The paper should make clear what is the AI you are referring to; whom does it affect the most; what type of changes it generates; and whether is there ethical considerations we should be aware of.

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321850348

eSport vs Sport: A Comparison of Spectator Motives

Article  in  Sport Marketing Quarterly · September 2017

CITATION

1 READS

9,616

6 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

martial art View project

Competitive Advantage through Horizontal Integration: The Case of eSport View project

Anthony Pizzo

Temple University

5 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Bradley James Baker

Temple University

10 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Sangwon Na

Temple University

2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Mi Ae Lee

Temple University

1 PUBLICATION   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Anthony Pizzo on 05 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

108 Volume 27 • Number 2 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2018, 27, 108-123, © 2018 West Virginia University

eSport vs. Sport: A Comparison of Spectator Motives Anthony D. Pizzo, Bradley J. Baker, Sangwon Na, Mi Ae Lee, Doohan Kim, and Daniel C. Funk

Anthony D. Pizzo is a research/teaching assistant in the School of Sport, Tourism, and Hospitality Management and a PhD candidate in the Fox School of Business at Temple University. His research interests include strategic management, institution- al theory, and the growing affi liation between the sport and eSport industries. Bradley J. Baker, PhD, is a research/teaching assistant in the School of Sport, Tourism, and Hospitality Management at Temple University. His research interests include sport marketing and consumer behavior, sport pricing, sport consumer loyalty, and machine learning. Sangwon Na is a PhD candidate in the Fox School of Business at Temple University. His interests include sport marketing and consumer behavior, internationalization of sport, and sport branding. Mi Ae Lee is a PhD candidate in the Fox School of Business at Temple University. Her research interests include sport con- sumer behavior and psychology, and team merchandise sales and marketing. Doohan Kim, PhD, is a lecturer at the Korea National Sport University. His research interests include sport organization man- agement strategy, commercial sports facility management, sports branding, and sport industry management of Taekwondo. Daniel C. Funk, PhD, is a professor in the School of Sport, Tourism, and Hospitality Management at Temple University. His research interests include sport consumer behavior and marketing.

Abstract eSports–organized video game competitions–are growing in popularity, with top tournaments drawing crowds of spectators rivaling traditional sporting events. Understanding the extent to which eSport operates similarly to traditional sport is vital to developing marketing strategies for the eSport industry and inform- ing academic research on eSport. Prior research has examined eSports in isolation from traditional sports, overlooking direct comparisons to understand the degree to which eSport spectators are motivated similarly to traditional sport spectators. Th e current study measures widely-used sport consumption motives to ex- amine their infl uence on eSport spectatorship and game attendance frequency. In South Korea, spectator motives across one traditional sport (soccer) and two eSport contexts (FIFA Online 3 and StarCraft II) were measured. MANOVA results identify similar patterns for 11 out of 15 motives across the three. Signifi cant diff erences between contexts include vicarious achievement, excitement, physical attractiveness, and fam- ily bonding. Multiple regression analysis results show that spectators across contexts have distinct sets of motives infl uencing game attendance. Th e current study demonstrates that traditional sport and eSports are similarly consumed, suggesting that sport industry professionals can manage and market eSport events similarly to traditional sport events. Keywords: eSport, consumer behavior, spectator sport, marketing, spectator motives

eSports, organized video game competitions, are increasingly receiving mainstream media recognition as sport (Funk, Pizzo, & Baker, 2018). Yet, consid- ering eSport as a form of sport is still perceived by many as subversive (Jonasson & Th iborg, 2010). Th e establishment of national and international governing bodies has added structure and regulation to a quickly growing industry, institutionalizing the practices of competitive gaming (Seo, 2013). eSport has many of the components of traditional sport, including players,

teams, managers, leagues, competitions, marquee events, endorsement deals, player transfer fees, col- lege scholarships, and a dark side with match fi xing, doping, and gender-related disputes (Jenny, Manning, Keiper, & Olrich, 2017; Newzoo, 2016; Gies, 2016). Th e increasing institutionalization and broadening con- sumer and participant markets of eSport has attracted major corporate sponsors, such as Microsoft , Sam- sung, and Red Bull. Th e global eSport industry gen- erated revenues of more than $325 million worldwide

Volume 27 • Number 2 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 109

in 2015, with projected revenues of $465 million in 2017 (Newzoo, 2016). There is increasing recognition of eSport as sport among industry stakeholders. eSport teams are being managed by traditional sport organi- zations (e.g., Philadelphia 76ers), covered on tradition- al sport media outlets (e.g., ESPN and Turner Sports), organized by traditional sport leagues (e.g., e-Ligue 1 and NBA 2K eLeague), and formally recognized by major university athletics departments (e.g., University of California–Irvine)—highlighting growing connec- tions between traditional sport and eSports (Conditt, 2016; Rovell, 2016; Sarkar, 2017).

eSport represents a new area for study in sport con- sumer behavior (Funk, 2017). Understanding whether eSport operates similarly to traditional sport is key to developing appropriate marketing strategies for the eSport industry and can inform academic research. If eSports and traditional sports are similarly consumed in accordance with the same spectator motives, existing theoretical and practical approaches to sport consumer behavior are likely applicable to eSport, as well. Existing eSport research has centered on eSport consumption, focusing on playing and spectating (e.g., Lee & Schoenstedt, 2011; Weiss & Schiele, 2013). This research examined eSports in isolation from tradi- tional sports (e.g., soccer, baseball, and basketball), without comparing the two, and thereby was unable to understand the extent to which eSport spectators are motivated similarly to traditional sport spectators (e.g., Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017). Other scholars have applied traditional sport definitions to examine eSport as sport (e.g., Jenny et al., 2017; Jonasson & Thiborg, 2010). While these studies provide a starting point for future research, they do not extend our knowledge of eSport spectators from a consumer behavior perspective or aid in eSport marketing efforts. If eSport and tradi- tional sport spectators share similar motives, eSport marketers can utilize established sport marketing practices.

Understanding spectator motives (e.g., social op- portunities, vicarious achievement) is essential, as these motives are predictive of behavioral outcomes such as game attendance frequency (Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2002; Funk, Beaton, & Alexandris, 2012). Behavioral outcomes in sport marketing research can encourage sport marketing professionals to identify the most relevant motives needed to understand sport spectators. There are similarities in the consumer experience of attending eSport events and traditional sport events. Similarly to traditional sport spectators, eSport spectators may be seeking social opportunities to come together, watch their favorite players and teams compete live, and to be part of an exciting

experience where they can see the best players in action (Eventbrite, 2015). As such, many of the motives for attendance may be common across traditional and eSports. However, eSport spectator motives have not been assessed at eSport events or compared to a traditional sport consumption context. Given the growth of the eSport industry (Newzoo, 2016) and lack of research, there is a growing need for academic study in this area.

The current research adapts consumer behavior mo- tives from established sport consumption motivation scales. Specifically the Motivation Scale for Sport Con- sumption (MSSC; Trail & James, 2001) and the Sport Interest Inventory (SII; Funk, Mahony, & Nakazawa, 2001). Motives from the MSSC and SII were selected given the scales’ established validity within the sport marketing literature. Comparison of spectator motives between eSport and traditional sporting event contexts permits assessment of similarities and differences between the two. The use of selected motives from the MSSC and SII is not meant to be inclusive of all pos- sible consumer motives, but motives from both scales were selected to capture a broad range with the aim of identifying similarities in consumption patterns.

Research Context Existing definitions of modern sport emphasize its physical, competitive, and institutionalized dimen- sions (Guttmann, 2004). Whether eSport meets these criteria and falls within the boundaries of sport is a source of ongoing debate (e.g., Hallmann & Giel, 2018; Heere, 2018; Hilvoorde & Pot 2016; Holt, 2016; Jenny et al., 2017; Jonasson & Thiborg, 2010; Witkowski, 2012). Specifically, a critical aspect of the debate centers on the perceived lack of physical skill in eSport (Jonasson, 2016). An established feature distinguishing a game from sport is the physical application of skill (Coakley, 2008; Suits, 2007). Some scholars state that eSport lacks the physicality required to be considered sport (Jenny et al., 2017). Yet, advocates for eSport as sport suggest that eSport shares many of the central features of traditional sport. Proponents argue that eSports involve interpersonal competition, skill training and development, adherence to rules, goal attainment, coordination, and agility (Crawford & Gosling, 2009; Holt, 2016; Wagner, 2006). The debate over eSport as sport provides a starting point for additional research and the need for a novel approach to advance the conversation.

