Collegiate Sports Fans Perceptions and Expectations of Personal Seat License Programs

Southern Business Review Southern Business Review

Volume 37 Issue 2 Article 3

June 2012

Collegiate Sports Fans Perceptions and Expectations of Personal Collegiate Sports Fans Perceptions and Expectations of Personal

Seat License Programs Seat License Programs

Steve Chen

Morehead State University

, [email protected]

Kenneth Henderson

Morehead State University

, [email protected]

Evan Worrell

Morehead State University

William Salazar

Morehead State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/sbr

Part of the Business Commons, and the Education Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Chen, Steve; Henderson, Kenneth; Worrell, Evan; and Salazar, William (2012) "Collegiate Sports Fans

Perceptions and Expectations of Personal Seat License Programs,"

Southern Business Review

: Vol. 37:

Iss. 2, Article 3.

Available at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/sbr/vol37/iss2/3

This article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Georgia Southern Commons. It has been

accepted for inclusion in Southern Business Review by an authorized administrator of Georgia Southern Commons.

For more information, please contact [email protected].

Steve Chen, DSM, is

associate professor of

management and

marketing, School of

Business Administration,

Morehead State University,

Morehead, KY 40351.

Kenneth Henderson, PhD, is

associate professor of

management and

marketing, School of

Business Administration,

Morehead State University,

Morehead, KY 40351.

Evan Worrell, BA, is recent

graduate of management

and marketing, School of

Business Administration,

Morehead State University,

Morehead, KY 40351.

William Salazar, MA, is grant

coordinator of the

Kentucky AHED program,

Morehead State University,

Morehead, KY 40351.

Collegiate Sports Fans

Perceptions and Expectations of

Personal Seat License Programs

Steve Chen, Kenneth Henderson, Evan Worrell, and William Salazar

Collegiate athletic

departments are challenged to

boost revenues produced by

their sport programs. One

innovative revenue-generating

method for professional and

college sports was created by

legendary Stanford Tennis

Coach, Dick Gould in 1986

(Dickey, 2000; Stanford

University Athletics, 2011).

The personal seat license (PSL)

is a special, higher priced

season ticket that gives the

ticket holder the right to own,

resell, or transfer the right to

their seat (Barbieri, 2000a;

Barlow, 2009a; McCarthy,

2009; Barker 2009). This

recent phenomenon in

professional sports requires

the PSL holders to pay an

extra fee to secure a

guaranteed seat in addition to

regular ticket prices (Fort,

2005). Today, the sale of PSL

programs is commonly

practiced in professional and

major college sports. This

ticket selling strategy has

gained much recognition

because it is a lucrative and

acceptable method for bringing

additional ticket revenue to

the organizations. Starting in

2004, several Top-25

collegiate football programs

(including Michigan, Iowa,

and Wisconsin) implemented

this pricing strategy. Under

today’s recessive economy,

these powerhouse athletic

programs need to generate

more revenue. PSLs are

becoming a common standard

practice for all collegiate

programs to increase

additional ticket revenue;

however, fans’ feedback and

responses from small and mid-

size collegiate programs

toward this strategy has not

been investigated or discussed,

nor are there any published

studies that address the

consequences (turning the fans

away and associating the

sports franchise with a

negative image of being

“greedy”). Moreover, no

research outlines the

unsuccessful implementation

of PSL system at small colleges

and universities. For this

reason, this study’s primary

goal is to investigate the

perceptions and expectations

held by sport fans of a mid-

sized regional state university

regarding PSLs and whether

Southern Business Review

Summer 2012 1

this practice would affect the

fans’ willingness to attend

sporting events and purchase

seat licenses. Moreover, this

study may be of interest to

sport marketing directors of

small-market venues (National

Collegiate Athletic Association

Division-II affiliated and

National Association of

Intercollegiate Athletics

athletic programs).

Literature Review

Personal Seat License

Programs

PSLs entitle season-ticket

holders to purchase the right

to their own specifically

designated seats in an arena or

stadium for any public event.

Individuals, who choose to

attend the event, pay for

season tickets with an

additional charge to own their

seats (Barker, 2009;

Turkcebilgi, n.d.). Owners

usually obtain the right of the

seat as long as they buy

season tickets (Muret, 1999).

The right of the seat license is

often transferable (Miller,

2008). According to Barker

(2009), some individuals even

buy and resell PSLs as a

means to generate personal

income. The popularity of

PSLs is not confined only to

the sports industry. Barbieri

(2000a & 2000b) notes that

the performance arts and

entertainment businesses also

embrace this ticket selling

trend. As early as the 1980s,

Semenik (1983) had begun to

study the concept of offering

exclusive season ticket

privilege for art events. Since

late 1990s, PSL has become a

widely adopted method in

major professional and college

sports for boosting ticket sales

and a means to secure

revenues upfront for future

sports seasons or construction

projects (Barlow, 2009b;

Levmore, 2008).

In the National Football

League (NFL), financial benefit

of PSLs is clearly demon-

strated by the new

construction projects of the

New York Giants and New

York Jets in the Meadowlands.

Twenty percent of the $1.7

billion cost of the stadium

construction for these New

York teams was covered by

PSL sales (Barlow, 2009a).

