Chapter 3

1 2 The business of lifestyle sport 3 4 Ryan J. Gagnon, Garrett A. Stone, 5 Bob Brookover, Barry A. Garst, and 6 Spensir M. Mowery 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Introduction 14 In the United States there has been a noticeable trend away from participa- 15 tion in many traditional, mainstream sports and a corresponding surge in 16 both viewership and participation in alternative sports and leisure pursuits 17 (Active Marketing Group, 2009). Paralleling these changes, there has been 18 an increase in scholarship investigating alternative or lifestyle sports (Booth 19 and Thorpe, 2007; Tomlinson, et al., 2005; Wheaton, 2004). Specifically, 20 as lifestyle sports have gained more attention, questions regarding their 21 structure, governance, and resulting impacts on both individuals and com- 22 munities have been raised (Wheaton, 2004). In response to this growth, 23 this chapter narrows its focus to the economic impacts and trends associ- 24 ated with lifestyle sports. In many cases, branding lifestyle sports as risky, 25 adventurous, or alternative has positioned them as desirable commodities 26 (Wheaton, 2004) and, therefore, potential commercial competitors to 27 mainstream sports. With that in mind, governing bodies, participants, and 28 the communities they interact with ought to be concerned with the eco- 29 nomic impacts of lifestyle sporting events, facilities, and general participa- 30 tion. That said, while traditional or mainstream sporting events are known 31 to contribute in meaningful ways to visitor spending, increases in tax-­based 32 revenues, and subsequent job creation, the economic profile and impact of 33 lifestyle sporting events is relatively unknown. In the following sections 34 this chapter: (1) explores the commercial aspects of lifestyle sport; (2) 35 explores the dichotomy presented between lifestyle and mainstream sport; 36 (3) describes competition climbing as a lifestyle sport; and (4) presents the 37 results of an economic analysis of a national competition climbing event. 38 39 40 The business of lifestyle sport? 41 42 Non-­traditional sports that stand apart from the mainstream, such as paddle 43 boarding, climbing, and BMX, have continued to grow in the United States. 44 Recreation and sport literature refers to these non-­traditional sports using

119 03 Lifestyle 03.indd 27 24/1/17 11:45:21 28 R. J. Gagnon et al.

several different designations, including: action (Thorpe and Wheaton, 2011), 1 adventure (Breivik, 2010), arriving (Rinehart, 2002), extreme (Donnelly, 2 2006), informal (Gilchrist and Wheaton, 2011) post-modern­ (Wheaton, 3 2004), risk (Fletcher, 2008), and whiz (Midol, 1993). Despite these various 4 labels, there is a great deal of parity in how the terms are operationalised and 5 correspondingly how these sports are understood (Wheaton, 2004). 6 Additionally, lifestyle sports are increasing in visibility and attracting 7 diverse audiences and participants (Wheaton, 2010). This increased public- 8 ity has both positive and negative consequences for these sports, their 9 members, and prospective members. Increased awareness of these lifestyle 10 sports may draw in new, diverse participants and revenue streams while at 11 the same time drawing attention to the skill and prowess of lifestyle 12 athletes, eliciting recognition, sponsorships, and legitimacy that many life- 13 style athletes are deserving of, but detached from. However, this publicity 14 can create an influx of unwanted, unskilled prospective athletes who may 15 sour the culture or image of the sport, due to poor sport etiquette or con- 16 trasting sport values. Public awareness such as this is often media driven 17 and occasionally a result of the coercive adoption of lifestyle sports into 18 the mainstream (Wheaton, 2004). Wheaton (2010: 1061) suggests that in 19 this light, these sports are being ‘co-­opt[ed] … by transnational corpora- 20 tions and media organisations’ which has resulted in the deterioration of 21 their counter-cultural­ label, lifestyle sports. For better or worse, lifestyle 22 athletes are increasingly being portrayed as upstanding, normative indi- 23 viduals in contrast to their historical counterparts who were labelled with 24 the titles of ‘outcast’, ‘bum’, or ‘dirtbag’, language symbolic of the fringe, 25 underground, and unconventional nature of their lifestyles and activities 26 (Wheaton, 2010). While some lifestyle athletes have resisted public atten- 27 tion (e.g. surfers seeking to localise and protect their surf ) and others have 28 embraced it (e.g. skateboarders seeking to elicit legitimate, brand-name­ 29 sponsors), few have attempted to maintain a semblance of control by 30 getting involved in and influencing media portrayals of their sport 31 (Wheaton, 2010). In mainstream media campaigns, the nomenclature 32 ‘extreme’ and ‘alternative’ have prevailed and are used to craft a carefully 33 chosen message aimed at attracting younger participants (Tomlinson et al., 34 2005). Part of the push or desire for the extreme label is derived from the 35 desire to attract sponsors through intentional branding (Tomlinson et al., 36 2005). However, the extreme label and the perception of danger it engen- 37 ders can act as a double-­edged sword, discouraging certain types of 38 participation and encouraging others (Tomlinson et al., 2005). These con- 39 ceptualisations, as well as media coverage of fatalities (e.g. a May 2015 40 news story titled ‘A dangerous stunt leads to the death of two daredevils’) 41 are evidence of the ‘media fixation on risk’ (Gilchrist and Wheaton, 2011: 42 20) that sometimes casts a dark shadow on lifestyle sports, despite the fact 43 that these sports are relatively safe (Rinehart, 2002). Nevertheless, 44

