Download Sporting Facebook: A Content Analysis of NCAA Organizational

International Journal of Sport Communication, 2011, 4, 422-444
© 2011 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Sporting Facebook: A Content Analysis
of NCAA Organizational Sport Pages and
Big 12 Conference Athletic Department Pages
Laci Wallace
East Texas Baptist University, USA
Jacquelyn Wilson and Kimberly Miloch
Texas Woman’s University, USA
Social-media Web sites provide a strategic means for college and university athletic departments to build and maintain a strong brand presence when cultivating
relationships with Facebook users. The purpose of this study was to examine the
use of social media as a brand-management tool in college athletics. Specifically,
this study examined the use of Facebook in the NCAA (N = 10) and in the Big 12
Athletic Conference (N = 12) by content posted throughout the 2010–11 season.
These Facebook pages were examined to determine how major college sport organizations were using communication tools, types of brand-management factors,
and marketing coverage. The data revealed statistically significant differences in
content posted by season, type of communication tools, and fan interaction. The
results from this content analysis were used to conceptualize branding, marketing,
and Facebook user behavior.
Keywords: social media, brand management, communication, social networking
The use of social media as a means to communicate and engage with others
has grown significantly in the past 5 years. Social-media sites such as Twitter and
Facebook have changed the way individuals interact and provide a central location for online social engagement. Given the high usage rates, social-networking
sites also represent a unique and engaging communication tool that can be used
by companies to disseminate unfiltered messages to mass audiences and specific
target markets (Pegoraro, 2010). Global companies with strong brand identities,
such as Coca-Cola, Starbucks, JP Morgan Chase, and Proctor and Gamble, have
recognized the value of social media as both a communication tool and a marketing
tool and have incorporated them as a key component in their respective marketing
Wallace is a doctoral candidate at Texas Woman’s University and an assistant professor at East Texas
Baptist University, Marshall, TX. Wilson is a doctoral student, and Miloch, an advisor to Wallace and
Wilson, at Texas Woman’s University, Denton, TX.
422
Facebook and College Athletics 423
and brand-management strategies (Morrissey, 2007). Similarly, sport organizations
are realizing the benefits of social media and are seeking ways to most effectively
use them as part of their overall marketing, communication, and brand-management
strategies (Coyle, 2010).
Sport has long enjoyed a symbiotic relationship with the media, but much of that
relationship was centered on mainstream-media coverage and sport entities’ ability
to appropriately disseminate newsworthy communications (Hardin & McClung,
2002; Miloch & Pedersen, 2006; Pedersen, Laucella, Miloch, & Fielding, 2007;
Schultz, Caskey, & Esherick, 2010; Wenner, 1998). Unlike traditional media, social
media present unique and distinct advantages for sport entities because they are
able to communicate unfiltered messages directly to consumers. Direct unfiltered
Internet communication links consumers to sport products in an engaging and
interactive manner and helps build fan identification (Pegoraro, 2010; Santomier,
2008). Sport entities are ideally positioned to use social media given existing fan
bases and the ability to encourage consumer interactions with the sport product,
with athletes, and with team personnel. Williams and Chinn (2010) illustrate the
advantages of social media for sport entities, particularly in regard to fostering
strong relationships with sport consumers, noting that “the potential value and
benefits of using social media to meet relationship-marketing goals is significant”
(p. 423). Given sport entities’ reliance on ticket and merchandise sales for revenue
generation, social media present a competitive advantage in cultivating favorable
relationships that encourages repeat consumption of the sport product (Williams
& Chinn, 2010). Cooper (2009) indicated that “sport media has a major influence
on the consumption habits of individuals interested in college athletics” (p. 18),
and the ability to communicate direct and unfiltered messages via social media
provides a significant and strategic means of establishing and maintaining a strong
brand identity and for encouraging repeat consumption.
Scholars have long linked brand identity and brand management to enhanced
loyalty among consumers and sports fans (Aaker, 1991; Berry, 1999; Gladden &
Funk, 2001; Gladden & Milne, 1999; Gladden, Milne, & Sutton, 1998; Keller, 1998;
Miloch, 2010; Ross, 2006; Shocker, Srivastava, & Ruckert, 1994; Walsh, Kim, &
Ross, 2008). Loyal fan bases provide a consistent and predictable revenue stream
for athletic departments (Bedbury, 2002; Boone, Kochunny, & Wilkins, 1995;
Gladden & Funk, 2002; Godin, 2002; Kuo, Chang, & Chen, 2004; Madrigal, 1995;
Shocker et al., 1994). Coyle (2010) indicates that sports teams must actively use
social media to enhance brand management, encourage social interactions among
fans, promote ticket sales, and cultivate a more favorable online experience. Social
media provide a unique and strategic means for college and university athletic
departments to cultivate relationships with fans and build and maintain a strong
brand presence, and their use in this regard warrants examination. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the use of social media as a brand-management
tool in college athletics. Specifically, this study examined the use of Facebook in
the NCAA organizational pages (i.e., NCAA wrestling, NCAA volleyball, etc.)
featured on the NCAA.org Web site and in the Big 12 Conference athletic department pages (i.e., Baylor University, Iowa State, Nebraska, etc.) featured on the
Big12sports.com Web site. These Facebook pages were examined to determine
how major collegiate sports organizations were using communication tools, types
of brand-management factors, and marketing coverage.
424 Wallace, Wilson, and Miloch
Literature Review
Research inquiries focusing on social media in the context of sport communication
and sport marketing are becoming more prevalent in the literature. Considering that
the use of social media is a somewhat new phenomenon, particularly in regard to
their role in the discipline and use in the industry, sport communication and marketing scholars, as well as industry professionals, have noted the need for expanded
research on the topic (Brody et al., 2010; Clavio & Kian, 2010). To date, much
of the research in this area has focused on athletes’ use of social media or online
communication as a marketing tool (Clavio & Kian, 2010; Cooper, 2009; Coyle,
2010; Hambrick, Simmons, Greenhalgh, & Greenwell, 2010; Ioakimidis, 2010;
Pegoraro, 2010; Sheiferheld, 2010; Williams & Chinn, 2010). This study focuses
on the use of Facebook by the NCAA and college athletic departments specific to
principles and theories of brand management.
Facebook
The use of online media tools and social media has grown tremendously in the
past 5 years (Ioakimidis, 2010; Williams & Chinn, 2010). These interactive media
represent a two-way communication tool used to engage fans in a new, unique way
(Zhang, Sung, & Lee, 2010). Bulmer and DiMauro (2010) describe social media
as a platform to discuss ideas, communicate experiences, and exchange knowledge. Social media represent an unfiltered direct communication link connecting
consumers to brands through online identification and interaction with desired
fans (Pegoraro, 2010; Santomier, 2008). The interactivity of consumer and product may be used to evaluate the needs and desires communicated through social
media (Schoenstedt & Reau, 2010). Social media may best be defined as “the tools,
platforms, and applications that enable consumers to connect, communicate, and
collaborate with others. . . . They support user participation on a collective scale”
(Williams & Chinn, 2010, p. 422). Social media allow users to create content and
establish social connections with other users (Ioakimidis, 2010).
Facebook is one of the many social-media outlets enabling consumers to interact with brands as an extension of face-to-face interaction through an online media
network (Kujath, 2011). The network content is specific to the user-generated content uploaded and shared daily on this platform (Schultz & Sheffer, 2010). Facebook
features are categorized into items associated with uploading content, reviewing
content uploaded by others in the network, and items related to responses to content.
