SCORING MORE THAN TOUCHDOWNS: the IMPACT of ATHLETIC SUCCESS on the BRAND EQUITY of a UNIVERSITY by Courtney Schmit Submitte
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SCORING MORE THAN TOUCHDOWNS: THE IMPACT OF ATHLETIC SUCCESS ON THE BRAND EQUITY OF A UNIVERSITY by Courtney Schmit Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Departmental Honors in the Department of Marketing Texas Christian University Fort Worth, Texas May 4, 2015 ii SCORING MORE THAN TOUCHDOWNS: THE IMPACT OF ATHLETIC SUCCESS ON THE BRAND EQUITY OF A UNIVERSITY Project Approved: Supervising Professor: Bill Moncrief, Ph.D. Department of Marketing Susan Kleiser, Ph.D. Department of Marketing John Harvey, Ph.D. Department of Economics iii ABSTRACT Previous research and individual cases have indicated a relationship between athletic success, such as winning a conference title or bowl game, and indirect benefits that indicate an increase in the overall status of a university. While much of the research in this area focuses on showing the direction and strength of the advertising effect athletics can have for a university, there has been little research on how a football team’s success can impact the value of a university’s brand overall. This study provides an examination of this phenomenon through a brand equity framework. The analysis begins with an attempt to confirm the impact of athletic performance and conference affiliation on measures of increased awareness, and then extends the analysis through a discussion of four elements of brand equity including brand awareness, associations, perceived quality, and loyalty. In addition to discovering trends, emphasis is placed on evaluating the main drivers behind the relationship and what this means for branding in universities today. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..............................................................................................4 Defining Brand Equity .................................................................................................... 4 Measuring Brand Equity ................................................................................................. 5 Brand Awareness ......................................................................................................... 6 Brand Associations ...................................................................................................... 7 Perceived Quality ........................................................................................................ 7 Brand Loyalty .............................................................................................................. 8 Branding in the University Context ................................................................................ 8 History and Background .............................................................................................. 8 Success in University Branding ................................................................................. 10 Athletics and University Culture ................................................................................... 12 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...............................................................................................14 METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS ................................................................................17 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 17 Data ............................................................................................................................... 18 Results ........................................................................................................................... 19 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................20 Insight from Opposing Results ...................................................................................... 20 v Brand Equity and Student Choice ................................................................................. 21 Noteworthy Cases ......................................................................................................... 22 Texas Christian University ........................................................................................ 22 Boise State ................................................................................................................. 24 Explanation through the Brand Equity Framework ...................................................... 24 IMPLICATIONS ...............................................................................................................28 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 30 Further Research ........................................................................................................... 30 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................31 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................33 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................48 1 INTRODUCTION A crowd of purple exploded in celebration and emotions ran wild among players as the game clock hit 0:00 to signify the end of the 2011 Rose Bowl and a perfect 13-0 season for Texas Christian University. Led by quarterback Andy Dalton, now one of the highest paid quarterbacks in NFL history, and linebacker Tank Carder, the Horned Frogs had earned their invitation to the Rose Bowl after ending a perfect regular season with the Mountain West Conference title. Thought of as a ‘Cinderella story,’ it was a game of many firsts: TCU’s first ever appearance in the Rose Bowl, the first team from the Mountain West conference to play in a New Year’s Day bowl game and the first time a team from a non-Automatic Qualifying Conference won the Rose Bowl since 1934. The Rose Bowl trophy not only signified that TCU could compete on the field, but overall interest in TCU as an academic institution increased astronomically as the University saw a record-breaking number of applications following the team’s victory the previous year. But, TCU is not the only school to witness such a phenomenon. Doug Chung (2013) notes that the first time significant attention was drawn to such a phenomenon was in 1984 when Doug Flutie, quarterback for Boston College, made his infamous Hail Mary touchdown pass to qualify them for the Cotton Bowl in front of a nationwide television audience. Flutie later won the Heisman Trophy and Boston College saw a thirty percent increase in applications two years later; the increase in the prominence of a university because of athletic success became known as the “Flutie Effect” (Chung, 2013). Since then, there have been countless stories following the same trend and a variety of research has been conducted in support of such an intriguing observation. An 2 earlier study by McCormick and Tinsley (1987) cites the Flutie Effect while providing other examples of institutions experiencing such as an increase in applications following an extremely successful year in football history. The University of South Carolina, Georgetown University, Northwestern University, Boise State University and, more recently, Baylor University are only a few of examples. It seems as though athletic success, such as winning a conference title or bowl game, may have a domino effect and extend beyond athletics to impact the overall status of a university. Under the premise that the “primary form of mass media advertising by academic institutions in the United States is, arguably, through its athletics program,” (Chung, 2013, p. 3) Chung studied the possible spillover effect of athletic success on the quantity and quality of applications. Similarly, McCormick and Tinsley (1987) used SAT scores to study the link between athletics and academics with an additional focus on comparing the differences between schools that were members of one of the “big-time athletic conferences” and those that were not (p. 1104). Though different approaches, both studies had similar outcomes. Chung (2013) found that, indeed, the Flutie Effect does act essentially as advertising, or earned media, for a university and that “athletic success has a significant long-term goodwill effect on future applications and quality” (p. 28). Along the same lines, McCormick and Tinsley’s (1987) research pointed to a significant symbiotic relationship between a successful athletics program and academics and emphasized the importance of universities having an athletic program. Though McCormick and Tinsley did not offer any insight as to why the phenomenon occurs, Chung speculated the main reason to simply be an increase in awareness. For schools that were already well-known, Chung noted that the ‘buzz’ created around a university can 3 increase awareness even further. Additionally, he found that alumni engagement increases with athletic success, which may have a multiplying effect on the school’s level of prestige. Many other academic studies (Stinson & Howard, 2008; Turner, Meserve, & Bowen, 2001; McDonald (2003); Rhoads & Gerking, 2000; Murphy & Trandel, 1994) have also confirmed that there seems to be a relationship between higher athletic performance and key statistics that indicate increased interest as well as overall