119 03 Lifestyle 03.indd 28 24/1/17 11:45:21 The business of lifestyle sport 29

1 media-­friendly events (Tomlinson et al., 2005) showcased on prominent 2 sport networks (e.g. BMX on ESPN; see Corte, 2013) or in global arenas 3 (e.g. Olympics, see Thorpe and Wheaton, 2011) have proved to be vital to 4 the growth and improved image of many lifestyle sports. 5 6 Dichotomy between lifestyle and 7 mainstream sport 8 9 A central tenet germane to much of the lifestyle sport research is adherence 10 to a counterculture or anti-­mainstream viewpoint (e.g. Booth and Thorpe, 11 2007; Rinehart and Sydnor, 2003; Wheaton, 2004). However, a somewhat 12 false dichotomy exists in both the way lifestyle sport participants view 13 themselves and the way some lifestyle sport research is presented. The 14 work of Donnelly (2006) highlights this issue, drawing attention to 15 the hypocrisy of lifestyle sport organisations that simultaneously reject the 16 types of mainstream, commercial entities that currently sponsor and facil- 17 itate their growth. He argues that ‘alternative and mainstream are made to 18 stand at opposite ends of a continuum’ (ibid.: 221) when, in reality ‘the 19 cultural practice in question is defined in part by its rejection of commer- 20 cialism’ (ibid.: 222) by the very entrepreneurs and businesses benefiting 21 financially from this anti-­commercial branding. In other words, the reason 22 many lifestyle sport businesses and organisations are successful is their 23 own marketing of themselves as ‘insiders and anti-business’.­ This some- 24 what false paradigm is exemplified by the work of Beal and Wilson (2004), 25 who investigated the relationships between skateboarder identity and 26 media (magazine) consumption. Their research presented how a popular 27 magazine critiqued mainstream culture for misappropriation of skate- 28 boarding, while at the same time being owned by a multinational media 29 corporation; thus, the group was calling out others for being mainstream 30 when in fact they themselves were mainstream. In summary, the only 31 authentic difference between the businesses of lifestyle and mainstream 32 sport may be the viewpoint of the person describing it. 33 While attempting to avoid straying too much from the purpose of this 34 chapter, this illustration of the false lifestyle versus mainstream sport dicho- 35 tomy highlights a layer of definitional ambiguity in our understanding of life- 36 style sport. More specifically, this conceptual haziness raises the questions: 37 ‘Are lifestyle sports really distinct from other mainstream sports?’ and ‘When 38 is a lifestyle sport merely a recreational or leisure pursuit and when is it a 39 sport?’ We can consider these questions one at a time. 40 Sports, defined at a foundational level, are ‘institutionalised competitive 41 activities that involve rigorous physical exertion or the use of relatively 42 complex physical skills by participants motivated by personal enjoyment 43 and external rewards’ (Coakley, 2001: 20). Conversely, elementary defini- 44 tions characterise recreation as a physical, mental, or social activity that is

119 03 Lifestyle 03.indd 29 24/1/17 11:45:21 30 R. J. Gagnon et al.

