The Importance and Application of Social Media in Collegiate Athletics
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

The Importance and Application of Social Media in Collegiate Athletics

on

  • 307 views

Graduate theses presentation on the "Importance and Application of Social Media in Collegiate Athletics"

Graduate theses presentation on the "Importance and Application of Social Media in Collegiate Athletics"

Statistics

Views

Total Views
307
Views on SlideShare
297
Embed Views
10

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

2 Embeds 10

http://marinabarrettportfolio.weebly.com 6
http://www.weebly.com 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

The Importance and Application of Social Media in Collegiate Athletics The Importance and Application of Social Media in Collegiate Athletics Presentation Transcript

  • The Importance and Application of Social Media in Collegiate Athletics Marina Barrett MALS Summer, 2013
  • Review of the Literature – Key Points •  History of Digital Marketing –  Current marketing is shifting to a digital platform and the the change in how media is produced and consumed •  Appropriate Resources –  Constant need for continuous education and research and transitioning a marketing team into a research team •  Social Media in Society –  Digital media is changing the nature of our social connection, personal communication means, and creating the ability to exchange messages without being physically co-present. •  Importance and Application –  Web Analytics
  • Results – What I found •  Marketing concepts must change. –  The 4 P’s vs. the 4 C’s & E’s (see page 2 in Synopsis/PPT notes) •  Mobility and interactivity is key and social media provides that. (see pages 3-7 in Synopsis/PPT notes) •  Increasing conversion rate by 1% can quadruple your return on investment. (see page 8 in Synopsis/PPT notes)
  • The 4P’s to the 4 E’s and C’s of Marketing The 4 E’s • Product to EXPERIENCE o Discover and map out the full Customer Journey of your own brand – in your own country. Ask these questions to determine your Customer’s Journey. • Place to EVERYPLACE o Develop your knowledge of new media and channels the way a chef masters new ingredients. Try new things – do something that doesn’t start with TV or print. • Price to EXCHANGE o Appreciate the value of things, not just the cost. Start by calculating the value of your customers – and what their attention, engagement and permission are worth to you. • Promotion to EVANGELISM o Find the passion and emotion in your brand. Inspire your customers and employees with your passion. What makes evangelism so powerful today is how it marries the oldest form of persuasion – word of mouth – and the newest – social networking and Web 2.0. The 4 C’s • Product becomes what the CUSTOMER wants and needs. o If organizations listen to what their customers are saying (their wants and needs), they can develop better products and services for them. Sport organizations can collect information about the customers and follow-up using a variety of digital mediums. • Price becomes the COST TO SATISFY the want or need. o The consumer’s cost to satisfy takes into account a number of other variables such as time, distance, or other activities consumers could be doing instead of buying the product or service. • Place becomes CONVENIENCE of buying. o Place implies a fixed location where consumers go to purchase or consume goods and/or services. Convenience focuses on the consumers’ involvement in a product or service. How can we make it more convenient for them to purchase or use our product? Can we make our sport product more available to consumers at home? • Promotion becomes COMMUNICATION. o Communication is now interactive, giving consumers a way to voice their thoughts, both good and bad. Promotions and communication is now a two-way communication channel.
  • Mobility Cell phone usage by different ages (2011) Based on adult cell owners Send or receive text messages Take a picture Access the internet Send a photo or video to someone Send or receive email Download an app Play a game Play music Record a video Access a social networking site Watch a video Post a photo or video online Check your bank balance or do any online banking Participate in a video call or video chat Mean (out of 14) 18-29 (n=321) 95%*** 91*** 64*** 72** 51** 49*** 53*** 58*** 53*** 50*** 44*** 37*** 29** 14*** 7.6 30-49 (n=535) 85%** 81** 54** 65** 46** 37** 44** 39** 42** 36** 32** 26** 22** 5** 6.2 50-64 (n=572) 58%* 60* 26* 40* 26* 17* 18* 16* 19* 13* 10* 9* 10 2 3.2 65+ (n=430) 24% 37 10 16 10 7 7 4 3 2 3 5 6 2 1.4 Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project, April 26 – May 22, 2011 Spring Tracking Survey. n=2,277 adult internet users ages 18 and older, including 755 cell phone interviews. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. ***significant difference compared with all other age groups **significant difference with 50-64 and 65+ *significant difference with 65+. Due to sample size limitations, Twitter use is not included in this analysis.