The Tennessee Titans also sold

85 percent of its available

PSLs (raising $70 million) to

finance the Adelphia Coliseum

(Muret, 1999). The price

range of various NFL PSL

programs may range from

$600 to $4,500 (Hill, 2008;

McCarthy, 2009; Muret,

1999). In the late 2000s, the

price for specially designated

seats and luxury boxes in the

new Cowboys stadium reached

an unprecedented $150,000

(Hill, 2008).

At the collegiate level,

numerous schools in the major

conferences sell PSLs. For

example, Ohio State (for men’s

basketball); Xavier, Texas

Tech, Tennessee, Oklahoma,

UNC–Charlotte, and Kansas

(for men’s football) offer their

fans PSLs (CBS Sports, 2009;

Muret, 2010; Ohio State

University, 2010; Rovell,

2006; Scher Zagier, 2010;

Schwartz, 2008).

Furthermore, some athletic

departments have tweaked the

concept of PSLs to create an

endowment seating program

(ESP) in which donors who

give a substantial amount to

the school secure season ticket

privileges. The “donors” of the

ESP can pay for the seat up

front for up to 30 years and

receive a huge tax write-off for

their “charitable contribution”

(Barlow, 2009b). It is noted

that, since 2004, more Top-

25 college football programs

have started to introduce this

type of two-part pricing

practice (Fort, 2005).

Potential Drawbacks of PSLs

Despite the popularity and

documented benefits of PSLs,

these programs often create

high levels of uncertainty and

apprehension. Noll (2010)

suggests two sources of

concern. Team marketing

managers are concerned about

how to handle events that do

not sell out; and how to avoid

turning-off the potential loss

of regular fans due to the

increased ticket prices. As a

result of these concerns and

possible fan backlash, both the

Detroit Lions and Oakland

Raiders football franchises

chose to forego PSL sales for

funding their new stadiums

(Muret, 1999).

Some loyal fans reject the

idea of a PSL system because

the fees are often excessively

high and purchase prohibitive

(often exceeding $1,000 for

professional teams). Fans who

feel cheated or taken

advantage of may express their

displeasure by turning away

2 Summer 2012

Southern Business Review

from teams. Fans find it hard

to justify paying extra fees for

what they had routinely

received at a low price

(Belson, 2009; Hill, 2008). At

the university level, PSL and

lottery systems can also upset

student fans who believe the

best available seats are

reserved for wealthy ticket

holders (Crizer, 2008). Both

of these practices further

alienate mid- or low-level

income fans because PSL

programs are perceived as a

strategy to entice corporate

groups and wealthy

individuals. For that reason, a

New Jersey legislator proposed

a legislative ban of PSLs in all

New Jersey Sports Facilities

(Solomon, 2008).

The practice of selling

PSLs does not guarantee

profits (Florio, 2008; Hill,

2008; Solomon, 2008).

Although the high cost of

construction projects has

pushed many professional

teams to sell PSLs, this

practice consists of both great

revenue potential and

economic uncertainty. The

exorbitant price of a seat

license can turn off the most

ardent fan and curtail public

demand for season or PSLs. In

2010, a week prior to the

season opener, both the NY

Jets and NY Giants failed to

sell out their PSL tickets (Noll,

2010). When sport teams do

not sell out their stadiums,

their marketers will face the

challenge of re-pricing and

reselling empty seats. An

important factor to consider is

that owning a PSL does not

mean that the holder has the

right to buy “all tickets” to all

events or occupy the “seat”

(Solomon, 2008). In some

cases, season ticket holders

are forced to forfeit their

tickets if they do not pay extra

fees to secure their seats for

specific sporting events (The

Wisconsin State Journal,

2000).

Possible Factors Affecting the

Purchase of PSL

According to the definition

of PSLs offered by Barbieri

(2000a) and Fort 92005), it

is logical to view PSLs as a

special form of season ticket.

Consequently, the factors

affecting fans’ consumption

behaviors toward traditional

season ticket holders could be

similar to the ones toward the

PSL program. This assumption

has led the researchers to

consider one of the two main

hypotheses of this study. For

example, past studies have

identified several key elements

that affect the consumption of

collegiate sports. The

researchers’ findings were

based upon psycho-social

motivation and social identify

theory to conclude the popular

influential factors. Factors

associated with the psycho-

social motivation theory

affecting fans’ ticket

purchasing behaviors may

include

(1) Team performance: this

notion is associated with

winning and excitement

from watching play action

(Baade & Tiehen, 1990;

DeSchriver & Jenson,

2002; Mahony, Gladden,

& Funk, 2003; Neale &

Funk, 2006);

(2) The current economy and

consumers’ financial

status (Beccarini &

Ferrand, 2006; Pan &

Gavert, 1997; Zapalac,

Zhang, Pease, 2010);

(3) Perceived service quality

and incentives (Chen,

Salazar, & Fitzgerald,

2009; Chen & Mak,

2010; Zhang,

Connaughton, & Vaughn,

2004);

(4) Social interactions and

entertainment (Chen et al.,

2009; Neale & Funk,

2006);

(5) Star athletes: fans’ interest

toward the players (Dick &

Sack, 2003; Neale &

Funk, 2006);

(6) Escape (Gastafson, 2005);

and

(7) Gender differences (Pan &

Gabert, 1997; Zapalac,

Zhang, & Pease, 2010).