Considering how eSport meets many of the criteria for sport (e.g., organized, competitive, institutional- ized), the current study takes a consumer behavior perspective as an approach to move the dialogue

110 Volume 27 • Number 2 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

forward. Sport management is an applied discipline and sport marketers could build on existing marketing strategies if eSport consumers operate similarly to traditional sport consumers. Sport industry profes- sionals, beset with the many challenges of their jobs, do not have the luxury of time to wait for academics to resolve theoretical disputes and develop definitive an- swers about the management of sport (Boucher, 1998). Thus, the current study considers the possibility that traditional sports and eSports are consumed similarly to provide guidance to practitioners managing and marketing the growing number of eSport events.

eSports and related events are rapidly growing in global popularity. However, eSports in the West are in their relative infancy when compared to their estab- lished place in the culture of some East Asian coun- tries (Li, 2016). For instance, in South Korea, eSports are governed by a national association (Korean eSports Asssocation; KeSPA), which certifies professional players, provides ranking lists, and arranges compe- titions (Jonasson & Thiborg, 2010). Thus, the current study was conducted in South Korea, where traditional sports and eSports both operate within stable and mature environments.

Literature Review

Defining eSport eSports are organized video game competitions, most often in the context of organized tournaments (Jenny et al., 2017). eSports encompass an array of platforms, from personal computers to gaming consoles and genres including sport-themed games such as FIFA Online 3, and real-time strategy (RTS) games, such as StarCraft II (Seo & Jung, 2014). Sport-themed and RTS games are two of the most popular genres of eSports (Jonasson & Thiborg, 2010). Sport-themed eSports imitate physical sport, while RTS games are repre- sentations of fighting or military battles (Burk, 2013). Similarly to traditional sport, eSports contain compar- ative measures to assess a player’s level of performance within the game (Seo, 2013). In sport-themed eSports, these measures could be consistent with the rules of a physical sport, such as scoring goals in a soccer match (Crawford & Gosling, 2009; Seo & Jung, 2014). In RTS eSports, an individual player controls an entire virtual army, which is viewed from an aerial perspective with players focused on defeating or destroying their opponents (Buchanan‐Oliver & Seo, 2012; Jonasson & Thiborg, 2010) via an array of possible objectives, most commonly destroying their opponents’ structures and units.

Prevalent stereotypes depict gamers as young, single men living in their parents’ basement (Casselman,

2015). However, Newzoo, a leader in eSport market intelligence, found that most eSport fans are employed full time, 44% are parents, with a large segment (38%) of female consumers (Souza, 2015). The Entertainment Software Association reports that women represent a rapidly growing segment of gamers (Entertainment Software Association, 2016). Industry reports further suggest that eSports consumers are racially diverse, resulting from eSport’s Asian roots moving into North America and Europe (Price Waterhouse Cooper [PWC], 2016). One aspect of the stereotype is accurate, however, as eSport spectators tend to be young—a potential selling point for marketers looking to appeal to the next generation of consumers (Souza, 2015).

eSport events are live, competitive tournaments of predominantly professional gamers (Eventbrite, 2015). Premier eSport events draw huge crowds and quickly sell out marquee venues, such as The Staples Center and Madison Square Garden (PWC, 2016). With eSport spectators’ desire for more events, in more places, and more often (Eventbrite, 2015), understand- ing eSport event spectator motives can facilitate the marketing of eSport events and improve the spectator experience. Industry reports suggest that eSport event spectators represent a vast source of untapped poten- tial (PWC, 2016), further highlighting the need for research into eSport spectator motives.

Sport Motivation Research Sport consumer behavior researchers have built on the work of Hebb (1955) and Deci (1971) to understand sport consumer behavior by identifying motives salient to sport consumption. Hebb (1955) defines motivation as the processes that energize and direct purposeful behavior, with Deci (1971) adding that motives encourage behaviors because of the enjoy- ment generated by the activities. Motivation is one of the most heavily studied constructs in sport-related research (Snelgrove, Taks, Chalip, & Green, 2008), with most spectator behaviors fulfilling social or psychological needs (Robinson, Trail, Dick, & Gil- lentine, 2005). Sport marketers have established the importance of motives on game and event attendance, with individuals attending for different reasons and desiring different aspects of the experience (Robinson et al., 2005; Trail, Robinson, Dick, & Gillentine, 2003).

Sport consumer motives are multifaceted and have been examined through a number of different frameworks (Funk et al., 2009; Wann, 1995). These frameworks include, but are not limited to, Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs, push-pull factors (Cromp- ton, 1979), psychological needs (Sloan, 1989), and psychological involvement (Funk & James, 2001). Funk and James (2001) introduced the Psychological

Volume 27 • Number 2 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 111

Continuum Model (PCM), which provided a platform for the systematic study of sport spectators. The PCM has been used extensively in subsequent sport consum- er behavior research.

The body of literature on sport consumer behavior has emphasized the study of motives to help explain sport spectatorship. Research on sport consumer mo- tives has provided valuable insight in understanding sport consumption behaviors (Trail & Kim, 2011) and identified that these motives are also a central pre- dictor of sport consumption decisions (Trail, Fink, & Anderson, 2003). Common motives include vicarious achievement, drama, excitement, entertainment value, and social opportunities (Funk et al., 2001; Milne & McDonald, 1999; Trail & James, 2001).

Recently, sport consumer motivation research has focused on developing deeper theoretical understand- ing of sport consumer motives. Funk et al. (2012), guided by self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985), suggest that sport consumer motivation can be theoretically conceptualized as extrinsic or intrinsic. Kim, James, and Kim (2013) categorized mo- tives into hedonic, psychological connection, and so- cial influence to understand the relationship between motivation and commitment. Common across the studies of sport spectators is the study of what drives people to attend sport events (Won & Kitamura, 2007). Various studies on sport consumer behavior share the assumption that consumers’ behaviors are driven by their motives (Snelgrove et al., 2008). Researchers have identified salient motives in order to examine sport consumption decisions (Kim, Greenwell, Andrew, Lee, & Mahony, 2008), with the goal of better understand- ing sport consumer behavior (Funk et al., 2012).

Various scales exist to measure sport consumer motives. The Sport Fan Motivation Scale (SFMS; Wann, 1995) and Motivations of the Sport Consumer (MSC; Milne & McDonald, 1999) were among the first categorize sport spectators’ motives. Trail and James (2001) suggest that these scales offer limited validity and reliability. Subsequent sport consumption scales include the Motivation Scale for Sport Consumption (MSSC; Trail & James, 2001) and the Sport Interest Inventory (SII; Funk et al., 2001). The MSSC and SII were developed to measure motivations for sport spectator consumption to evaluate psychological mo- tives of spectator consumption. Both scales measure conceptually similar motives such as aesthetics, social interaction, and vicarious achievement.

The current study compares traditional sport spectator motives to eSport spectator motives to better understand the behavior of eSport consumers. It compares one traditional sport (soccer) to two eSports

(FIFA Online 3 and StarCraft II), thereby drawing a direct parallel between a traditional sport and two eSports. Spectator motives for one traditional sport may not be entirely representative of motives to attend all sports, but the emphasis of the current study is on exploring whether eSport consumer behavior operates similarly to traditional sport consumer behavior. Ad- ditionally, there is a scarcity of academic research on sport marketing in Asia (Yoshida & Heere, 2015). The current study addresses this scarcity in the existing literature by comparing spectator motives in South Korea. Yet, as proposed by Yoshida and Heere (2015), sport consumer behavior patterns in Asia are marked by universal psychological constructs. The current study focused on a psychological construct, moti- vation, as the foundation for the following research to assess the possibility that eSports and traditional sports are consumed in order to fulfill the same spectator motives.

eSport research is still in an early stage. Industry reports suggest that eSport spectators share similar motives with traditional sport spectators (PWC, 2016). Spectators of eSport are similar to spectators of traditional sport in the respect that neither wants to miss the big game, with eSport spectators going to live events to be a part of a stimulating experience where they can see the best eSport athletes in action (Eventbrite, 2015). Furthermore, existing eSport spectator research finds that athlete aggressiveness positively predicts spectatorship (Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017), similar to the conclusions of Lee, Trail, and Anderson (2009) who found an analogous relation- ship in hockey and collegiate sport contexts. Thus, considering the similarities between traditional sport and eSport, the current study adapts items from the MSSC and SII to assess the possibility that traditional sport and eSport spectators share sport consumption motives.

