  atten-­ wins   or   loses.   In   other   words,   minor   league   fan  
dance   and   the   number   of   teams   in   MiLB.   The   experience   is   built   on   people   having   fun   at   stadi-­
growth  started  in  2004  and  continued  even  during   ums.   This   is   why   even   with   on-­field   success,   cre-­
the  recent  economic  downturn  (MiLB.com,  2009).   ative   marketing   and   other   promotions   play   an  
One  of  the  major  reasons  of  the  MiLB  growth  is  its   important  role  in  selling  tickets,  especially  for  minor  
ability  to  provide  affordable  entertainment—MiLB   league  baseball  or  any  minor  league  level  sports.
has   successfully   positioned   itself   as   a   good   value  
for   the   money   provided.   The   average   cost   for   a  
Fan  Identification
family  of  four  was  $54  at  a  minor  league  ballpark  in  
2009,  which  includes  four  tickets,  food,  beverage,   Fan   identification   is   an   important   factor   in  
parking,  and  a  program  (Fisher,  2009).  Compared   explaining   sport   fan   behaviors   (Capella,   2002;;  
to  MiLB  games,  the  average  Fan  Cost  Index  (FCI)   Wann   &   Branscomb,   1993;;   Wann,   Tucker,   &  
for   attending   MLB   games   was   $196.89   in   2009   Schrader,  1996).  Trail,  Anderson,  and  Fink  (2000)  
(Greensberg,  2009).  Although  the  FCI  also  includes   defined  identification  as  “an  orientation  of  the  self  
souvenirs  in  the  cost,  the  difference  in  cost  between   in   regard   to   other   objects   including   a   person   or  
 MiLB  FAN  CLUSTERS 353

group  that  results  in  feelings  or  sentiments  of  close   league  levels.  In  this  study,  identification  with  base-­
attachment”  (pp.  165–166).  Objects  of  attachment   ball  was  used  as  the  sport  identification.  In  the  con-­
can  vary,  but  many  studies  in  sport  contexts  focused   text  of  MiLB  fans,  a  baseball  fan’s  sport  identification  
on   team   identification   (Woo,   Trail,   Kwon,   &   is  often  identical  to  his/her  attachment  to  MLB.
Anderson,   2009)   and   found   its   role   in   explaining  
Team   Identification.   Team   identification   is  
various   affective,   cognitive,   and   behavioral   reac-­
defined  as  one’s  level  of  attachment  to  or  concern  
tions  of  fans  (Capella,  2002;;  Wann  &  Branscomb,  
about   a   particular   sports   team   (Branscomb   &  
1993;;  Wann  et  al.,  1996).  Affectively,  highly  iden-­
Wann,  1993).  Underwood,  Bond,  and  Baer  (2001)  
tified  fans  would  experience  intense  emotions  and  
argued  that  compared  with  other  service  providers,  
high  levels  of  anxiety  during  and  after  their  teams’  
sports  teams  can  generate  exceptionally  high  levels  
competitions  (Wann,  Schrader,  &  Adamson,  1998).  
of  identification  among  consumers.  Highly  identi-­
Cognitively,  highly  identified  fans  show  a  number  
fied  fans  are  likely  to  have  a  strong  and  favorable  
of   biased   perceptions   regarding   their   identified  
attachment  to  the  sport  teams  with  which  they  iden-­
teams’   performance   and   they   tend   to   be   more  
tify.   Fans   who   identify   strongly   with   a   particular  
knowledgeable   about   their   team   and   the   sport  
team   tend   to   watch   more   games   in   person   or  
(Smith,   Patterson,   Williams,   &   Hogg,   1981).   In  
through  media,  pay  more  for  tickets  and  team  mer-­
terms  of  behavior,  highly  identified  fans  are  likely  
chandise,  and  stay  loyal  to  the  team  even  when  the  
to  show  higher  attendance  and  greater  willingness  
team  struggles  (Fisher  &  Wakefield,  1998;;  Laverie  
to  spend  both  time  and  money  to  follow  the  team  
&  Arnett,  2000).  In  this  study,  a  Double-­A  MiLB  
(Wann  &  Branscomb,  1993).
team  was  used  as  a  target  of  team  identification.
More   recent   studies   (e.g.,   Kwon,   Trail,   &  
Anderson,   2006;;   Robinson   &   Trail,   2005)   have  
MiLB  Fan  Clusters
acknowledged   that   there   are   multiple   points   of  
attachment  such  as  player,  coach,  university,  com-­ A  matrix  of  four  fan  clusters  was  developed  to  
munity,  level  of  sport,  or  sport  itself.  In  this  study,   allow  MiLB  teams  to  better  understand  fan  behav-­
team  and  sport/baseball  were  selected  as  the  attach-­ ior.  This  matrix  consisted  of  two  spectator  dimen-­
ment  points,  since  these  were  regarded  as  the  most   sions:   sport   identification   and   team   identification  
relevant  in  the  setting  of  minor  league  sports.  Sport   (see   Fig.   1).   The   “sport/MLB   fan”   group   (low  
identification   explains   a   spectator’s   love   of   base-­ Team  ID  with  high  Sport  ID)  is  a  fan  cluster  that  is  
ball  while  team  identification  explains  a  spectator’s   likely  to  include  MLB  fans  who  attend  MiLB  team  
attachment   to   the   selected   MiLB   team.   Based   on   games  to  enjoy  baseball,  but  they  are  not  particu-­
these   two   attachment   points,   respondents   can   be   larly  attached  to  the  respective  (local)  MiLB  team.  
classified  into  four  groups:  serious  fans,  sport/MLB   In   this   case,   the   primary   motivations   to   attend  
fans,  local  fans,  and  casual  fans,  depending  on  their   MiLB  games  would  be  “love  of  baseball/MLB”  or  
levels  (high  or  low)  of  team  identification  and  sport   MiLB   as   an   alternative   of   baseball   spectating  
identification.   By   dividing   MiLB   spectators   into   options   due   to   time   or   monetary   constraints,   etc.  
four   segments,   this   study   acknowledges   different   The  “serious  fan”  group  (high  Team  ID  with  high  
spectator  clusters  within  MiLB.  Segmenting  specta-­ Sport  ID)  includes  those  who  actively  follow  both  
tors  on  the  basis  of  demographic  and  psychographic   the   sport   of   baseball   and   the   MiLB   team.   The  
profiles   provides   sport   marketers   with   an   under-­ “casual  fan”  group  (low  Team  ID  with  low  Sport  
standing  of  the  different  needs  of  each  segment. ID)  is  those  who  are  neither  necessarily  attached  to  
the  respective  MiLB  team  nor  the  sport  of  baseball  
Sport  Identification.  Sports  are  often  the  subject   although   they   casually   attend   their   local   MiLB  
of  high  levels  of  commitment  and  emotional  identi-­ team   games,   mostly   as   an   entertainment   option.  
fication  (Sutton,  McDonald,  Milne,  &  Cimperman,   Lastly,   the   “local   fan”   (high   Team   ID   with   low  
1997).   If   a   person   is   identified   with   a   particu-­   Sport  ID)  is  a  group  of  fans  who  attend  their  local  
lar  sport,  the  person  is  likely  to  enjoy  watching  or   MiLB  team  games  while  they  do  not  follow  much  
following  that  specific  sport  regardless  of  the  com-­ baseball.  Those  who  have  a  high  level  of  regional  
petition  level,  at  collegiate,  minor  league,  or  major   tribalism  might  belong  to  this  group.
354 LEE  AND  WON

Figure  1.   MiLB  fan  cluster  matrix.