The researchers are

interested in investigating why

fans are willing to pay more

for a ticket to attend a game

when, in fact, they can attend

a sporting event by spending

less. The concept of “team

identification” associated with

social identification theory

may be able to provide a few

insights toward that question.

Team identification is an

important consumer behavior

variable. When an individual

Southern Business Review

Summer 2012 3

strongly identifies with a

team, he/she will support the

team by attending more

games, purchasing more team-

related media and products,

and enjoying the total fan-

game experience. Past studies

suggest a strong correlation

between the strength of team-

identification and the

incidence of group-supportive

consumption behaviors,

attendance, and purchase of

license seat products (Fisher &

Wakefield, 1998; Neale &

Funk 2006). It is possible that

when teams offer PSL pro-

grams, fans with high levels of

team-identification will take

this offer as a chance to

express their team

identification and loyalty

(Green & Bower, 2012). Thus,

the level of fans’ team

identification can be an

indicator of their willingness

to support the PSL program.

While trying to understand

the fans’ perceived value

toward a ticket price, the

PSL must offer some type of

added value or benefit so that

fans are willing to pay more

for that “special seat.” Simply,

if the fans don’t feel the value

of the PSL is worth the price

associated with it, then they

will choose not to buy it

(Green & Bower, 2012). In

the sports business, loyal fans

and repeat customers are

considered as the bread and

butter to sustaining business

profitability. This is well

described by Pareto’s 80-20

Principle, meaning 80 percent

of profits were coming from

20 percent of the consumers

(Reh, 2002). Yoo and Bai

(2007) also conclude that a

small increase in loyal

consumers brings a significant

increase in profitability to a

business. Therefore, loyalty

programs are often introduced

to create additional value and

encourage customers to

consume products more. Based

upon this notion, if sports

organizations can retain or

increase their loyal fans by

offering attractive loyalty

programs, the organizations

should gain additional profits

due to increased attendance.

One of the challenges of

sports marketing managers is

to determine how their athletic

programs can reward their

long-term fans and general

public. It is generally accepted

and perceived by the public

that both PSL and ESP

programs often offer

additional perks to their

holders (Barlow, 2009b).

Florio (2008) suggests teams

can use PSLs as an alternative

way to reward long-term fan

loyalty. For example, in 2009,

Cal State University–Pueblo

Athletes offered combo PSL-

type packages for basketball,

football, and other sports with

discount and free parking

privileges (Cal State

University–Pueblo, 2009).

Loyalty programs for the Los

Angeles Sparks and Milwaukee

Bucks consist of a merchan-

dise discount card, birthday

messages, a game-day upgrade

voucher, fan exclusive access,

a meet and greet event, a

discount in the fan souvenir

shops, pregame talk, and Q&A

sessions with players (Scott,

2006; WOAI.com, 2009). In

order to satisfy season ticket

holders, the New England

Patriots even conduct surveys

with a focus group to better

understand loyal fans’

expectations (Gill, 2001). The

implementation of loyalty

programs has been proven to

create positive experiences by

making consumers feel more

acknowledged and respected

(Dreze & Nunes, 2009). When

the offered incentives and

benefits are valued by the

fans, then they will be willing

to spend more money to

purchase more expensive PSL

packages instead of the

traditional season tickets.

Marketing managers conclude

that owning a PSL program

may boost one’s social status

and self-esteem and, thus, be

more supportive to the team,

as this expresses a level of

wealth. As the saying goes,

membership has its privileges.

Summary

In an attempt to examine

spectators’ expectations and

willingness to purchase PSLs,

the researchers proposed two

specific hypotheses. First, they

assume that factors affecting

consumers’ purchasing

behaviors toward a PSL should

be similar to those toward the

traditional season ticket. This

was based upon the definition

given in past PSL studies that

highlighted a special form of

pricy season ticket. Second,

the psycho-social motivation

constructs and team

identification theory are

viewed as the key reasons to

influence participants’

willingness to support or

4 Summer 2012

Southern Business Review

purchase PSLs. The

researchers also expect the

practice of implementing PSL

may not be over-whelmingly

supported by the spectators.

Although PSL programs often

have added values and

incentives attached to entice

buyers, given the current

economy, the participants may

still not feel the added values

are worth of the potential

increased cost.

Methodology

Participants and Procedure

Two hundred and twenty-

seven spectators (males =

53%; females = 47%)

including parents and relatives

of students, alumni, faculty,

and local fans of a regional

university completed the

survey. Among the

aforementioned four

participatory groups, local

fans, alumni, and students’

parents and relatives made up

about 80 percent of the total

participants. The participants

were predominately Caucasian

Americans (93%). The two

largest age groups were over

50 (31.3%) and under 24

(24.2%). Approximately 62

percent of the participants had

annual incomes of more than

$40,000. About a half of the

participants (51%) had been a

fan of the program for more

than seven years. Nearly 26

percent of the participants

were traditional season ticket

holders. The researchers were

convinced that the majority of

the participants (at least 50%)

of this sample were qualified

to be potential PSL holders

due to two criteria: (a) the

high numbers of individuals

(62%) who had average

annual incomes of more than

$40,000, and (b) the many

individuals who had been

long-term fans or were existing

season ticket holders.