Facebook is one of the most popular social-networking platforms, and as a
social-media tool it can be used to enhance brand and image communication. In
2011, active Facebook users totaled 750 million worldwide, and in the United
States approximately 30% of the population, or 225 million people, actively used
the site (Facebook.com, 2011). A typical user spends over 55 minutes per day
on Facebook and has an average of 130 friends in the network. Users interact by
clicking “Like” on an average of nine pieces of content and by writing an average
of 25 comments each month. In addition, a typical Facebook user will follow two
new pages each month (Facebook.com, 2011). In 2008, Facebook released the Page
feature for organizations, groups, and businesses to communicate with users. This
feature allows organizations and businesses to customize their Facebook presence
and to interact with users on the Internet (Facebook Pages Product Guide, 2009).
Facebook and College Athletics 425
EA sports, Electronic Arts, is a sport video-game company that used exclusive
Facebook pages for fans to vote on the next athlete to be featured on the cover of
NCAA Football 12 and Madden NFL 12 (college and professional football video
games; Klemko, 2011). This promotion resulted in 140,000 votes for NCAA Football
12, and Madden NFL 12 received more than 12 million votes from fans. Facebook
user interaction through the number of responses with content on Facebook is just
one way to explain the uniqueness of online communities and social-networking sites.
Furthermore, Facebook user interaction that does not result in a like, comment, or voting
remains confidential information accessible only to page administrators. The page
statistics measures fan engagement and interaction (Facebook Pages Product Guide,
2009) and enable administrators to investigate not only how users are interacting with
content in real time but also the demographic characteristics of the most frequent users.
Content features include status updates and the upload of pictures, video, links,
and notes. The site allows users to upload content directly to their Facebook page’s
“wall” that will be broadcast to the Newsfeed. Fans may interact by posting directly
on a page’s wall or by commenting or using the like button on the content item.
These types of interactions allow sports entities to establish authentic relationships
with target markets while also enhancing and reinforcing a strong brand presence.
Within the aforementioned parameters, the ongoing Facebook experience offers
a media tool for fans to review and interact about content in real time. In addition,
fans can access Facebook using a variety of devices other than a traditional computer, such as a handheld phone with Internet access.
Social Media and Brand Management
Major social-media sites (i.e., Facebook and Twitter) are commonly used by athletes,
teams, fans, and other prominent organizations (Durrett, 2009). Social media, when
included as an essential part of marketing mix, provide an effective communication tool to build relationships with sport consumers (Williams & Chinn, 2010).
As social media are becoming an extension of online communication, the future
uses of these formats will evolve from the current experiences and consumption
preferences that are most convenient for fans (Kujath, 2011; Zimmerman, 2010).
The influence of online media’s sports consumption seems to be a more powerful
moderator of fan identification and self-concept than other traditional-media outlets
(Phua, 2010). Unlike other online media sites, Facebook and Twitter represent a
direct two-way communication venue linking fans to brand while simultaneously
broadcasting these interactions to fans’ centralized network and the brand’s network
(Pegoraro, 2010; Schoenstedt & Reau, 2010).
The social network is representative of individuals’ and companies’ cyberidentity. This enables communication based on this cyberidentity and interactions
with others who share a similar cyberidentity (Kozinets, de Valck, Wojnicki, &
Wilner, 2010). Cyberidentification refers to the way a person portrays opinions,
personal information, and communication to represent their personal identity using
Internet tools and Web sites (Talamo & Ligorio, 2001). Social media provide not
only an outlet for interpersonal interaction but also a media platform to favorably
promote and manage self-image through these interactions (Mehdizadeh, 2010). In
addition, users’ psychological components provide an underlying link to motives,
behaviors, and consequences of interaction (Baker & Moore, 2008; Hollenbaugh,
426 Wallace, Wilson, and Miloch
2011; Wilson, Fornasier, & White, 2010). Network theory suggests that managing
these consumer-engagement behaviors contributes to use and performance in these
contexts (Parkhe, Wasserman, & Ralston, 2006). Social media ranked as one of the
most frequently used media services and marketing tools by major professional
leagues (Ioakimidis, 2010). As the popularity of social media increases, sports
teams must develop specific strategies to use them to enhance fan loyalty and build
brand equity (Aaker, 2010; Ioakimidis, 2010).
Both Pegoraro (2010) and Phua (2010) suggest that this form of communication helps build fan bases through identification and consumption behavior. The
athlete–fan relationship through social media clearly reinforces the associated
symbolic (i.e., group membership) and experimental (i.e., emotional and cognitive)
benefits of sports consumption (Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, & Exler, 2008). This interaction represents the interactive communication of social media and the potential
loyalty-building dynamics of this tool. Sport brands may use this tool to produce
and deliver information in an instantaneous manner without third-party interference
(Pegoraro, 2010). Similar to other sport products, user-generated production and
consumption are closely related, thus further reinforcing the benefits experienced
through sport consumption (Richelieu & Boulaire, 2005).
Seo and Green (2008) demonstrate that fan engagement and expression
using interactive media are a valuable component of online sport communication.
Content evaluation provides a competitive advantage to adapt content and further
manage communication in these formats. The use of communication technologies
has changed the way fans access information about sports teams and athletes (Ioakimidis, 2007; Sanderson, 2009). This breakdown of traditional communication
channels (i.e., TV, radio, newspapers) provides the increasing need to manage and
monitor public perceptions via online media (Ioakimidis, 2007; Rappaport, 2010).
Branding
Businesses must stay relevant in the increasingly dynamic and complex market by
“participating in the emerging market niches that represent future growth” (Aaker,
2004, p. 91). The investigation of consumers’ preferences, satisfaction, and purchase behavior guides brand management (Keller, 2003). Strong brand elements
are identifiable, enduring, and meaningful to consumers but, most important, the
features that are protected by the unique competitive advantage (Keller, 1999). For
sports teams, this protection extends beyond some of these identifiable features (i.e.,
logo, phrases, colors, and names) and into unique experiences offered by sports
teams (i.e., fan identification, social status of attending events; Fink, Parker, Brett,
& Higgins, 2009; Parent & Seguin, 2008). Furthermore, online brand-building
strategies should communicate what the brand is and what it is not. Online brand
activity influences the way fans interact with and perceive the brand (Muntinga,
Morreman, & Smit, 2011). Online brand management must carefully promote
brand-building qualities while also targeting consumers’ preferences (McGlone
& Martin, 2006; Stonehouse & Minocha, 2008).
Brand Awareness and Associations. Brand associations have been investigated
in several sport domains (Ross, Bang, & Lee, 2007; Ross, James, & Vargas, 2006).
Gladden and Funk (2002) describe brand-association factors as contributing to
creating brand equity. Ross, Russell, and Bang (2008) link the factors of brand
Facebook and College Athletics 427
association and awareness to measuring the brand equity of a team. Segmentation based on brand associations provides marketers the competitive advantage to
strategically adapt marketing campaigns for these groups (Ross, 2007). Segmentation strategies provide marketers with valuable descriptive information related to
the characteristics and behaviors specific to consumer groups, thus increasing the
brand’s competitive advantage to deliver desired products and services relative to
consumer behavior. Marketers must develop products and services within the brand
that maximize the potential types of consumers while differentiating the brand from
other related experiences (Bowden, 2009).
Brand Attributes. The product- and non-product-related attributes, benefits of
consumption, and attitudes toward consumption contribute to type of brand associations (Kaynak, Salmon, & Tatoglu, 2008). Intangible qualities such as social status
or identification create brand-specific attributes and differentiation (Friedmann,
1986). This competitive advantage is harder to duplicate and unique to the given
brand, thus very valuable (Miloch, 2010).