As  each  fan  cluster  has  different  levels  of  sport   gender  (Dietz-­Uhler,  Harrick,  End,  &  Jacquemotte,  
and  team  identification,  it  is  expected  that  each  fan   2000),   race   (Armstrong,   2002),   types   of   sport  
cluster   has   different   (a)   motivational   profiles,   (b)   (Wann,  Schrader,  &  Wilson,  1999),  and  nationality  
prioritized  game  attending  factors  including  exter-­ (Won   &   Kitamura,   2007).   For   example,   Dietz-­
nal  factors  on  game  attendance,  and  (c)  behavioral   Uhler  et  al.  (2000)  and  Fink  et  al.  (2002)  found  that  
characteristics   such   as   types   of   tickets   purchased   there   were   gender   differences:   Women   tend   to  
and  number  of  games  attended.   show  higher  motivation  in  social  motives  compared  
to  men,  therefore  watching  games  with  their  friends  
or   families   is   more   important   to   women.   On   the  
Motivation  on  Game  Attendance
other   hand,   male   fans   showed   higher   scores   on  
Motivation  has  been  a  popular  topic  of  research   eustress,   self-­esteem,   and   aesthetic   motivation  
because  it  is  an  important  factor  for  sport  participa-­ (Dietz-­Uhler  et  al.,  2000;;  James  &  Ridinger,  2002).  
tion.  Mowen  and  Minor  (1998)  defined  motivation   Related   to   nationality,   Won   and   Kitamura   (2007)  
as  an  activated  state  within  a  person  consisting  of   found  that  Korean  spectators  showed  higher  moti-­
drive  urges,  wishes,  and  desires  that  lead  to  goal-­ vation  in  family,  player,  and  drama  while  Japanese  
directed   behavior.   Motivation   has   been   a   popular   spectators  had  higher  in  motivation  related  to  phys-­
subject  in  sport  contexts  because  it  can  explain  rea-­ ical  skill  and  entertainment.
sons   why   people   behave   in   a   certain   way.   Fink,   Differences  in  fan  motivation  were  also  found  by  
Trail,  and  Anderson  (2002)  found  that  motivation   the  type  of  sport.  Wann  et  al.  (1999)  found  signifi-­
influenced  such  current  behaviors  as  merchandise   cant   differences   between   an   individual   sport   and  
and  media  consumption  as  well  as  future  behaviors   team  sports  as  well  as  aggressive  sports  and  nonag-­
including  continued  loyalty,  future  attendance,  and   gressive   sports.   Different   sport   settings   were   also  
future   merchandise   consumption.   Identifying   and   found   to   be   a   factor   in   differentiated   motivation.  
satisfying  those  motives  are  crucial  for  sport  mar-­ Bernthal  and  Graham  (2003)  examined  the  differ-­
keters  to  obtain  new  fans  as  well  as  to  retain  current   ences  in  fan  motivation  in  minor  league  and  inter-­
fans   (Kim,   Greenwell,   Andrew,   Lee,   &   Mahony,   collegiate   baseball   and   found   that   entertainment  
2008).   Due   to   its   importance,   several   motivation   factors  such  as  promotions,  giveaways,  or  mascots  
scales   with   various   dimensions   have   been   devel-­ was  important  for  spectators  in  minor  league  base-­
oped  to  capture  the  different  facets  of  motivation.   ball,   while   a   game   itself   and   communal   aspects  
There   are   Wann’s   (1995)   Sport   Fan   Motivation   were   more   important   for   spectators   of   collegiate  
Scale  (SFMS),  Trail  and  James’  (2001)  Motivation   baseball.  Similarly,  James  and  Ross  (2002)  found  
Scale   for   Sport   Consumption   (MSSC),   and   Funk,   that  consumers  of  minor  league  games  had  higher  
Mahony,  Nakazawa,  and  Hirakawa’s  (2001)  Sport   interest   in   entertainment   experiences   while   con-­
Interest  Inventory  (SII),  to  name  a  few. sumers   of   major   league   games   were   more   inter-­
Previous  studies  revealed  that  levels  of  motives   ested   in   core   product   related   experiences   (i.e.,  
can  vary  by  different  demographic  factors  such  as   baseball  game  experiences).
 MiLB  FAN  CLUSTERS 355

