Abstract

Prior research on service quality in the sport industry has focused almost exclusively on the satisfaction of sport spectators. The current study expands this literature by beginning exploration into service quality issues related to sport event participants. Specifically, we examine the effect of participant skill level on the expectations that event participants place on various service quality dimensions applicable to a participatory sport event. Specifically, we propose that relatively lower skilled players will place greater importance on peripheral event service dimensions (those attributes of an event that fall outside the actual competitive play of the sport and do not directly influence the athlete's performance, such as event parties, promotional giveaways to participants, and general ambiance surrounding the event). We also propose that relatively higher skilled players will place greater importance on play-related event service dimensions (those attributes that are directly associated with the competitive play of the sport and can directly influence athlete performance). Tests of these hypotheses are performed through survey data collected from participants at the United States Tennis Association's Southern Sectional Championships. Results indicate that lower skilled players indeed place greater emphasis on peripheral event service dimensions than do higher skilled players. However, lower skilled players did not place less emphasis on play-related event service dimensions than did higher skilled players. The importance of understanding the expectations of participatory sport event consumers is discussed, and directions for future research are provided.

The Importance of Expectations on Participatory Sport Event Satisfaction: An Exploration into the Effect of Athlete Skill Level on Service Expectations

Introduction

The emergence of research related to service quality in the sport industry has only recently gained moderate attention. Given the enormity of the sport industry in the United States, and indeed across the globe, this is somewhat surprising. Moreover, the stream of sport service quality research that has emerged in recent years has been somewhat limited, focusing almost entirely on understanding fan satisfaction at spectator events. For example, Kelley and Turley (2001) find that the importance of nine different service quality factors at a sport spectating event (e.g., concessions, price, fan comfort, facility access) differs across a variety of demographic and fan identification characteristics. As another example, the "sportscape" model has been an important relatively recent contribution to the sport service quality literature, yet it too focuses solely on spectator service encounters (e.g., Hightower, Brady, & Baker 2002). The sportscape (e.g., the physical environment where a spectator event occurs, primarily the arena/stadium) has been shown to influence fans' excitement and satisfaction with the experience (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994), their desire to stay through the event (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995), and their likelihood of repatronizing events at the facility (Wakefield, Blodgett, & Sloan, 1996). This stream of research geared toward a better understanding of service quality related to spectator events is invaluable, yet service quality research geared toward a better understanding of service quality issues related specifically to participatory sport events (i.e., events for which the primary customers are the event participants, such as recreational golf tournaments, tennis tournaments, softball tournaments, etc.) has been largely unstudied and is much needed. It is toward this end that the current study is addressed.

Chang, Chen, and Hsu (2002) provide an overview of service quality literature to be considered in examining sport industry quality issues. One of the models they touch on, and indeed one of the most influential models in the service quality literature is the Gap model of service quality. According to the Gap model, a customer's satisfaction with a service is largely driven by the extent to which his or her perceptions of received service meet or exceed his or her expectations (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Bitner, 1985). Customer expectations, in turn, can be defined as beliefs about service delivery that function as standards or reference points against which performance is judged (Zeithaml & Bitner, 2000). It is critically important, therefore, that in order for participatory sport events to be judged in a favorable light by participants, event managers must pay particular attention to participant expectations during event organization and management.