eSport Consumption Motives Prior eSport research has focused on the motivation to play eSports. Past research suggests that eSport partic- ipation is driven by competition, challenge, escapism, and skill development (Lee & Schoenstedt, 2011, Weiss & Schiele, 2013). eSport spectating frequency is predicted by escapism, acquiring knowledge about the games being played, novelty of new players and teams, and athlete aggressiveness (Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017). Hamari and Sjöblom (2017) did not distinguish between different eSports, treating motives to spec- tate eSport as universal across all games and genres. Furthermore, their research viewed eSport in isolation from traditional sport, missing opportunities to identify shared motives between traditional sport and

112 Volume 27 • Number 2 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

eSport. James and Ross (2004) compared motives that influence consumption across sports to develop tar- geted marketing strategies. The current study adopts a similar approach by comparing eSports and tradition- al sports to identify whether widely researched sport motives also influence eSports consumption. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: Traditional sport and eSport spectators have the same sport consumption motive patterns (i.e., statistically similar mean scores across contexts). Absent from prior research on eSport consumption

is the measurement of game attendance frequency—a commonly assessed behavioral outcome in sport consumption research (e.g., Funk et al., 2012)—its rela- tionship with spectator motives. Behavioral outcomes such as game attendance frequency are important for sport marketers, as spectator behavior is a significant component of revenue production (Fink et al., 2002). In line with the first hypothesis that traditional sport and eSport spectators share sport consumption motive patterns, the relationships between motives and game attendance frequency should follow similar relation- ships established in sport marketing literature. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: Spectator attendance motives impact game attendance frequency similarly across tradi- tional sport and eSport contexts.

Method The purpose of this study was to compare spectator motives for attending traditional sport and eSport con- tests. Data were collected in three research contexts: a traditional sport (soccer) event, a sport-themed eSport event, and an RTS eSport event. South Korean profes- sional sport and eSport contexts were selected as the research setting, as both have a prominent presence in Korean culture (KOCIS, 2016; Seo & Jung, 2014). For eSports, FIFA Online 3 represents not only an eSport, but also is a virtual representation of professional tra- ditional sport. Furthermore, FIFA Online 3 represents the same traditional sport (i.e., soccer) included in the study. Finally, StarCraft II, an RTS game depicting military science fiction battles rather than a virtual representation of traditional sport, is one of the most popular eSports in Korea, often colloquially referred to as Korea’s national sport (Gayomali, 2010).

In each setting, a team of research assistants collect- ed data from spectators using pen-and-paper surveys. The first event was a Korean professional soccer league match (K League) at Tancheon Stadium. The second event was a sport-themed eSport event featuring the soccer-based game FIFA Online 3 at Nexon Arena. The

third event was a RTS eSport event featuring StarCraft II at Nexon Arena. Tancheon Stadium is the home field for Seongnam FC, while Nexon Arena is a dedicated eSport stadium that hosts events for multiple eSport titles. Both Tancheon Stadium and Nexon Arena are in the greater Seoul metropolitan area in South Korea. All events at which data were collected were regular-season matches in professional leagues for the respective sport or eSport.

Data Collection Procedure Spectators at each match were asked to complete a one-page, double-sided survey consisting of 15 items assessing their attendance motives, one item for game attendance frequency, and five items regarding demographic information. In each event setting, a team of research assistants distributed approximately 200 printed questionnaires to randomly-selected spectators before and after an event. Outside the main entrance to Tancheon Stadium, every third spectator was approached and asked to complete and return the survey. Inside Nexon Arena, a similar procedure took place; every third spectator was approached and asked to complete and return the survey. A total of 606 questionnaires were collected from three different events. Questionnaires were reviewed for completeness and usability of the responses. Seventy-eight research participants marked the same response to each item (straight-lining; Herzog & Bachman, 1981) and were subsequently dropped from further data analysis. An additional 11 surveys were incompletely filled out and were also dropped from further analysis. A total of 517 completed questionnaires remained: 187 for K League soccer, 178 for FIFA Online 3, and 152 for StarCraft II.

Participants Participants’ demographic characteristics—age, gender, household income, level of education, and employment status—were collected. Overall, the 18–24 year-old age group (n = 337, 65.2%) was most prevalent and a majority of participants were male (n = 382, 73.9%). The less than W20,000,000 South Korean Won (approximately $17,700 USD) household income group (n =192, 37.1%) was larger than that of other household income levels. The average annual household income in Korea is approximately equivalent to $47,000 USD (KOSIS, 2017). Reflecting the age range, most partic- ipants indicated their education level as some college degree (n = 331, 64.0%) and their job as student (n = 401, 77.6%). Detailed participant demographics are provided in Table 1.

Volume 27 • Number 2 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 113

Instrumentation The survey comprised three main sections: spectator motives, consumption behavior (i.e., game attendance frequency), and demographics. All non-demographic items were assessed using a seven-point Likert scale anchored with (1) strongly disagree and (7) strongly agree. Spectator motives were measured using a single item for each of 15 dimensions from the Sport Interest Inventory (Funk et al., 2001) and the Motivation Scale for Sport Consumption (Trail & James 2001). Specif- ically, included motive items measured: interest in [sport], vicarious achievement, excitement, interest in a favorite player, aesthetics, social opportunities, drama, role models, entertainment value, wholesome envi- ronment, opportunity for family bonding, acquisition of knowledge, player skill, player attractiveness, and player aggression. Items were tailored for each specific data collection context (e.g., referring to “Seongnam FC” versus “FIFA Online 3”) where necessary. Specific

items to represent each dimension were selected based upon a review of item wording and factor loadings reported by Funk et al. (2001) and Trail and James (2001). Self-reported game attendance behavior was measured with one item (“I frequently attend [sport] matches in person”) adapted from Funk, Beaton, and Alexandris (2012).

All spectator motives and game attendance behavior were assessed with single-item measures. While the use of single-item measures has been discouraged (Churchill, 1979), the approach also has its advocates (e.g., Rossiter, 2002). Single-item measures provide benefits over a multi-item approach, especially when a large number of constructs are measured and respon- dents may become fatigued or unwilling to complete a lengthy survey (Kwon & Trail, 2005). By employing single-item measures, researchers can develop survey instruments that require less respondent time, are less monotonous, and can improve response rate (Gardner,

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics

Overall K League FIFA Online 3 StarCraft II n % n % n % n %

Age Under 18 71 13.7 15 8.0 35 19.7 21 13.8

18–24 337 65.2 118 63.1 115 64.6 104 68.4 25–34 70 13.5 25 13.4 23 12.9 22 14.5 35–44 33 6.4 23 12.3 5 2.8 5 3.3 45 and over 6 1.2 6 3.2 0 0 0 0

Gender Male 382 73.9 136 72.7 127 71.3 119 78.3 Female 135 26.1 51 27.3 51 28.7 33 21.7

Income Less than W20,000,000 192 37.1 64 34.2 71 39.9 57 37.5

W20,000,001 - W40,000,000 124 24.0 44 23.5 45 25.3 35 23.0 W40,000,001 - W60,000,000 109 21.1 41 21.9 35 19.7 33 21.7 Over W60,000,000 92 17.8 38 20.3 27 15.2 27 17.8

Education Some high school 67 13.0 14 7.5 33 18.5 20 13.2 HS graduate 31 6.0 15 8.0 10 5.6 6 3.9 Some college 331 64.0 113 60.4 114 64.0 104 68.4 College degree 75 14.5 43 23.0 16 9.0 16 10.5 Master’s / Professional degree 13 2.5 2 1.1 5 2.8 6 3.9

Employment Full-time job 65 12.6 28 15.0 19 10.7 18 11.8 Part-time job 42 8.1 15 8.0 13 7.3 14 9.2

Homemaker 2 .4 2 1.1 0 0 0 0

Student 401 77.6 137 73.3 145 81.5 119 78.3 Not currently employed 5 1.0 4 2.1 0 0 1 .7 Other 2 .4 1 .5 1 .6 0 0 Total 517 187 178 152

114 Volume 27 • Number 2 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

Cummings, Dunham, & Pierce, 1998; Pomeroy, Clark, & Philip, 2001). Multi-item and single-item measures have been found to offer comparable levels of reliability and validity (Jordan & Turner, 2008), which suggests a single-item approach may be efficient and effective. In research similar to the current study, Ridinger and Funk (2006) used single-item measures for SII dimensions in an investigation of spectator motives among fans of women’s and men’s college basketball. In consideration of these reasons, the use of single-item measures capturing the essence of each spectator motive in an efficient manner was deemed suitable in the current study.

