Differences in event brand personality between social media users and non-users.
Walsh, Patrick ; Clavio, Galen ; Lovell, M. David 等
Differences in Event Brand Personality Between Social Media Users
and Non-Users
In the pioneering work of Aaker (1997), brand personality is
defined as "the set of human characteristics associated with a
brand" (p. 347). For instance, brands can be described as being
fun, sincere, reliable, exciting, etc. Aaker's Brand Personality
Scale (BPS) has been widely used and has largely been applied to
understanding the brand image of corporations and consumer behavior
effects (e.g., Kim, Han, & Park, 2001; Sung & Kim, 2010;
Venable, Rose, Bush, & Gilbert, 2005).
Brand personality is an important concept to understand as the
personification of brands may provide an important point of
differentiation from competitors, and assist an organization in
developing brand equity (Ross, 2008). While research on brand
personality in sport is still emerging, it has been suggested that in
order to effectively market and position a brand an organization must
understand and actively develop their brand personality (Braunstein
& Ross, 2010). Developing a favorable and unique brand personality,
and in turn positive brand equity, is important as this may assist in
creating a competitive advantage and in generating revenue through items
such as ticket sales and sponsorship (Ross, 2006). Heere (2010) also
suggests that understanding brand personality may be critical to the
survival of sport leagues, particularly for those that have a smaller
consumer base to market to. This is particularly true as consumer
perceptions of brands are ultimately controlled by the consumers
themselves, and marketers can only hope to have some influence over
their brand's personality (Tan Tsu Wee, 2004). Therefore,
conducting research to understand consumers' perceived brand
personality for sport brands is of vital importance to the future
success of the brand.
While research on brand personality in sport continues to develop,
another emerging area of inquiry is social media. Research on social
media in sport has primarily focused on understanding the users of
social media and how sport organizations are using these relatively new
media forums (Clavio & Kian, 2010; Hambrick, Simmons, Greenhalgh,
& Greenwell, 2010; Kassing & Sanderson, 2010; Pegoraro, 2010;
Sanderson, 2010). However, what has yet to be studied in social media is
the impact that it is having on the sport brands which are utilizing
these sites. As social media sites provide another consumer touch point
between a brand and the consumer it is important to understand if these
sites can have an effect on the brand. Therefore, the primary purpose of
this study was to examine brand personality associations of a collegiate
championship sporting event in a social media context. Specifically,
this study examined if differences exist in the perceived brand
personality of the event between those that are followers of the events
social media site when compared to those that are not followers of the
site. By doing so, this study provides the first known examination of
the impact of social media use on sport brand personality and enhances
knowledge in both the study of brand personality and social media in
sport.
Literature Review
Brand Personality
As previously mentioned, understanding brand personality is
important for the future success of brands both in and outside of sport
as it provides a point of differentiation and aids consumers in their
decisionmaking. Realizing the importance of understanding consumer
perceptions of brand personality, scholars have begun to empirically
examine brand personality. In particular, research on brand personality
has focused on attempting to develop reliable and valid measurement
scales and then applying and testing these scales in various settings.
Brand personality is largely treated as a marketing construct in
the literature, but does have some theoretical basis from trait-based
theory of human personality. Specifically, initial research on brand
personality was largely based on the Five Factor Model (FFM) of
personality which was proposed by McCrae and John (1992). The FFM
attempted to explain the basic structure of human personality in terms
of five dimensions: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
neuroticism, and openness to experience. It was these five traits that
were argued to comprise the basic dimensions of personality.
The most widely known and used conceptualization of brand
personality is attributed to Aaker (1997). Similar to the FFM, Aaker
attempted to describe basic traits that could be used to describe a
brand's personality. In order to develop a scale to measure brand
personality, and to ensure validity, reliability, and generalizability
in the research, Aaker utilized a nonstudent sample that was
representative of the United States population at the time. The result
was the BPS, which measures five dimensions of brand personality:
Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness
(Aaker, 1997). Sincerity is associated with traits such as
down-to-earth, honest, wholesome, and cheerful. Traits associated with
Excitement are daring, spirited, imaginative, and up-to-date. Competence
has traits associated with it like reliable, intelligent, and
successful. Sophistication has traits like upper class and charming, and
ruggedness is associated with traits such as outdoorsy and tough (Aaker,
1997).
The BPS has far-reaching implications for many business-related
fields and since its development it has been examined in a variety of
settings both in and outside of sport. From the non-sport corporate
perspective the BPS has been utilized in numerous studies which
generally examine brand personality effects on consumer behavior. For
example, Kim et al. (2001) used the BPS to measure brand personality and
brand identification effects on brand loyalty and found that brand
personality impacts word-of-mouth and also has an indirect effect on
loyalty towards a brand. Sung and Kim (2010) found that developing
positive brand personality traits will increase a consumer's trust
towards the brand and will positively impact overall brand equity.