The promotion and evaluation of various types of motives to consume sports
reveal many benefits for sport marketers (Ross, Russell, & Bang, 2008). Bauer et
al. (2008) demonstrated that non-product-related attributes such as logo, stadium,
and tradition yielded stronger brand-attitude and behavioral-loyalty outcomes than
product-related attributes (i.e., success, players, management). Unique to the sport
industry is the idea of fan group identity (Foster & Hyatt, 2008). This represents
a group of people collectively linked to the sport entity through their participation
and consumption (Fink et al., 2009). These customers’ satisfaction builds consumer
retention and maximizes revenue generation through relationship marketing (Madrigal, 1995; McDaniel & Moore, 2005). Furthermore, the management of brand
in sports connects consumer to expectations and identities related to consumption
preferences (e.g., escape, eustress, entertainment; Wann, Grieve, Zapalac, & Pease,
2008). The intangible features are associated with vicarious achievement, nostalgia for a team or player, performance of a star player, fan “escape,” team success,
and peer-group acceptance (Funk & James, 2006). The tangible and intangible
features provide many opportunities for sports consumption through media, TV,
video gaming, and the Internet (Oates, 2009). These opportunities increase brand
awareness and strengthen brand associations through repeated and enjoyable
experiences (Kim & Ross, 2006).
Brand Loyalty. Brand awareness and association foster loyal consumers with
identifiable preferences in behaviors and attitudes (Ross, 2007). Loyalty is further
described in components of attitude and behavior (Kaynak et al., 2008). Behavior
is generally described as a consumer’s direct purchase loyalty, whereas attitude is
more subjective and indirect (Pritchard & Funk, 2010). Although the attitude toward
a particular team may not generate direct revenue, Kaynak et al. note that consumers’ enduring attitude toward a team contributes to social aspects of interpersonal
communication and identification with team as indicators of loyalty. Past game
attendance and level of commitment to a team reveal a strong connection between
attitude and ticket-purchasing behavior (Funk, Filo, Beaton, & Pritchard, 2009).
Managing long-term relationships with consumers and cultivating new relationships is a constant process of engaging customers (Bowden, 2009). Sport provides
many opportunities for brand extensions and strategic leveraging of brand image.
428 Wallace, Wilson, and Miloch
Role of Social Media in Brand Management
Social media, as communication tools, have potential and relative risk associated
with their use. The ability to directly communicate with consumers alters perceptions
about the given product (Kwak, Kim, & Zimmerman, 2010; Pritchard & Funk, 2010;
Richelieu & Pons, 2006). Agenda setting and framing in the media shape public
perceptions by increasing exposure through generating content and displaying information in a favorable way (McCombs, 2005; Zaharopoulos, 2007). Like any other
media source, social media can be used as a communication tool to develop brand
awareness, image, and associations (Mickle, 2009). Social-media communication
should be one of the many facets of a company’s brand building. Sports teams are
encouraged to not only adapt a platform to communicate a favorable perception but
also use resources to cultivate a communication approach thorough agenda-building
strategies (Clavio & Miloch, 2009). Strategic communication management should
increase both favorable media coverage and public perception. Monitoring and
understanding consumers’ online brand-related activities provide a way to effectively
anticipate and manage brand-related social-media consequences (Muntinga et al.,
2011). The model of online sport communication (MOSC) specifically links the
management of content to consumers’ online experience and behavior (Pedersen,
Miloch, & Laucella, 2007). The MOSC outlines strategic functions and management
features of online content as content, design, performance, and commerce as they
relate to any sport-related Web page (Pedersen, Miloch, & Laucella, 2007). Specific
to the use of Facebook, the management of these factors relates to the frequency
of uploading content items, the variation in type of communication media used,
and the fan interaction with these items throughout the season. Furthermore, the
Motivation Scale for Sport Online Consumption identified fan expression as a new
construct evolving from two-way communication features (Seo & Green, 2008).
The cultivation of brand management through new media is not a new idea
to sport marketers. The evolution of communication strategies through changes in
technology has resulted in increased brand equity for a variety of sport organizations.
Fortunato (2008) describes how the strategic agenda setting of the NFL’s television
programming schedule contributes to the continual increase in TV viewership. New
media provide many avenues for activating sponsorship during live sporting events,
such as text messaging, phone applications, and word-of-mouth promotions through
mobile devices (Perey, 2008). Thus, the management of these communication and
media components directly influences the way fans interact with brands.
Electronic word-of-mouth communication is one of many features changing
sport marketing strategies; it is a form of communication that is quick and used
by more people than ever before (Coyle, 2010; Kozinets et al., 2010). Marketers
must shift away from using social media as an unfocused tool to using them as a
strategic brand platform to illustrate brand attributes. Wright, Khanfar, Harrington,
and Kizer (2010) argue that effective social-media use must not appear as an
advertisement to the customer but rather appear as an attempt to build a relationship and establish trust.
More sophisticated methods are being developed to analyze fans’ involvement
with social media. The segmentation of users in new-media sport communication
has resulted in the development of strategic brand-building approaches (Kim &
Facebook and College Athletics 429
Ross, 2006; Ross, 2007) and strategic evaluation of brand-communication effectiveness (Frederick & Patil, 2010; Walsh et al., 2008). Keller (2009) outlines the
critical nature of identifying potential opportunities for brand management, proper
activation of the features, and the growth associated with brand extensions. Relevant
to the sports industry, Hambrick et al. (2010) discussed the need for marketers to
develop adequate consumer research and training before using this feature as a
marketing or communication tool.
Management of social-media sites should be grounded in both consumer and
business motives for interaction in this media context. The media context may
evolve over time, so brand management in these formats should reflect the most
current and effective communication strategies. Both communication and marketing
strategies must connect the intentions of these captive audiences to brand initiatives
(Casteleyn, Mottart, & Rutten, 2009). Social media may provide sport entities with
a competitive edge by providing a direct communication link to the identified fans,
thus cultivating a specific brand image.
Facebook and College Athletics
As Facebook provides unique features to express fan involvement, this user-generated content not only represents a platform for other identified fans to interact
with the brand and each other but also creates an environment in a social context
(Schoenstedt & Reau, 2010). Similarly, fan identification with teams and associated
outcomes of sport consumption are thoroughly documented (Donavan, Carlson, &
Zimmerman, 2005; Friedmann, 1986; Pritchard & Funk, 2010). Parasocial identification explores identification factors as they relate to new media and fan behavior
(Kassing & Sanderson, 2010; Sanderson, 2009). Kassing and Sanderson illustrate
how social media offer considerable shifts in the interaction and consumption of
sport. These identification factors are commonly associated with sport consumption
as it relates to fan loyalty behaviors (Fink et al., 2009).
These fan-communication features have most recently evolved into the currentday social-media Web sites as one of the top approaches to promote fan communication (Ioakimidis, 2010). Athletes, teams, and fans are communicating with each
other using major social-media Web sites in a unique way not offered by other
traditional sport communication mediums (Pegoraro, 2010). As the expansion of
communication platforms continues, sports teams must develop more sophisticated
relationship-centered marketing strategies and brand objectives for these online
environments (Dittmore, Stoldt, & Greenwell, 2008; Raynaud & Bolos, 2008). As
the interaction continues, strategic communication through this powerful medium
has become a valuable concept in sport brand management.