A key element for event managers in meeting or hopefully exceeding event participant expectations is the careful consideration of the various sources from which such expectations can arise. Zeithaml and Bitner (2000) classify various sources of customer expectations, including enduring service intensifiers, transitory service intensifiers, perceived service alternatives, and explicit and implicit service promises. While we contend that each is relevant to participatory sport event managers (for example, an event participant's satisfaction with an event would logically depend on the number of competing events from which the participant can choose), the current study focuses on enduring service intensifiers and their ability to influence sport event participant's satisfaction with an event. Enduring service intensifiers are defined as stable personal factors that lead to higher service sensitivity (Zeithaml & Bitner, 2000). We propose that one such enduring service intensifier relevant to participatory sport events is athlete skill level. Event managers should consider that the skill level of the athletes participating in their event could potentially influence the athletes' expectations for various event attributes. We posit that event attributes can fall into two distinct categories, play-related attributes and peripheral attributes. We define play-related attributes are those attributes that are directly associated with the competitive play of the sport at an event. Peripheral attributes are those attributes of an event that fall outside the actual competitive play of the sport and do not directly influence the athlete's performance, such as event parties, promotional giveaways to participants, and general ambiance surrounding the event (e.g., play-site attractiveness). We hypothesize a direct, positive relationship between skill level and play-related expectations, such that as the skill level of the athlete rises, so do expectations regarding play-related attributes. In turn, we hypothesize a direct, negative relationship between skill level and peripheral expectations, such that as the skill level of the athlete declines, expectations regarding peripheral event attributes increase.

To illustrate the rationale behind these hypotheses, consider United States Tennis Association (USTA) League Tennis. Players are grouped according to skill level in categories ranging from 2.0 through 5.0, and destination events are often held that hold competitions for players of multiple skill levels. For example, the USTA holds state and regional events in which one site hosts tournaments and the peripheral (e.g., banquets) events surrounding them for players of multiple skill levels; in other words, multiple skill level participants are participants in their own skill level tournament, but are participants at the same overall event. It is proposed that participants with a high skill level (e.g., a 5.0 USTA rating), given their competitive drive and focus related to tennis (necessary in achieving their high skill level), are likely to have relatively high expectations on play-related attributes such as the match schedule, officiating, and court conditions. What we have defined as play-related attributes are conceptually similar to what Gronroos (1983) has defined as "technical quality", or the core service that the buyer receives from the seller. On the other hand, we propose that players with lower skill levels (e.g., a USTA 2.5 rating) are often playing as much for the "experience" and social aspects of the event as they are for the competition, and are therefore likely to have relatively higher expectations on peripheral attributes, such as event apparel offered for sale or as a premium, food, and social "events (e.g., nightly parties/banquets) within the event". These hypotheses are stated formally as follows:

H1: Sporting event participant skill level is positively related to expectations on play-related event service dimensions, such that higher skilled participants will have higher expectations than will lower skilled participants on service attributes related to the competitive play of the event.

H2: Sporting event participant skill level is negatively related to expectations on peripheral event service dimensions, such that higher skilled participants will have lower expectations than will lower skilled participants on service attributes with are part of the event but unrelated to the competitive play of the event.

Method

To test these hypotheses, we collected data from 487 participants at the 2003 USTA Southern Sectional Championships, an event with tennis players ranging in USTA skill rating from 2.5 (novice) to 5.0 (expert). Prior to play, players were asked to rate the importance of multiple items which could affect their overall satisfaction with a multiple-day tennis tournament. The survey items were generated prior to the event by asking ten tennis players (not participating in the event surveyed in this study) to list items which might influence their satisfaction when participating in a tennis tournament. Items receiving more than one mention were included in the final survey used in this study, resulting in 33 items. The items included those which were both play-related and peripheral. The 33 items are provided in Appendix A.

Formally stated, the survey question asked players "When evaluating your satisfaction with a multiple-day tennis event to which you travel, how important is each of the following items?" Players rated each of the 33 items on a seven-point likert-type scale, with one being very unimportant and seven being very important. Importance was used as a proxy measure for expectations, as respondents will logically place more importance on the dimensions for which they have higher expectations. Following the importance ratings, respondents were asked to indicate their USTA skill rating, gender, and age.