All items were drawn from measures originally de- veloped in English, and they required translation into Korean. Translation and evaluation of the translation followed the method suggested by Brislin (1970, 1986). The survey instrument was initially developed in En- glish and translated into Korean by a researcher who is a native speaker of Korean and fluent in English. The Korean version was back-translated into English by a second bilingual researcher who was blind to the original form of the items. This process resulted in two

versions of the survey in English. A third researcher compared the original and the back-translated instru- ments. The result of this comparison indicated that the two instruments were conceptually equivalent.

Analysis Analysis included both descriptive and inferential analysis. Since the goal of the current study was to examine similarities and differences in spectator mo- tives between traditional sport and eSport spectators, comparisons were conducted across the three event contexts. Addressing hypothesis one, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to assess whether there were significant differences across the three event contexts with respect to spectator motives. Post-hoc comparisons were used to identify significant differences between context pairs. To assess hypothesis two, multiple linear regression was employed to exam- ine the relationships between the 15 spectator motives and the game attendance frequency measure. Patterns of coefficients for each context were then compared to evaluate the hypothesis that spectator motives asso- ciated with game attendance frequency would be the same across all three event contexts.

Table 2. Sport Spectator Motives

Constructs Item OverallM (SD) Interest in [sport] First and foremost, I consider myself a fan of [sport]. 4.40 (1.87)

Vicarious achievement I feel a sense of accomplishment when my favorite player wins. 4.92 (1.63)

Excitement I find [sport] matches very exciting. 4.61 (1.71) Interest in player The main reason I attend [sport] matches is to cheer for my favorite player. 4.25 (1.72)

Aesthetics Successful plays and strategies performed by the players are an important component of [sport] being enjoyable. 4.59 (1.77)

Social opportunities [Sport] matches give me a great opportunity to socialize with other people. 4.34 (1.70) Drama A close match is more enjoyable than a blowout. 4.70 (1.80) Role model [Sport] gamers inspire me. 3.88 (1.73) Entertainment value Watching [sport] is great entertainment for the price. 4.23 (1.83) Wholesome environment I value the wholesome environment evident at [sport] matches. 4.24 (1.66) Family bonding Attending [sport] matches gives me a chance to bond with my family. 3.73 (1.71)

Acquisition of knowledge I can increase my understanding of strategy by watching [sport] matches. 4.46 (1.58)

Skill of the athletes The superior skills are something I appreciate while watching [sport]. 4.41 (1.76) Physical attractiveness I enjoy watching players who are physically attractive. 4.12 (1.70) Enjoyment of aggression I enjoy the aggressive behavior of the players. 4.07 (1.71)

Note. M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation

Volume 27 • Number 2 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 115

Results The overall mean values and standard deviations for 15 motives are provided in Table 2.

In order to identify similarities between traditional and eSport spectators, a MANOVA was conducted on 15 motives across the spectator groups for K League Soccer, FIFA Online 3, and StarCraft II. The result of the MANOVA demonstrated that across all three contexts, 11 of 15 motives were statistically similar, F(30, 1000) = 4.485, p = .000; Wilk's Λ = .777, partial η2 = .12. Thus, the first hypothesis, which posited that traditional sport and eSport spectators have the same sport consumption motives patterns, was partially supported. Significant differences were present in vicarious achievement, F(2, 514) = 8.318, p = .000, partial η2 = .03, excitement, F(2, 514) = 3.496, p = .031, partial η2 = .01, family bonding, F(2, 514) = 5.115, p = .006, partial η2 = .02, and physical attractiveness, F(2, 514) = 4.336, p = .014, partial η2 = .02. Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests revealed that K League soccer spectators rated the motive of vicarious achievement significantly higher than other spectators in both of FIFA Online 3 and StarCraft II. Physical attractiveness and family bonding were significantly higher for K League soccer spectators than FIFA Online 3 spectators. However, the excitement motive for FIFA Online 3 was signifi- cantly higher than for K League soccer. These results suggest that K League and eSport (i.e., FIFA Online 3 and StarCraft II) spectators report similar levels of agreement on 11 of 15 motives while differing on four others (i.e., vicarious achievement, excitement, family bonding, and physical attractiveness). Similarities and differences between the traditional sport and the two eSports are presented in Table 3.

The multiple regression model from K League soccer spectators with 15 motivation predictors produced R² = .540, F(15, 171) = 13.372, p = .000. Interest in K League soccer (ß = .212, p = .014), excitement (ß = -.286, p = .002), interest in player (ß = .413, p = .000), drama (ß = -252, p = .000), and wholesome environ- ment (ß = .432, p = .000) were significant predictors of game attendance frequency. The ß coefficients revealed that spectator interest in K League soccer, interest in player, and wholesome environment positively influence their game attendance frequency. However, excitement and drama of the game negatively affected spectator game attendance frequency.

The multiple regression model from FIFA Online 3 with 15 motivation predictors produced R² = .545, F (15, 162) = 12.953, p = .000. Interest in FIFA Online 3 (ß = .288, p = .003), vicarious achievement (ß = -.217, p = .023), interest in player (ß = .343, p = .001), aesthetics (ß = -.495, p = .000), and role model ( ß = .377, p =

.000) were significant predictors of game attendance frequency. Results revealed that individual interest in FIFA Online 3, interest in the eSport player, and role model positively impacted their game attendance frequency. However, vicarious achievement and aesthetics negatively affected their game attendance frequency.

The multiple regression model from StarCraft II with 15 motivation predictors produced R² = .589, F(15, 136) = 13.017, p = .000. Vicarious achievement (ß = .207, p = .024), social opportunities (ß = -.261, p = .031), entertainment value (ß = .476, p = .001), family bonding (ß = .210, p = .021), and skill of the athletes (ß = .301, p = .010) were significant predictors of game attendance frequency. Results revealed that spectator vicarious achievement, entertainment value, family bonding, and skill of the athletes positively influenced their game attendance frequency. However, the social opportunities negatively affected their game attendance frequency. Complete results of all multiple regression analyses are presented in Table 4.

Across contexts, ß coefficients of several significant predictors were negatively related to game attendance frequency. The negative relationship between specta- tor sport motives and sport consumer consumption behaviors is consistent with the assessment of the predictive validity findings of the MSSC and SII (e.g., Funk et al., 2003; Trail & James, 2001).

Discussion The current study utilizes the findings of existing sport consumer motivation research (e.g., Funk et al., 2002; Trail & James, 2001) in a traditional and eSport context. Holistically, the results demonstrate that traditional sport and eSport spectators have similar sport consumption motives, though spectators from each event context exhibited distinct motives predict- ing game attendance frequency. Motives influencing game attendance frequency between the sport-themed eSport and traditional sport were similar to one an- other than the relationship between any other context pair. This suggests sport-themed eSports are more closely related to sports than to other eSports from a consumer behavior perspective.

Testing the first hypothesis, 11 of the 15 motives were similar across the three contexts. Significant differences were found in vicarious achievement, excitement, physical attractiveness, and family bond- ing. Similar to past research on motives to spectate traditional soccer matches (Mahony, Nakazawa, Funk, James, & Gladden, 2002), vicarious achievement was found to be salient in both soccer contexts. However traditional soccer fans rated this motive significantly