freely chosen, intrinsically rewarding (e.g. giving satisfaction, fulfillment, 1 pleasure), and pursued during discretionary time (Hamilton-Smith,­ 1985; 2 McClean and Hurd, 2015), whereas leisure, a related concept, is described 3 as the authentic and informed pursuit of an activity or state of mind that 4 produces specific instrumental outcomes (Cooper, 1999). These definitions 5 highlight that at a basic level, a single activity such as bouldering, a form 6 of rock climbing with no ropes, typically done below four metres, can be 7 construed as sport (e.g. a competition against others or oneself for time 8 and/or difficulty of route), as recreation (e.g. climbing to spend time with 9 friends), or leisure (e.g. climbing alone to relax from job). 10 Navigating this ambiguity is especially important from a research stand- 11 point. If lifestyle sport participants are genuinely distinct from their main- 12 stream counterparts, then the methods used to understand them may need 13 to be revisited and revised. For example, a criticism of lifestyle sport is the 14 difficulty associated with tracking participation and growth when com- 15 pared to more mainstream sports. Tomlinson et al. (2005: 8) state: ‘parti- 16 cipation figures are hard to establish, precisely because of the informal and 17 counter-­cultural context of the sports’. This begs the question, what is dif- 18 ferent about understanding the number of snowboarders on a slope during 19 a given season from the number of skiers? If no difference exists, then the 20 methods for measuring participation within the context of lifestyle sports 21 should not differ from those of more mainstream sports. Moreover, if the 22 goal of researching lifestyle sports is to truly serve the users, then the utili- 23 sation of more traditional analyses may be all the more prudent. One must 24 speak the language that policy makers understand, rather than attempting 25 to build a niche in cases where it may not be necessary or helpful to do so. 26 A recent study of outdoor climbing in the Red River Gorge in Kentucky 27 highlights the importance of speaking the language of policy makers. In 28 their economic impact study of Red River Gorge climbers, Maples et al. 29 (2016) spoke about the $2.7 million dollar benefit that outdoor climbers 30 bring to these communities rather than overstating their needs and position 31 as an alternative or countercultural user group. The authors illustrated the 32 point that policy makers are more likely to respond to climbers’ needs 33 when climbers demonstrate the economic value of their sport than when 34 they unleash a barrage of complaints regarding access to facilities and 35 resources. With this analysis in mind, the remainder of this chapter exam- 36 ines the economic benefits of outdoor climbing’s sister sport, indoor com- 37 petition climbing. 38 39 40 Competition climbing as lifestyle sport 41 Climbing may be one of the original lifestyle sports (Robinson, 2004) and 42 is often blended with mountaineering and hiking. Consequently, climbing 43 consists of multiple sub-­sports including: bouldering; top-­roping; sport, 44

119 03 Lifestyle 03.indd 30 24/1/17 11:45:21 The business of lifestyle sport 31

1 traditional, adventure, and big-wall­ climbing (Donnelly, 2006; Selters, 2 2012). The sport of climbing is highly differentiated and thus challenging 3 to capture in one salient definition (Breivik, 2010). The work of Gagnon et 4 al. (2016) highlights this differentiation in Table 3.1. Moreover, these 5 dimensions may only capture the outdoor side of the sport. The indoor 6 form of climbing also includes multiple sub-­sports, including top-­roping, 7 bouldering, sport climbing, and speed climbing (USA Climbing, 2014). 8 As compared with the outdoor form of climbing, indoor climbing – 9 more specifically indoor competition climbing – has adopted characteristics 10 that are more reflective of mainstream sports such as basketball, football, 11 and baseball. For example, basketball ranges from youth amateur leagues, 12 to year-­round clubs, to professional teams. This similarity may be one of 13 the primary reasons for the rapid growth of the sport of indoor competi- 14 tion climbing and the formation of governing bodies to oversee its growth 15 and development, including at a national (USA Climbing) and international 16 (International Federation of Sport Climbing [IFSC] and International 17 Olympic Committee) level. In the United States, USA Climbing (USAC), 18 founded in 1998, serves as the governing body for all competition climbing 19 and is recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the 20 IFSC, and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC). USA Climbing 21 serves in this capacity for both youth (19 years old and younger) and adult 22 (20 years old and over) climbers (USA Climbing, 2014) and oversees three 23 sub-­sports: bouldering, sport, and speed climbing. 24 In describing the transference of competition climbing from a leisure 25 pursuit to a lifestyle sport, Gagnon et al. (2016: 4) describe USAC 26 Competitions: 27 28 USAC competitions take place at the local, regional, and national 29 levels. Advancement to the next level (e.g., from the regional to the 30 national level) requires a high placement at a competition; typically, 31 the top five competitors in one or more sub-­sports advance. These 32 competitors are then invited to participate in higher levels of the sport 33 due to their success in prior competitions both nationally and interna- 34 tionally. For USAC competitors to win an event, they must complete 35 the most difficult climbing problems in the most efficient way possible 36 (e.g., completing a bouldering route in only one try without falling off 37 route) in comparison to their fellow competitors. 38 39 Considering the limited evidence regarding competition climbing and the 40 broader economic impacts of lifestyle sport, the purpose of this study was 41 to understand the economic benefits of the sport of indoor competition 42 climbing. 43 44