  • Demographics of internet users in 2000 and 2011 % of each group of American adults who use the internet. For instance, 76% of women use the internet as of August 2011. % of adults who use the internet June 2000 August 2011 All adults (age 18+) 47% 78% Men 50 80 Women 45 76 White, Non-Hispanic 49 80 Black, Non-Hispanic 35 71 Hispanic^ 40 68 18-29 61 94 30-49 57 87 50-64 41 74 65+ 12 41 Less than $30,000/yr 28 62 $30,000-$49,999 50 83 $50,000-$74,999 67 90 $75,000+ 79 97 No high school diploma 16 43 High school grad 33 71 Some College 62 88 College + 76 94 Race/ethnicity Age Household income Educational attainment ^ Note: In the 2000 survey, this included only English-speaking Hispanics. In the 2011 survey, this included both English- and Spanish-speaking Hispanics. All differences are statistically significant except for those between blacks and Hispanics in 2011. Sources: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project’s May 2000 Tracking Survey conducted May 19-June 21, 2000. N=2,117adults age 18 and older. Interviews were conducted in English. // The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project’s August Tracking Survey conducted July 25-August 26, 2011. N=2,260 adults age 18 and older, including 916 interviews conducted by cell phone. Interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish. More: http://pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Trend-Data/Whos-Online.aspx pewinternet.org 5
  • Other groups that are particularly likely to use social networking sites are adults with at least some college experience (who have not yet graduated) and parents with minor children living at home. There are currently no major differences in overall social networking site usage by gender, race, or household income. Online activities, by demographics % of internet users age 18+ within each group who do the following activities online Search Email Buy a product Use social network sites Bank online May 2011 Aug 2011 May 2011 Aug 2011 May 2011 All adults 92% 91% 71% 64% 61% Men Women Race/ethnicity White, Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic Hispanic (English- and Spanish-speaking) Age 18-29 30-49 50-64 65+ Household income Less than $30,000/yr $30,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000+ Educational attainment No high school diploma High school grad Some College College + 93 91 89 93 69 74 63 66 65 57 93 91 92 88 73 74 63 70 62 67 87 86 59 67 52 96 91 91 87 91 93 90 86 70 73 76 56 87 68 49 29 61 68 59 44 90 91 93 98 85 93 94 97 51 77 80 90 68 65 61 66 42 65 74 80 81 88 94 96 69 87 95 97 33 59 74 87 63 60 73 63 32 47 66 74 Date of survey Sources: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Tracking Surveys, May & August 2011. Interviews were conducted by landline and cell phone, in both English and Spanish. pewinternet.org 13
  • The power of mobile Currently, 88% of American adults age 18 and older have a cell phone, 57% have a laptop, 19% own an e-book reader, and 19% have a tablet computer; about six in ten adults (63%) go online wirelessly with one of those devices. Gadget ownership is generally correlated with age, education, and household income, although some devices—notably e-book readers and tablets20—are as popular or even more popular with adults ages 30-49 than those under 30. Adult gadget ownership over time (2006-2012) % of American adults age 18+ who own each device 100% 90% 80% 73% 75% 70% 68% 78% 60% 39% 30% 30% 83% 84% 87% 88% Cell phone 59% 57% 57% 55% 52% 56% 55% 47% 47% 47% 37% 40% 85% 64% 62% 62% 65% 50% 85% 84% 82% 45% 37% 41% 37% 34% 42% Desktop computer Laptop computer mp3 player 44% Game console e-Book reader 19% 20% 20% 10% 2% 3% 0% 4% 3% 5% 4% 12% 8% 9% Tablet computer 19% 10% Source: Pew Internet surveys, 2006-2012. As our research has documented the rise of mobile internet use, we have also noticed a “mobile difference”: Once someone has a wireless device, she becomes much more active in how she uses the internet–not just with wireless connectivity, but also with wired devices. The same holds true for the impact of wireless connections and people’s interest in using the internet to connect with others. These 20 http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/E-readers-and-tablets.aspx pewinternet.org 14
  • mobile users go online not just to find information but to share what they find and even create new content much more than they did before.21 Mobile internet use, by demographics % of American adults age 18+ within each group who go online wirelessly with a laptop or cell phone, as of August 2011 % who go online wirelessly All adults (age 18+) 63% Men 67 Women 59 Age 18-29 88 30-49 76 50-64 53 65+ 21 Race/ethnicity White, Non-Hispanic 63* Black, Non-Hispanic 62* Hispanic (English- and Spanish-speaking) 63* Household income Less than $30,000/yr 50 $30,000-$49,999 64 $50,000-$74,999 75 $75,000+ 86 Educational attainment No high school diploma 36 High school grad 53 Some College 72 College + 82 * All differences are statistically significant except for those between the rows designated with an asterisk. Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project’s August Tracking Survey conducted July 25-August 26, 2011. N=2,260 adults age 18 and older, including 916 interviews conducted by cell phone. Interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish. 21 See: “The Mobile Difference” (2009) http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/5-The-Mobile-Difference-Typology.aspx pewinternet.org 15