Results

Exploratory factor analysis was performed on the 33 items (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = .929, suggesting the data were highly appropriate for factor analysis). Using a varimax rotation and a loading cutoff value of 0.5, four factors were retained (eigenvalues ranging from 11.78 to 1.07) and labeled as follows: Play (court condition, sufficient practice courts available, draw continually updated/readily available, courts conducive to spectating, all matches played on same surface type, well-equipped area for changeover (water, chairs, etc.), extent to which match/draw schedule runs on time, quality of officiating, tournament officials readily available at all sites; a = .84); Souvenirs (quality of souvenir merchandise (t-shirts, hats, etc.), selection of souvenir merchandise, price of souvenir merchandise, attractiveness of awards offered, free souvenirs offered to participants; a = .90); Hotel (proximity of hotel to play sites, directions to tourist attractions/restaurants provided, availability of reasonably priced hotels, availability of high quality, attractive hotels, cleanliness of hotels; a =.85); Tournament Destination (tourist attractiveness of host city, physical attractiveness of play sites, wide selection of restaurants in host city; a = .77); and Concessions (selection of concessions at play sites, price of concessions at play sites; a =.72). Cronbach's alphas for all five factors indicate that the five retained factors demonstrate strong internal consistency. Further, the five retained factors explained the majority (58.43%) of the variance. Factor structure, loadings, percent of explained variance, and eigenvalues are provided in Table 1. The Play dimension represents a service dimension directly related to a participant's competitive play in the event, while the four remaining dimensions of Souvenirs, Hotel, Tournament Destination, and Concessions represent what we have referred to as peripheral service dimensions. Nine items did not load on any of the five factors and were dropped; these items are noted in bold in Appendix A.

In order to analyze differences in importance by participant skill level, a one-way MANOVA with skill level (relatively lower skilled = 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 USTA rating, n = 281; higher skilled = 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 USTA rating, n = 206) as the independent variable and the mean of the summed score of each service dimension factor (Play, Souvenirs, Hotel, Tournament Destination, Concessions) as the multivariate dependent variables was performed. MANOVA revealed a significant between-subjects skill level main effect (Wilks' Lambda = .97; F(5, 481) = 3.35; p<.005). Given multivariate significance, we examined the univariate F-tests on each of the five service dimension factors, which indicated significant differences between skill level on four of the five service dimensions. Results of the univariate tests are provided in Table 2. Note that all tests are one-tailed due to directional hypotheses. These results indicate that lower skilled players placed greater importance on each of the four peripheral event dimensions (Souvenirs, Hotel, Tournament Destination, and Concessions) than did higher skilled players, providing support for H2. As added support for H2, we analyzed one item which did not load highly on any of the four peripheral dimensions, yet represents a peripheral attribute. Specifically, lower skill level players placed greater  importance on the item "quality of event social functions (banquets/parties)" than did higher skill level players (lower skilled M = 4.96, higher skilled M = 4.67; t = 2.12, p = .017). However, there was no difference between lower skilled players and higher skilled players on the play-related dimension. Therefore, H1 was not supported.

Discussion

It is pertinent that managers of participant events pay particular attention to participant expectations and the various factors that might influence such expectations. This study is an initial step toward this end. Thoughtful analysis of participant expectations is especially important for managers of grassroots or local events. According to Graham, Goldblatt and Delpy (1995), special events have continued to increase exponentially both across the country and around the world. City officials and officers of other entities are drawn to the idea of hosting special events not only to create positive publicity, but also for city branding purposes and to create economic impact. Special events are perceived to be economic catalysts for future growth, and the increased number of special events has created competition for consumers' discretionary time and income. These events include not only sport events, but any of the special event types as categorized by the International Events Group (IEG), including 1) sport, 2) festivals, fairs and annual events, 3) cause-related, 4) arts, and 5) entertainment, tours and attractions. Within sport events alone, on any given day or weekend a consumer may choose between any number of events. However, given that most people do not have unlimited discretionary time or income, it is important to understand as much as possible about the expectations of attendees in order to maximize branding and economic opportunities.

The following definitions apply to types of special events:

Mega event - Mega events by way of their size or significance, are those that yield extraordinarily high levels of tourism, media coverage, prestige, or economic impact for the host community or destination. Their volume should exceed one million visits, their capital costs should be at least $500 million and their reputation should be of a "must see" event (Getz, 1997, p.6).

Hallmark event - a recurring event that possesses such significance, in terms of tradition, attractiveness, image, or publicity, that the event provides the host venue, community, or destination with a competitive advantage. Over time, the event and destination become inseparable (Getz, 1997, p.7).

