The pervasive effects of social influence on game attendance and Michael Jordan

According to a new book on Sports Business Analytics, distributing surveys during a game and collecting them afterwards is called "live analytics." When I started my career in the early 1990's, we called it market research, but I guess we were ahead of our time.

Back then, all journal articles were only available by physically going to the library, walking the stacks, hoping that issue was still there, and then paying 10 cents a page to copy an article. One such piece I published in 1995 in the Journal of Sport & Social Issues recently hit the digital world. This paper reports on three studies conducted among fans at minor league baseball stadiums in 1994, including the Birmingham Barons at the Memphis Chicks. As I scanned the article, a few memories returned.

First, yes, there really was a team called the "Chicks." Second, there was a pretty well-known player for the Barons, called Michael Jordan. For young-timers not even born then, you may not know Jordan hit .202 with three homers in 497 plate appearances with the AA team. Wisely, he returned to basketball. [Interesting factoid: Who was Jordan's manager? Terry Francona.]

Third, what did we find out with our live analytics at games attracting plenty of non-fans of baseball? If going to (minor league baseball) games isn't popular among peers, fans have negative attitudes toward everything else about the games. This halo effect includes the stadium quality, food service, ticket value, and the game itself. So, sure, teams may get non-fans, or casual fans, to attend. But, they're not going to like it if going to the game isn't popular among family and friends.

What's more, if people believe family and friends don't like going to the game, they assume most everyone else in the community doesn't like going either. In other words, it's not cool. (Or whatever word is used today; let's go with "lit.") So, a fundamental step in building attendance is to build social acceptance. Among other things, that's what makes the Dallas Cowboys and Chicago Cubs so great--everyone in town thinks going to the game is the cool thing to do, even if they don't like football or baseball. And even when they aren't winning. Obviously, winning helps, which is another article.

What can teams do?

First, acknowledge culture changes slowly. These are cultural norms, not temporal opinions. Second, this implies a long term strategy to change perceptions. Sales promotions and seasonal advertising will have minimal effects. Third, winning is definitely cool, so ownership must commit long term to a quality product. The LA Clippers are a good example, no matter one's opinion of past ownership, of changing public perception by delivering on the court with likable players. So, fourth, a focus on players like Chris Paul (likable, win or lose) helps. Teams that sign unlikable talent (see: Carmelo Anthony) risk losing social acceptance, hence attendance. Fifth, making the facilities and service undeniably excellent makes it easier for even non-fans to acknowledge how "lit" the place is. A good example close to home is Baylor's new McLane Stadium, which not only upgraded the facility, but became the first NCAA team with Extreme Network & Yinzcam instant replays via stadium WiFi to everyone with a smartphone at the stadium via the In-Game App.

Finally, teams can develop variable and dynamic pricing strategies and relevant policies to provide fans with high perceived value. Teams like the Orlando Magic make it easy for season ticket holders to maximize value with their mobile apps. Can't make it tonight? Click a button, get future credit, and free up the seats for other fans to upgrade when they arrive. Make ticket exchange and transfers easy. Care about your fans, like you were one of them, and you'll find people think you're pretty cool.