Diamantopoulos, Smith, and Grime (2005) also suggested that a strong
brand personality is resistant to change and may allow a brand to more
effectively introduce brand extensions, while Johar, Sengupta, and Aaker
(2005) found that consumer perceived brand personality may change but
this can be controlled by marketers by introducing positive information
about the brand in their marketing activities. Brand personality has
even been found to have a positive impact on charitable giving (Venable
et al., 2005).
In comparison to general marketing literature, brand personality
research is still in its infancy within the field of sport, although
some literature does exist. Walsh and Ross (2007) used the BPS to study
the connection between a sports team and its main sponsor in order to
determine brand image match using the five personality dimensions. It
was their intent to identify significant similarities among the
personality dimensions, therefore improving the chance of image transfer
(Gwinner & Eaton, 1999). While the results showed incongruence on
four of the five personality dimensions, the raw scores within the
research showed some similarities between the sports team and its main
sponsor, most notably Competence, Excitement, and Ruggedness (Walsh
& Ross, 2007). Additionally, the authors concluded that not all
personality dimensions may fit, as some teams may not necessarily want
to be positioned and/or identified with the trait of Sophisticated. This
research supports the notion of understanding the personality traits of
a team or organization, which may allow for better alignment with a
potential sponsor if the personality dimensions are more congruent
(Walsh & Ross, 2007).
Lee and Cho (2009) also examined brand personality in the context
of sponsorship. Using both Aaker's BPS (1997) and data and events
selected from Lee and Cho's 2007 study (as cited in Lee & Cho,
2009, p. 44) which measured five dimensions of sport event personality
(diligence, uninhibitedness, fit, tradition, and amusement) they
examined whether matching the brand personality of brands and sport
events would result in positive consumer responses. Their results
suggest that a strong brand personality fit between the event and the
sponsor's brand will lead to more positive attitudes towards the
sponsor and higher purchase intentions of the sponsor's brand.
Harris (2009) took a different approach to assess brand personality
of higher education institutions by using Aaker's (1997) brand
personality framework to review institutional television spots produced
by schools whose team participated in a postseason bowl game. In doing
so, the author uncovered three key themes in the research that are most
reflective of institutional branding messages: success, tradition, and
appeal to prospective students by portraying excitement in the televised
spots (Harris, 2009). The research showed that most of the institutional
television spots were similar to the others, and didn't exhibit
much differentiation from that of the televised spots of other
institutions. The result, according to Harris, is an underperformance in
the areas of marketing and branding on behalf of the institutions.
In another recent study, Caslavova and Petrackova (2011) utilized
the BPS to study the brand personality of large-scale sporting events
such as the FIFA World Cup, the Tour de France, and the Olympic Summer
Games. In doing so, the authors suggest that the BPS identified the FIFA
World Cup brand personality as being "modern, exciting, spirited,
self-confident, male, and with a strong team spirit" (Caslavova
& Petrackova, 2011, p. 101). The Tour de France brand personality
was identified as hard working, male, and successful, whereas the
analysis of the Olympic Summer Games resulted in a brand personality
that is "proper, sincere, exciting, unique, hard-working,
successful, self-confident, upper class, splendid, striking, and with
team spirit" (Caslavova & Petrackova, 2011, p. 103).
While some studies have examined brand personality in sport,
measuring this construct with the existing BPS has proven to be
difficult. In fact, after testing the BPS utilizing a collegiate
basketball team, Ross (2008) found that the BPS is both invalid and is
not generalizable, thus limiting the scales use in a sport setting. This
supported previous research outside of sport which came to similar
conclusions regarding the validity of the BPS (Austin, Siguaw, &
Mattila, 2003). Due to the issues raised with the use of the BPS, some
recent research has attempted to develop better methods for measuring
brand personality of sport organizations. Braunstein and Ross (2010)
recently re-examined and challenged the ability to operationalize the
BPS created by Aaker (1997) and proposed an updated framework to be
considered for future research in the field of sport. The results of
their adjusted BPS scale replaced sincerity, excitement, competence,
sophistication, and ruggedness as suggested by Aaker with success,
sophistication, sincerity, rugged, community-driven, and classic
(Braunstein & Ross, 2010). While the authors admit that their scale
isn't completely sound, it provided a foundation for future
research and development in order to help sport managers better position
their respective brands against competitors, to enhance or deemphasize
certain characteristics, or manage potential partnerships (Braunstein
& Ross, 2010). In addition, the research also suggests that sport
brand personality dimensions may have layers that need to be further
identified, managed, and marketed (Braunstein & Ross, 2010).
Heere (2010) also challenges the BPS by noting several limitations
of Aaker's (1997) scale and lack of validity, including the
assertion that brands do not possess personality as much as they are
given these traits by those who are charged with marketing and
positioning the brand. Heere suggests an approach that measures
personality associations that managers utilize to market their brands,
and measures the perceptions of the consumers of the brand.