The researchers’ initial

intent was to target 300

respondents. A convenience

sampling approach was

applied on site. Since the

average attendance of a

basketball game was about

3,200, the researchers were

able to randomly select one

hundred participants from

each of the three basketball

home games played in late

January of 2011.Respondents

were approached and recruited

by the researchers and their

assistants to complete the

survey during two time slots.

Participants would either fill

out the survey during half-

time or while entering the

main entrance of the arena.

Participation was strictly

voluntary. It took an average

of less than 10 minutes to

complete a survey. Overall, a

fairly high return rate was

achieved (n = 227; 75.7%).

Instrumentation

The 46-item survey

questionnaire sought

participant responses to their

general perception of PSL

programs (n = 13); their

expectations for owning a PSL

(n = 16); their willingness to

attend athletic events (n = 2);

their willingness to purchase a

PSL (n = 2); their level of

team identification (n = 6);

demographic information (n =

6); and an open ended

question for additional

feedback. Other than the

demographic questions, the

rest of the items were

displayed in a 5-point Likert

Scale format with 1 indicating

“strongly disagree” and 5

indicating “strongly agree.”

Partici-pants were asked to

rate 39 listed Likert-scale

items concerning their

willingness to purchase season

tickets, their level of team

identification, and their

perception toward the benefits

and drawbacks for owning a

PSL. All of the rating items

were adopted from past

studies (Chen et al, 2009;

Fisher & Wakefield, 1998;

Gastafson, 2010; Pan &

Gabert, 1997; Zhang et al.,

2004; Zapalac, et al., 2010).

Two college marketing faculty

members, the athletic director,

and assistant athletic director

of a regional university served

as content experts and

reviewed the questionnaire for

face validity. The results of a

pilot study validated the

reliability of the instrument

(Cronbach’s Alpha value

greater than .700 for each

construct). The same

procedure for reliability tests

was performed again for the

full sample as well. Tables 1–3

display the Cronbach’s Alpha

values.

Results

Factor Analyses

The factor analysis

identified five primary

Southern Business Review

Summer 2012 5

constructs that covered all of

the 5-point Likert scale items

(n = 39). These five

constructs were (1) general

perception on PSL; (2)

expectations for owning a PSL;

(3) level of team identification;

(4) willingness to attend

games; and (5) willingness to

support a PSL program. The

result of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

(KMO) measures and Bartlett’s

test of sphericity were

recorded. The KMO measures

of all five constructs were

greater than .835, which

indicated solid factor models

were obtained. Overall,

participants’ willingness to

support the implementation of

a PSL program is at the

moderate level (M = 3.56),

along with their willingness in

purchasing a PSL (M = 3.21).

Both of the aforementioned

statements reflected a

moderate level of support

toward the PSL program (M =

3.37). Their willingness to

attend sport events appears to

be slightly higher (M = 3.83).

Factor analyses yielded a

two-factor construct regarding

participants’ general

perceptions toward the PSL.

The first sub-factor was

identified as “tangible/

intangible benefits” (M =

3.69, SD = .96). The second

sub-factor was “perceptions

associated with the PSL” (M =

2.82, SD = 1.06). The

researchers labeled these

constructs based upon the way

items loaded on the two

constructs. Table 1 lists the

description of the construct

items.

Three major sub-factors

categorized the participants’

expectations toward the

ownership of the PSL: (1)

facility and ticket service (M =

4.00, SD = .90); (2) value of

entertainment and social

interaction (M = 3.75, SD =

.93); and (3) food and gifts (M

= 3.26, SD = 1.17) (see

Table 2).

The construct of “team

identification” included six

items. Overall, the

participants’ average rating

level to team identification

was 3.58 (SD = 1.10). This

figure is also slightly greater

than the willingness to

purchase a PSL. Table 3

illustrates the detailed

description of each item in the

team identification construct.

Regression Analysis

The results of the stepwise

regression analyses are listed

in Tables 4 and 5. Two

acceptable models were

identified for predicting the

participants’ overall wiliness

to purchase PSLs. Model Two

of Table 4 showed that

participants’ willingness to

purchase the PSL is best

predicted by two sub-factors

“tangible and intangible

benefits” and “team

identification,” which exhibit

two of the highest coefficients

(.428 and .345 respectively).

Table 5 illustrates two

acceptable models for

predicting the participants’

willingness to attend the game

among all other social variable

constructs. The result showed

the best predictors for the

willingness to attend athletic

events were “team

identification” (coefficient =

.575) and “facility and ticket

services” (coefficient = .238).

Analysis of Variances

Significant differences on

certain aspects of expecta-

tions, perceptions, and team

identification were found

based upon demographic

characteristics, such as

gender, age, race, income

level, annual spending on

licensed merchandise, and

years of affiliation with the

program, e.g., male

participants tended to have a

significantly greater rating

(2.91 vs.2.48) on “percep-

tions associated with the PSL”

than their female counterparts

(p < .05). Participants who

were 50 or older had a lower

rating than any other age

groups in two constructs,

“perceptions associated with

the PSL” and “Food and gifts”

(p < .01). Caucasian

Americans had a significant

lower rating on “facility and

ticket services” and “food and

gifts” than non-Caucasian

American (p < .05). Parti-

cipants with an annual income

of $20,000-39,000 had the

lowest rating in “perceptions

associated with the PSL” and

“food and gifts” (p < .05).