The evolving nature of the industry offers a unique and challenging opportunity
to build lasting impressions and relationships through sport marketing (Gladden,
Irwin, & Sutton, 2001). Sport brands, over time and with proper management, will
endure the evolving nature of the industry (i.e., globalization), growing clutter of
the marketplace (i.e., available products and services), and changing technology
(i.e., media communication tools; Aaker & Keller, 1990; Richelieu & Desbordes,
2009). Thus, the need to develop, manage, and innovate brands in the sport industry
is apparent (Aaker, 2007).
430 Wallace, Wilson, and Miloch
Research Questions
Based on the results of the previous research noted herein, we developed three
research questions for the study:
RQ1: What type of communication tools (e.g., status update, video, link) are
most frequently used on Facebook?
RQ2: How is Facebook used to raise brand awareness and manage brand
perceptions?
RQ2a: How frequently are product and nonproduct items used?
RQ2b: How are brand associations used to raise brand awareness and
manage brand perceptions?
RQ2c: What types of marketing promotions are being used on Facebook?
RQ3: How are Facebook users interacting (e.g., likes and comments) with
content on Facebook?
Methodology
The current research involved a content analysis of the branding, marketing, and
management strategies provided on NCAA organizational Facebook pages (N =
10) and NCAA Big 12 athletic department Facebook pages (N = 12). The NCAA
organization pages were selected because they are the official Facebook pages
managed by NCAA on the official NCAA.org Web site and represent all levels of
NCAA sport divisions. The Big 12 athletic department individual Facebook pages
were used as a comparative conference—the Big 12 represents the midpoint for
total revenue earnings of Division I schools (Dosh, 2011). Only the Facebook
pages that were linked to the official NCAA.org or Big12sports.com page were
included in the study.
The Facebook pages were accessed by links from the official Web pages to
the individual sport of the NCAA or the official Web page of each team of the Big
12. Content analysis has been previously documented as an appropriate method to
examine sport media coverage (Cooper, Eagleman & Laucella, 2009; Cooper &
Pierce, 2011; Maxwell, 2009), brand strategy (Clavio, Kraft & Pedersen, 2009),
and social media relative to online brand communication (Hambrick, et al., 2010;
Zhang et al., 2010).
The respective Facebook pages were perused for one constructed week from
each of the spring, summer, fall, and winter sport seasons. Thus, data from 28 days
were collected from each of the 22 Facebook pages. The data were collected from
the spring, summer, and fall 2010 and winter 2011 semesters.
Data Collection
The data-collection process involved taking a screen shot of the content items from
the respective pages, printing the items, and assigning an item number to each. The
items were then randomly ordered by team name. Content items were reviewed for
Facebook and College Athletics 431
emerging categories and themes until theoretical saturation was reached (Lindolf &
Taylor, 2002). The codebook and definitions were developed based on the emerging
and theoretically supported categories as noted in Table 1. Major themes included
communication tools, sport, brand attributes, brand associations, marketing strategy,
information coverage, and type of fan interactions (see Table 1 for definitions).
Categories that did not provide sufficient instances to develop a mutually exclusive
category were labeled other, and when a combination of mutually exclusive items
was presented together this was labeled combination.
Before the data-coding process, the researcher conducted training sessions to
ensure that the coding procedures and measures were familiar to the two coders.
After the training sessions, interrater reliability was evaluated on approximately 10%
of data items (n = 96) with representation from both groups analyzed (Neuendorf,
2002). A subsample of the data is used to not only evaluate the coders’ accuracy
and reliability but also identify ambiguous categories or disagreements between
coders (Riffe, Lacy, & Fico, 2005). Categories that did not meet reliability on the
first interrater reliability trial were adapted. The final interrater reliability trial met
the criteria of 80% percent agreement and .70 kappa for mutually exclusive items
(Frey, Botan & Kreps, 2000). Thus, the ranges of .84–1 kappa and 85–100% agreement were both acceptable.
Because of the nature of content on Facebook and the theories analyzed,
some categories elicited multiple brand and marketing strategies simultaneously
and were not mutually exclusive. For example, a single content post could include
multiple brand associations and marketing strategies. According to Zhang et al.
(2010), multiple categories may be used to evaluate marketing and brand strategies on Facebook pages. An overall kappa of .60 was reported for latent variables
with multiple categories such as brand associations and marketing strategy; this
Table 1 List of Categories and Variables
Category
Variables
Form of communication
Status update, picture, video, link, notes, other.
Brand attributes
(based on Bauer et al.,
2008; Kaynak et al., 2008)
Product: success, star player, head coach, team (members), and team performance (team play) as productrelated attributes.
Nonproduct: management, logo, club colors, stadium,
club history and tradition, club culture and values, fans,
sponsor or owner, location of team.
Combination: both product and nonproduct factors.
None: no identifiable brand attributes.
Brand-association factors (based on Ross et al.,
2008)
Brand mark, rivalry, concessions, stadium, social
interaction, commitment, team history, organizational
attributes, nonplayer personnel, team characteristics,
none, other.
Marketing strategy
Ticket sales, merchandise, cobranding, sponsorship,
event coverage, individual coverage, team coverage,
in-game coverage, crisis management, none, other.
432 Wallace, Wilson, and Miloch
met the standard of .40–.75 for fair to good agreement (Banerjee, Capozzoli,
McSweeney, & Sinha, 1999; Neuendorf, 2002). The interrater reliability of the
brand-association and marketing-strategy categories provided initial evidence
to include latent categories for a context such as Facebook coverage. Neuendorf
explained that latent variables are expected to receive lower reliability scores
because of the interpretation and nature of the content. Given the purpose of
examining Facebook content, it was appropriate to evaluate the frequencies and
percentages of the different types of use.
Data Analysis
The data analysis was conducted with SPSS version 19 using chi-square analysis,
one-way ANOVA, and descriptive statistical analysis. Frequencies and percentages
were reported for all categories. A chi-square analysis examined the amount of
coverage posted by time of season and brand attributes. In addition, fan interaction
was analyzed according to one-way ANOVA for season of coverage.
The groups of college athletics Facebook pages we examined represented two
groups with different purposes. The NCAA as an organization manages the pages
for multiple schools for one respective sport, and the Big 12 pages are managed by
different organizations and represent individual pages for multiple teams. Because
these two groups function independently, the coverage was examined over the
same time period to reveal a comparative and descriptive analysis of Facebook
management techniques. However, the substantial differences in the total number
of posts between groups were apparent, and the data sets are reported separately as
a within-group analysis only. Both the NCAA organizational pages (N = 194) and
the Big 12 athletic department pages (N = 706) yielded substantial data.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
For the NCAA pages (N = 194), a chi-square test revealed that the number of
Facebook posts differed significantly by time of season, χ2(1, N = 194) = 12.23,
p = .007, in the spring (34%), summer (27.3%), fall (17.5%), and winter (21.1%).
The expected value was 48 posts per season.
For the Big 12 Pages, a chi-square test revealed that the number of posts also
differed significantly by time of season, χ2(1, N = 706) = 127.9, p < .001, in the
spring (15.4%), summer (16%), fall (41.6%), and winter (26.9%). The expected
value was 176 posts per season.
RQ1: What Type of Communication Is Most Frequently Used
on Facebook?
A large proportion of the content was uploaded with the link and status Facebook
communication tools (see Table 2). However, the Big 12 athletic departments
uploaded a proportionally larger amount of pictures and status updates than the
NCAA. Video, notes, and other communication tools were not frequently used.