116 Volume 27 • Number 2 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

Table 3. Similarities and Differences of Spectator Motives by Sport

Motive K-League

Soccer FIFA Online 3 StarCraft II MANOVA

Tukey's HSD post- hoc tests

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F p Groups p

Interest in [sport] 4.31

(1.83) 4.63

(1.92) 4.24

(1.84) 2.159 .116

A vs B A vs C B vs C

.221

.943

.140

Vicarious achievement 5.28

(1.50) 4.84

(1.65) 4.58

(1.68) 8.318 .000

A vs B A vs C B vs C

.024

.000

.313

Excitement 4.41

(1.63) 4.87

(1.56) 4.56

(1.93) 3.496 .031

A vs B A vs C B vs C

.026

.689

.223

Interest in player 4.25

(1.61) 4.22

(1.77) 4.29

(1.81) .059 .943

A vs B A vs C B vs C

.992

.971

.938

Aesthetics 4.53

(1.62) 4.58

(1.82) 4.68

(1.88) .325 .723

A vs B A vs C B vs C

.953

.702

.866

Social opportunities 4.33

(1.71) 4.50

(1.65) 4.16

(1.76) 1.661 .191

A vs B A vs C B vs C

.593

.637

.164

Drama 4.81

(1.88) 4.51

(1.84) 4.80

(1.64) 1.620 .199

A vs B A vs C B vs C

.246 1.000 .294

Role model 3.74

(1.63) 3.80

(1.88) 4.14

(1.64) 2.550 .079

A vs B A vs C B vs C

.941

.085

.174

Entertainment value 4.16

(1.63) 4.15

(1.96) 4.39

(1.89) .917 .401

A vs B A vs C B vs C

.999

.469

.451

Wholesome environment 4.30

(1.55) 4.22

(1.73) 4.18

(1.71) .235 .791

A vs B A vs C B vs C

.890

.784

.974

Family bonding 4.03

(1.56) 3.46

(1.79) 3.69

(1.76) 5.115 .006

A vs B A vs C B vs C

.004

.168

.439

Acquisition of knowledge 4.43

(1.45) 4.38

(1.71) 4.59

(1.59) .816 .443

A vs B A vs C B vs C

.948

.609

.434

Skill of the athletes 4.26

(1.55) 4.35

(1.88) 4.66

(1.83) 2.297 .102

A vs B A vs C B vs C

.885

.098

.247

Physical attractiveness 4.40

(1.52) 3.89

(1.78) 4.04

(1.78) 4.336 .014

A vs B A vs C B vs C

.012

.132

.695

Enjoyment of aggression 4.04

(1.75) 4.11

(1.66) 4.05

(1.73) .101 .904

A vs B A vs C B vs C

.908

.999

.935

Note. A: K League soccer (n = 187), B: FIFA Online 3 (n = 178), C: StarCraft II (n = 152).

Volume 27 • Number 2 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 117

higher than did spectators in both eSport contexts. This finding could result from eSport event emphasis on the digital display of in-game action, while tradi- tional sport spectators benefit from direct sightlines to players and the field of play (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995). Excitement, an established motive from traditional spectator sport (e.g., Funk, Filo, Beaton, & Pritchard, 2009), was significantly higher for the sport-themed game than in traditional sport, suggesting eSports may be more immersive and engaging than tradi- tional sports. Consistent with prior research, physical attractiveness and family bonding were salient motives related to traditional sport consumption (e.g., Trail & James, 2001). These motives were significantly higher for traditional sport than FIFA Online 3. Physical attractiveness of traditional sport players is a signifi- cant motive for sport spectators (e.g., Trail & James, 2001). The physical attractiveness of eSport players has been shown to have an insignificant relationship with eSport spectatorship (Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017), consistent with the current study’s findings. Family bonding was significantly higher for traditional sport spectators than the virtual representation of sport.

This supports market research that identifies eSport spectators as younger than traditional sport spectators (PWC, 2016) and generally less likely to be parents (Souza, 2015).

Most notably, athlete skill, a significant motive iden- tified in multiple traditional sport contexts (James & Ross, 2004), was rated higher for both eSport contexts than for the traditional sport, and was significantly higher for the RTS game than for the traditional sport. The lack of applied skills of eSports is one of the most commonly contested dimensions for excluding eSports as sport (see Jenny et al., 2017, for a more complete discussion). Yet the current study demonstrates that the appreciation of the skills needed to perform in competitive eSport competitions is a significant attendance motive at or beyond the level observed in traditional sport.

Results from the current study on eSport specta- torship converge with those of Hamari and Sjöblom (2017) who found that athlete aggressiveness is a salient motive for eSport spectatorship. Hamari and Sjöblom (2017) reported that eSport players’ physi- cal attractiveness was not a significant predictor of

Table 4. Motives Impacting Traditional Sport and eSports on Game Attendance Frequency

Constructs Traditional Soccer (K League Soccer)

Sport-Themed eSport (FIFA Online 3)

Real-Time Strategy (StarCraft II)

B SE B ß p B SE B ß p B SE B ß p

Constant .597 .444 .181 .925 .374 .014 -.163 .416 .696

Interest in [sport] .212 .085 .212 .014 .287 .096 .288 .003 .010 .097 .009 .917 Vicarious achievement .046 .080 .037 .572 -.252 .109 -.217 .023 .243 .107 .207 .024 Excitement -.321 .103 -.286 .002 -.110 .117 -.089 .350 -.291 .161 -.284 .074 Interest in player .469 .103 .413 .000 .371 .106 .343 .001 .199 .166 .182 .231 Aesthetics -.057 .117 -.051 .628 -.519 .116 -.495 .000 .099 .127 .094 .437 Social opportunities -.008 .106 -.007 .941 .016 .103 .014 .875 -.293 .134 -.261 .031 Drama -.245 .060 -.252 .000 .092 .079 .089 .243 -.137 .086 -.114 .114 Role model -.085 .107 -.076 .428 .383 .088 .377 .000 .138 .117 .115 .238 Entertainment value .087 .093 .078 .352 .111 .102 .114 .278 .498 .141 .476 .001 Wholesome environment .508 .124 .432 .000 .212 .113 .192 .064 -.113 .136 -.098 .406 Family bonding .054 .089 .046 .544 .042 .082 .040 .605 .236 .101 .210 .021 Acquisition of knowledge .112 .124 .089 .366 .106 .119 .094 .376 -.036 .138 -.029 .795 Skill of the athletes .001 .110 .001 .990 -.080 .113 -.079 .481 .326 .124 .301 .010 Physical attractiveness .014 .082 .012 .862 -.009 .086 -.009 .915 -.056 .122 -.051 .646 Enjoyment of aggression -.008 .080 -.008 .915 .057 .095 .050 .547 .126 .108 .110 .248

F-statistic 13.372 12.953 13.017 R2 .540 .545 .589

Note. Significant values in bold.

118 Volume 27 • Number 2 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

eSport spectatorship. Results in the current study expanded on this conclusion and indicated that the physical attractiveness of traditional sport players is significantly higher than that of eSport players. Results of the current study diverge from Hamari and Sjöblom (2017) regarding vicarious achievement, drama, skill of the athletes, and social opportunities. Vicarious achievement, while statistically higher for traditional sport, was also a salient motive for both eSports. Drama and social opportunities, salient sport consumption motives (James & Ross, 2004), were also relevant motives and statistically equal across all three contexts in contrast to Hamari and Sjöblom (2017), who found these motives insignificant. The contrasting findings may be a result of the in-person eSport event experience (i.e., Nexon Arena) used in the current study, while Hamari and Sjöblom (2017) examined online eSport spectatorship. Results regarding drama are consistent with the qualitative findings of Cheung and Huang (2011), who identified the importance of drama in eSport consumption. Results confirm eSport event market research (e.g., Eventbrite, 2015) that event spectators are looking for a dramatic experience, consistent with prior spectator sport research (e.g., James & Ross, 2004).

The second hypothesis proposed that spectator attendance motives impact game attendance frequency similarly across the three event contexts. The ex- plained variance in attendance frequency was similar across the three contexts of K League (R2=.54), FIFA Online 3 (R2=.55), and StarCraft II (R2=.59). Although the composition of motives differed in terms of what significantly explained variance, overall these numbers are very similar. Motives that have been previously used to measure and explain live attendance at sport- ing events explained similar amounts of variance in attendance at eSport events.

Prior research has not explicitly measured the relationship between the MSSC or SII and game attendance frequency. Yet Fink et al. (2002) found sport consumers’ motives to be significant predictors of behavioral outcomes, including game attendance frequency. Results for traditional sport indicated that interest in sport, interest in player, drama, and wholesome environment were significant predictors of game attendance frequency. For sport-themed eSport, interest in sport, excitement, interest in player, role model, and enjoyment of aggression were significant predictors of game attendance frequency. For RTS eSport, vicarious achievement, entertainment value, family bonding, and physical skill of the athletes were found to be significant predictors of game attendance frequency.

Similar to the current study findings, Fink et al. (2002) found that environmental factors (e.g., family and social factors) positively affect game attendance intentions. Funk, Ridinger, and Moorman (2003) measured the relationship between the SII motives and consumer support, a composite variable that included behavioral items such as game attendance frequency, as well as interest in women’s professional sport, television game watching frequency and level of commitment to a team. Funk et al. (2003) found that the significant SII motives influencing consumer support are interest in team, escape, aesthetics, drama, socialization, role model, interest in sport, vicarious achievement, support for women’s opportunity, and interest in players. The findings of Funk et al. (2003) are in line with the current study’s findings that sport spectators have distinct consumption behaviors that vary by context.

