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.