Major events - events that by their scale and media interest, are capable of attracting significant visitor numbers, media coverage and economic benefit (Allen, O'Toole, McDonnell, & Harris, 2002, p. 14)

Given these definitions, there is no doubt that branding opportunities and economic impact are more easily achieved for a mega event such as the Olympics or for hallmark events such as New Orleans' Mardi Gras, Omaha's College World Series or Times Square's New Year's Eve celebration. Events such as these have achieved a level of prestige and have generally garnered significant corporate and municipal sponsorship, and have increased media coverage, specifically from television. However, it is generally much more difficult for managers of local events, and particularly participant events, to garner financial support and media coverage. Furthermore, because these local participatory events have relatively small budgets, lower sponsorship prices, and less media coverage than do events falling in the other categories, it is particularly important that local event managers know and understand the expectations of their patrons in order to be efficient and effective in event production. These events simply do not have the resources to spend on service dimensions that participants consider relatively unimportant.

From a management perspective, participatory event directors should become familiar with the Gap model of service quality, and in particular, realize that participant expectations are a key component in participants' event satisfaction. Our results indicate that participant skill level is one variable which can affect participant expectations, and thus a variable which event directors should consider when planning an event. Clearly, understanding participant expectations will allow an event manager to more effectively establish long-term commitment from participants, direct event production efforts, and inform event budget allocation. Participatory event managers are often of the mindset that offering more amenities makes for a more satisfying event. However, given that few managers have unlimited event budgets, knowing the relative value of various service dimensions such as (but not limited to) those analyzed in this study will help managers better direct expenditures, whether this be increasing spending on important dimensions or decreasing or eliminating spending on relatively unimportant dimensions. For example, if a manager is holding a USTA league tournament and has a large number of high-level athletes (4.5, 5.0), excessive expenditures on banquets and merchandise would not prove as beneficial as spending resources developing an optimal tournament draw and schedule (for example, holding the events at multiple play sites in order to avoid a significant number of matches running behind schedule) or repairing courts and ensuring the presence of qualified officials.

Most event managers must be concerned with corporate and municipal fundraising to supplement the cost of event production. Furthermore, evaluation of sponsorship relationships and accomplishing return on investment is crucial as both corporations and municipalities that fund events are seeking tangible results (Irwin, Asimakopoulos, & Sutton, 1994; Kuzma, Shanklin, & McCally,1993; Meagher, 1992; Schlossberg, 1992; Stotlar, 1996). Understanding the participants' expectations can help event managers to better match which sponsors will be more successful and can, in turn, increase the relationships and longevity of sponsor relationships. For example, if event participants place a relatively strong importance on peripheral event dimensions, event managers can target hospitality organizations as likely sponsors whose association with the event would prove beneficial to both sponsor and event. Additionally, as competition for both municipal and corporate sponsorship dollars increases, a thorough understanding of participant expectations becomes increasingly significant.

In this study, the USTA's Southern sectionals hosted players from beginning skill level to advanced skill level as participants. This study hypothesized that 1) players of higher skill (4.0, 4.5, and 5.0) levels had higher expectations where play-related dimensions were concerned and 2) that players of lower skill levels (2.5, 3.0, and 3.5) had higher expectations where peripheral dimensions were concerned. Although the first hypothesis was not supported, one possible explanation pertains to the championship level of this event. For a team to participate in a sectional event, it would be necessary for the team to finish in the top two in their league standings, and subsequently win both their city and state playoffs. Therefore, even a lower skilled participant or team would have to be highly competitive to achieve this standing, and thus place significant importance on play-related service dimensions. For instance, the Southern sectional tournament in this study was the first event to have senior 2.5 teams. The implication from this issue is that event directors who are managing an event of this stature should consider that all participants will have certain expectations of the play-related or more technical aspects of the event given their efforts expended to earn eligibility to participate. Therefore, future event directors of the USTA's sectional event should pay particular attention to play-related dimensions.