Participants with a low

spending amount on licensing

merchandise also had a low

team identification (p < .01)

and a low willingness to

purchase the PSL (p < .01).

Interestingly, willingness to

purchase PSLs was the lowest

6 Summer 2012

Southern Business Review

Table 1

General Perception on PSL

(Cronbach’s Alpha= .838; loading = 57.5%)

Factor and Item Score (M & SD)

Tangible/Intangible Benefits for the Holders (9 items)

*increasing revenues, receiving discount, creating a sense of importance,

demonstrating passion, receiving complimentary items, & building social

affiliation

3.69 (0.96)

Perceptions Associated with the PSL (4 items)

*receiving preferential treatment, discouraging other attendees, & taking

better seats

2.82 (1.06)

Table 2

Participants Expectations for Owning a PSL

(Cronbach’s Alpha: .900; Loading = 62%)

Sub Factor Score (M & SD)

Facility and ticket service (6 items)

*Parking, condition of the facility, reserve tickets, & comfortable seats

4.00 (.90)

Value on entertainment & social interaction (5 items)

*Seating with friends, good matches and dances

3.75 (.93)

Food and Gifts (3 items)

*Souvenirs offered, free food and drink included, hospitality in President’s clubhouse

3.26 (1.17)

Table 3

Participants’ Team Identification

(Cronbach’s Alpha: .900; Loading = 62%)

Items Score (M & SD)

I take criticism toward my team as a personal insult 3.51 (1.29)

I care about what others think of my team 3.79 (1.23)

Team’s success is my success 3.42 (1.30)

I feel honored when someone praises my team 3.53 (1.34)

I feel upset when someone criticizes my team 3.73 (1.28)

I use the term “we” instead of “they” 3.71 (1.29)

Southern Business Review

Summer 2012 7

Table 4

Regression Analysis of the Overall Willingness to purchase PSLs

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) -.629 .325 1.935 .055

Tangible and intangible benefits -.743 .085 .542 8.707 .000

2 (Constant) -.215 .335 -.639 .523

Tangible and intangible benefits -.587 .084 .428 7.019 .000

Team identification -.402 .071 .345 5.648 .000

Table 5

Regression Analysis of the Willingness to Attend Athletic Events

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardize

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 1.335 .216 06.194 .000

Team identification 0.714 .058 .671 12.305 .000

2 (Constant) 0.422 .301 01.399 .164

Team identification 0.612 .061 .575 10.061 .000

Facility and ticket services 0.316 .076 .238 04.162 .000

for those who had been a loyal

fan for more than 10 years

(p < .01). In general, those

who were willing to purchase

a PSL had a significantly

higher rating on “team

identification” and

“willingness to attend the

games” (p < .01).

Discussions and

Conclusions

The results of this study

suggest that fans of a mid-

sized regional institution do

not enthusiastically favor the

implementation of a PSL

program. Participants

indicated a moderate level of

interest in supporting a PSL

program (M = 3.37). Nearly

31 percent of the participants

opposed or were neutral

regarding the implementation

of a PSL program while less

than one half (about 45%) of

the participants would pay

extra to upgrade their current

season tickets to a personal

seat license. Interestingly,

people who had attended

events for seven years or more

represented the majority of the

votes cast against the PSL

program. In other words,

people who considered

themselves affiliated with the

athletic program for many

years and spent little on

licensed merchandise clearly

exhibited a low level of

willingness to purchase PSLs.

Their ratings and open-ended

comments tended to discour-

age the idea of implementing

the PSL program and support

Hypothesis 1 (not fervently

supporting the implementation

of PSLs program).

It is not surprising to note

from the survey results that

long term fans chose not to

support the PSL program. The

researchers have several

8 Summer 2012

Southern Business Review

possible explanations

regarding this phenomenon. It

is possible that fans who

identify with a sports program

do not exhibit a high level of

team identification. This type

of “fair weather” fan is

contented with the existing

single-ticket price, as the

single ticket price has always

been affordable, and this type

of fan does not see any reason

to invest more money for the

“same” product. Another

possible explanation is, if fans

do not see the benefits of a

PSL, most likely they will not

be willing to pay the extra cost

(Rovell, 2006).

The literature and this

research support the finding

that the concept of PSLs is

relatively new to small- and

mid-size collegiate athletic

programs, and athletic depart-

ments do not know how to

develop marketing plans to

provide viable and attractive

benefits for potential PSL

participants and are hesitant

to incorporate PSL proposals

to supplement their current

sports marketing strategy.

Nevertheless, sports marketing

directors and athletic admini-

strators are encouraged to

continue to research the

feasibility of incorporating

PSLs as a way to offer their

loyal fan base an attractive

supplement to traditional

season ticket licenses. Long

time ticket holding fans

possess the financial ability to

pay premiere ticket prices and

comprise the largest and most

consistent fan group of the

institution.