119 03 Lifestyle 03.indd 31 24/1/17 11:45:21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Description A form of climbing (both indoor and outdoor) where the climber does not use ropes or harnesses to protect themselves from a fall. These routes are often no longer than 10 metres. Climbers use padding to protect themselves in the event of a fall. A form of climbing (primarily outdoor, except in the case simulated ice and holds) where climber can be top roped, lead climbing, and/or traditional climbing (with the use of ice screws) on that may have been formed artificially or naturally. A form of climbing (primarily indoors) taking place on a standardised purpose built wall where climbers (top-rope belayed) race each other to the top of wall with goal being fastest climber. A form of climbing (primarily outdoors, except in the case simulated environments and situations) where climbing is more than one length of a typical rope (also known as pitch) (typically 50–70 metres). This style of climbing may include both traditional and sport climbing, in certain cases multiple days where the party uses portable shelters. A form of climbing (both indoor and outdoor) where the rope is pre-established from anchors at top a climb. One end of the rope is attached to climber, while other goes down a partner who through a piece of belay equipment. A form of climbing (primarily outdoors), often considered more challenging than sport and top-roped climbing, where the climber pulls the to protect themselves from a fall. This style of climbing may also incorporate fixed pieces equipment if climber’s rope behind them as theysafety dictates it. ascend the wall/pitch and A form of climbing (both indoor and outdoor) more challenging than top-roped where the climber pulls places equipment (typically rope behind them as they ascend the wall/pitch and protect themselves from a fall by clipping fixed pieces of non-permanent) equipment (often referred to as hangers or bolts). 39 40 Common climbing sub-sport descriptions

41 42

43 Table 3.1 Sport Source: adapted from Gagnon et al ., 2016. Note This list does not include aiding, outdoor speed, mixed, soloing, free base climbing, etc. For a further explanation see Eng, 2010; Gaines and Martin, 2014; Selters, 2012. of these and related terms, (or sub-sport) Bouldering Ice climbing Indoor speed climbing Multi-pitch climbing Top-roping Traditional climbing Sport climbing (also known as ‘lead climbing’) 44

119 03 Lifestyle 03.indd 32 24/1/17 11:45:21 The business of lifestyle sport 33

1 Evaluating the economic impact of an indoor 2 competition climbing event 3 In the summer of 2015, as part of a larger study investigating the growth 4 of competition climbing, a research team from Clemson University, South 5 Carolina, in partnership with USA Climbing conducted an investigation to 6 understand the economic influence of the Youth National Sport and Speed 7 Climbing Championships in the local community. This annual five-­day 8 9 event hosts approximately 600 individual youth climbers aged 8–18. An 10 additional 950 coaches and the family members of climbers also attend, 11 bringing in approximately 1,550 people to the city hosting the event. The 12 2015 event was hosted in Kennesaw, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta, 13 Georgia. The following sections provide details about the study, including 14 participant recruitment procedures, data analysis approach, and the results 15 of the economic impact findings. 16 17 Collecting and analysing economic data 18 19 As part of the online registration process for the event, potential 20 respondents received a notification that they would be asked to- parti 21 cipate in the study at the on-­site event check-­in. This notification also 22 included information relating to how the data collected would be used 23 and how their information and identity would be protected as required 24 by the research team’s institutional review board process. Prior to data 25 collection the event director informed the research team that approxi- 26 mately 1,600 persons would be present at the event. As such, to gain a 27 somewhat representative sample, the research team determined that at 28 least 200 respondents would be necessary (12.5 per cent) for later data 29 analysis. During the first six hours of the on-­site check-­in, volunteers 30 solicited questionnaire responses (See Table 3.2) via direct intercepts 31 with potential respondents who were waiting in line for check-­in, as the 32 majority of event participants would arrive during that time period. 33 Persons who lived within 50 miles (local residents) of the event were 34 excluded from analysis because expenditures by local residents are typic- 35 ally not counted in determining economic impact (e.g. staying in per- 36 sonal residence rather than hotel). 37 The questionnaire (see Table 3.2) solicited information regarding char- 38 acteristics about the persons attending USA Climbing National Champion- 39 ship events, including: where they travelled from, how they travelled to 40 events, where they stayed, how and where they spent money at events, 41 their travelling party sizes, basic demographic information, and at an 42 aggregate level the economic benefits they bring to a community. This 43 questionnaire is also based on similar small sport event investigations 44 (Brewer and Freeman, 2015).

119 03 Lifestyle 03.indd 33 24/1/17 11:45:21 34 R. J. Gagnon et al.

Table 3.2 Economic benefits questionnaire 1 2 Are you a member of USA Climbing? How many years have you been a (Check one) member? Please specify: 3 4 r Yes r No ______years 5 How are you affiliated with this event? (Check one) 6 r Competitor r Coach r Family of r Spectator r Other, 7 competitor only please specify: 8 ______9 10 What division(s) are you or your competitor(s) participating in? (Check all that apply) 11 r Youth D r Youth C r Youth B r Youth A r Junior 12 13 What days will you be attending the Youth National SCS Championships? (Check all that apply) 14 r 8 July (Wednesday) r 9 July (Thursday) r 10 July (Friday) 15 r 11 July (Saturday) r 12 July (Sunday) 16 17 Did you travel 50 or more miles to attend this event? 18 r Yes r No 19 20 Is the USAC Youth National SCS Championship your primary reason for visiting 21 Atlanta/Kennesaw? 22 r r Yes No 23 How many days will you be away from home on this trip? 24 ______days 25 26 How many days will you spend in the Atlanta/Kennesaw area on this trip? 27 ______days 28 29 Are you staying overnight in the Atlanta/Kennesaw area? 30 r Yes r No 31 32 What type of accommodations are you using? 33 r r r r Hotel Motel Timeshare Condo 34 r Friends or relatives r Campground r Rental home Other, please specify: 35 ______36 37 What was your primary form of transportation to the competition? 38 r Personal vehicle r Rental car r Commercial airline r Hotel shuttle 39 r Public r Tournament r Airport Other, please specify: 40 transportation shuttle shuttle 41 ______42 43 44