External  Factors  on  Game  Attendance product  (baseball)  attributes,  since  these  are  directly  
related  to  the  actual  playing  of  the  game.  Although  
While   motives   can   explain   some   reasons   why  
MiLB  is  not  the  highest  competition  level  in  base-­
fans  attend  games,  game  attendance  cannot  be  fully  
ball,   quality   of   game   and   other   factors   (e.g.,   star  
captured  nor  explained  only  by  these  psychological  
player   and   winning   record)   related   to   quality   of  
motives  (Fink  et  al.,  2002).  Ross  and  James  (2006)  
game  are  still  important.  In  the  study  of  spectators  
argued  that  multiple  factors  such  as  promotions  and  
in   major   and   minor   league   baseball   games,   Ross  
ticket   discounts   influence   individuals’   decision   to  
and  James  (2006)  found  that  “player  skills”  is  the  
attend  games.  Schofield  (1983)  classified  influenc-­
most   important   attribute   for   the   game   attendance  
ing  factors  on  game  attendance  into  four  categories  
both   in   major   and   minor   league   baseball   games.  
after   reviewing   17   previously   conducted   articles:  
This  implies  that  marketers  of  MiLB  teams  should  
demographic  variables  such  as  population  compo-­
not  overlook  the  quality  of  games  while  emphasiz-­
sition  and  social  status,  economic  variables  such  as  
ing  other  entertainment  factors  such  as  fireworks,  
ticket   prices,   per   capita   income,   game   attractive-­
theme   nights,   and   other   various   promotions.  
ness  variables  such  as  team  record  and  star  players,  
However,   it   should   also   be   noted   that   the   impor-­
and  residual  preference  variables  such  as  schedule,  
tance  of  baseball  games  in  a  minor  league  might  be  
accessibility,  weather,  stadium  quality,  etc.  Similarly,  
less   than   that   of   the   MLB   games.   In   fact,   many  
Marcum  and  Greenstein  (1985)  grouped  influenc-­
MiLB   teams   have   emphasized   more   of   ancillary  
ing   factors   on   game   attendance   into   three   catego-­
aspects  rather  than  the  game  itself  in  its  promotion  
ries   of   sociodemographic   including   population  
(James  &  Ross,  2002).  
composition,   social   status,   and   economic   condi-­
tions,   accessibility   of   the   event   including   seating  
Peripheral   Attributes.   Peripheral   attributes   are  
availability,   location   of   the   event,   and   day   of   the  
not   directly   related   to   the   core   product   (baseball  
week,  and  performance  including  win–loss  record  
games),  but  does  influence  the  spectators’  overall  
and  star  player.  Later,  Zhang  et  al.  (1997)  studied  
game   experience   inside   the   ballpark.   The   four  
five  influencing  factors  including  game  attributes,  
selected  factors  were  quality  of  concession,  quality  
home   team,   opposing   team,   economic   consider-­
of  stadium,  promotions,  and  ticket  price.  The  first  
ation,   and   game   convenience   on   spectator   atten-­
two   factors   (i.e.,   concession   quality   and   stadium  
dance  in  minor  league  hockey  games.
quality)  are  related  to  stadium  environment,  which  
After  reviewing  the  previous  studies  and  consult-­
are  important  facets  of  total  service  quality.  Grace  
ing   with   the   general   manager   of   a   selected   MiLB  
and   O’Cass   (2004)   argued   that   the   physical   envi-­
team,   11   influencing   factors   on   game   attendance  
ronment   in   which   service   delivery   occurs   influ-­
were  chosen  to  be  used  in  this  study.  These  selected  
ences   consumers’   satisfaction   with   a   provided  
factors  were  further  classified  into  three  dimensions  
service.  Roy  (2008)  also  noted  that  physical  envi-­
based  on  the  notion  that  the  sport  product  consists  
ronment   of   a   sporting   event   such   as   comfortable  
of  the  core  product  and  the  extensions  to  that  core  
seats  and  clean  facilities  plays  a  major  role  in  shap-­
product  (Callecod  &  Stotlar,  1990;;  Mullin,  Hardy,  
ing   consumers’   overall   spectating   experience.   It  
&  Sutton,  2000).  Factors  that  are  directly  related  to  
has   been   shown   that   there   is   a   close   relationship  
the  game  of  baseball  were  included  in  core  product  
between   consumer   satisfaction   and   the   quality   of  
attributes  (winning  record,  star  player,  and  quality  
service   (Zeithaml,   Berry,   &   Parasuraman,   1996).  
of  game),  and  other  external  factors  were  classified  
Similarly,  Keaveny  (1995)  found  that  poor  service  
into  either  peripheral  attributes  (quality  of  conces-­
experiences   accounted   more   than   half   of   the   rea-­
sion,   promotions,   ticket   price,   and   quality   of   sta-­
sons  for  terminating  patronage.  The  latter  two  fac-­
dium)  or  convenience  attributes  (weather,  proximity  
tors  (promotions  and  ticket  price)  were  included  in  
of   stadium,   game   time,   and   game   day)   depend-­  
peripheral   attributes   since   these   are   not   directly  
ing   on   its   characteristics.   The   following   section  
related  to  baseball,  but  could  function  as  attractors  
explains  each  attribute  in  more  detail.
by   bringing   spectators   to   stadiums.   More   specifi-­
Core   Product   Attributes.   Winning   record,   star   cally,   well-­devised   promotions   and   low   ticket  
player,  and  quality  of  game  were  selected  as  core   prices  will  provide  the  spectators  with  a  reason  to  
356 LEE  AND  WON

attend  a  game.  Sport  marketers  tend  to  have  more   motivation,   external   factors,   and   other   spectator  
control  over  these  attributes  compared  to  those  of   behaviors.   After   the   initial   development   of   the  
core  product,  thus,  they  should  focus  more  on  these   instrument,  the  survey  was  sent  to  a  panel  of  experts  
extensions   to   satisfy   the   needs   and   wants   of   their   to  get  their  feedback.  Some  wordings  were  changed  
customers   (Theodorakis,   Kambitsis,   Laios,   &   based  on  their  feedback.  Later,  the  survey  was  sent  
Koustelios,  2001). to  the  general  manager  of  the  team  to  get  permis-­
sion  and  feedback.  Adjustments  were  made  accord-­
Convenience   Attributes.   Similar   to   peripheral  
ingly   and   the   dimension   of   economic   factor   in  
attributes,  convenience  attributes  are  also  ancillary  
motivation   was   dropped   and   the   type   of   purchase  
to  the  core  product  of  baseball.  However,  as  third-­
ticket   was   added   in   consumption   behavior   ques-­
tier  attributes,  convenience  factors  influence  spec-­
tions  at  the  end.
tators’  attendance  and  experience  even  before  they  
The  instrument  consists  of  four  sections  of  spec-­
arrive  to  stadiums.  The  selected  convenience  attri-­
tator  identification  (three  items  for  sport  and  team  
butes  were  comprised  of  weather,  proximity  of  sta-­
identification  each),  motivation  (21  items  for  seven  
dium,  game  time,  and  game  day.  The  convenience  
dimensions),   external   factors   (11   items   for   three  
attributes  are  factors  that  make  it  easier  for  specta-­
dimensions),  and  other  sociodemographic  and  sport  
tors   to   attend   games   when   they   are   favorable.  
consumption   behavior   questions   (11   questions).  
However,   if   these   factors   are   not   favorable   it   can  
For  spectator  identification,  motivation,  and  exter-­
prohibit  spectators  from  attending.  In  other  words,  
nal   factors,   Cronbach’s   reliability   tests   were   con-­
unfavorable   convenience   factors   could   work   as  
ducted,  and  all  the  dimensions  passed  the  minimum  
constraints   for   spectators.   Henderson,   Bialeschki,  
required  level  of  0.70.
Shaw,  and  Freysinger  (1989)  defined  constraint  as  
“any   factor   which   intervenes   between   the   prefer-­ Spectator   Identification.   Team   identification  
ence  for  an  activity  and  participation  in  it”  (p.  117). (TID)  and  sport  identification  (SID)  were  measured  
using  two  of  the  seven  dimensions  of  the  Point  of  
Method Attachment  Index  (PAI)  by  Trail,  Robinson,  Dick,  
Sample  and  Procedure and   Gillentine   (2003)   to   classify   respondents   into  
four  different  groups.
For   this   study,   data   were   collected   from   a  
Double-­A   MiLB   team   located   in   central   Penn-­ Motivation.  Seven  out  of  eight  dimensions  of  the  
sylvania.  The  ticketing  department  of  the  selected   SFMS  (i.e.,  eustress,  self-­esteem,  aesthetic,  group  
team  directly  sent  out  an  online  survey  via  e-­mail  to   affiliation,   family   needs,   escape,   and   entertain-­
2,340  people  who  had  purchased  tickets  online  in   ment)   developed   by   Wann   (1995)   were   used.  
recent   years   and   the   respondents   were   asked   to   Following  the  recommendation  of  the  team’s  gen-­
complete  the  online  survey.  After  the  initial  email   eral  manager,  the  dimension  of  “economic  factors”  
request,  a  follow-­up  email  was  sent  out  1  week  later   was   dropped.   Each   item   was   measured   using   a  
to  urge  people  to  fill  out  the  survey.  As  a  reward,   7-­point   Likert-­type   scale.   Cronbach’s   alpha   for  
complimentary   tickets   were   given   to   selected   each  dimension  ranged  from  0.70  to  0.84.  
respondents.  A  total  of  370  subjects  (15.8%)  com-­
External  Factors.  Eleven  factors  of  three  dimen-­
pleted   the   survey.   Of   the   370   respondents,   the  
sions  were  included  as  external  factors.  Three  attri-­
majority  of  respondents  were  Caucasian  (96%)  and  
butes   of   core   product   (game   quality,   start   player,  
male   (69%)   with   the   mean   age   of   45.6   (SD   =  
and  winning),  peripheral  (stadium  quality,  conces-­
12.67).   On   average,   respondents   attended   13.3  
sion  quality,  promotions,  and  ticket  price),  and  con-­
MiLB  games  per  season,  including  8.65  games  of  
venient   (game   day,   game   time,   weather,   and  
the  selected  team  and  spent  approximately  $402  on  
stadium  proximity)  were  selected.  To  confirm  the  
tickets,  food,  and  parking  at  MiLB  games  per  year.
factor  structure  of  the  external  factors,  a  confirma-­
tory   factor   analysis   was   performed   using   AMOS.  
Instrument
Chi-­square   test   was   significant,   Ȥ2(32)   =   100.61,  
An  instrument  was  developed  to  investigate  how   p  <  0.001.  The  results  indicated  that  the  model  pro-­
different  levels  of  spectator  identification  influence   vided  an  acceptable  fit  for  the  data:  GFI  =  0.95,  CFI  
 MiLB  FAN  CLUSTERS 357