While no motive was found to be significant across all three contexts, traditional sport and sport-themed eSport shared more motives that influenced game attendance frequency than any other context pair. Interest in sport and interest in player were signif- icant predictors of game attendance frequency for both traditional sport and sport-themed eSport. This highlights commonality between the two, suggesting that sport-themed eSport spectators may behave more similarly to traditional sport spectators than do spec- tators of other types of eSport. Given the distinct sets of motives influencing the patterns of spectators’ game attendance frequency from each context, the second hypothesis was not supported.

Results address the divide between those who do or do not regard eSports as sport. Specifically, the use of skill by both eSport and traditional sport athletes is shown to be a salient motive for all spectators. In con- trast, Hamari and Sjöblom (2017) did not find athlete skill to be a significant spectator motive. Their study examined spectator motives for all eSports collectively, which may fail to capture nuances among different eS- ports. Furthermore, the current research adds to prior research that discussed eSport as sport (e.g., Hilvoorde & Pot 2016; Holt, 2016; Jenny et al., 2017; Jonasson & Thiborg, 2010; Witkowski, 2012), moving the discus- sion forward from a consumer behavior perspective. The shared motive patterns of traditional sport and eSport spectators demonstrates that these groups of spectators are motivated to spectate similarly.

Overall, results indicate a high degree of similarity between motives of traditional sport and eSport spectators, suggesting that eSport events can be viewed and marketed in a similar fashion to traditional sport events. Yet, distinct motives influence the behavioral

Volume 27 • Number 2 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 119

outcome of game attendance frequency for spectators of each sport event. The current study also advances the discussion on eSport as sport, highlighting how components of traditional sport typically considered missing from eSports (e.g., physical skill of athletes) still serve as motives for eSport consumption.

Theoretical Implications Sport marketing scholars have established the impor- tance of spectator motives on game and event atten- dance, with individuals attending for different reasons and desiring different aspects of the experience (e.g., Robinson et al., 2005; Trail, Robinson, et al., 2003). Research on sport consumer motives has provided valuable insight in understanding sport consumption behaviors (Trail & Kim, 2011) and identified that these motives are also a central predictor of sport con- sumption decisions (Trail, Fink, & Anderson, 2003). Common motives include vicarious achievement, drama, excitement, entertainment value, and social opportunities (Funk et al., 2001; Milne & McDonald, 1999; Trail & James, 2001).

eSport represents a new area for study in sport consumer behavior (Funk, 2017). Understanding whether eSport operates similarly to traditional sport is key to developing appropriate marketing strategies for the eSport industry and can inform academic research in this rapidly-growing area (e.g., Funk et al., 2018; Hallmann & Giel, 2018; Heere, 2018). If eSports and traditional sports are consumed in order to satisfy the same spectator motives, existing theoretical and practical approaches to sport consumer behavior are likely applicable to both. The current study compared traditional sport spectator motives to eSport spectator motives to better understand the behavior of eSport consumers and explore the extent to which eSport consumer behavior operates similarly to traditional sport consumer behavior.

Results indicated a number of similarities and a few differences between eSport consumption motives and those found with a traditional sport. Most notably, athlete skill, a motive identified in multiple traditional sport contexts (James & Ross, 2004), was rated higher for both eSport contexts than for the traditional sport, and was significantly higher for the RTS game than for the traditional sport. The lack of applied skills of eSport players is one of the most common rationales for excluding eSports as sport (Jenny et al., 2017). Yet, the current study demonstrates that the appreciation of the skills needed to perform in competitive eSport competitions is a significant attendance motive, at or beyond the level observed in traditional sport.

The current study adds to the body of sport mar- keting literature, specifically on the role of spectator

motives in sport consumption. Results contribute to academic understanding of what motives play a role in eSport consumption compared to those of traditional sport. Guided by the study results, eSport researchers can draw from established theory from traditional sport, while remaining cognizant of distinct motives influencing eSport consumers.

Results of the current study are consistent with motivation as a guiding force on behavior (e.g., Hebb, 1955; Deci, 1971). Sport management research has em- phasized that motivation is a central predictor of sport consumption (Trail et al., 2003). Moreover, the current study supports the proposition of Yoshida and Heere (2015), that motivation is a universally-applicable construct. The current study substantiates their prop- osition by examining the role of established motives in an international context (i.e., South Korea), finding established sport consumption motives significantly correlated with game attendance frequency for both eSport and a traditional sport.

Furthermore, the current study provides a foun- dation for future research on eSport by highlighting the similarities between eSport and traditional sport consumption. These similarities include motives of interest in sport, interest in player, aesthetics, social opportunities, drama, role model, entertainment value, wholesome environment, acquisition of knowl- edge, skill of the athletes, and enjoyment of aggression. Yet, while eSport and traditional sport spectators share many common motives, eSport and traditional sport spectators are not identically motivated. For instance, spectators of eSport find eSport events significantly more exciting, highlighting that eSport and traditional sport spectators are highly similar, but not identical.

Research on the motivation of eSport spectators to attend and consume eSports is emerging as a salient area of inquiry for sport management scholars. The current study expands upon the conceptual work of Funk et al. (2018), which emphasized that traditional sport management research can inform eSport related research. The current study informs eSport motivation research by demonstrating that eSport operates simi- larly to traditional sport and identifies the nuances of eSport consumer behavior, extending sport manage- ment research into eSport. This perspective is support- ed by conceptual work emphasizing that eSport shares many of the core managerial concerns present in traditional sport (Funk et al., 2018; Hallmann & Giel, 2018; Heere, 2018), with the current study empirically demonstrating similarities in their consumption.

Practical Implications From a sport management perspective, this research provides a foundation and introduction of eSport into

120 Volume 27 • Number 2 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

the discipline. eSport is becoming more accepted as sport within the larger sport community, with many sport organizations purchasing eSport teams and leagues (PWC, 2016). The Philadelphia 76ers pur- chased two eSports teams, using existing staff to assist in their operations (Hietner, 2016). Investment group aXiomatic, which is led by the organization that owns the Golden State Warriors, Washington Capitals, and Los Angeles football club, recently purchased a con- trolling interest in a major eSports team, Team Liquid (Gu, 2016). The National Basketball Association (NBA) and Take-Two Interactive, the parent company of 2K Sports, recently announced the formation of the NBA 2K eLeague, which is reported to be the first official eS- ports league operated by a U.S. sports league (Nathan, 2017). The French Professional Football League, Ligue 1, recently created an equivalent league for eSports, e-Ligue 1, with 20 of its traditional football clubs each sponsoring two FIFA eSport players (SkySports, 2016). Sport organizations are leveraging their core compe- tencies managing and marketing traditional sports to eSports.

The demographic characteristics of our survey participants are consistent with industry reports on eSport. Survey participant demographics highlight that eSports appeal to both young males and females. Males had greater representation at both eSports events—78% for FIFA Online 3 and 72% for StarCraft II. However, the spectator demographics challenge prevailing stereotypes of eSports as a male-dominated activity. Females comprise one of the fastest growing market segments for eSports (Paaßen, Morgenroth, & Stratemeyer, 2016), and the motives of female spec- tators offer a salient area of inquiry for eSport event marketing and management.

The results of this study are particularly useful to those organizing the growing number of eSport events. Marketers of eSport events can apply the results of the current research to better understand what drives spectatorship for eSport events. Event marketers can build on the shared motives between traditional and eSport spectators, while acknowledging the nuances among different types of eSports. Marketing profes- sionals can select the most applicable motives and develop targeted marketing messages to potential event spectators. The excitement of eSport events were rated higher than those of traditional sports, and mar- keting promotions should appeal to the enthusiasm of eSport spectators. Aesthetics, the successful plays and strategies executed by players, are also motivating to eSport spectators. Promoters can target spectators by emphasizing the skill of top eSport players. Fur- thermore, the drama of eSport events should also be

emphasized by event marketers. eSport spectators enjoy close matches rather than one-sided victories, similar to fans of traditional sport (Funk et al., 2001). Overall, the results show how eSport motives function similarly to a traditional sport.