Future Research

Athlete skill level is only one factor that can influence event participant expectations. Future research should be directed toward identifying and analyzing other factors which might influence such expectations. For example, the gender of the participant could be hypothesized to influence their event expectations. It might be hypothesized that relative to male participants, female participants would generally be more concerned with souvenirs/merchandise, the tourism attractiveness of the host city, and hotel/accommodations. This knowledge could help inform decisions such as the type of hotel used and arranging the city attractions that may be most attractive in order to meet the female participants' expectations more thoroughly. In a similar vein, the age of the participant might also play a significant role in influencing their expectations. As enduring service intensifiers such as gender and age are outside the scope of the current study, this avenue proves ripe for further research.

Future research should also use existing marketing theory on service quality to springboard into a deeper understanding of participant expectations. As an example stemming from the current study, consider the zone of tolerance, used by marketing scholars to explain the difference between desired service, which represents what the service customer hopes to receive, and adequate service, which represents the level of service that the customer will accept as adequate or sufficient. According to service literature, zones of tolerance are narrower for more important service dimensions (e.g., Berry, Parasuraman, & Zeithaml, 1993). It could be posited that for play-related attributes, the zone of tolerance will narrow as athlete skill level increases. Conversely, for peripheral attributes, the zone of tolerance will narrow as athlete skill level decreases. The tolerance zones should narrow primarily due to the effect of skill level on adequate expectations. For example, while both a 2.5 and 5.0 tennis player would likely desire similar quality in play-related attributes, the quality that a 5.0 player will accept as adequate , given his or her competitive focus, is likely to be higher than that of a 2.5 player. Conversely, while both a 2.5 and 5.0 tennis player would likely desire similar quality in peripheral attributes, the quality that a 2.5 player will accept as adequate , given his or her focus on the "overall event experience", is likely to be higher than that of a 5.0 player. Future research addressing propositions such as these would prove both theoretically and practically interesting.

References

1. Allen, J., O'Toole, W., McDonnell, I., & Harris, R. (2002). Festival and special event management . Australia: John Wiley & Sons.
2. Berry, Leonard L., Parasuraman, A., & Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1993). Ten lessons for improving service quality (Marketing Science Institute Rep. No. 93-104, May). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
3. Chang, C, Chen, C., & Hsu, C. (2002). A review of service quality in corporate and recreational sport/fitness programs. The Sport Journal , 5(3). Retrieved February 10, 2004 from http://www.thesportjournal.org/2002Journal/Vol5-No3/service-quality.asp.
4. Getz, D. (1997). Event management and event tourism . NY: Cognizant Communication Corporation.
5. Graham, S., Goldblatt, J., & Delpy, L. (1995). The ultimate guide to sport event management and marketing . Chicago: Richard D Irwin.
6. Gronroos, C. (1983). Strategic management and marketing in the service sector . Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
7. Hightower, R., Brady, M., & Baker, T. (2002). Investigating the role of the physical environment in hedonic service consumption: An exploratory study of sporting events. Journal of Business Research , 55(9), 697-707.
8. Irwin, R., Asimakopoulos, M., & Sutton, W. (1994). A model for screening sport sponsorship opportunities. Journal of Promotion Management , 2(314), 53-69.
9. Kelley, S. & Turley, L. (2001). Consumer perceptions of service quality attributes at sporting events. Journal of Business Research , 54(2), 161-166.
10. Kuzma, J., Shanklin, W., & McCally, J. (1993). Number one principle for sporting events seeking corporate sponsors: Meet benefactor's objectives. Sport Marketing Quarterly , 2(3), 27-32.
11. Meagher, J. (1992, May). And now, a word from our sponsor. Athletic Business , 14.
12. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, Valarie A., & Bitner, Mary J. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(Fall), 41-50.
13. Schlossberg, H. (1992, October 26). Firms using research to assess sponsorship value. Marketing News , 13-15.
14. Stotlar, D. (1996, October). Trends in US sport sponsorship: from philanthropy to retails sales . Paper presented at the meeting of the European Association of Sport Management, Montpellier, France.
15. Wakefield, K., & Blodgett, J. (1994). The importance of servicescapes in leisure service settings. Journal of Service Marketing , 8(3), 66-76.
16. Wakefield, K., Blodgett, J., & Sloan, H. (1996). Measurement and management of the sportscape. Journal of Sport Management , 10(1), 15-31.
17. Wakefield, K., & Sloan, H. (1995). The effects of team loyalty and selected stadium factors on spectator attendance. Journal of Sport Management , 9(2), 153-172.
18. Zeithaml, Valarie A., & Bitner, Mary J. (2000). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm (2 nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Table 1