=  0.92,  RMSEA  =  0.076.  All  indices  including  the   team   and   the   sport   (SID   =   2.44,   TID   =   2.76;;   n   =  
RMSEA  were  within  the  threshold  level  (Browne   32).  In  terms  of  cluster  size,  the  biggest  group  was  
&   Cudeck,   1993;;   McDonald   &   Ho,   2002).   the   “serious”   cluster   (n   =   149)   while   the   smallest  
Therefore,  it  was  concluded  that  the  model  was  a   one   was   the   “casual   fan”   cluster   (n   =   32).   As  
plausible   representation   of   the   data.   Cronbach’s   reported,  the  results  were  consistent  with  the  pro-­
alpha  scores  for  three  dimensions  were  0.74,  0.66,   posed  typology.  See  Figure  2  for  more  information.  
and   0.71,   considered   acceptable   for   newly   devel-­ ANOVA   tests   revealed   the   existence   of   four   dis-­
oped  scales  (DeVellis,  1991).   tinctive  groups  of  MiLB  fans,  F(3,  366)  =  213.28,  p  
<  0  .001  for  TID  and  F(3,  366)  =  473.92,  p  <  0  .001  
Spectator   Behaviors   and   Sociodemographic  
for  SID.
Information.   The   number   of   attended   games   for  
MiLB  and  the  target  team  per  season,  the  amount  of  
MANOVA:  Understanding  Cluster  Differences
money  spent  for  attending  MiLB  games  during  the  
last   season,   the   types   of   tickets   purchased,   and   Motivation.  Overall,  the  most  important  motiva-­
sociodemographic  information  including  age,  gen-­ tional  dimension  was  entertainment  (mean  =  6.2),  
der,   ethnicity,   marital   status,   number   of   children,   followed   by   escape   (5.79),   family   needs   (5.68),  
education  level,  and  income  were  asked.   aesthetic   (5.45),   group   affiliation   (4.95),   eustress  
(4.90),   and   self-­esteem   (4.63).   By   group,   “enter-­
Analytical  Procedures tainment”   was   the   most   important   motivation   for  
the   serious,   sport,   and   local   groups   while   “family  
Initially,  respondents  were  categorized  into  four  
needs”   was   the   most   critical   motivation   for   the  
groups   based   on   their   SID   and   TID   scores   using  
casual   group.   To   investigate   the   influence   of   fan  
K-­means   cluster   analysis   with   the   Euclidean   dis-­
clusters   on   motivation,   the   data   were   analyzed  
tance   approach   in   which   each   observation   is  
using  MANOVA  with  an  independent  variable  of  
assigned   to   the   cluster   having   the   nearest   mean  
spectator   identification   (four   groups)   and   depen-­
(MacQueen,  1967).  Next,  four  separate  multivari-­
dent   variables   of   seven   fan   motivational   dimen-­
ate   analysis   of   variance   (MANOVA)   were   per-­
sions  (see  Table  1).  The  results  showed  that  there  
formed   to   investigate   the   influence   of   MiLB   fan  
were   main   effects   for   spectator   identification,  
clusters  on  (a)  motivation,  (b)  external  factors,  and  
Wilk’s  Ȝ  =  0.57,  F  =  12.54,  p  <  0.001.  Univariate  
(c)   spectator   behaviors.   In   addition,   a   chi-­square  
analysis  of  variance  indicated  that  spectator  identi-­
test  was  performed  to  explore  whether  there  were  
fication  had  a  main  effect  on  all  seven  motivational  
group  differences  regarding  the  type  of  tickets  pur-­
dimensions  (p  <  0.05).  
chased  (single-­game  vs.  multipacket  tickets).
In  terms  of  group  mean  scores,  the  “serious  fans”  
group   rated   higher   on   all   dimensions,   with   the  
Results
exception   of   “family   needs”   compared   to   other  
Cluster  Analysis:  MiLB  Fan  Clusters three   groups.   Between   “sport   fans”   and   “local  
fans,”  local  fans  had  greater  motivation  scores  on  
Using  K-­cluster  classification,  respondents  were  
all  dimensions  except  one  dimension:  “aesthetic.”  
grouped  into  four  clusters  (i.e.,  serious,  sport,  local,  
The   “serious”   and   “sport”   fan   clusters   shared   the  
and   casual   fans)   using   the   spectator   identification  
similar   motivational   patterns   in   terms   of   ranking  
score   -­   combined   scores   of   SID   and   TID.   As  
but   obviously   serious   fans   had   a   higher   level   of  
expected,   respondents   in   the   “serious   fan”   cluster  
motivation   than   the   sport   fans.   As   expected,   the  
had  both  high  team  and  sport  identification  (SID  =  
casual  fans  scored  lower  on  all  motivational  dimen-­
6.62,   TID   =   5.91;;   n   =   149).   Respondents   in   the  
sions,   except   the   “family   needs”   motivation,   in  
“sport   fan”   cluster   had   high   sport   identification  
comparison  to  the  other  three  groups.  
with   low   team   identification   (SID   =   6.64,   TID   =  
3.29;;   n   =   97)   while   individuals   in   the   “local   fan”   External  Factors.  In  terms  of  descriptive  statis-­
cluster   had   moderate   level   of   sport   identification   tics   (see   Table   2),   respondents   considered   the  
and  fairly  high  level  of  team  identification  (SID  =    convenience-­related  attribute  to  be  the  most  impor-­
4.42,  TID  =  4.90;;  n  =  92).  Lastly,  individuals  in  the   tant   factors   that   influence   their   game   attendance  
“casual   fan”   cluster   had   low   scores   both   with   the   (mean   =   5.40),   closely   followed   by   peripherals  
358 LEE  AND  WON

Figure  2.   Results  of  cluster  analysis.