Based upon the results

listed in Table 1, the

participants did not have a

high rating on some of the

perceived items associated

with the PSL (M < 3.00). This

means that they would not act

like “rich snobs,” expect

differential treatment, or

discourage other attendees

from “taking” the better seats.

This finding may indicate that

alienating student fans and

discriminating against low-

income spectators are a largely

exaggerated concern by

regional and small athletic

programs. Another interesting

finding is that the partici-

pants’ perception toward the

“dibs” and special privileges.

They did not perceive getting

free souvenirs, food and drink,

and access to the clubhouse

that may come along with

owning a seat license would

make them special elites.

Furthermore, the surveyed

participants stated that they

do not expect those

preferential treatments either.

According to Barlow (2009),

the endowment seating

programs at other colleges and

universities tend to emphasize

those “perks” as selling

points. It seems those selling

points may not be important

attractions to this surveyed

group.

This study revealed that

participants under 24 years

old comprised 21 percent of

the respondents. Although this

group of participants presently

may not have the financial

wealth to purchase PSLs, they

are the most promising

potential future PSL holders.

This age group reported a

fairly strong willingness to

support PSL programs and a

desire to purchase PSLs since

their willingness ranked the

second highest among all of

the age groups (M = 3.63 and

3.32, respectively). The

university’s best strategy

should be trying to capture

and cultivate this young

group’ awareness and interest

towards PSLs. As soon as

these young spectators

establish their professional

careers, they will be the best

clients for small- and mid-

sized college sports financial

futures.

This research project

supports previous research

findings that spectators with a

stronger level of team

identification are willing to

attend more games (Fisher &

Wakefield, 1998; Neale &

Funk, 2006). The current

season ticket holders (who are

older and have more

discretionary income) in this

study sample confirmed this

finding. The participants’

willingness to support and

purchase PSLs are best

predicted by their rating in

“tangible and intangible

benefits” and “team

identification” as shown by

the regression analysis. This

means fans who exhibit a

greater level of team

identification and attribute

more value to discount, social

affiliation, incentives, and

social prestige are more likely

to support or own a season

ticket license. These two items

Southern Business Review

Summer 2012 9

are strong indicators that

affect fans’ traditional season

ticket purchasing behavior

(Fisher & Wakefield, 1998;

Chen et al, 2009; Chen &

Mak, 2010; Neale & Funk,

2006). Overall, the findings of

this study suggested that the

determining factors for a

willingness to purchase season

ticket licenses and PSL

packages are similar. Thus,

viewing the PSL as a special

program to the traditional

season ticket is a logical and

worthwhile sports marketing

strategy. Moreover, this

confirms the second

hypothesis of this study.

Based upon the these

findings and discussion, the

researchers suggest that small-

and mid-size collegiate athletic

programs and regional

university athletic teams

should carefully and

thoroughly investigate their

market size and fan base

before attempting to

implement a PSL program.

Athletic sports venues should

consider the needs of their

loyal fan base, as it is

important to retain the

perennial loyal fan base. At

this point, an overwhelming

support for the PSLs does not

exist; however, the responses

still lean toward positive

behaviors in the future of

implementing a PLS program

(M > 3.00). These researchers

agree that the benefits and

added values of the PSL

program may sway long-term

loyal customers of the

surveyed institution.

From a practical sports

marketing perspective, this

applied research provides a

positive direction toward

implementing a PSL program

at regional universities and

similar regional institutions. It

is tempting to conclude that

the research findings imply

that the PSL system practiced

by the professional leagues,

major athletic programs and

other entertainment venues

should not be blatantly

applied to regional universities

and small market sports teams

without further examination

and consideration. The

limitation of surveying

participants from one regional

university school, however,

prevents the researchers from

making this recommendation

or extending this generaliza-

tion to regional and small- and

mid-sized collegiate athletic

and regional university sports

marketing directors.

The researchers

recommend that future sports

management researchers (and

sports athletic and university

administrators) conduct

applied research surveys to

other small- and mid-sized

collegiate athletic programs to

add to the literature-base to

allow these athletic programs

to make sound sports

marketing economic decisions.

It is the recommendation of

the researchers that the

potential to incorporate PSLs

in small- and mid-sized

collegiate athletic programs is

a viable study endeavor as the

research indicates that there

may be a propensity of and

preference for small school

and mid-sized collegiate

athletic fans toward

participating in a PSL

program. Additional research

in NCAA Division II, Division

III, and NAIA athletic

programs will contribute to

research that will allow sport

directors and administrators to

draw from well-researched

projects in order to make clear

and solid sports marketing

generalizations.

References

Baade, R. A., & Tiehen, L. J.

(1990). An analysis of

Major League Baseball

attendance, 1969-1987.

Journal of Sport and Social

Issues, 14(1), 14-32.

Barbieri, K. (2000a). Sheds

get personal seat

licenses. Amusement

Business, 112(18), 1-2.

Barbieri, K. (2000b). Industry

watches for “unknowns”

of PSLs. Amusement

Business, 112(18), 4.

Barker, J. (2009) Owning a

Ravens seat can pay off big

time. Retrieved September

4, 2010 from

http://articles.baltimoresu

n.com/2009-06-

25/news/0906240127_1

_ravens-psls-seat-licenses.