  • The table below “demonstrates a before-and-after example of what making use of web analytics data can achieve. In this theoretical case, the target was to grow the online conversion rate by 1 percent, using an understanding of visitor acquisition and onsite factors such as checkout funnel analysis, exit points, bounce rates, and engagement metrics. By achieving this increase, the value of total profit, P, and ROI, R, shown in the last two rows of the table, put the analysis into context – that is, profit will rise by $37,500 and return on investment will quadruple to 50 percent. Note that this is achieved solely by improving the conversion rate of the site – visitor acquisition costs remain the same. (Clifton, 2010, p. 12). Table 1.2: The economic effect of a 1% increase in conversion rate Measure Visitors Cost per visit Cost of all visits Conversion rate Conversions Revenue per conversion Total revenue Non-marketing profit margin Non-marketing costs Marketing costs Total profit Total marketing ROI Symbol v c cT r C V T m n cT P R Calculation v x c r xv VxC m x T v x c T – (n + cT) P / cT Before 100,000 1.00 $100,000 3.0% 3,000 $75 $225,000 50% $112,500 $100,000 $12,500 13% After 100,000 1.00 $100,000 4.0% 4,000 $75 $300,000 50% $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 50%
  • Social Media Rewards Program True Blue Socialites #TBSocialites
  • Introduction •  Concept – to promote engagement at U of M athletic events through out social media networks among current students/faculty, alumni, and the community. •  The True Blue Socialites Rewards Program will utilize social media networks such as; Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Foursquare, Pinterest, Vine, and Instagram, to promote engagement among University of Memphis fans and Tiger Athletics.
  • How It Works •  A contract between the University of Memphis Athletic Department and Row27 will be established, and they will provide the program FanMaker which will be the host of the social media rewards platform.
  • FanMaker - Overview •  Track every Touch Point –  –  –  –  –  Social Networks Sponsor Visitation Ticket Purchasing Attendance Per-Cap Spending •  Lead Sourcing/Scoring •  Background information on Fans •  Grow Casual Fans to Fanatics
  • Participate •  Current students/faculty, alumni, and fans in the community will receive points by attending different sporting events, checking in, tweeting, posting, tagging, etc. on the variety of social media networks. Amount Limit 2,000   NA   500   1 / day   500   3 / day   250   1 / day   250   3 / day   100   3 / day   100   10 / day   100   3 / day   50   10 / day   Activity Swipe your Student ID Card at University of Memphis Games   Post the Twitter Message of the Day from your Profile   Retweet one of our official twitter accounts   Use Foursquare to Check-in to an official event   Submit an accepted photo to CroudCameo during Tiger home games   Post a tweet with an approved Hashtag (see page 9 in Synopsis/PPT notes)   Invite a friend to earn points when they sign up   Share a video on Vine and tag Memphis official vine account   Re-pin content from Memphis official Pinterest account.  
  • Monitor Participants Engagement
  • Prizes •  Merchandise –  –  –  –  Hats T-shirts Sweatshirts Jerseys •  Coupons from Sponsors –  Sonic –  Half Shell •  Hang with the athletes –  Tigers Basketball Bench –  Dugout at Softball or Baseball games –  Field Pass for Football Games •  Sit in Presidents Box at a Football or Basketball game •  Sit in the Press Box •  Autographed posters •  Tour of Athletic Facilities •  Gift Card to Book Store •  Tiger Dining Dollars
  • U of M Marketing •  Three separate target markets will be established in order to gain as much participation as possible. Students and Faculty •  Promote on campus •  Through email •  In Daily Helmsmen •  Memphis Mobile App •  U of M Website Alumni •  Mail outs •  Alumni website •  Sponsors •  U of M Website Community •  Billboards •  Media promotions •  Sponsors •  U of M Website
  • Discussion – Key Conclusions •  Implementation (see pages 10-11 in Synopsis/PPT notes) –  Cost to use FanMaker - $15,000/yr. –  Hire a salaried position to monitor and track the program along with other social media networks –  Develop in-game promotions to advertise the program •  Analyze –  Utilize the dashboard and data provided by FanMaker to determine: •  How the program will be evaluated •  Where changes need to be made •  Report total engagement and engagement among three target markets •  Determine future of the program –  New prices –  Implement new social media platforms into social media/marketing strategy –  Determine if contract with Row 27 / FanMaker be renewed?
  • Integration with Coursework Sports Marketing, Media 2.0, Communication in the Internet, and Strategic Management of Sport Commerce Organizations • Academic Research • History / timeline of society becoming avid users of digital technology for communication • Research provided insight to individuals desires to engage via social media networks Marketing in a Digital Environment • Utilized peer research to uncover current and future trends in the social and digital world • Showcased the importance of web analytics and how understanding the data can truly transform how an organization can be successful in social media marketing strategies Web Publishing • Hands on experience in building websites and how to intergrade Google Analytics.
  • Comments What went well: •  Research from past courses. •  Contact with representatives from Row27. What didn’t: •  Lack of opportunity to implement a trial run or survey students to gain their thoughts and perspective. What I would do differently: •  Take course during the Spring or Fall semester to allow for more time to get students input and create a marketing plan for the program.