The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2042-678X.htm

Exploration
Mind, body, or spirit? of customer
An exploration of customer motivations
motivations to purchase
university licensed merchandise 71
Joan M. Phillips
Department of Marketing, Quinlan School of Business,
Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Robert I. Roundtree
Department of Marketing, School of Business,
The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA, and
DaeHyun Kim
Department of Marketing, Quinlan School of Business,
Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between consumers’ purchase
motivations to show support for university programs and the influence of merchandise quality cues on
their purchase decision, and examine how one’s affiliation with a university (official or non-official)
moderates this relationship.
Design/methodology/approach – This research utilized a mail survey of university bookstore
customers from the USA and Canada. The university, located in the USA, has an international
reputation for its academic programs, its athletic teams, and its religious affiliation.
Findings – Our findings demonstrate the significance of athletic programs over academic programs
and religious values in motivating purchases of licensed university merchandise.
Research limitations/implications – These findings have significant implications for several
stakeholders in the business of retailing licensed merchandise. In particular, university licensors and
their bookstore retailers may consider managing their inventory of licensed products to reflect the
greater relative importance athletic teams have in the purchase decision process.
Originality/value – This paper adds to our understanding of customer motivations to purchase
university licensed merchandise, and the conditions when merchandise quality is a key decision driver.
Keywords Marketing, Retailing, Sport, Merchandising, University licensing
Paper type Research paper

Retail sales of collegiate licensed merchandise represent a significant revenue source

for university licensors, licensees, and retail merchandisers. According to Collegiate
Licensing Company (2011), more than 50,000 stores across the USA carry licensed
collegiate merchandise and collectively these stores generate approximately
$3.5 billion in retail sales each year. Yet, little is known about factors that influence
the purchase of university licensed merchandise at the consumer level. Perhaps one
obvious motivating factor is the desire to show support for the university as a whole. Sport, Business and Management:
However, universities are frequently comprised of diverse programs, and consumers An International Journal
Vol. 4 No. 1, 2014
may purchase university licensed merchandise to show support just for the program or pp. 71-87
programs to which they most closely associate with through their affiliation and/or r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2042-678X
wish to support. Two university programs for which people may closely associate DOI 10.1108/SBM-08-2011-0069
SBM with through their affiliation and wish to support are academics and athletics (Murrell
4,1 and Dietz, 1992). In addition, some universities have a strong religious affiliation, and
thus, consumers may associate with and wish to support the religious values
represented by these institutions (e.g. Brigham Young University Cougars, University
of Notre Dame Fighting Irish, Villanova University Wildcats). Yet, not all consumers
who purchase university licensed merchandise are students, alumni, faculty, or staff
72 of the institution; people with no official university affiliation are often ardent
supporters of a university and/or its programs and purchase merchandise bearing
university branded trademarks.
Affiliation, in this context, refers to a dichotomous state and is separate
and distinct from – albeit related to – the latent construct, identification, which has
long been considered an antecedent of purchase behavior (e.g. Bagozzi, 2000; Grewal
et al., 2000; Madrigal, 2001). In our context, affiliation is the type of connection
a person has with an institution and/or its programs. Those who are affiliated
with an institution may be connected either officially (e.g. current students, alumni,
faculty, staff) or non-officially (e.g. friend or parent of a student). In either case
this affiliation may impact consumers’ licensed merchandise purchase decisions.
Few studies in the academic literature have examined the relationship between
affiliation and purchase decisions; specifically, the moderating role of affiliation in
the relationship between motivation to purchase and the influence merchandise
quality cues have on purchase decisions. Assessing the potential moderating effect
of affiliation should provide additional insight into the influence merchandise
quality cues have on consumers’ purchase decisions. If affiliation with a university
is found to moderate the relationship between motivation and purchase decisions,
marketers would want to recognize the differences and develop appropriate marketing
strategies and appeals.
The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to: explore the relationship between
consumers’ purchase motivations to show support for university programs and the
influence of merchandise quality cues (i.e. quality, style, and manufacturer’s brand)
on purchase decisions; and examine how one’s affiliation with a university (official or
non-official) moderates this relationship.