(5.33),  and  core  attribute  (4.26).  To  name  the  top   using  MANOVA  (see  Table  3)  and  chi-­square   test  
five  factors,  ticket  price  (peripheral,  mean  =  5.87)   (Table  4).  The  MANOVA  results  showed  that  there  
was  the  most  important  external  factor,  followed  by   were  main  effects  for  spectator  identification  on  all  
overall  stadium  quality  (peripheral,  5.79),  stadium   three  spectating  behaviors  including  (a)  the  number  
proximity   (convenience,   5.77),   weather   (conve-­ of   total   MiLB   games   attended,   (b)   the   number   of  
nience,   5.55),   and   game   quality   (core   product,   target   local   team   games   attended,   and   (c)   the  
5.46).  On  the  other  hand,  star  player  (core  product,   amount   of   money   spent   on   attending   to   MiLB  
3.69)  and  winning  record  (core  product,  3.62)  were   games   per   season,   Wilk’s   Ȝ   =   0.85,   F(6,   650)   =  
the  least  important  factors.   6.16,   p   <   0.001.   Expectedly,   the   serious   group  
The   MANOVA   results   showed   that   there   were   attended   more   total   number   of   MiLB,   more   local  
main  effects  of  spectator  group  memberships  on  the   MiLB   games,   and   spent   more   money   on   MiLB  
three  external  factors,  Wilk’s  Ȝ  =  0.89,  F(6,  730)  =   games   when   compared   to   the   other   groups.   Even  
7.26,  p  <  0.001.  Spectator  group  memberships  had   though  the  casual  group  attended  the  least  number  
influence   on   peripheral   attributes,   F(3,   366)   =   of   MiLB   games   per   season,   it   was   not   the   casual  
13.46  at  p  <  0.001,  and  core  product  attributes,  F(3,   group  (mean  =  4.26  games  per  season;;  76%  of  their  
366)   =   11.17   at   p   <   0.001,   but   not   on   the   conve-­ all  MiLB  games  attended)  or  local  group  (mean  =  
nience  attribute.  In  terms  of  group  differences,  the   6.88;;   76%),   but   the   sport   group   (mean   =   2.85;;  
peripheral  factor  was  the  most  important  factor  for   28%)   who   attended   the   least   number   of   the   local  
the   serious   fan   while   the   convenience   factor   was   team  games.
the  most  important  factor  for  the  other  three  groups. As  reported  in  Table  4,  the  results  of  chi-­square  
test  indicated  that  there  were  group  differences  in  
Spectator  Behaviors.  The  influence  of  group  mem-­ terms  of  type  of  tickets  purchased,  Ȥ2  =20.48,  p  <  
berships   on   spectating   behaviors   was   investigated   0.001.   The   smaller   proportion   of   the   sport   group  

Table  1
MANOVA  for  MiLB  Fan  Group  Memberships  on  Spectator  Motivation

Groups Univariate

All   a.  Serious   b.  Sport   c.  Local   d.  Casual  

Motivations (N  =  370) (N  =  149) (N  =  97) (N  =  92) (N  =  32) F(3,  366) Sig.

Entertainment 6.22 6.57  (1) 6.08  (1) 6.14  (1) 5.23  (2) 33.35 c
<0.001
Escape 5.79 6.02  (2) 5.62  (2) 5.79  (3) 5.22  (3) 6.93c <0.001
Family  needs 5.68 5.74  (4) 5.31  (4) 6.05  (2) 5.53  (1) 5.19a 0.002
Aesthetic 5.45 5.93  (3) 5.50  (3) 5.15  (4) 3.88  (6) 38.63c <0.001
Group  affiliation 4.95 5.30  (6) 4.52  (6) 5.01  (5) 4.48  (4) 9.38c <0.001
Eustress 4.90 5.40  (5) 4.58  (5) 4.72  (7) 4.00  (5) 21.07c <0.001
Self-­esteem 4.63 5.22  (7) 3.90  (7) 4.77  (6) 3.66  (7) 29.39c <0.001

:LON¶VȜ F  =  12.54,  p  <  0.001.

 MiLB  FAN  CLUSTERS 359

Table  2
MANOVA  for  MiLB  Fan  Group  Memberships  on  Influencing  Factors

Groups Univariate

All   a.  Serious   b.  Sport   c.  Local   d.  Casual  

Factors (N  =  370) (N  =  149) (N  =  97) (N  =  92) (N  =  32) F(3,  366) Sig.

Convenience 5.40 5.38 5.28 5.47 5.65   1.27 0.283

  Proximity 5.78     (3) 5.94     (3) 5.52     (3) 5.80     (1) 5.78     (2)
  Weather 5.55     (4) 5.46     (5) 5.43     (4) 5.68     (4) 5.94     (1)
  Game  time 5.27     (6) 5.22     (8) 5.23     (6) 5.27     (6) 5.63     (4)
  Game  day 5.01     (8) 4.91     (9) 4.98     (7) 5.13     (7) 5.25     (6)
Peripherals 5.33 5.63 5.08 5.33 4.69 13.46 <0.001
  Stadium  quality 5.79     (2) 5.99     (2) 5.70     (2) 5.72     (2) 5.41     (5)
  Concession  quality 5.08     (7) 5.42     (6) 4.91     (8) 4.95     (9) 4.38     (7)
  Promotions 4.91     (9) 5.28     (7) 4.31     (9) 5.13     (7) 4.38     (7)
  Ticket  price 5.87     (1) 6.12     (1) 5.70     (1) 5.72     (2) 5.66     (3)
Core  product 4.26 4.61 4.04 4.22 3.78 11.17 <0.001
  Game  quality 5.46     (5) 5.70     (4) 5.41     (5) 5.51     (5) 4.34     (9)
  Star  player 3.69  (10) 4.19  (10) 3.52  (10) 3.42  (11) 2.63  (11)
  Winning  record 3.62  (11) 3.94  (11) 3.20  (11) 3.73  (10) 3.16  (10)

(11%  =  11  out  of  97  respondents)  purchased  multi-­ The   mean   scores   of   seven   motivational   dimen-­
packet   tickets   in   comparison   to   the   casual   (22%),   sions   reflected   that   the   context   of   this   study   is  
local  (38%),  and  serious  (33%)  groups.   minor   league   sports/baseball.   The   mean   scores   of  
overall  spectators  clearly  indicated  that  “entertain-­
ment”  is  the  most  important  dimension  for  specta-­
Discussion
tors  of  MiLB  games.  This  result  provided  evidence  
This  study  aims  to  provide  a  better  understand-­ that  spectators  value  minor  league  baseball’s  abil-­
ing   of   different   groups   of   MiLB   spectators   using   ity   to   provide   live   entertainment.   The   next   two  
internal   and   external   factors   as   to   why   spectators   most  important  motivations  were  escape  and  fam-­
come   to   MiLB   games   and   the   influencing/attract-­ ily   needs,   meaning   people   came   to   the   games   to  
ing  factors  on  their  attendance  at  games.  Consid  er-­ divert   from   their   ordinary   life   and   to   spend   time  
ing  spectators  are  heterogeneous  groups,  spectators   with  their  families.  In  that  sense,  general  managers  
were   segmented   into   four   different   groups   and   a   of   minor   league   baseball   teams   should   keep   their  
comparison   was   made   using   spectator   identifica-­ stadium  family  friendly  as  much  as  possible.
tion   and   their   respective   motivation,   external   fac-­ The  results  of  MANOVA  with  four  clusters  also  
tors,  and  consumption  behaviors. showed  that  entertainment  was  the  most  important  

Table  3
MANOVA  for  MiLB  Fan  Group  Memberships  on  Spectator  Behaviors

Groups Group  Difference

All   a.  Serious   b.  Sport   c.  Local   d.  Casual  

(N  =  330) (N  =  133) (N  =  88) (N  =  82) (N  =  27) F(3,  326) Sig.