Barlow, T. (2009a). Sport biz:

Personal seat licenses are a

license to print money.

Retrieved August 31,

2010 from http://www

.dailyfinance.com/story/in

vesting/sports-biz-

personal-seat-licenses-are-

a-license-to-print-

money/1547028/.

10 Summer 2012

Southern Business Review

Barlow, T. (2009b). Beyond

the personal seat license:

The endowment seating

plan. Retrieved September

5, 2010. http://www

.walletpop.com/blog/200

9/10/01/beyond-the-

personal-seat-license-the-

endowment-seating-

program/.

Beccarini, C., & Ferrand, A.

(2006). Factors affecting

soccer club season ticket

holder’s satisfaction: The

influence of club image

and fans’ motives.

European Sport

Management Quarterly,

6(1), 1-22.

Belson, K. (2009). Judge’s

ruling keeps alive lawsuit

over seat licenses. New

York Times, 3.

Cal State University-Pueblo

(2009). 2009-2010

season ticket information.

Retrieved June 7, 2012

from http://www.go

thunderwolves.com/infor

mation/tickets.

CBS Sports (2009). Charlotte

to begin selling permanent

seat licenses. Retrieved

January 30, 2011 from

http://www.cbssports

.com/college football/story

/11309749.

Chen, S., & Mak, J. (2010).

Collegiate basketball

season-ticket holders’

purchasing motivation and

interests. Journal of

Applied Marketing Theory,

1(2), 1-7.

Chen, S., Salazar, W., &

Fitzgerald, L. (2009).

Factors affecting collegiate

sports season-ticket

holders’ satisfaction and

renewal intention.

Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport,

80(Suppl. 1), A-107.

Crizer, Z. (2008). Basketball

ticket lottery irks ardent

Cassell-ites. Retrieved June

4, 2011, from http://

www.collegiatetimes.com/

stories/12165/basketball-

ticket-lottery-irks-ardent-

cassell-ites.

DeSchriver, T. D. & Jensen,

P.E. (2002). Deter-

minants of spectator

attendance at NCAA

Division II football

contests. Journal of Sport

Management, 16(4), 311-

330.

Dick, R., & Sack, A.L. (2003).

NBA marketing director’s

perceptions of effective

marketing techniques: A

longitudinal perspective.

International Sports

Journal, 7(1), 88-99.

Dickey, G. (2000). Gould

serves up new ideas.

Retrieved September 6,

2010 from http://

www.sfgate.com/cgi-

bin/article/article?f=/c/a/

2000/04/07/SP35080.D

TL.

Dreze, X., & Nunes, J. C.

(2009). Feeling superior:

The impact of loyalty

program structure on

consumers’ perceptions of

status. Journal of

Consumer Research,

35(6), 890-905.

Fisher, R. J., & Wakefield, K.

(1998). Factors leading to

group identification: A

field study of winners and

losers. Psychology and

Marketing, 15(1), 23-40.

Florio, M. (2008). Expensive

seats squeezing out NFL

fans? Retrieved September

2, 2010 from

http://nbcsports.msnbc.co

m/id/25417558/ .

Fort, R. D. (2005). Sports

economics (2nd ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Prentice Hall.

Gill, J. (2007). Patriots not in

focus with season ticket

holders. Retrieved March

11, 2011 from http://

boston.sportsthenandnow.

com/2010/07/07/patriot

s-not-in-focus-with-season-

ticket-holders/.

Green B. C., & Bowers, M. T.

(2012). Understanding

sport consumer behavior.

In B.L. Parkhouse , B. A.

Turner, & K. S. Miloch

(Eds.) (2012). Marketing

for sport business success

(p. 55-79). Dubuque, IA:

Kendall Hunt Publishing.

Gustafson, M. W. (2005). The

relative importance of

Southern Business Review

Summer 2012 11

sportscape in football game

attendance at a NCAA

Division-I university.

Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Texas Tech

University. Retrieved

September 15, 2010 from

http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/thes

es/available/etd-

11292005-105311/

unrestricted/Gustafson_mi

ke_diss.pdf.

Hill, J. (2008). Personal seat

licenses, rising ticket prices

spell doom. Retrieved

September 3, 2010 from

http://sports

.espn.go.com/espn/page2/

story?page=hill/080801&

sportCat=nfl.

Levmore, S. (2008). Personal

seat licenses. Retrieved

September 4, 2010 from

http://uchicagolaw.typepa

d.com/faculty/2008/08/

personal-seat-l.html.

Mahony, D. F., Gladden, J.

M., & Funk, D. C. (2003).

Examining athletic donors

at NCAA Division I

institutions. International

Sports Journal, 7(1), 9-27.

McCarthy, M. (2009).

Cowboys and Yankees join

IMG in college sports

marketing venture.

Retrieved September 6,

2010 from http://www

.neweratickets.com/compa

ny/month-in-

review/Cowboys-and-

Yankees-Join-IMG-in-

College-Sports-Marketing-

Venture/.

Miller, M. (2008). The newest

investment vehicle:

“Personal Seat Licenses”?