Facebook and College Athletics 433
Table 2 Types of Facebook Communication
Tools Used
Tool
NCAA (N = 194)
Big 12 (N = 706)
Link
55.2%
37.5%
Status
32.5%
26.8%
Picture
6.2%
26.3%
Video
6.2%
7.9%
Notes
0%
0.7%
Other
0%
0.8%
RQ2: How Is Facebook Used to Raise Brand Awareness
and Manage Brand Perceptions?
RQ2a: Product- and Non-Product-Related Items. The brand attributes included
cases that exclusively qualified for either product or nonproduct category descriptions as related to current branding theories in sport. For the chi-square analysis,
the following expected values were used: 50% product- and 50% non-productrelated attributes.
For the NCAA pages, a chi-square examination revealed that the 68.8% coverage rate provided to product-related attributes was significantly higher, F(1, 154)
= 4.593, p < .001, than the 31.2% coverage rate provided to non-product-related
attributes. An independent-samples Mann–Whitney U test evaluated the fan interaction with brand attributes of product- or non-product-related attributes. Likes for
product-related content (n = 106, M = 83) were significantly higher, U(n = 154) =
–2.305, p = .021, than for non-product-related content (n = 48, M = 65). However,
the comments were not significantly different (p = .059) between product-related
content (n = 106, M = 82) and non-product-related content (n = 48, M = 67.55).
For the Big 12 Pages, a chi-square examination revealed that the 73.3% coverage rate provided to product-related attributes was significantly higher than the
26.7% coverage rate provided to non-product-related attributes. An independentsamples Mann–Whitney U test evaluated the fan interaction with brand attributes
of product- or non-product-related attributes. Likes for product-related content
(n = 390, M = 267) were not significantly higher (U = –0.069, p = .945) than for
non-product-related content (n = 142, M = 265). In addition, the comments were
not significantly different (U = –0.566, p = .572) between product-related content
(n = 309, M = 268) and non-product-related content (n = 142, M = 260).
RQ2b: Types of Brand Associations. The top seven brand associations used
in the content are reported in Table 3. Content items were coded according the
multiple categories of brand association. The categories listed in Table 3 represent
data that are not mutually exclusive; one content item could potentially have all
11 brand-association factors. The frequency and percentage represent the number
of times these associations occurred throughout the content.
434 Wallace, Wilson, and Miloch
Table 3 Top Brand Associations
NCAA
(N = 194)
Big 12
(N = 706)
Team success: winning performance of the team, team
being successful, high-quality players
52.1%
33.7%
Rivalry: any two teams
36.1%
39.1%
Socialization: online or face to face, discussion with fans
or questions, pictures of fans or group
38.7%
18.7%
Brand mark: image has logo or recognizable image
10.8%
37.3%
Stadium: arena, coliseum, stadium, field, or any mention
of the facility
5.7%
20.7%
Commitment: support, loyalty, commitment showing
support, thanking fans
21.1%
4.2%
Organizational attributes: gives to community, charity,
goodwill, positive characteristics
27.3%
5.1%
None: no brand associations identified
2.1%
9.3%
Brand-association category
Note. Brand associations were adapted from the spectator-based brand-equity model (Ross et al., 2008).
The NCAA organizational pages used the following brand associations most
frequently: team success 52.1%, socialization 38.7%, rivalry 36.1%, organizational
attributes 27.3%, and commitment 4.2%. The Big 12 athletic department pages used
the following brand associations most frequently: rivalry 39%, brand mark 38%,
team success 34%, stadium community 21%, and socialization 19%.
RQ2c: Types of Marketing Promotions. General information (i.e., event, team,
or individual coverage) was the most frequently used category for the NCAA
organizational pages (79%) and Big 12 pages (90%). Ticket sales for the NCAA
organizational pages (12.3%) were similar to those of Big 12 athletic department
pages (11%). Sponsorship revealed slightly higher coverage in the NCAA organizational pages (8.1%) than in the Big 12 athletic department pages (4.7%).
RQ3: How Are Facebook Users Interacting With Content
on Facebook?
The average number of fans for the NCAA pages (M = 46,073, SD = 31,200)
was generally lower than that of the Big 12 pages (M = 126,426, SD = 166,785;
see Table 4). An independent-samples t test revealed that the fan interaction was
significantly different in both likes, F(1, 967) = –3.983, p < .001, and comments,
F(1, 967)= –2.659, p < .001, between groups. Thus, Facebook user interaction
was described within each group and with a frequency distribution in Table 5.
Table 4 Number of Facebook Users
Facebook page
Facebook users
NCAA pages
football
men’s hockey
softball
women’s basketball
men’s basketball
baseball
lacrosse
women’s volleyball
wrestling
118,524
33,242
35,899
18,755
48,053
48,053
47,640
31,748
128,243
NCAA
50,572
Big 12 pages
Baylor University
16,497
5,318
42,608
71,341
54,717
162,591
97,858
257,748
47,358
608,007
104,077
48,994
Colorado
Iowa State
University of Kansas
Kansas State
Nebraska
University of Missouri
University of Oklahoma
Oklahoma state
University of Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Table 5 Facebook User Interaction With Content on Facebook
Low (31–38%)
Moderate (25–36%)
High (32–34%)
NCAA
0–4
5–12
13–131
Big 12
0–10
11–43
44–4,665
NCAA
0–1
2–7
8–124
Big 12
0–1
2–9
10–509
Likes
Comments
435
436 Wallace, Wilson, and Miloch
Likes and comments were described using a distribution of low (31–38%),
moderate (25–36%), and high (32–34%) frequency. The frequency distribution
revealed that the number of likes received more interactions than the number of
comments for each organization.
A one-way ANOVA revealed that Facebook user interaction was not significantly different in likes, F(3, 193) = 0.826, p = .481, or comments, F(3, 193) =
0.048, p = .986, across seasons for the NCAA organizational pages. Similarly, a
one-way ANOVA revealed that Facebook user interaction was not significantly
different in likes, F(3, 705) = 1.95, p = .119, or comments, F(3, 705) = 1.788, p =
.148, across seasons for the Big 12 pages.
Discussion
The management techniques revealed statistically significant findings in coverage
of brand attributes, communication tools, and marketing coverage. The findings in
this study were similar to those of previous research focusing on brand attributes
in media contexts (Kaynak et al., 2008) and theories of online coverage (Pedersen,
Miloch, & Fielding, 2007). However, aspects of social-media content management
are largely undocumented. Schultz and Sheffer (2010) noted that the perception of
social-media management was not congruent when they analyzed actual socialmedia management techniques. Thus, the actual social-media content was analyzed
to examine management techniques. In the following sections, an evaluation of each
research question provides an interpretation of the data as they relate to current
practical and theoretical applications.
RQ1: Communication Types
The type of communication used determines the way the information is viewed
and can influence the way the Facebook users interact. The MOSC suggests various features and management techniques that contribute to online consumption
(Pedersen, Miloch, & Fielding, 2007). Seo and Green (2008) noted many specific
consumer motives that mediate the online sport experience. As more fans are consuming sports online, relationship management is an important aspect of the sport
industry (Foster & Hyatt, 2008). The type of communication tools used shapes
the way Facebook users can view information and potentially influences the type
of their interactions with content. Both populations are using Facebook features
to promote linked sources to Web sites outside of Facebook. Links are used more
than any other type of communication; this tool primarily communicates an outside
Web link to consumers while they are experiencing Facebook content. This management behavior is particularly important because it reveals that Facebook users
are encouraged to navigate away from the Facebook page to interact with external
Web-site content rather than interacting with the Facebook content.