MiLB  games 13.27   19.53   10.09     9.05     5.56 10.46 <0.001

Team  games 8.65   14.47     2.85     6.88     4.26 13.90 <0.001
Money  spent $401.52 538.65 321.19 314.94 250.78   4.01 0.008
Per  game  spending  ($)   27.58   31.83   34.80   45.10
Spent  on  local  team  ($) 399.08   90.72 148.25 192.13

:LON¶VȜ F  =  6.16,  p  <  0.001.

360 LEE  AND  WON

Table  4
Results  of  Chi-­Square  Test

Groups

All   a.  Serious   b.  Sport   c.  Local   d.  Casual  

Ticket  Type (N  =  370) (N  =  133) (N  =  88) (N  =  82) (N  =  27) Chi-­Square

Single  game 268 100 86 57 25

Multipacket 102   49 11 35   7 Ȥ2  =  20.48***

motivation  in  all  three  groups,  except  the  casual  fan   especially   true   if   a   person   is   not   highly   identified  
cluster   where   family   needs   (mean   =   5.53)   were   with  “local  fans”  was  not  extremely  high,  the  result  
most  important  closely  followed  by  entertainment   gave  an  important  message  for  managers  of  minor  
(mean  =  5.23)  and  escape  (mean  =  5.22).  Compared   league  baseball  teams  in  regard  to  what  they  should  
to  “sport  fans,”  “local  fans”  showed  higher  level  of   consider  in  recruiting  players  or  managing  the  team.
family   needs,   group   affiliation,   and   self-­esteem.   What  was  interesting  was  the  fact  that  even  for  
This  explains  that  minor  league  baseball  games  are   the  clusters  of  “serious  fan”  and  “sport/MLB  fan,”  
meaningful   for   “local   fans”   as   a   place   to   mingle   the  most  influential  factor  was  ticket  price,  but  not  
and  spend  time  together  with  families,  friends,  and   game-­related  factors.  This  might  be  again  related  to  
local  residents.  Considering  that  “local  fans”  were   different  expectations  the  spectators  have  for  MiLB  
more   highly   identified   with   their   local   team   than   games   compared   to   other   expensive   major   league  
the  “sport  fan”  cluster,  the  “local  fans”  high  score   games.  It  seems  when  spectators  pay  less  to  watch  
on   self-­esteem   made   sense   because   they   feel   a   MiLB   games   compared   to   MLB   games,   their  
sense  of  achievement  or  self-­esteem  when  the  local   expectation  level  is  also  adjusted  to  fit  to  the  minor  
team   performs   well.   In   addition,   a   big   difference   league   baseball   games—they   understand   that  
was   found   in   aesthetic   between   “serious   fans”   MiLB  games  mean  affordable  family  entertainment  
(mean   =   5.93;;   ranked   third)   and   “casual   fans”   rather  than  top  quality  baseball  games.  
(mean   =   3.88;;   ranked   sixth).   It   seems   the   more   In  regard  to  behavioral  patterns,  some  differences  
knowledgeable  the  spectator,  the  more  appreciative   among  four  clusters  were  found  in  the  total  number  
they  become  about  the  aesthetic  side  of  the  game.   of   attended   MiLB   games,   the   number   of   attended  
In  regard  to  external  factors,  convenience  factors   local   team   games,   and   the   money   spent   in   minor  
including  stadium  proximity,  weather,  game  time,   league   baseball   games.   Although   all   spectators   of  
and   game   day   were   the   most   important   attributes   different   clusters   are   valuable   for   marketers   of  
overall   when   spectators   consider   attending   MiLB   MiLB  teams,  the  “sport/MLB  fan”  cluster  turns  out  
games.  As  somewhat  expected,  core  product  attri-­ to   be   more   important   given   the   amount   of   money  
butes   including   winning   record,   star   players,   and   they  spent  or  the  number  of  attended  MiLB  games.
quality  of  game  were  the  least  important  for  specta-­ In  addition,  the  pattern  of  ticket  purchase  seems  
tors   of   MiLB.   Interestingly   enough,   the   overall   to  be  closely  related  to  the  number  of  attended  local  
game   quality   was   still   important   (ranked   fifth)   to   games.  “Serious”  and  “local  fans”  purchased  more  
spectators  while  “star  player”  and  “winning”  were   multiticket  packages  while  “sport/MLB  fans”  pur-­
the   two   least   important   factors.   This   result   well   chased  more  single  tickets,  probably  because  their  
demonstrated  what  the  spectators  of  minor  league   number  of  visits  to  the  target  local  stadium  was  not  
baseball   are   looking   for.   In   general,   respondents   high,  since  they  also  visit  other  minor/major  base-­
were   not   overly   concerned   about   whether   their   ball  games.  From  a  different  angle,  the  fact  that  the  
team   win   or   lose,   or   whether   their   team   has   star   “sport/MLB  fans”  attended  a  fewer  number  of  the  
players.  It  seems  what  matters  the  most  to  them  is   local   team   games   might   be   related   to   the   type   of  
having  a  good  time  with  reasonable  game  quality.   tickets  they  purchased.  If  the  local  team  can  attract  
For  example,  watching  close  games  can  be  very  fun   the   “sport   fan”   to   purchase   multiticket   packages  
compared   to   watching   lopsided   games,   which   is   they  might  start  to  come  to  the  target  team’s  game  
 MiLB  FAN  CLUSTERS 361