119 03 Lifestyle 03.indd 34 24/1/17 11:45:21 The business of lifestyle sport 35

1 Determining direct, indirect, and induced impact 2 The growth of lifestyle sports in the United States has highlighted the need 3 to better understand the potential direct, induced, and indirect economic 4 benefits that a lifestyle sport, such as competition climbing, can bring to a 5 community hosting an event. These effects are generally calculated by esti- 6 mating the total attendance at an event, surveying a sample of those in 7 attendance regarding their spending, and then applying a multiplier to 8 account for the recirculation of spent monies beyond the first round of 9 spending (Matheson, 2009). Direct benefits or total direct spending is the 10 11 amount in dollars spent over a visitor’s entire stay, including items such as 12 lodging, retail, dining and grocery, and transportation. The secondary 13 effects or induced effects occur when the money is recirculated into the 14 local economy (Mondello and Rishe, 2004). For instance, a waiter at a res- 15 taurant may receive a direct benefit from an event’s presence in the form of 16 increased hours (wages) and/or tips. When this waiter uses this additional 17 income (beyond their average income) in the community to purchase gro- 18 ceries or retail items and thus recirculates the dollars this constitutes an 19 induced effect. Finally, indirect effects result from direct economic activity 20 when a local business purchases extra goods and services from another 21 local business due to increased demand (Matheson, 2009). For example, if 22 due to amplified business from an event, a restaurant purchases additional 23 produce from a local farm, this would be an indirect effect. 24 To calculate direct, induced, and indirect benefits as a result of an 25 event there are multiple guidelines and frameworks available (Cromp- 26 ton, 2006). For the purposes of this study we utilised processes that are 27 both conservative and easily understood. Direct spending for an event 28 can be calculated using the average spending for a participant after 29 screening the collected data for outliers (for instance, responses two 30 standard deviations beyond the mean). For example, if we were inter- 31 ested in the direct impact on dining services for a particular event we 32 could solicit responses in the form of a questionnaire asking visitors how 33 much they spent (on average per day) on dining over the course of an 34 event. The goal here is to solicit the number of responses necessary to 35 ensure representativeness with the broader population of attendees, 36 ideally at least 10 per cent (Crompton, 1995; Matheson, 2009). For 37 instance, if the average response to average dining was $100.00 per day 38 per respondent over a four-­day event, this would total $400.00. We then 39 multiply this $400.00 by the total estimated visitor population of 2,000, 40 leading to a total estimated direct impact of dining services of 41 $800,000.00 on the community. It is also important to note that this 42 explanation is simplistic and may not take into account confounding 43 factors, for instance, locals who may have chosen to not eat out due to 44 crowding from the event.

119 03 Lifestyle 03.indd 35 24/1/17 11:45:21 36 R. J. Gagnon et al.

As induced and indirect effects are secondary from direct effects, they 1 are typically calculated with the utilisation of a multiplier. A multiplier is 2 generally calculated by taking the total direct effect of an event, adding it 3 to the indirect effect, and then dividing this amount by the direct effect (i.e. 4 {Direct + Indirect} / Direct) (Crompton, 1995). However, this method is 5 problematic in that it tends to produce multipliers at or above 2.3; that is, 6 for every $1 spent in a community for an event, $2.3 are produced in the 7 form of induced and indirect effects, thus indicating a $3.3 total effect per 8 respondent. As highlighted by the work of Crompton (1995) and Mathe- 9 son (2009), these multipliers are germane to much of the economic impact 10 analysis of sport and recreation literature, but they also may be overin- 11 flated. As such we have elected to use a much more conservative multiplier 12 for this event (0.5). This choice is somewhat supported by additional inves- 13 tigations of economic benefits in Georgia which indicated multipliers of 14 1.1 to 1.5 in similar events (Godfrey, 2016). 15 16 17 Estimation of the total economic impact attributed to a 18 climbing event 19 In this study of indoor competition climbing, the sample consisted of 260 20 survey respondents, 16.77 per cent of the estimated 1,550 potential respond- 21 ents. Respondents identified as primarily female (n = 130, 52.8 per cent) and 22 white (83.4 per cent), and were generally highly educated, with 76.5 per cent 23 of the sample reporting at least a college level of education. The sample was 24 fairly evenly split between household income levels, but 41.1 per cent of 25 respondents reported income at or above $175,000.00 per year. Respondents 26 reported an average age of 39.48 years (SD = 13.36, range 15–65 years). Of 27 the 260 respondents, 229 reported being current members of USA Climbing 28 (USAC), with an average membership length consisting of 4.72 years 29 (SD = 3.56). Of survey respondents, 151 were family members of competi- 30 tors, 55 were coaches, and 49 were competitors. 31 Data were entered into SPSS 23 software for descriptive analysis. 32 Results indicated an average number of 3.75 persons in each travelling 33 party, with the average respondent being financially responsible for 2.41 34 persons (the other persons likely being the youth competitors). Respond- 35 ents specified an average of 4.69 nights away from home for the event thus 36 indicating a total of 3,013 room nights. The results (presented in complete 37 detail in Table 3.3) indicated a total direct effect of $1,444,996.34 (all 38 amounts in US dollars) for the five-day­ (four-­night) event. Utilising the 0.5 39 multiplier, discussed earlier, indicated total potential indirect and induced 40 effects of $722,499.67. 41 Tax rates for Georgia were utilised to calculate fiscal impacts for local 42 and state governments. Results of this analysis indicated $51,725.34 in 43 local tax receipts, $26,908.62 in bed (lodging) taxes, and $60,721.32 in 44