Specifically, a multistage approach to the measurement of brand
personality in sport is proposed in which managers create a list of
associations, review and narrow the list to a set of salient adjectives,
and then test the resulting adjectives with event spectators. It is
argued by Heere that the modified model allows for the understanding of
perceived associations, and identifies the importance of those
associations to the targeted set of consumers. The success of this
measurement model is not in the identification of a brand's
personality, but on the gap between perceived brand personality by the
managers and the consumers.
While there has been some difficulty in measuring brand personality
in sport, understanding an organization's brand personality is
still important due to its overall influence on the brand image of the
organization. As such, research relating to this construct takes on even
more importance in order to be able to provide sport marketers with
practical guidance in not only managing their brand personality, but
also in understanding the appropriate ways to identify and measure what
constitutes their brand personality. Heere's (2010) new method may
provide a solid foundation to further the study of brand personality in
sport. In addition, the importance of understanding brand personality
will continue to be a topic of discussion as sport organizations utilize
the ever expanding portfolio of new mediums, such as social media, to
position their brand.
Social Media Research
Although there have been some advances in the study of brand
personality in sport, no research to date has examined the relationship
between brand personality and social media. Social media channels such
as Facebook and Twitter allow for instant interaction between a brand
and its consumers, thus representing another crucial point of engagement
for sport teams and organizations. Over the last few years social media
usage has shown exponential growth (Williams, 2011) and it is estimated
that 1.43 billion people around the globe are using social media
(Shalvey, 2012). Research that has examined social media in sport has
primarily focused on the end users of social media and to some extent
how sport organizations are utilizing these media channels.
Williams (2011) examined the usage of a soccer fan page on Facebook
to see if the utilization of the page was useful in the dissemination of
research findings among practitioners. An examination of this particular
fan page suggests that these pages are being used by desirable audiences
(i.e., soccer coaches, parents, and players) and that users took time to
read research articles and findings posted to the page, while also
taking time to re-post these articles on their own pages. These findings
highlight the utility of Facebook fan pages as both an online community
focal point and a method for providing content to users.
Waters, Burke, Jackson, and Buning (2010) compared and contrasted
National Football League (NFL) franchise use of official team webpages
and Facebook fan pages. Specifically, the researchers looked at four
stewardship efforts by 26 NFL teams that were examined: reciprocity
(recognition of stakeholders), responsibility, reporting (share
information), and relationship nurturing. The study found that NFL teams
were using stewardship to foster consumer relationships. Relationship
nurturing and reciprocity were the two strategies most often used by the
NFL teams (Waters et al., 2010). Similarly, Sanderson (2010) examined
the framing of the media during the Tiger Woods scandal. A qualitative
examination of posts on Woods' Facebook fan page found that fans
used the page as a venue to both introduce and perpetuate frames that
supported him, and in many cases focused their attention on countering
the prevailing anti-Woods sentiment in the mainstream media.
While the above studies examined Facebook as a communication and
interaction tool in sports, there have not been many investigations into
that social media channel. Similarly, Twitter, another social media
tool, has not yet been examined extensively. Recent studies have
attempted to examine Twitter, in order to better understand its utility
within sport communication consumption and to fill the gap in social
media research.
Clavio and Kian (2010) employed the Uses and Gratifications theory
to study fans' use of Twitter by exploring a retired female
athlete's Twitter followers. Respondents were predominately male
and Caucasian which is consistent with later findings (Blaszka &
Cianfrone, 2011). Results also suggested that consumers who followed
athletes were doing so for interaction and information. Specifically,
some users indicated they were interested in sport-related information
from the retired athlete, while others enjoyed the non-sport
information, such as information regarding the athlete's personal
life, and being part of a large fan community (Clavio & Kian, 2010).
Similar to the method of Clavio and Kian, Blaszka and Cianfrone (2011)
examined Twitter followers from a team perspective. The results suggest
that fans not only follow their favorite team's Twitter feed but
also extend their following to their favorite players and sports writers
(Blaszka & Cianfrone, 2011).
In examining how athletes are using Twitter, Kassing and Sanderson
(2010) examined professional cyclists engagement with fans during the
2009 Giro d' Italia. The results suggest that Twitter gave these
cyclists a platform to give sport consumers an inside look at race
conditions, as well their physical conditioning. Similarly, Pegoraro
(2010) examined tweets by athletes over a seven-day period from the
National Football League (NFL), National Hockey League (NHL), National
Basketball Association (NBA), Major League Baseball (MLB), professional
golf, professional tennis, professional soccer, motor sports, winter
sports, and mixed martial arts. Results indicated that NFL players and
professional golfers were most dynamic, that the athletes were found to
be using Twitter to interact directly with consumers, and that most
athletes were not tweeting for personal gain or promotion. These
findings were also confirmed by Hambrick et al. (2010), who added that
Twitter offers the ability to develop a personal relationship between
professional athletes and their fans that is not often found in
mainstream media.