more   often.   Considering   that   this   cluster   is   very   References

price  sensitive  (ticket  price  was  number  one  exter-­ Armstrong,  K.  L.  (2002).  Race  and  sport  consumption  moti-­
nal  factor)  just  like  any  other  clusters,  price-­related   vations:  A  preliminary  investigation  of  a  black  consum-­
promotions  such  as  special  price  discount  might  be   ers’   sport   motivation   scale.   Journal   of   Sport   Behavior,  
used   to   entice   them   to   buy   multiticket   packages   25(4),  209–330.
knowing  that  they  have  a  deep  interest  in  baseball.   Bernthal,  M.  J.,  &  Graham,  P.J.  (2003).  The  effects  of  sport  
setting  on  fan  attendance  motivation:  The  case  of  minor  
Since  they  already  have  the  love  of  baseball,  pro-­ league  vs.  collegiate  baseball.  Journal  of  Sport  Behavior,  
viding  some  incentives  could  help  convert  them  to   26(3),  223–239.
the  fans  of  local  baseball  teams.   Bortstein,   L.   (2008,   February).   Minor   leagues,   major   fun.  
This   study   clearly   demonstrates   the   position   of   Sports  Travel  Magazine,  12(2),  24–31.
minor   league   baseball   games   in   the   consumers’   Branscomb,   N.   R.,   &   Wann,   D.   L.   (1993).   The   positive  
social   and   self-­concept   consequences   of   sports   team  
minds  and  in  the  market.  As  indicated  by  grand  mean   identification.   Journal   of   Sport   and   Social   Issues,   15,  
scores  of  external  factors,  spectators  want  to  have  a   115–127.
good  time  at  an  affordable  price,  which  is  only  par-­ Browne,  M.  W.,  &  Cudeck,  R.  (1993).  Alternative  ways  of  
tially  driven  by  game-­related  factors  in  minor  base-­ assessing  model  fit.  In  K.  A.  Bollen  &  J.  S.  Long  (Eds.),  
ball  games.  It  seems  spectators  of  minor  and  major   Testing  structural  equation  models.  Newbury  Park,  CA:  
Sage.
league  baseball  games  have  some  differences  in  their   Callecod,  R.  L.,  &  Stotlar,  D.  (1990).  Sport  marketing.  In  J.  
spectator  motivation  (Ross  &  James,  2006).  It  is  con-­ B.  Parks  &  B.  R.  K.  Zanger  (Eds.),  Sport  fitness  manage-­
ceivable   that   spectators’   expectation   for   minor   ment:   Career   strategies   and   professional   content   (pp.  
league  baseball  games,  especially  in  the  domain  of   73–84).  Champaign,  IL:  Human  Kinetics.
core  product  or  game-­related  factor,  might  not  be  as   Capella,  M.  E.  (2002).  Measuring  sports  fans’  involvement:  
The   fan   behavior   questionnaire.   Southern   Business  
high  as  for  major  baseball  games.  Thus,  as  long  as   Review,  27(2),  30–36.
spectators  enjoy  their  time  at  the  ballparks  and  the   DeVellis,  R.  F.  (1991).  Scale  development.  Newbury  Park,  
quality   of   game   is   reasonable   regardless   the   team   CA:  Sage  Publications.
wins  or  loses,  they  are  likely  to  be  satisfied.  In  that   Dietz-­Uhler,   B.,   Harick,   A.,   End,   C.,   &   Jacquemotte,   L.  
sense,  the  results  of  this  study  sheds  light  on  where  a   (2000).  Six  differences  in  sport  fan  behavior  and  reasons  
for  being  a  sport  fan.  Journal  of  Sport  Behavior,  23(3),  
general   manager   should   put   efforts   to   attract   more   219–231.  
people  and  keep  them  satisfied. Fink,   J.   S.,   Trail,   G.   T.,   &   Anderson,   D.   F.   (2002).  
Environmental   factors   associated   with   spectator   atten-­
dance   and   sport   consumption   behavior:   Gender   and  
Limitations team   differences.   Sport   Marketing   Quarterly,   11(1),  
8–19.
Acknowledging  MiLB  spectators  are  comprised   Fisher,  E.  (2009,  March  30).  Major  effort  in  the  minors  to  
of   a   few   heterogeneous   groups   is   important   since   boost  sales.  Sports  Business  Journal,  10  (46),  35.
these  groups  show  differences  in  motivation,  game   Fisher,   R.   J.,   &   Wakefields,   K.   (1998).   Factors   leading   to  
attractors,   and   consumption   behaviors   such   as   group  identification:  A  field  study  of  winners  and  losers.  
ticket  purchase  pattern.  Understanding  the  charac-­ Psychology  and  Marketing,  15(1),  23–40.  
Funk,   D.,   Mahony,   D.,   Nakazawa,   M.,   &   Hirakawa,   S.  
teristics  of  different  groups  provides  a  first  step  for   (2001).   Development   of   the   Sport   Interest   Inventory  
sport   managers   to   satisfy   their   varied   needs.   (SII):   Implications   for   measuring   unique   consumer  
Theoretically,  it  is  desirable  for  sport  marketers  to   motives   to   sporting   events.   International   Journal   of  
develop  customized  marketing  strategies  targeting   Sports  Marketing  and  Sponsorship,  3,  291–316.
each   different   group.   However,   it   should   also   be   Grace,  D.,  &  O’Cass,  A.  (2004).  Examining  service  experi-­
ences   and   post   consumption   evaluations.   Journal   of  
kept  in  mind  that  differentiated  strategies  and  pro-­ Services  Marketing,  18,  450–461.
motions  might  be  a  bit  expensive  to  plan  and  some   Greensberg,   G.   (2009,   December   3).   Team   marketing  
MiLB   executives   do   not   have   abundant   financial   report:   MLB   2010   FCI   early   update.   Retrieved   March  
resources.   Nevertheless,   not   recognizing   specta-­ 25,  2010,  from  http://www.teammarketing.com
tors’   heterogeneity   and   their   needs   can   be   detri-­ Henderson,   K.   A.,   Bialeschki,   M.   D.,   Shaw,   S.   M.,   &  
Freysinger,  V.  J.  (1989).  A  leisure  of  one’s  own:  A  femi-­
mental   in   the   long   run.   Thus,   finding   a   balance   nist  perspective  on  women’s  leisure.  College  Park,  PA:  
between   general   and   customized   marketing   plan-­ Venture  Publishing.
ning  and  strategy  would  be  necessary.   James,   J.   D.,   &   Ridinger,   L.   L.   (2002).   Female   and   male  
362 LEE  AND  WON