119 03 Lifestyle 03.indd 36 24/1/17 11:45:21 The business of lifestyle sport 37

1 Table 3.3 Categorical breakdown of direct effects (n = 260; estimated potential 2 N ≠ 1,550) 3 Average per Average per Total 4 person ($) party ($) direct ($) 5 6 Lodging 72.04 173.62 523,221.77 7 Retail 13.26 31.96 116,840.94 Dining 38.42 92.59 338,539.14 8 Entertainment 11.79 28.41 103,887.99 9 Auto fuel 7.45 17.95 65,645.93 10 Auto rental 24.24 58.42 213,591.58 11 Public transportation 1.24 2.99 10,926.30 12 Other services 8.21 19.79 72,342.69 13 14 15 state taxes. Finally, these results indicate a total (induced + direct) impact 16 to the Kennesaw area of $2,146,932.21. Additionally, to provide further 17 context to this chapter and to demonstrate how to appropriately com- 18 municate economic findings to relevant stakeholders, an alternative format 19 for presenting the results is given in Figure 3.1. 20 It is clear from the findings of this study that lifestyle sport can have a 21 powerful economic benefit to a community. The nearly $2.2 million impact 22 of a lifestyle sport event over only five days clearly indicates that lifestyle 23 sports should no longer be considered niche or alternative. This is especially 24 true in light of the fact that the money being spent by lifestyle sport particip- 25 ants is comparable to what is spent by participants in more mainstream 26 events. Clearly, those involved in tourism and event planning should con- 27 sider the advantages to hosting and marketing the sport and its events in 28 their communities. Moreover, the findings indicate that because lifestyle 29 sports can and do have attractive economic benefit to the communities that 30 host them, they ought to consider abandoning their historically fringe or out- 31 sider status and embracing their growing mainstream appeal. 32 One factor that could explain the substantial economic impact of indoor 33 competition climbing and other lifestyle sports is the fact that these sports 34 traditionally and anecdotally attract a clientele with more discretionary 35 time and income. In other words, as was the case in the USA Climbing 36 study, participants in lifestyle sports are typically wealthy and highly edu- 37 cated, characteristics that predict socio-economic­ status and subsequently 38 purchasing power and consumer behaviour. Though attracting a broader 39 and more diverse consumer base may be desirable (to both lifestyle sport 40 participants and policy makers) for a number of practical social and eco- 41 nomic reasons, the fact remains that lifestyle sport participants likely con- 42 tribute more per capita to local communities than do traditional sport 43 participants. However, this assumption could be challenged if one narrows 44 the scope of consideration to participants in national and travelling

119 03 Lifestyle 03.indd 37 24/1/17 11:45:21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Figure 3.1 Economic impact of championship climbing events. 42 Source: Ryan Gagnon, Garrett Stone, Bob Brookover, and Barry Garst. 43 44