In addition to Facebook and Twitter, the consumers of online fan
message boards have also been a focus of some previous research. Clavio
(2008) examined the usage of collegiate message boards and the reasons
why users were taking part in the online community. Message board users
had four primary areas of uses and gratification: interactivity,
information gathering, diversion, and argumentation. These findings
confirmed previous research in group dynamics (End, Dietz-Uhler,
Harrick, & Jacquemotte, 2002; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Walther,
1996).
Purpose
While research has begun to examine social media use in sport, the
primary focus has been to understand who is using these mediums and why
they are using social media. These baseline results have provided a
solid foundation for further examination of social media, in particular
as it relates to its use as a marketing and communication tool. Many
sport organizations are now using social media outlets in an attempt to
interact with their fan base and consumers, and provide another touch
point between their brand and the end users. One potential outcome of
this interaction could be an impact on the way the sport
organization's brand is viewed by the users. In particular, these
sites provide organizations with a forum in which they can position
their brand and have an impact on their brand personality. That is, the
organizations can promote certain brand personality traits through their
postings on these social media sites in an effort to impact the
user's attitudes towards the organization.
As more sport organizations are utilizing social media to represent
their brands it becomes necessary to understand how the use of social
media outlets may impact a sport organization's brand personality
in order to determine if the use of social media has beneficial
brand-related outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
determine if there were any differences in the brand personality items
of a major sporting event for followers of the event's social media
site when compared to those that do not follow the site. As this has not
yet been studied in previous research, the following research question
was developed.
RQ 1: Are there differences in the event's brand personality
items between social media users and non-social media users?
In addition, while the primary purpose of the study was to examine
if there were differences in the brand personality items between social
media users and nonsocial media users, a secondary research question was
developed to further the study of social media in sport. Specifically,
as research on this topic is in its relatively early stages we also
sought to determine if any potential demographic or social media use
trends as it relates to major sports events could be determined with the
use of this sample. This was done to take advantage of the large sample
provided and provide a more consumer-based quantitative examination
which has not yet been done with social media research. The specific
research question examined was:
RQ 2: Are there any demographic differences or trends that may
exist in event-focused social media use?
Method
The population of interest for the current study were individuals
that existed in the database of a major NCAA Championship event. Those
in the database had either purchased tickets to previous events or had
expressed interest in receiving information regarding tickets for future
events. A self-administered web-based survey was sent to the
participants which measured the representativeness of the brand
personality items with the event, if they were a user of the
event's social media (i.e., Facebook) page, their social media use
patterns, and general demographic questions which inquired about the
participant's gender and age.
Determining the appropriate measures of brand personality has
received much debate in sport marketing literature (Braunstein &
Ross, 2010; Heere, 2010; Ross, 2008). Heere (2010) contends that brand
personality should be examined through the lens of the sport brand
managers as they develop marketing activities which are designed to
portray their desired brand personality. As each sport event is unique
in the brand personality they attempt to portray, this new method
described by Heere may provide the most appropriate measure for brand
personality of sport events as each individual event is going to have a
unique image and one universal scale may not be appropriate in measuring
an event's brand personality. As such, Heere's (2010) method
was utilized in the current study to examine the differences in brand
personality items of the NCAA event among the users of the event's
Facebook site and non-users.
In order to determine the brand personality items for the event,
five managers who are responsible for the brand development of the event
at the NCAA were asked to develop a list of adjectives that they would
use to describe the event's brand personality. Please note that the
event name is not being utilized in the manuscript at the request of the
NCAA. To assist the managers in developing this list, the following
message was sent to each:
"Brand personality theory is based on the idea that people
attach human characteristics to a brand in order to give meaning to the
product. Managers anticipate on this notion by providing these human
characteristics to their product in their marketing strategies. You
probably have your own set of adjectives that you would like to have
people associate with the NCAA <insert event name>. In order to
examine your brand more effectively among your fans, we would like you
to share these adjectives with us. Please think carefully about your
choice of words, and see this exercise as a way to position your event
on the market." (Heere, 2010, p. 20)
Based on the responses received, a total of nine salient brand
personality items were developed for the event. These nine items were
then sent to the Associate Director at the NCAA who is in charge of the
event for approval or comments. After receiving approval from the
Associate Director, the brand personality items utilized in the study
were confirmed as: Exciting, Passionate, Entertaining, Intense,
Competitive, Fan-Friendly, Skilled, Elite, and Fast-paced. Survey
participants were asked to rate these nine words on how representative
they are of the event, with 1 representing a poor fit and 7 representing
a strong fit.
To determine how many of the participants were users of the
event's Facebook page, the survey respondents were asked to
indicate if they "like" the NCAA <insert event name>
page on Facebook by indicating either yes or no. Facebook was the medium
of choice, as consultation with the NCAA indicated that this was the
social media outlet that the organization used most frequently when
promoting the event and had the most followers. As such, the
participants would have greatest chance for exposure to marketing
activities (e.g., updates, sales messages, videos, etc.) that would
promote the nine personality items listed above. In addition, the
question structure of asking participants if they "like" the
Facebook page was used, as "liking" a page is common
terminology for Facebook indicating that one follows the page and will
receive updates, stories, feeds, etc. when the page is updated by the
NCAA. In order to address research question one, a multivariate analysis
of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to understand if differences existed
in the brand personality items between those that "liked" the
Facebook page (i.e., followers) and those that do not. In addition, to
address research question two t-tests were conducted to specifically
examine the differences between males and females in regards to their
event-specific social media usage, and cross-tabulations provided
information regarding various social media use patterns.