The Facebook sport experience is shaped by not only the communication
tools and the management of these tools but also the content expressed in these
formats (Foster & Hyatt, 2008; Seo & Green, 2008). According to the MOSC, the
functionality of online communication tools influences the way consumers may
potentially interact. As status updates and links were the most frequent types of
communication tools used, the lack of variety of communication tools may limit
Facebook and College Athletics 437
the types of potential Facebook user interactions and types of content that can
be featured in these formats. These results indicate that the functionality of the
communication tools was underused. Pictures and video could potentially generate fan involvement and interaction in a way that is uniquely different than other
communication tools (Mehdizadeh, 2010).
For example, the Big 12 athletic departments’ Facebook pages used photos
frequently as complements to text about a topic. This indicates that brand associations may also be expressed abstractly through photo rather than through written
text. Photos have previously been identified as a major reason consumers interact
in social-networking sites (Clavio & Kian, 2010; Hollenbaugh, 2011; Mehdizadeh,
2010). In addition, the variety of communication tools and content coverage has
previously demonstrated a positive association with consumer behavior (Wilson et
al., 2010). These findings indicate that a variety of communication tools in combination with different types of content may enable brand managers to appropriately
communicate using these formats.
RQ2a: Brand Attributes
The contextual analysis revealed that both NCAA and Big 12 pages used more
coverage of product-related attributes (i.e., success, star player, team members)
than non-product-related attributes (i.e., management, logo, history). The frequent
coverage of product-related attributes demonstrated that teams are using Facebook
to further the brand image of the product and emphasize the experience of the game.
Facebook users may potentially be introduced to these items on a regular basis, thus
reinforcing the experience and consumption of product-related attributes. Productrelated attributes have been associated with higher purchase intentions and are a
factor influencing consumption behavior (Gladden & Funk, 2002; Kaynak et al.,
2008). According to the MOSC, these results support the notion that the type of
brand coverage may influence fan interactions and communication on Facebook
pages (Pedersen, Miloch, & Fielding, 2007).
RQ2b: Brand Associations
The different organizational goals and uses of brand associations are identified
through the content examined. Both organizations used Facebook to portray the
game experience most frequently through team success, rivalry, and socialization.
The results also suggest that certain brand associations may be more clearly and
easily communicated in this media format, thus identifying a predisposition to types
of brand-association factors sport teams may post on Facebook. These associations
are broadly linked to the concept that fan identification with a particular sport team
may elicit satisfaction by experiencing sport (Funk et al., 2009).
Agenda-building strategies of particular brand associations were identified in
the two different sport organizations. These strategies offer unique opportunities
to actively mediate and manage a favorable public perception (Clavio & Miloch,
2009). Specifically, the NCAA pages leveraged commitment and organization
attributes more frequently than other categories. These specific themes are relevant
to furthering the overall brand image of student-athletes and organizational mission
of the NCAA brand.
438 Wallace, Wilson, and Miloch
The Big 12 Facebook pages used brand-mark and stadium categories as their
next largest brand-association factors. These types of brand associations are unique
to the college athletic department’s brand and future revenue opportunities. The
stadium is particularly important in fostering the perception of attending the game
and exclusivity to brand.
RQ2c: Marketing Promotions and Information
Time-relevant general information represents most of the content examined for both
groups. Hambrick et al. (2010) and Schultz and Sheffer (2010) reported similar
findings in that most content posted was informational and focused on relationship building rather than short-term marketing activation. In addition, Kassing and
Sanderson (2010) indicated that event-specific information was reported to cultivate
and increase interactivity with fans using social media. Major marketing-activation
techniques are not frequently being used, which suggests a cultivation of long-term
relationship management by both organizations.
RQ3: Facebook User Interaction
The number of Facebook users per group reveals a general difference in audience
for the two groups. The Big 12 pages had a generally higher number of Facebook
users per page than the NCAA pages. These findings suggest that the audiences
for these two groups may be characteristically different. However, the management
techniques reveal that even though these two groups have different sizes of audiences to entertain, their management techniques are relatively similar. The use of
the communication tools and type of coverage in brand-related attributes signifies
that the use of Facebook tools and strategy to engage Facebook users was similar
regardless of audience size. Muntinga et al. (2011) suggest that engaging online
consumers should be tailored to the specific organizational purpose and consumer
characteristics. Similarly, the MOSC directly associates management behavior with
the outcome of consumer interaction and satisfaction with online brand experience
(Pedersen, Miloch, & Fielding, 2007). Furthermore, the significantly different fan
interaction between the two groups reinforces the idea of managing content and
online consumer interactivity. Clavio and Kian (2010) noted that sports consumers
reported using social media as a tool not only for aspects of fandom and information
seeking but also to directly communicate in an interactive manner. Different uses
and gratifications via Facebook user interaction on Facebook would be appropriate to examine.
Limitations and Future Research
It is important to note the limitations with the design of this content analysis. Facebook pages represent only one media outlet for examination. In addition, the data
were collected from this past year; it would be of benefit to examine trends over an
extended period of time to determine whether management techniques continue or
change over time. Facebook user-interaction levels provide a way to describe the
current interaction but are not controlled for any type of covariate (i.e., time of day).
Facebook user-interaction values would be important for determining whether fan
Facebook and College Athletics 439
interaction is increasing or decreasing as the popularity of social media continues
to rise. In addition, a qualitative analysis of actual Facebook user comments may
provide more specific information about consumer behavior. Future research should
include a qualitative analysis of content posted to Facebook pages and Facebook
users’ comments on it.
Conclusion
The findings from this study revealed multiple approaches to evaluating communication, branding, and marketing-management techniques through social media.
Facebook users experience the content posted on sports-team pages in real time.
As this experience may influence satisfaction, sport marketers can use this communication tool to manage brand perception and expectation and thus influence
satisfaction with brand in real time (Bowden, 2009).
The frequency of posting revealed a difference in the techniques these two
organizations used to manage their content coverage. The NCAA pages were
primarily used for event-specific coverage around the play-off season and NCAA
tournaments, which is also the time period when TV coverage is specific to the
NCAA (i.e., Final Four Basketball, Women’s Softball World Series). During this
time, Facebook coverage was specifically related to aspects of the product-related
components of college athletics. However, the Big 12 pages displayed active communication and brand-management behavior throughout the different seasons. The
management technique of frequent content updates throughout the seasons signifies
the consistent use of this media source throughout the school year. These results
indicate that content was uploaded according to events and time frames that were
relevant to the specific Facebook audiences.
Although these two groups have different organizational purposes, their similar
management techniques of communication tools, marketing strategies, and brand
attributes have valuable practical implications. First, Facebook pages were generally used to cultivate long-term relationships with Facebook users, and content was
focused on experiencing the brand through real-time online interaction. Second,
the similar techniques indicate that Facebook tools and functions may determine
the types of content illustrated in this format.
The practical applications of the findings illustrate the impact social-media
content can potentially have on sport consumer behavior and their potential to
manage brand presence and identity through Facebook. Essentially, the findings
suggest that the management of communication techniques and the content posted
to these sites can potentially increase brand exposure and, as a result, facilitate
two-way interaction.
References
Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New
York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. (2004). Brand portfolio strategy. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. (2007). Innovation: Brand it or lose it. California Management Review, 50, 8–24.
Aaker, D. (2010). Marketing challenges in the next decade. Journal of Brand Management,
17, 315–316.
440 Wallace, Wilson, and Miloch
Aaker, D., & Keller, K. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of
Marketing, 54, 27–41.
Baker, J., & Moore, S. (2008). Blogging as a social tool: A psychosocial examination of the
effects of blogging. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11, 747–749.