119 03 Lifestyle 03.indd 38 24/1/17 11:45:21 The business of lifestyle sport 39

1 competitions where income is likely to be a barrier to participation, and 2 therefore participant characteristics are likely to be consistent between tra- 3 ditional and mainstream sports. 4 It is also worth noting that conservative methods (e.g. a low multiplier 5 level) were intentionally utilised in this study to ensure that the statements 6 made about the economic benefits of lifestyle sport were accurate. Addi- 7 tionally, the research team was in no way affiliated with the organisation 8 sponsoring the data collection and was therefore uninfluenced by pressures 9 or obligations to inflate results. This strategy was employed in response to 10 cautionary statements from Mondello and Rishe (2004: 333) who suggest 11 that ‘generally speaking, economic impact studies are undertaken not 12 necessarily to provide an accurate assessment of the impact, but rather to 13 legitimise positions’, and further echoed by Crompton (2006) who argued 14 that the motives of a study’s sponsor may invariably dictate the study’s 15 outcome. Thus, lifestyle sport organisations, in an effort to be transparent 16 and report accurately to policy makers, should consider recruiting experi- 17 enced, external auditors to conduct economic assessments of this kind. 18 Again, the goal of this study was to produce a conservative but accurate 19 estimate of the potential economic impact of a lifestyle sport event. Indeed, 20 if some higher, recommended multipliers had been considered, the end 21 result may have approached a nearly $5 million economic impact, thus 22 eclipsing many similar studies of the impacts of traditional or mainstream 23 sport events. 24 25 Concluding thoughts 26 27 Ultimately, policy makers are pragmatic and typically more concerned with 28 (or constrained by) the bottom line of maximising economic gains within 29 their constituency than with supporting niche groups with unique, ambigu- 30 ous needs. In order for lifestyle sports to remain viable, perhaps they 31 should focus less on differentiation and more on valuation. The present 32 study has demonstrated that so-­called lifestyle sports can be as economic- 33 ally beneficial as their mainstream counterparts. This finding should be 34 used as a clarion call to rally policy makers who can provide resources, 35 facilities, and support to these often marginalised or minority groups. 36 Additionally, economic evidence provided in analyses of this kind may 37 counteract negative valuations or stigma associated with many lifestyle 38 sports (e.g. unsafe, counter-culture,­ deviant) and make those sports more 39 attractive or innocuous in the eyes of policy makers. 40 Moving forward, it is important to note that approaches for assessing 41 economic impact have been as varied as they are challenging. For example, 42 as indicated by Lee (2001), economic multipliers are often county, state, or 43 region specific and are derived from a number of different models such as 44 IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning), TEIM (Travel Economic Impact

119 03 Lifestyle 03.indd 39 24/1/17 11:45:22 40 R. J. Gagnon et al.

Model), and RIMS (Regional Input-­Output Modeling System), each of 1 which produces slightly distinct results. As a starting point, researchers 2 considered multipliers used in studies published by the Atlanta, Georgia 3 Convention and Visitors Bureau. Those multipliers were adjusted down- 4 ward (more conservative) based on previous studies conducted by the 5 researchers, and their experience. 6 Matheson (2002) pointed out that economic impact is often overesti- 7 mated or overstated, hence the use of conservative multipliers in the USA 8 Climbing example. These overestimates fail to account for the reality that 9 there is a limit to the number of visitors/tourists who can inhabit a space 10 or use a service at a given time and that sporting events often draw in one 11 type of tourist at the exclusion of others who would have visited in their 12 place (i.e. displacement). It is also beyond the scope of both lifestyle sport 13 organisations and consulting groups conducting impact assessments to 14 explore the extent to which money spent by tourists remains within or 15 leaks out of the community. With that in mind, all economic impact assess- 16 ments should be viewed with as much caution as optimism. 17 Future research in this area should consider the social contexts in which 18 the data are collected and assess the potential for economic leakage in 19 these contexts. Additionally, these studies could explore whether and how 20 economic impact data actually influence policy maker perceptions of life- 21 style sports. Likewise, additional studies of economic impact of lifestyle 22 sport should be conducted to either disconfirm or lend support to the find- 23 ings in the USA Climbing example. The findings in this chapter reflect a 24 starting point for critical discussions and analyses surrounding the com- 25 mercialisation of lifestyle sport. They also provide an optimistic outlook 26 for the future of these sports as far as economic impacts are concerned. 27 28 29 References 30 Active Marketing Group (2009) The action sports market. Available at: www. 31 activenetworkrewards.com/Assets/AMG+2009/Action+Sports.pdf (accessed 8 32 October 2016). 33 Beal, B. and Wilson, C. (2004) Chicks dig scars: Commercialisation and the trans- 34 formation of skateboarder’s identities. In B. Wheaton (ed.), Understanding lifestyle 35 sports: Consumption, identity, and difference (pp. 31–54). New York: Routledge. 36 Booth, D. and Thorpe, H. (2007) Berkshire encyclopedia of extreme sports. Great 37 Barrington, MA: Berkshire Publishing Group. 38 Breivik, G. (2010) Trends in adventure sports in a post-modern­ society. Sport in 39 Society, 13(2): 260–273. Brewer, R. M. and Freeman, K. M. (2015) Inexpensively estimating the economic 40 impact of sports tourism programs in small American cities. Indiana Business 41 Review, 1: 1–6. 42 Coakley, J. (2001) Sport in society: Issues and controversies (7th edn). Columbus, 43 OH: McGraw-­Hill Education. 44