Results
The survey was sent to a total of 3,334 individuals with 1,523
respondents for an effective response rate of 45.7%. The respondents
consisted of 82.5% males (n = I, 252) and 17.5% females (n = 266). In
addition, 9.1% of the respondents were between the ages of 18 and 34 (n
= 138), 34.5% between 35 and 49 (n = 527), 45% between 50 and 64 (n =
685), and 11.4% were age 65 or older (n = 173).
Out of the total respondents, 440 participants indicated that they
"liked" or followed the event Facebook page and 791 indicated
that they did not "like" or follow the event Facebook page.
Further examination of those that liked the event Facebook page revealed
that II. 6% of the respondents were between the ages of 18 and 34 (n =
51), 41.1% between the ages of 35 and 49 (n = 181), 39.8% between 50 and
64 (n = 175), and 7.5% were 65 years of age or older (n = 33). When
further taking into account the total number of respondents, 37% of 18
to 34 year olds, 34.2% of 35 to 49 year olds, 25.5% of 50 to 64 year
olds, and 19.1% of those 65 years of age and older "liked" the
event's Facebook page.
Due to the correlations between the dependent variables the use of
a MANOVA was further deemed appropriate (see Table 1). When examining
research question one, the results of the MANOVA indicate that there
were statistically significant differences among the brand personality
items between the social media users and non-users, F (9, 1221) = 4.044,
p < .001, = [[eta].sup.2] .029. As indicated by Table 2, the brand
personality items were higher at a statistically significant rate for
the Facebook followers for eight of the nine brand personality items,
with only the Fast-paced item not being significantly different.
In regards to research question two, further analysis was conducted
to examine if any demographic or social media use trends could be
gathered from the sample. Demographic investigation revealed some
differences based upon gender. A t-test revealed that female respondents
were more likely to use social media to relate experience during the
event (M = 3.23, SD = 2.38) than were males (M = 2.39, SD = 2.0), t
(1516) = 48.401, p < .001. Females were also more likely to have
"liked" the NCAA <insert event name> page on Facebook (M
= 1.59, SD = .49) than were males (M = 1.65, SD = .48), t (1516) =
9.018, p < .01, and were also more likely to be following other
similar sport-focused Facebook pages or Twitter feeds (M = 1.72, SD =
.45) than were males (M = 1.84, SD = .37), t (1516) = 69.693, p <
.001. Additionally, females placed a greater importance on the ability
to interact with other fans, participants, and administrators via social
media during the event (M = 2.71, SD = 1.95) than did males (M = 2.33,
SD = 1.85), t (1516) = 4.967, p < .05.
In terms of other social media usage, cross-tabulations revealed a
moderately positive correlation between liking the event's Facebook
page and following other NCAA <insert event name> focused social
media accounts, r = .45, n = 1,224, p < .001. Additionally, a
moderate positive correlation was discovered between liking the
event's Facebook page and the self-identified level of comfort with
social media, r = .412, n = 1,231, p < .001. Another moderate and
positive correlation was discovered between liking the event's
Facebook page and self-identified level of importance of being able to
interact with other fans, participants, and administrators through
social media during the event, r = .322, n = 1,230, p < .001.
Discussion and Implications
There are a number of practical and theoretical contributions that
the results suggest for the study of brand personality and social media
in sport. In general, the brand personality items were higher for those
who followed the event's Facebook page. This suggests that the use
of social media sites by sport events, in this instance Facebook, may be
a contributing factor in influencing an event's brand personality.
While future research will need to examine this further, this is an
important initial contribution to the literature as it is the first
known empirical evidence that suggests social media sites may impact the
image that one holds for a sport brand.
This may have occurred as the Facebook users had a higher degree of
interaction with the brand outside of those that interact through just
traditional media outlets or through actual consumption of the event
itself. Facebook users spend nearly eight hours per month on the site
and an average of 15.5 minutes per day (Parr, 2011). Therefore, the
Facebook users may have had more opportunities to be exposed event-brand
messaging through the NCAA posting information on their Facebook page
highlighting key brand personality attributes than those who were not
followers of the event's Facebook page.
This higher interaction may have led to more exposure to the
event's controlled brand image resulting in the higher brand
personality item ratings. Research would suggest that this positive
impact on the event's brand personality would aid in the creation
of positive brand equity leading to an enhanced ability to generate
revenue through items such as ticket and merchandise sales (Ross, 2006).
As such, sport events should be active with their Facebook page in an
effort to have a positive impact on their brand and future
revenue-generating opportunities. The events could provide frequent
updates which highlight the brand personality items in an effort to
position their desired brand personality in the mind of their consumers.