Background
Purchase motives
Consumer socialization. When consumers seek information to purchase products or
services, they rely on various information sources to justify their decisions (Moschis,
1987; Shim et al., 2011; Ward, 1974). Moreover, when consumers interact with different
information sources they effectively learn an assortment of consumer-related behaviors
such as product information search, brand preferences and choice, and brand
loyalty. This information integration process is commonly referred to as consumer
socialization (McNeal, 1991; Moschis, 1987; Moschis and Churchill, 1978; Ward, 1974).
It is through the socialization process that consumers develop personal values,
attitudes, motivations, and behaviors. Through continuous exposure to meanings of
symbols and engagement in symbolic interpretation, consumers learn social values
and norms (Elliott and Wattanasuwan, 1998).
The key actors in the socialization process are called socialization agents.
A socialization agent can be people (e.g. individual fans, family, fellow students),
organizations (e.g. universities or sanctioning bodies such as the National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA), in the USA), or reference groups (e.g. student groups, fan
clubs, alumni networks) officially or unofficially involved in socialization (Moschis and Exploration
Churchill, 1978). Within a university, these social agents may become points of of customer
attachment for university community members. University program supporters
are psychologically attached to the university through academics, athletics, and even motivations
individual athletes (Schurr et al., 1988; Murrell and Dietz, 1992; Robinson and Trail,
2005). In fact, these agents may exercise considerable control (through various reward
and punishment systems) over the amount and frequency of socialization information 73
(e.g. logos, mascots, customs, rituals) people are exposed to over their lifetimes.
Behavioral researchers have shown that people want to interact with others who share
similar ideas, attitudes, and knowledge; thus, agents may play a significant role in
consumer socialization throughout an individual’s life-cycle (Moschis, 1987).
A socialization agents’ influence is affected by the individual’s unique relationship
with that agent and is evidenced by the type of products considered and/or purchased
(Berning and Jacoby, 1974; Mascarenhas and Higby, 1993). In our context, agents such
as alumni groups, booster groups, or student social clubs may play a significant role in
the socialization process at universities.
As a result of the consumer socialization process, consumers form affiliations with
groups whose members may share, among other things, values, interests, and
lifestyles. For example, some affiliations may stem from social interactions
(e.g. fraternity or sorority), political or religious entities, lifestyle activities (e.g. ski
club), or professional associations (Deaux et al., 1995). Individuals strive to maintain
and enhance their group reputation, motivated by an underlying need for self-esteem
(Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Thus, individuals who strongly identify themselves with
a specific group would make an effort to improve the group’s standing against other
groups (Riketta and Landerer, 2005). They demonstrate their group affiliation through
a collective self-esteem and/or group differentiation by showing greater support for
their sport teams (Murrell and Dietz, 1992). The preference for in-group members at the
expense of out-group members is also termed in-group favoritism (Tajfel and Turner,
1979). Tajfel (1982) suggests that this interaction with in-groups and out-groups is
necessary in order for individuals to develop a self-image. This may be especially
true for self-image that originates from a relationship with a university and its
programs. Pride demonstrated by current students, alumni, and other supporters takes
on a significant meaning for many when describing themselves.
Consumption of licensed merchandise. As consumer socialization theory implies,
licensed products carry socially constructed symbolic meanings, therefore
consumption of licensed products is associated with social identity and culture, and
symbolic meanings pass from goods to consumers (Apostolopoulou, 2002). Those who
consider university community membership important for defining their self-schema
will exhibit greater behavioral (purchasing licensed merchandises) and attitudinal
support (evaluation) of their sport teams (Murrell and Dietz, 1992). Purchasing licensed
merchandise that is displayed or worn in a public fashion (Bearden and Etzel, 1982)
contributes to the consumers’ sense of belonging to the university community. Licensed
merchandise allows consumers to express their support for the university and connect
with other people and preserve memories (Apostolopoulou et al., 2010). In fact,
the descriptions on licensed merchandise such as “University Alumni” or “University
Mom” are clear indicators of the importance of the affiliation in individuals’ self-image.
In other words, consumers have an affinity to buy and possess identity-related
products (e.g. T-shirts) and services (e.g. affinity credit cards) because these products
and services represent something about their institution and by extension about
SBM themselves (Bearden and Etzel, 1982; Kleine et al., 1993; Solomon and Schopler, 1982;
4,1 Underwood et al., 2001).
Consumption motivation. Consumption motivations are important drivers that
direct consumers’ behavior toward attaining continued social and psychological
needs (Assael, 1998). One way to fulfill such needs is through behavior relevant to
consumption of licensed merchandise. In the current context, we assume that the type
74 of motivation leading one to purchase university licensed products would change with
the type of one’s affiliation. Aspara (2009) studied the relationship between individuals’
stock ownership of a company and their brand loyalty. His findings suggested that
shareholders of the company are more likely to buy products produced by that
company, due to their vested interest in supporting the business of the company
they own. Geuens et al. (2001) identified three types of shopping motivations, which are
functional motivation, social motivations, and experiential or hedonic motivation.
Social motivation, in particular refers to consumer’s needs to communicate with
others sharing similar interests, affiliating and interacting with peer groups. As
consumers appreciate different aspects of a product, it is critical to understand different
reasons for purchasing products.
The sport marketing literature has identified key motivation factors related to
consumption of sport. A substantial body of research has examined the motives
driving consumption of sports. Such motives include aesthetics (Funk et al., 2002;
Trail and James, 2001), camaraderie (Kahle et al., 1996), drama (Funk et al., 2002; Trail
et al., 2003), interest in player or sport (Funk et al., 2000), social interaction (Trail et al.,
2005), and vicarious achievement (Sloan, 1989). In these studies, researchers proposed
that motives may vary by type and level of sports, and by gender (Funk et al., 2002;
James and Ridinger, 2002; Robinson and Trail, 2005). For example, attendees at figure
skating and synchronized swimming events may be more motivated by artistic aspects
of the sports, while those attending combative sports (e.g. boxing, ice hockey) would
seek catharsis motives (Kim et al., 2009).
On the other hand, while consumers of Division I college football games tend to be
motivated by vicarious achievement relating to organizational identification (e.g.
attachment toward the team, university, coach, and community) those at Division II
games were more likely to seek spectator factors (skill, aesthetics, drama, and
knowledge aspects); Division III and I-AA tend to possess higher overarching motives
such as escape and social (Robinson and Trail, 2005). Relative to sports marketing,
there is a dearth of literature examining the motivation factors related to the purchase
of university licensed products in support of academic programs and religious values.
However, Park and Baker (2007) suggest that motivations to purchase religious goods
can include the need to express one’s attachment to a particular religious culture
(e.g. purchasing a what would Jesus do – WWJD – bracelet) and/or to demonstrate
one’s mastery of the culture (e.g. purchasing a Study Bible for a Bible study group).
In addition, higher social class individuals may prefer religious products that
are concomitant with their greater educational attainment and income (Mears and
Ellison, 2000).