119 03 Lifestyle 03.indd 40 24/1/17 11:45:22 The business of lifestyle sport 41

1 Cooper, W. E. (1999) Some philosophical aspects of leisure theory. In E. L. Jackson 2 and T. L. Burton (eds), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-­first century 3 (pp. 3–15). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. 4 Corte, U. (2013) Pro Town USA and its Freestyle BMX Circle, American Sociological 5 Association, Available at: www.asanet.org/research-and-publications/journals/­ 6 social-­psychology-quarterly/spq-­corte-snap (accessed 10 October 2016). Crompton, J. L. (1995) Economic impact analysis of sport facilities and events: 7 Eleven sources of misapplication. Journal of Sport Management, 9: 14–35. 8 Crompton, J. L. (2006) Economic impact studies: Instruments for political shenan­ 9 igans? Journal of Travel Research, 45: 67–82. 10 Donnelly, M. (2006) Studying extreme sports: Beyond the core participants. 11 Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 30(2): 219–224. 12 Fletcher, R. (2008) Living on the edge: The appeal of risk sports for the profes- 13 sional middle class. Sociology of Sport Journal, 25(3): 310–330. 14 Gagnon, R. J., Stone, G. A., Garst, B. A., and Arthur-Banning,­ S. (2016) Com- 15 petitive climbing: From leisure pursuit to lifestyle sport. Journal of Unconven- 16 tional Parks, Tourism, and Recreation Research, 6(1): 2–12. 17 Gilchrist, P. and Wheaton, B. (2011) Lifestyle sport, public policy and youth 18 engagement: Examining the emergence of parkour. International Journal of 19 Sport Policy and Politics, 3(1): 109–131. 20 Godfrey, A. (2016) Tourism industry research. Available at: www.georgia.org/ 21 industries/georgia-­tourism/industry-­research (accessed 8 October 2016). Hamilton-­Smith, E. (1985) Can the arts really be leisure? World Leisure and Recre- 22 ation, 27(4): 15–19. 23 Lee, S. (2001) A review of economic impact studies on sporting events. The Sport 24 Journal, 4(2): 12–17. 25 Maples, J. N., Clark, B. G., Sharp, R., Gillespie, B., and Gerlaugh, K. (2016) Eco- 26 nomic impact of rock climbing in the Red River Gorge, Kentucky. Richmond, 27 KY: Eastern Kentucky University. 28 Matheson, V. A. (2002) Upon further review: An examination of sporting event 29 economic impact studies. The Sport Journal, 5(1): 1–4. 30 Matheson, V. A. (2009) Economic multipliers and mega-event­ analysis. Inter- 31 national Journal of Sport Finance, 4: 63–79. 32 McLean, D. D. and Hurd, A. R. (2015) Recreation and leisure in modern society 33 (10th edn). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning. 34 Midol, N. (1993) Cultural dissidents and technical innovations in the ‘whiz’ sports. 35 International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 28(1): 23–32. Mondello, M. J. and Rishe, P. (2004) Comparative economic analyses: Differences 36 across cities, events, and demographics. Economic Development Quarterly, 37 18(4): 331–342. 38 Rinehart, R. (2002) Arriving sport: Alternatives to formal sports. In J. J. Coakley 39 and E. Dunning (eds), Handbook of sports studies (pp. 504–519). London: Sage. 40 Rinehart, R. E. and Sydnor, S. (2003) To the extreme: Alternative sports, inside 41 and out. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 42 Robinson, V. (2004) Taking risks: Identity, masculinities and rock climbing. In B. 43 Wheaton (ed.), Understanding lifestyle sports: Consumption, identity and differ- 44 ence (pp. 113–130). London: Routledge.

119 03 Lifestyle 03.indd 41 24/1/17 11:45:22 42 R. J. Gagnon et al.

Selters, A. (2012) Glacier travel and crevasse rescue (2nd edn). Seattle, WA: Moun- 1 taineer. 2 Thorpe, H. and Wheaton, B. (2011) ‘Generation X Games’, action sports and the 3 Olympic Movement: Understanding the cultural politics of incorporation. Soci- 4 ology, 45(5): 830–847. 5 Tomlinson, A., Ravenscroft, N., Wheaton, B., and Gilchrist, P. (2005) Lifestyle 6 sports and national sport policy: An agenda for research. Brighton, UK: Univer- sity of Brighton. 7 USA Climbing (2014) About us. Available at: www.usaclimbing.net (accessed 10 8 October 2016). 9 Wheaton, B. (2004) Introduction: Mapping the lifestyle sport-scape.­ In B. Wheaton 10 (ed.), Understanding life style sports: Consumption identity and difference 11 (pp. 1–28). London: Routledge. 12 Wheaton, B. (2010) Introducing the consumption and representation of lifestyle 13 sports, Sport in Society, 13(7/8): 1057–1081. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

119 03 Lifestyle 03.indd 42 24/1/17 11:45:22