In addition, it may be beneficial for events to create Facebook-specific
promotions which drive fans back to the event specific Facebook page.
For instance, a promotion on the Facebook page could encourage users to
vote for "The most passionate fan." This could not only
provide more traffic to the site, but more opportunity for the event to
expose fans to their desired brand personality items. In the example
provided above the Passionate brand personality item would be
highlighted.
This higher degree of interaction not only occurs between the event
brand and the Facebook user, but between all the users of the Facebook
page as well. While not controlled by the event itself, these users
interact with each other on the event's page by commenting on
posts, pictures, videos, etc. This too provides for an indirect
interaction with the brand's personality items. For example, for
this particular event the brand personality item of Exciting was rated
particularly high. Those in charge of the event's Facebook page
could encourage their followers to "Discuss the most exciting play
that you have witnessed during this year's NCAA <insert event
name>." This would not only encourage this interaction between
the users, but would highlight the specific brand personality attribute
of Exciting. This additional interaction with the brand provides for
more brand personality cues that may impact one's image of the
brand. That is, the more times one is exposed to certain brand
personality items, the more likely they are to recall those brand
personality items and form that image for the brand in their own mind
(Cacioppo & Petty, 1979; Yoo, Bang, & Kim, 2009).
In addition to the practical implications for the use of an
event's Facebook page, the results of this study provide both
theoretical and practical contributions in regards to brand personality
measurement. Theoretically, this study provides further empirical
testing, and support of, the method to measure brand personality in
sport that was suggested by Heere (2010). Many of the items that were
measured in the present study would not have been accounted for if
previous brand personality measurement procedures were utilized as they
were unique items that were important to the brand of this particular
sports event. As such, future research should continue to view brand
personality as something that is unique to each individual sport brand
and should be measured accordingly. From a practical view, events and
other sport organizations should consider measuring their brand
personality utilizing the method suggested by Heere. This will ensure
that they are measuring brand personality items that are appropriate for
their particular brand. This type of measurement will also allow sport
brands to understand if the specific brand personality items that they
are trying to portray in their marketing messages are resonating with
fans/consumers. This method could even potentially be used to identify
and target appropriate sponsors for events. For instance, if the sport
property truly understands consumer perceptions of their brand
personality they could promote that image when selling to potential
corporate sponsors, or target potential sponsors that share a similar
brand personality. This could be particularly important as Cornwell,
Roy, and Steinard (2001) suggest that brand personality is a key factor
in developing brand equity in sponsorship relationships.
In addition to the study of brand personality the present study
contributes to the growing literature on social media use in sport.
While previous literature has primarily focused on the users and uses of
social media, this is the first known study to provide empirical
evidence that social media use can have a positive impact on a sport
organization's brand. This study can provide a foundation into
examining users of social media platforms during another NCAA
championship or possibly other large-scale events such as the Super
Bowl.
These social media platforms, specifically Facebook, could create a
unique setting for fan consumption and interaction which can be
stimulated by the brand or organization. Researchers employing the uses
and gratifications approach could focus their users' questions on
these stimulants, and measure their effect on brand affinity and
perception, particularly in comparison with users who are not engaging
in social media usage during the event. Analysis of the sport
organizational messages on social media platforms could be critical in
evaluating the sport social media consumer. Sport organizations can
build unique connections with their social media consumers to create
more awareness about their product.
The results of this study also may indicate a potential new area of
engagement for sport brands in relation to female consumers. As has been
noted in prior literature, higher levels of sport brand affinity and
sport brand consumption are sometimes found more in male audiences than
in female ones (Dietz-Uhler, Harrick, End, & Jacquemotte, 2000;
Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2002). This is particularly true when
comparing traditional "men's" sports, as was used in this
study, to "women's" sports. In addition, research
suggests that males and females have different motives in regards to
their sport consumptive behaviors (Dietz Uhler et al., 2000; Ridinger
& Funk, 2006) The results of this study indicate that female fans
are statistically more likely to engage in social media interaction
relating to this and other sport brands, and are more likely to both
relate their own experiences at the event and to interact with other
fans and personnel at the event. For brands interested in engaging
female fans and consumers, social media engagement may be a necessary
area of emphasis.
Finally, the results of this study indicate that the lack of fan
participation in social media may be the result of a lack of comfort
with the technology, rather than a conscious disdain for social media.
The correlation between Facebook likes and comfort with social media in
general was statistically significant, and echoes findings from prior
social media research (Clavio, 2011). Sport brands who wish to engage
their consumers via social media channels may need to launch education
programs and services which help to adapt their fans to this new
communication environment.
Limitations and Future Research
While this study adds considerably to both the study of brand
personality and social media in sport there are some limitations that
point to the need for future research. Since this was the first study of
its kind it was exploratory in nature and was conducted with one event.