Banerjee, M., Capozzoli, M., McSweeney, L., & Sinha, D. (1999). Beyond kappa: A review
of interrater agreement measures. The Canadian Journal of Statistics, 27, 3–23.
Bauer, H., Stokburger-Sauer, N., & Exler, S. (2008). Brand image and fan loyalty in professional team sport: A refined model and empirical assessment. Journal of Sport
Management, 22, 205–226.
Bedbury, S. (2002). A new brand world. New York: The Free Press.
Berry, L. (1999). Discovering the soul of service: The nine drivers of sustainable business
success. New York: The Free Press.
Boone, L., Kochunny, C., & Wilkins, D. (1995). Applying the brand equity concept to Major
League Baseball. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 4(3), 33–42.
Bowden, J. (2009). The process of customer engagement: A conceptual framework. Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17, 63–74.
Brody, J., Gregovits, V., Hill, N., McGee, M., McGee, P., O’Neil, S., & Schwartzkopf, K.
(2010). Industry insider: Sport marketing forecast. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19, 4–7.
Bulmer, D., & DiMauro, V. (2010). Executive summary from the society for new communications research study: The new symbiosis of professional networks: Social media’s impact
on business and decision-making. Journal of New Communications Research, 4, 93–100.
Casteleyn, J., Mottart, A., & Rutten, K. (2009). How to use Facebook in your market research.
International Journal of Market Research, 51, 439–447.
Clavio, G., & Kian, T. (2010). Uses and gratifications of a retired female athlete’s Twitter
followers. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3, 485–500.
Clavio, G., Kraft, P., & Pedersen, P. (2009). Communicating with consumers through video
games: An analysis of brand development within the video gaming segment of the
sports industry. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 10, 143–156.
Clavio, G., & Miloch, K. (2009). Agenda-setting in minor league hockey: A strategic
justification and practical guide. International Journal of Sport Management and
Marketing, 5, 151–160.
Cooper, C. (2009). BCS Conference coverage: An investigation of the gender coverage
provided on intercollegiate athletic websites within a major NCAA power conference.
Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 18, 18–27.
Cooper, C., Eagleman, A., & Laucella, P. (2009). NCAA March Madness: An investigation
of gender coverage in USA Today during the NCAA basketball tournaments. Journal
of Intercollegiate Sport, 2, 299–311.
Cooper, C., & Pierce, D. (2011). The role of divisional affiliation in athletic department Web
site coverage. International Journal of Sport Communication, 4, 70–81.
Coyle, P. (2010). Teams active in social media build strategic advantage. Street & Smith’s
SportsBusiness Journal, 12, 18.
Dittmore, S., Stoldt, G., & Greenwell, T. (2008). Use of an organizational Weblog in relationship building: The case of a Major League Baseball team. International Journal
of Sport Communication, 1, 384–397.
Donavan, D., Carlson, B., & Zimmerman, M. (2005). The influence of personality traits on
sports fan identification. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14, 31–42.
Dosh, K. (2011). Who’s making money in Big12 football? Retrieved from http://blogs.forbes.
com/sportsmoney/2011/03/20/whos-making-money-in-big-12-football
Durrett, R. (2009, July 5). Athletes, teams, fans embrace social networking. The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved from http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/
stories/070509dnsposocialmedia.3605d1b.html
Facebook.com. (2011). Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/press/info.
php?statistics
Facebook and College Athletics 441
Facebook Pages Product Guide. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/
advertising/?pages
Fink, J., Parker, H., Brett, M., & Higgins, J. (2009). Off-field behavior of athletes and team
identification: Using social identity theory and balance theory to explain fan reactions.
Journal of Sport Management, 23, 142–155.
Fortunato, J. (2008). NFL agenda-setting. The NFL programming schedule: A study of
agenda-setting. Journal of Sports Media, 3, 27–49.
Foster, W., & Hyatt, C. (2008). Inventing team tradition: A conceptual model for the strategic development of fan nations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 8, 265–287.
Frederick, H., & Patil, S. (2010). The dynamics of brand quality, co-branding and sponsorship in professional sports. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing,
7, 44–57.
Frey, L., Botan, C., & Kreps, G. (2000). Investigating communication: An introduction to
research methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Friedmann, R. (1986). Psychological meaning of products: Identification and marketing
applications. Psychology and Marketing, 3, 1–15.
Funk, D., Filo, K., Beaton, A., & Pritchard, M. (2009). Measuring the motives of sport event
attendance: Bridging the academic-practitioner divide to understanding behavior. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 18, 126–138.
Funk, D., & James, J. (2006). Consumer loyalty: The meaning of attachment in the development of sport team allegiance. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 189–217.
Gladden, J., & Funk, D. (2001). Understanding brand loyalty in professional sport: Examining the link between brand associations and brand loyalty. International Journal of
Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 3, 67–86.
Gladden, J., & Funk, D. (2002). Developing an understanding of brand associations in team
sport: Empirical evidence from consumers of professional sport. Journal of Sport
Management, 16, 54–81.
Gladden, J., Irwin, R., & Sutton, W. (2001). Managing North American major professional
sport teams in the new millennium: A focus on building brand equity. Journal of Sport
Management, 15, 297–317.
Gladden, J., & Milne, G. (1999). Examining the importance of brand equity in professional
sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 8(1), 21–30.
Gladden, J., Milne, G., & Sutton, W. (1998). A conceptual framework for evaluating brand
equity in Division I college athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 12, 1–19.
Godin, S. (2002). Purple cow: Transform your business by being remarkable. New York:
Penguin Group.
Hambrick, M., Simmons, J., Greenhalgh, G., & Greenwell, C. (2010). Understanding professional athletes’ use of Twitter: A content analysis of athlete tweets. International
Journal of Sport Communication, 3, 454–471.
Hardin, R., & McClung, S. (2002). Collegiate sports information: A profile of the profession.
Public Relations Quarterly, 47, 35–39.
Hollenbaugh, E. (2011). Motives for maintaining personal journal blogs. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 13–20 .
Ioakimidis, M. (2007). Playing the Web game well: Five ways to win. Marketing Bulletin,
18, 1–10.
Ioakimidis, M. (2010). Online marketing of professional sport clubs: Engaging fans on a new
playing field. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 12, 271–282.
Kassing, J., & Sanderson, J. (2010). Fan–athlete interaction and Twitter tweeting through
the Giro: A case study. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3, 113–128.
Kaynak, E., Salmon, G., & Tatoglu, E. (2008). An integrative framework lining brand associations and brand loyalty in professional sports. Brand Management, 15, 336–357.
Keller, K. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand
equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
442 Wallace, Wilson, and Miloch
Keller, K. (1999). Brand mantras: Rationale, criteria and examples. Journal of Marketing
Management, 15, 43–51.
Keller, K. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimension of brand knowledge. The Journal
of Consumer Research, 29, 595–600.
Keller, K. (2009). Managing the growth tradeoff: Challenges and opportunities in luxury
branding. Brand Management, 16, 290–301.
Kim, Y., & Ross, S. (2006). An exploration of motives in sport video gaming. International
Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 8, 34–46.
Klemko, R. (2011). “Madden 12” cover vote is clicking for EA Sports. USA Today. Retrieved
from http://www.usatoday.com/SPORTS/usaedition/2011-04-21-socialmedia21_st_U.htm
Kozinets, R., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A., & Wilner, S. (2010). Networked narratives: Understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. Journal of Marketing, 74, 71–89.
Kujath, C. (2011). Facebook and MySpace: Complement or substitute for face-to-face
interaction? Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14, 75–78.