Quality cues
Cue utilization theory asserts that when assessing the quality of a product, consumers
use an array of cues that serve as indicators of quality (Cox, 1967; Olson, 1972). Quality
cues or informational stimuli provides information on the quality characteristics
of the product and allows consumers to evaluate the performance of the product.
Since a consumer’s assessment of value draws on the perception of product quality Exploration
represented by different attributes of the product (Snoj et al., 2004), cognitively oriented of customer
quality precedes value appraisals and behavioral intentions (Bolton and Drew, 1991;
Cronin et al., 2000; Grewal et al., 1998). motivations
Consumers use a variety of cues to infer product quality and refine their choices.
Evidence indicates that brand and store names (Dodds and Monroe, 1985; Wheatley
and Chiu, 1977), style and aesthetics (Garvin, 1987; Person et al., 2007), and quality, 75
performance, reliability, and durability (Garvin, 1987; Garvin, 1991; Madu and Madu,
2002) have a significant effect on consumers’ quality perceptions of a product
(Dodds et al., 1991; Teas and Agarwal, 2000). Brand name is viewed as a summary
construct or shorthand attribute for assessing quality and affects quality perceptions
and serves as a surrogate for quality by providing consumers with a variety of
information about the product (Hoyer and Brown, 1990; Jacoby et al., 1977; Rao and
Monroe, 1989). Styling helps comprehend the visual qualities of the product and is
also recognized as a cue to help consumers differentiate products from other products
that belong to the style segment, or brand (Garvin, 1987; Person et al., 2007).
Furthermore, as perceived product quality increases, uncertainty associated with
product performance will decrease (Sweeney et al., 1999). As such, consumers use a
variety of information cues (i.e. quality, brand name, and style) that aid in their decision
making. In addition, the influence product cues have on consumer decision making
is dependent upon the consumer’s needs and motivation to purchase a product.
Research has found that motivation causes the impact of cues to shift such that
increasing motivation should result in a decrease in the influence of cues (Burnkrant
and Howard, 1984; Mackinzie and Spreng, 1992).