Future research should examine more sport event-, team-, and
athlete-focused social media sites to provide further evidence, or
contradictory evidence, to the findings of this study that social media
use has a positive impact on brand personality. In particular, it may be
beneficial to conduct an experimental study by exposing individuals to
brand specific messages on social media sites and comparing their brand
personality items to those that were not exposed to this messaging.
It would also be beneficial to examine the impact that other social
media outlets have on brand personality. The participants of this
particular study were Facebook followers of the event. Future research
should examine differences in brand personality items between users of a
variety of social media sites (i.e., Facebook vs. Twitter) to understand
if certain social media sites are more effective at impacting a sport
entities brand personality. In addition, while we feel Heere's
(2010) method may currently be the most appropriate way to measure brand
personality in sport, some may argue that examining single items may not
be sufficient. While previous research has not produced reliable and
valid multi-item brand personality measurements in sport this is still
an area that warrants future development and testing of scales.
Finally, this study was conducted with individuals who either had
attended this event in the past or had shown interest in attending.
While our results did show statistically significant differences in the
brand personality items, all of the participants have been exposed to
the event in some fashion and may already have had a high opinion of the
brand. This high opinion of the brand from the majority of the
participants may have been a contributing factor to why the partial eta
squared effect sizes were small in the present study as larger variance
may have been unlikely to occur. However, since this was the first study
of its kind the statistical significance is worth reporting and future
studies should examine this subject further. Specifically, future
studies should conduct a similar test of event brand personality items
with fans of varying interest levels to see if differences occur.
References
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of
Marketing Research, 19, 347- 356.
Austin, J., Siguaw, J., & Mattila, A. (2003). A re-examination
of the generalizability of the Aaker brand personality measurement
framework. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11, 77-92.
Blaszka, M., & Cianfrone, B.A. (2011). An examination of
Twitter user's sport consumption. Presentation conducted at the 9th
Annual Sport Marketing Association Conference, Houston, TX.
Braunstein, J.R., & Ross, S. (2010). Brand personality in
sport: Dimension analysis and general scale development. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 19, 8-16.
Cacioppo, J.T., & Petty, R.E. (1979). The effects of message
repetition and position on cognitive response, recall and persuasion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97-109.
Caslavova, E., & Petrackova, J. (2011). The brand personality
of large sport events. Kinesiology, 1, 91-106.
Clavio, G. (2008). Demographics and usage profiles of users of
college sport message boards. International Journal of Sport
Communication, 1, 434-443.
Clavio, G. (2011). Social media and the college football audience.
Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 2011, 309-325.
Clavio, G., & Kian, E.M. (2010). Uses and gratifications of a
retired female athlete's twitter followers. International Journal
of Sport Communication, 3, 485-500.
Cornwell, T.B., Roy, D.P., & Steinard, E.A. (2001). Exploring
managers' perceptions of the impact of sponsorship on brand equity.
Journal of Advertising, 30(2), 41-51.
Diamantopoulos, A., Smith, G., & Grime, I. (2005). The impact
of brand extensions on brand personality: Experimental evidence.
European Journal of Marketing, 39, 129-149.
Dietz-Uhler, B., Harrick, E.A, End, C., & Jacquemotte, L.
(2000). Sex differences in sport fan behavior and reasons for being a
sport fan. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 219-231.
End, C. M., Dietz-Uhler, B., Harrick, E. A., & Jacquemotte, L.
(2002).Identifying with winners: A re-examination of sport fans tendency
to BIRG. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1017-1030.
Fink, J.S., Trail, G.T., & Anderson, D.F. (2002). Environmental
factors associated with spectator attendance and sport consumption
behavior: Gender and team differences. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11,
8-19.
Funk, D.C., Mahony, D.F, & Ridinger. L. (2002). Characterizing
consumer motivation as individual difference factors: Augmenting the
Sport Interest Inventory (SII) to explain level of spectator support.
Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11 , 33-43.
Gwinner, K., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through
event sponsorship: The role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising,
28(4), 47-57.
Harris, M.S. (2009). Institutional brand personality and
advertisements during televised games. New Directions for Higher
Education, 148, 23-33.
Hambrick, M.E., Simmons, J.M., Greenhalgh, G.P., & Greenwell,
T.C. (2010). Understanding professional athletes' use of Twitter: a
content analysis of athlete tweets. International Journal of Sport
Communication, 3, 454-471.
Heere, B. (2010). A new approach to measure perceived brand
personality associations among consumers. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19,
17-24.
Johar, G.V., Sengupta, J., Aaker, J.L. (2005). Two roads to
updating brand personality impressions: Trait versus evaluative
inferencing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 458-469.
Kassing, J.W., & Sanderson, J. (2010). Fan-athlete interaction
and Twitter tweeting through the Giro: A case study. International
Journal of Sport Communication, 3, 113-128.
Kim, C., Han, D., & Park, S. (2001). The effect of brand
personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: Applying the
theory of social identification. Japanese Psychological Research, 43,
195-206.