sport  fans:  A  comparison  of  sport  consumption  motives.   A   profile   of   the   deeply   committed   sports   fan.   Arena  
Journal  of  Sport  Behavior,  25,  260–278. Review,  5(2),  26–44.
James,   J.   D.,   &   Ross,   S.   D.   (2002).   The   motives   of   sport   Stern,   B.   (2008).   Course   innovation:   Diverse   consumers:  
consumers:   A   comparison   of   major   and   minor   league   Race,   ethnicity,   religion,   social   class,   and   gender.  
baseball.   International   Journal   of   Sport   Management,   Marketing  Education  Review,  18(1),  55–60.
3(3),  180–198. Sutton,   W.   A.,   McDonald,   M.   A.,   Milne,   G.   R.,   &  
Keaveney,   S.   M.   (1995).   Customer   switching   behavior   in   Cimperman,  J.  (1997).  Creating  and  fostering  fan  identi-­
service   industries:   An   exploratory   study.   Journal   of   fication   in   professional   sports.   Sports   Marketing  
Marketing,  59(2),  71–82. Quarterly,  6(1),  15–22.
Kim,  S.,  Greenwell,  C.,  Andrew,  D.,  Lee,  J.,  &  Mahony,  D.   Theodorakis,  N.,  Kambitsis,  C.,  Laios,  A.,  &  Koustelios,  A.  
(2008).  An  analysis  of  spectator  motives  in  an  individual   (2001).  Relationship  between  measures  of  service  qual-­
combat  sport:  A  study  of  mixed  martial  arts  fans.  Sport   ity  and  satisfaction  of  spectators  in  professional  sports.  
Marketing  Quarterly,  17(2),  109–119. Managing  Service  Quality,  11(6),  431–438.  
Kwon,  H.  H.,  Trail,  G.  T.,  &  Anderson,  D.  F.  (2006).  Points   Trail,  G.  T.,  Anderson,  D.,  &  Fink,  J.  S.  (2000).  A  theoreti-­
of  attachment  (identification)  and  licensed  merchandise   cal   model   of   sport   consumer   behavior.   International  
consumption:   A   case   study.   International   Journal   of   Journal  of  Sport  Management,  1,  154–180.
Sport  Management,  7,  347–360. Trail,  T.  G.,  &  James,  J.  D.  (2001).  The  motivation  scale  for  
Laverie,  D.  A.,  &  Arnett,  D.  B.  (2000).  Factors  affecting  fan   sport  consumption:  A  comparison  of  psychometric  prop-­
attendance:  The  influence  of  identity  salience  and  satis-­ erties   with   other   sport   motivation   scales.   Journal   of  
faction.  Journal  of  Leisure  Behavior,  32(2),  225–246. Sport  Behavior,  24(1),  108–127.
MacQueen,   J.   B.   (1967).   Some   methods   for   classification   Trail,  G.  T.,  Robinson,  M.  J.,  Dick,  R.  J.,  &  Gillentine,  A.  J.  
and   analysis   of   multivariate   observations.   Proceedings   (2003)   Motives   and   points   of   attachment:   Fans   versus  
of   the   5th   Berkeley   Symposium   on   Mathematical   spectators   in   intercollegiate   athletics.   Sport   Marketing  
Statistics  and  Probability  (1,  pp.  281–297). Quarterly,  12(4),  217–227.  
Marcum,   J.,   &   Greenstein,   T.   (1985).   Factors   affecting   Underwood,  R.,  Bond,  E.,  &  Baer,  R.  (2001).  Building  ser-­
attendance   of   major   league   baseball:   II.   Within-­season   vice   brands   via   social   identity:   Lessons   from   the   sport  
analysis.  Sociology  of  Sport  Journal,  2,  314–322. market  place.  Journal  of  Marketing  Theory  and  Practice,  
McDonald,  R.  P.,  &  Ho,  M.  R.  (2002).  Principles  and  prac-­ 9(1),  1–13.
tice   in   reporting   structural   equation   analyses.   Wann,  D.  L.  (1995).  Preliminary  motivation  of  the  sport  fan  
Psychological  Methods,  7,  64–82. motivation  scale.  Journal  of  Sport  and  Social  Issues,  19,  
MiLB.com.  (2009).  MiLB  attracts  over  seven  million  fans  in   377–396.
May.   Retrieved   June   24,   2009,   from   http://www.minor   Wann,   D.   L.,   &   Branscomb,   N.   R.   (1993).   Sports   fans:  
leaguebaseball.com Measuring   degree   of   identification   with   their   team.  
MiLB.com.   (2010).   Official   info:   Sponsorship   opportuni-­ International  Journal  of  Sport  Psychology,  24,  1–17.
ties.   Retrieved   March   22,   2010,   from   http://web.minor   Wann,   D.   L.,   Schrader,   M.   P.,   &   Adamson,   D.   R.   (1998).  
leaguebaseball.com/milb/info/sponsorship.jsp The   cognitive   and   somatic   anxiety   of   sport   spectators.  
Mowen,   J.   C.,   &   Minor,   M.   (1998).   Consumer   behavior.   Journal  of  Sport  Behavior,  21,  322–337.
Englewood  Cliffs,  NJ:  Prentice-­Hall.   Wann,   D.   L.,   Schrader,   M.   P.,   &   Wilson,   A.   M.   (1999).  
Mullin,  B.  J.,  Hardy,  S.,  &  Sutton,  W.  A.  (2000).  Sport  mar-­ Sport  fan  motivation:  Questionnaire  validation,  compari-­
keting  (2nd  ed.).  Champaign,  IL:  Human  Kinetics.   sons   by   sport,   and   relationship   to   athletic   motivation.  
Pease,   D.   G.,   &   Zhang,   J.   J.   (2001).   Socio-­motivational   Journal  of  Sport  Behavior,  22(1),  114–139.
 factors   affecting   spectator   attendance   at   professional   Wann,   D.   L.,   Tucker,   K.   B.,   &   Schrader,   M.   P.   (1996).   An  
basketball   games.   International   Journal   of   Sport   exploratory  examination  of  the  factors  influencing  the  orig-­
Management,  2,  31–59.   ination,  continuation,  and  cessation  of  identification  with  
Robinson,  M.  I.,  &  Trail,  G.  T.  (2005).  Relationships  among   sport  teams.  Perceptual  and  Motor  Skills,  82,  995–1001.
spectator   gender,   motives,   points   of   attachment,   and   Won,   J.,   &   Kitamura,   K.   (2007).   Comparative   analysis   of  
sport   preference.   Journal   of   Sport   Management,   19,   sport   consumer   motivations   between   South   Korea   and  
58–80.   Japan.  Sport  Marketing  Quarterly,  16(2),  93–105.
Ross,   S.,   &   James,   J.   (2006).   Major   versus   minor   league   Woo,   B.,   Trail,   G.   T.,   Kwon,   H.,   &   Anderson   D.   (2009).  
baseball:  The  relative  importance  of  factors  influencing   Testing   models   of   motives   and   points   of   attachment  
spectator   attendance.   International   Journal   of   Sport   among   spectators   in   college   football.   Sport   Marketing  
Management,  7(2),  217–233. Quarterly,  18(1),  38–53.
Roy,  D.  P.  (2008).  Impact  of  new  minor  league  baseball  sta-­ Zeithaml,  V.  A.,  Berry,  L.  L.,  Parasuraman,  A.  (1996).  The  
diums  on  game  attendance.  Sport  Marketing  Quarterly,   behavioral   consequences   of   service   quality.   Journal   of  
17(3),  146–153. Marketing,  52,  31–46.
Scofield,  J.  A.  (1983).  Performance  and  attendance  at  pro-­ Zhang,  J.  J.,  Pease,  D.  G.,  Smith,  D.  W.,  Lee,  J.  T.,  Lam,  E.  
fessional   team   sports.   Journal   of   Sport   Behavior,   6,   T.,  &  Jambor,  E.  A.  (1997).  Factors  affecting  the  deci-­
196–206.   sion  making  of  spectators  to  attend  minor  league  hockey  
Smith,  G.  J.,  Patterson,  B.,  Williams,  T.,  &  Hogg,  J.  (1981).   games.  International  Sports  Journal,  1(1),  39–53.

View publication stats