While one traditional sport (i.e., soccer) does not exhaustively represent all sports, it is a popular global sport, used to identify the extent to which traditional sport and eSports are consumed in similar ways and are based on shared motives. This implication is important, as it suggests that existing sport marketing literature can be adapted and modified to examine eSport consumer behavior. However, cultural differ- ences regarding perceptions towards video gaming must be considered. For South Koreans, gaming is viewed as a social activity, in contrast to Westerners, who view it as a solitary hobby (Li, 2016). Yet, in- creasing support for acceptance of gaming as a social activity is increasing in Western cultures (PWC, 2016), evident in traditional sport entities increasing align- ment with the eSports industry (Funk et al., 2018).

The final implication of the current study is on eSport as sport. The current work addresses and nar- rows the divide between eSport and traditional sport. Past debates on eSport as sport have focused on the lack of applied skill in eSport as a distinction between the two. The current study shows that the skill of eSport players attracts spectators. Just as promotional advertisements marketing a big-name professional athlete coming to a local arena attracts fans (Lucifora & Simmons, 2003), results show that eSport spectators, too, enjoy seeing the best players in action with an appreciation for their talent.

Limitations and Future Directions Six limitations to this research should be recognized. First, data collection was conducted solely in South Korea, among traditional sport and eSport spectators. Caution should be exercised when generalizing the results to other settings, given that individual pref- erences, motivations, and behaviors are influenced by geographic and cultural context (Hofstede, 2001). South Korea has a well-established eSport culture that may influence how eSport is viewed in relation to traditional sport (Lee & Schoenstedt, 2011). Rep- lication in other countries is necessary to determine whether results of the current study are a byproduct of the South Korean context. Second, the current study predominantly focused on games related to a single sport (i.e., soccer). While a second eSport game, StarCraft II, was incorporated into the research design, eSports span a variety of different forms or genres, including sport-themed games (e.g., FIFA Online 3), RTS games (e.g., StarCraft II), multiplayer online battle

Volume 27 • Number 2 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 121

arena (MOBA) games (e.g., League of Legends, Defense of the Ancients 2), first-person shooters (e.g., Count- er-Strike: Global Offensive), and fighting games (e.g., Super Smash Brothers). Future research with other eSport genres is necessary to enhance external validity of the results.

Third, this study focused on a single psychological factor (i.e., spectator motivation) known to influence game attendance frequency. Incorporating additional variables, including sport involvement and identifica- tion with sport could be beneficial for future research. Motivation factors in the current study were drawn from two scales (SII and MSSC), both of which are broad and well-established in the sport management literature. However, spectators may be motivated by additional factors beyond the 15 measured in the current study. Furthermore, all items were drawn from scales developed in the context of traditional sport. eSports may involve additional context-specific motivational factors that are not present in traditional sport. Inclusion of such additional factors needs to be considered in future research to better explain game attendance frequency and additional consumption behaviors. Distinct factors, such as peer pressure and video game graphics could play a role in consumption (Lee & Schoenstedt, 2011). Future research should consider what other motives are distinct to specific eSports.

Fourth, single-item measures were used to capture spectator motives. Single-item measures can be accept- able for accurately measuring a construct (Rossiter, 2002), but multiple items could provide increased validity. Multi-item measures could also permit advanced statistical techniques, such as structural equation modelling. The fifth limitation is the number of survey responses excluded from analysis due to respondent straight-lining (Herzog & Bachman, 1981). While the survey design was intended to minimize such behavior through the use of a relatively short survey instrument, the number of discarded responses requires acknowledgement.

The sixth limitation is the possibility of selection bias, specifically self-selection bias, existed between our survey respondents and non-respondents (i.e., those who refused to take the survey). Self-selec- tion bias occurs when proper randomization is not achieved (Heckman, 1979). Self-selection bias is unavoidable in scientific research and is acknowledged as a limitation of the current study.

Future research should account for consumers level of involvement with particular eSport games, leagues, and marquee gamers. The current study examined the direct effects of spectator motivation on attendance

and game attendance frequency. Additionally, the current study used a survey-based research design. Qualitative or mixed-methods approaches could offer additional insight into the eSport spectator experience and identify additional motives that drive eSport consumption. Finally, media representations of eSports are positioning eSport as sport, applying sport terms, such as athlete, competition, team, and rivalry to describe eSports. The ESPN website includes a dedicated eSports section with the same level of menu bar prominence as well-accepted sports such as golf, tennis, boxing, MMA, NASCAR, the Olympic Games, and NCAA basketball. Future research should explore media representations of eSport and the influence on consumer perceptions of eSport as sport.

Ackowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the Sport Industry Research Center (SIRC) at Temple University for its support of this research project.

References Boucher, R. L. (1998). Toward achieving a focal point for sport

management: A binocular perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 12(1), 76–85.

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.

Brislin, R.W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J.W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Buchanan‐Oliver, M., & Seo, Y. (2012). Play as co‐created narra- tive in computer game consumption: The hero's journey in Warcraft III. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(6), 423–431.

Burk, D. L. (2013). Owning e-Sports: Proprietary rights in professional computer gaming. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 161(6), 1535–1578.

Casselman, B. (2015). Resistance is futile: eSports is the future. ESPN. Retrieved from http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/ id/13059210/esports-massive-industry-growing

Cheung, G. and Huang, J. (2011) Starcraft from the stands: Under- standing the game spectator. Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in computing systems. (CHI’11), 763–772. New York, NY, USA.

Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better mea- sures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.

Coakley, J. (2008). Studying intercollegiate sports: High stakes, low rewards. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 1(1), 14–28.

Conditt, J. (2016). UC Irvine debuts the first public col- lege eSports arena in the US. Engadget. Retrieved from https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/14/ esports-arena-college-uc-irvine-leage-of-legends/

Crawford, G., & Gosling, V. (2009). More than a game: Sports- themed video games & player narratives. Sociology of Sport Journal, 26(1), 50–66.

Crompton, J. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 408–424.

122 Volume 27 • Number 2 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 18(1), 105–115.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-de- termination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.

Entertainment Software Association. (2016). Essential facts about the computer and video game industry. Entertainment Soft- ware Association. Retrieved from http://essentialfacts.theesa. com/Essential-Facts-2016.pdf

Eventbrite. (2015). The eSports effect: Gamers and the influence of live events. Retrieved from http://eb-blog-bloguk.s3.am- azonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/ESports_Evenbrite_FI- NAL-REPORT.pdf

Fink, J. S., Trail, G. T., & Anderson, D. F. (2002). Environmental factors associated with spectator attendance and sport consumption behavior: Gender and team differences. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11(1), 8–19.

Funk, D. C. (2017). Introducing a Sport Experience Design (SX) framework for sport consumer behaviour research. Sport Management Review. 20(3), 145–158.

Funk, D. C., Beaton, A., & Alexandris, K. (2012). Sport consumer motivation: Autonomy and control orientations that regulate fan behaviors. Sport Management Review, 15(3), 355–367.

Funk, D. C., Filo, K., Beaton, A. A., & Pritchard, M. (2009). Measuring the motives of sport event attendance: Bridging the academic-practitioner divide to understanding behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 18(3), 126–138.

Funk, D. C., & James, J. (2001). The psychological continuum model: A conceptual framework for understanding an indi- vidual’s psychological connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4(2), 119–150.

Funk, D., Mahony, D. F., & Nakazawa, S. (2001). Development of the sport interest inventory (SII): Implications for measuring unique consumer motives at team sporting events. Interna- tional Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 3(3), 38–63.

Funk, D. C., Pizzo, A. D., & Baker, B. J. (2018). eSport Manage- ment: Embracing eSport Education and Research Opportuni- ties. Sport Management Review, 21, 7–13.

Funk, D. C., Ridinger, L. L., & Moorman, A. M. (2003). Under- standing consumer support: Extending the Sport Interest Inventory (SII) to examine individual differences among women's professional sport consumers. Sport Management Review, 6(1), 1–31.

Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(6), 898–915.

Gayomali, G. (2010). Korea’s national sport. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/ archive/2010/07/koreas-national-sport/59136/

Gies, A. (March, 2016). With gender disparity in eSports, researchers look for ways to close the gap. Polygon. Re- trieved from http://www.polygon.com/2016/3/16/11243526/ esports-gender-gap-women-events-gdc-2016

Gu, R. (2016). Warriors owner buys controlling interest in TL. ESPN. Retrieved from http://www.espn.com/esports/story/_/ id/17651274/team-liquid-sells-controlling-interest-golden- state-warriors-co-owner

Guttmann, A. (2004). From ritual to record: The nature of modern sports. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hallmann, K., & Giel, T. (2018). eSports–Competitive sports or recreational activity? Sport Management Review, 21, 14-20. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.07.011

Hamari, J., & Sjöblom, M. (2017). What is eSports and why do people watch it? Internet Research, 27(2). http://doi. org/10.1108/IntR-04-2016-0085

Hebb, D. O. (1955). Drives and the CNS (conceptual nervous system). Psychological Review, 62(4), 243–254.

Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.

Heere, B. (2018). Embracing the sportification of society: Defining e-sports through a polymorphic view on sport. Sport Manage- ment Review, 21, 21-24. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.07.002

Heitner, D. (2016). Philadelphia 76ers buy into the business of eSports. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/ darrenheitner/2016/09/26/philadelphia-76ers-buys-into-the- business-of-esports/#2d6223a54ad8

Herzog, A. R., & Bachman, J. G. (1981). Effects of questionnaire length on response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45(4), 549–559.

Hilvoorde, I. & Pot, N. (2016) Embodiment and fundamental motor skills in eSports. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 10(1), 14–27.

Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Holt, J. (2016). Virtual domains for sports and games. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 10(1), 1–9.

James, J. D., & Ross, S. D. (2004). Comparing sport consumer motivations across multiple sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13(1), 17-25.

Jenny, S. E., Manning, R. D., Keiper, M. C., & Olrich, T. W. (2017). Virtual(ly) athletes: Where eSports fit within the definition of “Sport.” Quest, 69(1), 1–18.

Jonasson, K. (2016). Broadband and circuits: The place of public gaming in the history of sport. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 10(1), 28–41.

Jonasson, K., & Thiborg, J. (2010). Electronic sport and its impact on future sport. Sport in Society, 13(2), 287–299.

Jordan, J. S., & Turner, B. A. (2008). The feasibility of single-item measures for organizational justice. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 12(4), 237–257.

Kim, J. W., James, J. D., & Kim, Y. K. (2013). A model of the relationship among sport consumer motives, spectator commitment, and behavioral intentions. Sport Management Review, 16(2), 173–185.

Kim, S., Greenwell, T. C., Andrew, D. P., Lee, J., & Mahony, D. F. (2008). An analysis of spectator motives in an individual com- bat sport: A study of mixed martial arts fans. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17(2), 109–119.

Korean Culture and Information Service. (2016). How South Korea became a sporting powerhouse. Korea.net. Re- trieved from http://www.korea.net/AboutKorea/Sports/ How-South-Korea-Became-Sporting-Powerhouse

Korean Statistical Information Service. (2017). Major indicators of Korea. Retrieved from https://kosis.kr/eng/

Kwon, H., & Trail, G. (2005). The feasibility of single-item measures in sport loyalty research. Sport Management Review, 8(1), 69–88.

Lee, D., & Schoenstedt, L. J. (2011). Comparison of eSports and traditional sports consumption motives. The ICHPER-SD Journal of Research in Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport & Dance, 6(2), 39–44.

Lee, D., Trail, G. T., & Anderson, D. F. (2009). Differences in mo- tives and points of attachment by season ticket status: A case study of ACHA. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 5(1-2), 132–150.

Li, R. (2016). Good luck have fun: The rise of eSports. New York: Skyhorse Publishing.

Lucifora, C., & Simmons, R. (2003). Superstar effects in sport: Evidence from Italian soccer. Journal of Sports Economics, 4(1), 35–55.

Volume 27 • Number 2 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 123

Mahony, D. F., Nakazawa, M., Funk, D. C., James, J. D., & Gladden, J. M. (2002). Motivational factors influencing the behaviour of J. League spectators. Sport Management Review, 5(1), 1–24.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.

Milne, G. R., & McDonald, M. A. (1999). Sport marketing: Man- aging the exchange process. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Nathan, A. (2017). NBA announces 2K eLeaugue: Lat- est details, comments and reaction. Bleacher Re- port. Retrieved from http://bleacherreport.com/ articles/2692098-nba-announces-2k-eleague

Newzoo. (2016). 2016 Global esports market report. Retrieved from https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/700740/Reports/NEW- ZOO_Free_2016_Esports_Market_Report.pdf

Paaßen, B., Morgenroth, T., & Stratemeyer, M. (2016). What is a true gamer? The male gamer stereotype and the marginal- ization of women in video game culture. Sex Roles, 76(7–8) 421–435.

Pomeroy, I. M., Clark, C. R., & Philip, I. (2001). The effectiveness of very short scales for depression screening in elderly medical patients. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 16(3), 321–326.

Price Waterhouse Coopers Global, Consumer Intelligence Series. (2016). The burgeoning evolution of eSports. Retrieved from https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industry/entertainment-media/ assets/pwc_consumer-intelligence-series_esports_april-2016. pdf

Ridinger, L. L. & Funk, D. C. (2006). Looking at gender differ- ences through the lens of sport spectators. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15(3), 155–166.

Robinson, M. J., Trail, G. T., Dick, R. J., & Gillentine, A. J. (2005). Fans vs. spectators: An analysis of those who attend intercolle- giate football games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14(1), 43–53.

Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale devel- opment in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 305–335.

Rovell, D. (2016). 76ers acquire esports teams Dignitas and Apex. ESPN. Retrieved from http://www.espn.com/esports/story/_/ id/17637299/76ers-acquire-esports-teams-dignitas-apex

Sarkar, S. (2017). Here are the 17 teams that will kick off the NBA 2K esports league. Polygon. Retrieved from https://www. polygon.com/2017/5/4/15537676/nba-2k-esports-league-teams

Seo, Y. (2013). Electronic sports: A new marketing landscape of the experience economy. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(13–14), 1542–1560.

Seo, Y., & Jung, S. (2014). Beyond solitary play in computer games: The social practices of eSports. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(3), 635–655. http://doi.org/10.1177/1469540514553711

SkySports. (2016). French football league announce new partner- ship with EA sports. Retrieved from http://www.skysports. com/esports/news/34214/10623862/french-football-league- announce-new-partnership-with-ea-sports

Sloan, L. R. (1989). The motives of sports fans. In J.H. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports, games, and play: Social and psychological view- points (2nd ed., pp. 175–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Snelgrove, R., Taks, M., Chalip, L., & Green, B. C. (2008). How visitors and locals at a sport event differ in motives and identity. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 13(3), 165–180.

Souza,E. (2015). The eSports industry to date: The drivers behind current and future growth. Presented at the 2015 eSport Conference, San Fancisco, Ca. Retrieved from https://newzoo. com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Newzoo-eSports-Confer- ence-Slides-2015.pdf

Suits, B. (2007). The elements of sport. In Ethics of sport (pp. 9–19). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Trail, G. T., Fink, J. S., & Anderson, D. F. (2003). Sport spectator consumption behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(1), 8–17.

Trail, G. T., & James, J. D. (2001). The motivation scale for sport consumption: Assessment of the scale's psychometric proper- ties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(1), 108–127.

Trail, G. T., & Kim, Y. K. (2011). Factors influencing spectator sports consumption: NCAA women's college basketball. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 13(1), 55–77.

Trail, G. T., Robinson, M. J., Dick, R. J., & Gillentine, A. J. (2003). Motives and points of attachment: Fans versus spectators in intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(4), 217–227.

Wagner, M. (2006). On the scientific relevance of eSport. In Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Internet Computing and Conference on Computer Game Development. CSREA Press, Las Vegas, Nevada, 437–440.

Wakefield, K. L., & Sloan, H. J. (1995). The effects of team loyalty and selected stadium factors on spectator attendance. Journal of Sport Management, 9(2), 153–172.

Wann, D. L. (1995). Preliminary validation of the sport fan moti- vation scale. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 19(4), 377–396.

Weiss, T., & Schiele, S. (2013). Virtual worlds in competitive con- texts: Analyzing eSports consumer needs. Electronic Markets, 23(4), 307–316.

Witkowski, E. (2012). On the digital playing field how we “do sport” with networked computer games. Games and Culture, 7(5), 349–374.

Won, J. U., & Kitamura, K. (2007). Comparative analysis of sport consumer motivations between South Korea and Japan. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16(2), 93–105.

Yoshida, M., & Heere, B. (2015). Sport marketing in Asia: explor- ing trends and issues in the 21st century. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 24(4), 207–213.

View publication statsView publication stats