Lee, H.S., & Cho, C.H. (2009). The matching effect of brand and
sporting event personality: Sponsorship implications. Journal of Sport
Management, 23, 41-64.
McCrae, R.R., & John, O.P. (1992). An introduction to the
five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 20,
175-215.
Parr, B. (2011, September 30). You spend 8 hours per month on
Facebook. Mashable. Retrieved from
http://mashable.com/2011/09/30/wasting time-on-facebook/
Pegoraro, A. (2010) Look who's talking--athletes on Twitter: A
case study. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3, 501-514.
Ridinger, L.L., & Funk, D.C. (2006). Looking at gender
differences through the lens of sport spectators. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 15, 155-166.
Ross, S.D. (2006). A conceptual framework for understanding
spectator-based brand equity. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 22-38.
Ross, S.D. (2008). Assessing the use of the brand personality scale
in team sport. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing,
3, 23-38.
Sanderson, J. (2010). Framing Tiger's troubles: comparing
traditional media to social media. International Journal of Sport
Communication, 3, 438-453.
Shalvey, K. (2012, March 15). Facebook to lead 2012 social network
growth. Investors.com. Retrieved from
http://news.investors.com/article/604447/201203151347/facebook-to-lead-social- growth.htm
Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on
brand trust and brand affect. Psychology & Marketing, 27, 639-661.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory
of intergroup behavior. In S. Wordel & W. Austen (Eds.), Psychology
of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Tan Tsu Wee, T. (2004). Extending human personality to brands: The
stability factor. Brand Management, 11 , 317-330.
Venable, B., Rose, G., Bush, V., & Gilbert, F. (2005). The role
of brand personality in charitable giving: An assessment and validation.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33, 295-312.
Walsh, P., & Ross, S.D. (2007). Brand personality agreement:
Implications for collegiate sport sponsorship. Sport Marketing Across
the Spectrum: Research from Emerging, Developing and Established
Scholars. Fitness Information Technology. Morgantown, WV.
Waters, R.D., Burke, K.A., Jackson, Z.J., & Buning, J.D.
(2010). Using stewardship to cultivate fandom online: Comparing how
national football league teams use their web sites and Facebook to
engage their fans. International Journal of Communication, 3, 163-177.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal,
interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research,
23, 3-43.
Williams, J. H., (2011). Use of social media to communicate sport
science research. International Journal of Sport Science & Coaching,
6, 295-300.
Yoo, C., Bang, H.K., & Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of a
consistent ad series on consumer evaluations: A test of
repetition-variation hypothesis in a South Korean context. International
Journal of Advertising, 28, 105-123.
Patrick Walsh, PhD, is an assistant professor of Sport Management
at Indiana University. His research interests include sport brand
management and the use of sport video games and new media outlets as
marketing tools.
Galen Clavio, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Sport
Management program at Indiana University. His research focuses on social
media and its application in sport communication and sport marketing.
David Lovell is a doctoral student in Sport Management at Indiana
University. His research interests include sport brand management and
strategic planning in intercollegiate athletics.
Matthew Blaszka is a doctoral student in sport management at
Indiana University and an assistant professor of sport management at
York College of Pennsylvania. His research interests include new media
utilization within sport organizations and sports brand management.
Table 1
Correlations of Dependent Variables
EX P EN I C
Exciting (EX)
Passionate (P) .55
Entertaining (EN) .68 .49
Intense (I) .60 .58 .56
Competitive (C) .56 .41 .55 .59
Fan-friendly (FF) .40 .36 .42 .40 .47
Skilled (S) .54 .46 .48 .53 .53
Elite (EL) .36 .45 .38 .47 .37
Fast-paced (FP) .49 .40 .46 .50 .49
FF S EL FP
Exciting (EX)
Passionate (P)
Entertaining (EN)
Intense (I)
Competitive (C)
Fan-friendly (FF)
Skilled (S) .42
Elite (EL) .34 .52
Fast-paced (FP) .39 .58 .49
Table 2
Comparison of brand personality items among Facebook followers
and non-followers
Non-followers Followers F P h
M (SD) M (SD)
Exciting 6.38 (.90) 6.54 (.81) 9.75 .002 ** .008
Passionate 5.88 (1.47) 6.21 (1.21) 15.73 .000 * .013
Entertaining 6.25 (.99) 6.38 (.92) 5.26 .022 *** .004
Intense 6.06 (1.22) 6.30 (1.01) 12.12 .001 ** .010
Competitive 6.32 (.97) 6.46 (.93) 5.76 .017 *** .005
Fan-friendly 5.61 (1.44) 5.98 (1.23) 20.16 .000 * .016
Skilled 6.00 (1.21) 6.23 (1.13) 10.63 .001 ** .009
Elite 5.37 (1.71) 5.78 (1.51) 18.52 .000 * .015
Fast-paced 6.06 (1.24) 6.20 (1.24) 3.72 .054 .003
* Significant difference at p < .001
** Significant difference at p < .01
*** Significant difference at p < .05