Factor Analysis of Event Service Dimensions

	Factor
	Play	Souvenirs	Hotel	Tournament Destination	Concessions
Eigenvalue	11.78	3.15	1.74	1.55	1.07
Percent Variance Explained	35.67	9.53	5.28	4.71	3.23
Factor Loadings
Court Condition	.638
Sufficient Practice Courts Avail.	.503
Draw Continually Updated/ Readily Available	.674
Courts Conducive to Spectating	.551
All Matches Played on Same Surface	.564
Well-Equipped Area for Changeover	.686
Extent to Which Match Schedule/Draw Runs on Time	.620
Quality of Officiating	.628
Tournament Officials Readily Available at All Sites	.622
Quality of Souvenir Merchandise		.868
Selection of Souvenir Merchandise		.882
Price of Souvenir Merchandise		.856
Attractiveness of Awards Offered		.683
Free Souvenirs Offered to Participants		.754
Proximity of Hotel to Play Sites			.711
Directions to Tourist Attractions/Restaurants Provided			.500
Avail. of Reasonably Priced Hotels			.760
Avail. of High Quality, Attractive Hotels			.682
Cleanliness of Hotels			.756
Tourist Attractiveness of Host City				.787
Physical Attractiveness of Play Sites				.629
Wide Selection of Restaurants in Host City				.543
Selection of Concessions at Play Sites					.677
Price of Concessions at Play Sites					.692

Table 2

Univariate F-tests (Mean Comparisons) on Service Dimension Factors

Factor	Lower Skilled	Higher Skilled	F
Play	53.73	52.85	1.69
Souvenirs	23.09	20.80	11.95**
Hotel	30.24	28.94	8.62**
Tournament Destination	16.22	15.68	3.39*
Concessions	9.12	8.46	6.09**

Note.   **p<.01, *p<.05

Appendix A

1. Court Condition (court surface, lines, nets)
2. Sufficient Practice Courts Available
3. Draw is Continually Updated and Readily Viewable
4. Courts Conducive to Spectating
5. All Matches Played on Same Surface Type
6. Well-Equipped Area for Changeover (water, chairs, etc.)
7. Extent to which Match/Draw Schedule Runs On-Time
8. Quality of Officiating
9. Tournament Officials Readily Available at All Sites
10. Well-Equipped Locker-Rooms at Play Sites
11. On-Site Racquet Stringing
12. Quality of Competition
13. Medical Staff Present at All Play Sites
14. Event Results Reported in Local Media
15. Quality of Souvenir Merchandise (t-shirts, hats, etc.)
16. Selection of Souvenir Merchandise
17. Price of Souvenir Merchandise
18. Attractiveness of Awards Offered
19. Free Souvenirs Offered to Participants
20. Quality of Event Social Functions (banquets/parties)
21. Tourist Attractiveness of Host City
22. Physical Attractiveness of Play Sites
23. Wide Selection of Restaurants in Host City
24. Play-Related Food/Beverage at Play Sites (Fruit, Energy Bars/Drinks)
25. Selection of Other Concessions at Play Sites (Burgers, Chips, Soft Drinks, etc.)
26. Price of Concessions at Play Sites
27. Friendliness and Courtesy of Host Site Staff
28. Host Site Staff Knowledgeable about Host City (restaurants, tourist destinations, etc.)
29. Proximity of Hotels to Play Sites
30. Directions to Tourist Attractions/Restaurants Provided
31. Availability of Reasonably Priced Hotels
32. Availability of High Quality, Attractive Hotels
33. Cleanliness of Hotels