Retrieved September 4,

2010 from

http://lawprofessors.typep

ad.com/contractsprof_blog

/2008/06/the-newest-

inve.html.

Muret, D. (2010). Texas Tech

tosses PSLs, rolls out new

options for hoops fans.

Street and Smith’s

SportsBusiness Journal,

12(14), 12.

Muret, D. (1999). NFL’s

Detroit Lions choose to

forego sales of PSLs for

new domed stadium.

Amusement Business,

111(49), 10.

National Basketball

Association (2010). 2010-

11 MVP loyalty rewards

program. Retrieved June 3,

2011 from

http://www.nba

.com/bucks/tickets/

sth10_loyalty.html.

Neale, L., & Funk, D. (2006).

Investigating motivation,

attitudinal loyalty and

attendance behavior with

fans of Australian football.

International Journal of

Sport Marketing and

Sponsorship, 7(4), 267-

285.

Noll, R. G. (2010). A few

thoughts about Measure J.

Retrieved September 4,

2010, from http://

articles.sfgate.com/2010-

05-16/opinion/

20900743_1_stadium-

authority-seat-licenses-

ticket-tax.

Ohio State University (2010).

OSU men’s basketball PSL.

Retrieved March 11,

2011 from http://www

.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/Vi

ewArticle.dbml?&DB

_OEM_ID=17300&ATCLI

D=1603714.

Pan, D. W., & Gabert, T. E.

(1997). Factors and

differential demographic

effects on purchases of

season tickets for

intercollegiate football.

Journal of Sport Behavior,

20(4), 447-465.

Reh, F. J. (2002). Pareto’s

principle: The 80-20 rule.

Retrieved March 26,

2012 from http://

management.about.com/cs

/generalmanagement/a/Pa

reto081202.htm.

Rovell, D. (2006). The high

price of supply and

demand. Retrieved January

13, 2011 from

http://sports.espn.go.com

/ncf/news/story?id=2286

027.

Scher Zagier, A. S. (2010).

Colleges offering ‘sports

mortgages’: Programs hope

top-seat pricing scores

revenue. Retrieved April

11, 2011, from http://

articles.boston.com/2010-

03-31/business/

29328136_1_top-seats-

12 Summer 2012

Southern Business Review

season-football-tickets-

fans.

Schwartz, P. J. (2008). The

most valuable college

basketball teams.

Retrieved January 16,

2011 from http://www

.forbes.com/2007/12/27

/college-basketball-

valuations-biz-

sports_cz_js_

0102basketball .html.

Scott, A. (2006). LA Spark’s

fans flock to loyalty

program. Retrieved July 1,

2013 from http://

promomagazine.com/incen

tives/lasparksfans/.

Semenik, R. J. (1983). Season

ticket proneness among art

attenders, Journal of

Cultural Economics, 6(2),

45-55.

Solomon, G. (2008). Personal

Seat Licenses: Jets, Giants

color new stadium green.

Retrieved September 4,

2010, from http://

ctsportslaw.com/2008/08

/19/personal-seat-

licenses-jets-giants-color-

new-stadium-green/.

Stanford University Athletics.

(2010). Dick Gould

profile. Retrieved

September 5, 2010 from

http://www.gostanford.co

m/sports/m-tennis/

mtt/gould_dick00.html.

The Wisconsin State Journal.

(2000). Packers season-

ticket holders forfeit

tickets, if fees are unpaid

they have to cough up

$600 to $1400 per seat

by mid-march. Retrieved

September 5, 2010 from

Turkcebilgi. (n.d.). Personal

seat licenses. Retrieved

September 5, 2010 from

http://english.turkcebil

gi.com/Personal+Seat+

License.

WOAI. (2009). Spurs to

reward season ticket

holders with “exclusive”

access. Retrieved March

21, 2011 from http://

www.woai.com/content/

sports/spurs/story/Spurs-

to-reward-season-ticket-

holders-with/VHU-r2-

atU2Dca5 FXuZDgw.cspx.

Yoo, M., & Bai, B. (2007).

Value creation: The impact

of strategic alliance on

customer loyalty. Journal

of Quality Assurance in

Hospitality & Tourism,

8(2), 45-65.

Zapalac, R. K., Zhang, J. J., &

Pease, D. G. (2010).

Understanding women’s

collegiate volleyball

spectators from the

perspectives of socio-

demographics, market

demand and consumption

level. International Journal

of Sports Marketing &

Sponsorship, 11(4), 320-

343.

Zhang, J. J., Connaughton, D.,

& Vaughn, C. E. (2004).

The role of special pro-

grammes and services for

season ticket holders in

predicting game consump-

tion. International Journal of

Sports Marketing &

Sponsorship, 6 (2), 99-116.

Acknowledgement: The researchers would like to thank the students of Morehead State University,

Sports Marketing 482 and Marketing 600 classes for their support in data collection.

Southern Business Review

Summer 2012 13

CopyrightofSouthernBusinessReviewisthepropertyofGeorgiaSouthernUniversity,

CollegeofBusinessAdministrationanditscontentmaynotbecopiedoremailedtomultiple

sitesorpostedtoalistservwithoutthecopyrightholder'sexpresswrittenpermission.

However,usersmayprint,download,oremailarticlesforindividualuse.