Kuo, T., Chang, C., & Chen, K. (2004). Evolution of scholars’ approach to studying consumer
loyalty in recreation sport and fitness businesses. The Sport Journal, 7. Retrieved from
http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/exploration-consumer-loyalty-recreationalsportfitness-programs
Kwak, D., Kim, Y., & Zimmerman, M. (2010). User- versus mainstream-media-generated
content: Media source, message valence, and team identification and sport consumers’
response. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3, 402–421.
Lindolf, T., & Taylor, B. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Madrigal, R. (1995). Cognitive and affective determinants of fan satisfaction. Journal of
Leisure Research, 27, 205–227.
Maxwell, H. (2009). Women‘s and men‘s intercollegiate basketball media coverage on
ESPN.com: A mixed methods analysis of a complete season (doctoral dissertation).
University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://purl.umn.edu/55575
McCombs, M. (2005). A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future. Journalism Studies, 6(4), 543–557.
McDaniel, S., & Moore, S. (2005). Pre-production relationship marketing: A lesson from
sports marketing. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 4, 73–90.
McGlone, C., & Martin, N. (2006). Nike’s corporate interest lives strong: A case of causerelated marketing and leveraging. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15, 184–189.
Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13, 357–364.
Mickle, T. (2009). USOC gets help with social-media project. Street & Smith’s SportsBusiness Journal, 12, 6.
Miloch, K. (2010). Introduction to branding. In J.W. Lee (Ed.), Branded: Branding in sport
business (pp. 3–9). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Miloch, K., & Pedersen, P. (2006). Sports information directors and the media: An analysis
of a highly symbiotic and professional relationship. Journal of Contemporary Athletics, 2, 91–103.
Morrissey, B. (2007). Social media sites replacing microsites in marketing mix. Brandweek,
48(41), 5.
Muntinga, D., Morreman, M., & Smit, E. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations of brand-related social media use. International Journal of Advertising, 30, 13–46.
Neuendorf, K. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oates, T. (2009). New media and the repackaging of the NFL fandom. Sociology of Sport
Journal, 26, 31–49.
Parent, M., & Seguin, B. (2008). Toward a model of brand creation for international large
scale sporting events: The impact of leadership, context, and nature of the event. Journal
of Sport Management, 22, 526–549.
Facebook and College Athletics 443
Parkhe, A., Wasserman, S., & Ralston, D. (2006). New frontiers in network theory development. Academy of Management Review, 31, 560–568.
Pedersen, P., Laucella, P., Miloch, K., & Fielding, L. (2007). The juxtaposition of sport and
communication: Defining the field of sport communication. International Journal of
Sport Management and Marketing, 2, 193–207.
Pedersen, P., Miloch, K., & Laucella, P. (2007). Strategic sport communication. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Pegoraro, A. (2010). Look who’s talking—Athletes on Twitter: A case study. International
Journal of Sport Communication, 3, 501–514.
Perey, C. (2008). Mobile social networking: The brand at play in the circle of friends with
mobile communities representing a strong opportunity for brands. International Journal
of Mobile Marketing, 3, 75–79.
Phua, J. (2010). Sports fans and media use: Influence on sports fan identification and collective self-esteem. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3, 190–206.
Pritchard, M., & Funk, D. (2010). The formation and effect of attitude importance in professional sport. European Journal of Marketing, 4, 1017–1036.
Rappaport, S. (2010). Listening solutions: A marketer’s guide to software and services.
Journal of Advertising Research, 50, 197–213.
Raynaud, J., & Bolos, G. (2008). Sport at the heart of marketing: The integration debate.
Journal of Sponsorship, 2, 31–35.
Richelieu, A., & Boulaire, C. (2005). A post modern conception of the product and its
applications to professional sports. International Journal of Sports Marketing &
Sponsorship, 7, 23–34.
Richelieu, A., & Desbordes, M. (2009). Football teams going international: The strategic
leverage of branding. Journal of Sponsorship, 3, 10–22.
Richelieu, A., & Pons, F. (2006). Toronto Maple Leafs vs Football Club Barcelona: How
two legendary sports built their brand equity. International Journal of Sports Marketing
& Sponsorship, 7, 231–250.
Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (2005). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content
analysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ross, S. (2006). A conceptual framework for understanding spectator-based brand equity.
Journal of Sport Management, 20, 22–38.
Ross, S. (2007). Segmenting sport fans using brand associations: A cluster analysis. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 16, 15–24.
Ross, S., Bang, H., & Lee, S. (2007). Assessing brand associations for intercollegiate ice
hockey. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16, 106–114.
Ross, S., James, J., & Vargas, P. (2006). Development of a scale to measure team brand
associations in professional sport. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 260–279.
Ross, S., Russell, K., & Bang, H. (2008). An empirical assessment of spectator-based brand
equity. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 322–337.
Sanderson, J. (2009). Professional athletes’ shrinking privacy boundaries: Fans, information and communication technologies, and athlete monitoring. International Journal
of Sport Communication, 2, 240–256.
Santomier, J. (2008). New media, branding and global sports sponsorship. International
Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 10, 15–28.
Schoenstedt, L., & Reau, J. (2010). Running a social-media newsroom: A case study of the Cincinnati Flying Pig Marathon. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3, 377–386.
Schultz, B., Caskey, P., & Esherick, C. (2010). Media relations in sport (3rd ed.). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Schultz, B., & Sheffer, M. (2010). An exploratory study of how Twitter is affecting sports
journalism. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3, 226–239.
Seo, W., & Green, B. (2008). Development of the Motivation Scale for Sport Online Consumption. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 82–109.
444 Wallace, Wilson, and Miloch
Sheiferheld, S. (2010). Smart brands focus on fan engagement. Street & Smith’s Sport
Business Journal, 12, 19.
Shocker, A., Srivastava, R., & Ruckert, R. (1994). Challenges and opportunities facing
brand management: An introduction to the special issue. JMR, Journal of Marketing
Research, 31, 149–158.
Stonehouse, G., & Minocha, S. (2008). Strategic process at Nike: Making and doing knowledge management. Knowledge and Process Management, 15, 24–31.
Talamo, A., & Ligorio, B. (2001). Strategic identities in cyberspace. Cyberpsychology &
Behavior, 4, 109–122.
Walsh, P., Kim, Y., & Ross, S. (2008). Brand recall and recognition: A comparison of
television and sport video games as presentation modes. Sport Marketing Quarterly,
17, 201–208.
Wann, D., Grieve, F., Zapalac, R., & Pease, D. (2008). Motivational profiles of sport fans
of different sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17, 6–19.
Wenner, L.A. (Ed.). (1998). Mediasport: Cultural sensibilities and sport in the media age.
London: Routledge.
Williams, J., & Chinn, S. (2010). Meeting relationship-marketing goals through social
media: A conceptual model for sport marketers. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3, 422–437.
Wilson, K., Fornasier, S., & White, K. (2010). Psychological predictors of young adults’
use of social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
13, 173–177.
Wright, E., Khanfar, N., Harrington, C., & Kizer, L. (2010). The lasting effects of social
media trends on advertising. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 8, 73–80.
Zaharopoulos, T. (2007). The news framing of the 2004 Olympic games. Mass Communication & Society, 10, 235–249.
Zhang, J., Sung, Y., & Lee, W. (2010). To play or not to play: An exploratory content analysis of branded entertainment in Facebook. American Journal of Business, 25, 53–64.
Zimmerman, M. (2010). Interview with David S. Kraft, senior director of news operations,
ESPN digital media. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3, 163–166.