Model
The conceptual model depicted in Figure 1 suggests a moderated relationship
between consumer purchase motivations (i.e. support for university) and the influence
of merchandise quality cues on consumer purchase decisions. Specifically, one’s
relationship (official or non-official) with a university will moderate the relationship
between a customer’s purchase motivation to show support for university academic
programs, athletic teams, and religious values and the influence merchandise quality
cues have on the consumer’s purchasing decision. We posit that that one’s purchase
motivation to show support for the university is antecedent to the influence of
merchandise quality cues on one’s purchase decision as this reflects the ordering
of a “well-known sequence” (Davis, 1985, p. 12). That is, Stage 1 – problem recognition
(i.e. need (university) sweatshirt to wear to sporting event) precedes Stage 2 –
information search and evaluation of alternatives (i.e. influence of merchandise
quality cues – quality, style, brand) in the five-stage consumer decision process (Wilkie,
1994, p. 481).

Affiliation to University:
• Non-official
• Official

Purchase motivation: Influence of merchandise quality

Show support for University’s cues on purchase decision:
• Academic programs • Quality Figure 1.
• Athletic teams • Style Conceptual model
• Religious values • Manufacturer’s brand
SBM In our study we established two distinct affiliations to university institutions: official
4,1 and non-official. Those affiliated officially to a university are those who currently
have an official affiliation with the institution (i.e. current students, alumni, faculty,
and staff), while others have a non-official affiliation as a result of their relationship
with an affiliated individual (e.g. family member or friend), or simply being
a university friend, program supporter, or sports team fan. Those who are officially
76 affiliated with the institution may more closely identify with the institution and
therefore may perceive the association with the university as enhancing their
self-esteem. When showing support for university academic programs, athletic teams,
and/or religious values through the purchase of university licensed merchandise,
these people will tend to be less influenced by merchandise quality cues such as
quality, style, and manufacturer brand because their motivations to enhance their
self-esteem will primarily be driven by the university brand or logo since these may be
stronger indicators of the image, identity, and/or association being sought. From this,
we hypothesize:

H1. Among customers with an official affiliation to the university, there will be
no relationship between the motivation to purchase university licensed
merchandise to show support for university academic programs, athletic
teams, and religious values, and the perceived influence merchandise quality
cues have on the purchasing decision.

In the licensing context consumers often demonstrate support for their university
affiliation by championing its academic programs, athletic teams, and/or religious
values. In a merchandise context, this more often results in merchandise purchases
that a consumer uses conspicuously in public than in private (Bearden and Etzel, 1982).
In many cases, this affiliation pride is displayed in public through purchases of items
such as logoed ball caps, T-shirts, sweatshirts, watches, pens, and other licensed
merchandise. Often these items contain several layers of branding that are important
to consumers. Merchandise quality cues influence purchase behavior because they
represent the benefits of the specific item. A consumer makes inferences and
establishes perceptions about the quality attributes of a product, which is a relative
sacrifice to the perceived benefit of a product (Kardes, 1988). Functional quality such as
material and workmanship may be conveyed with the manufacturers’ brand names
(e.g. Adidas sportswear, Cross pens, Seiko watches, Waterford crystal), and styling
may be communicated through unique design, fit of apparel, logos, and colors.
Moreover, logos and colors are often characteristics officially associated with the
licensor institution (e.g. university colors). A final indicator of quality that may have
a smaller effect on quality perceptions in this context may be store name where
merchandise is purchased (e.g. university bookstore, Dick’s Sporting Goods, J.C.
Penney, Sports Authority).
As there is little empirical literature that has examined official and non-official
affiliation states per se, we draw on the social identity literature to conjecture that
relative to those with an official affiliation (Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Tajfel, 1982), people
who wish to support the university but have a non-official affiliation may use the
university brand to signal quality to a lesser extent. Highhouse et al. (2007) suggests
that social identity may incorporate two types of needs: the social adjustment need
(i.e. need to impress) and the value-expressive need (i.e. the need to express). Those
consumers with a non-official affiliation to the institution may be more concerned with
their social adjustment needs, and therefore may be more interested in impressing. Exploration
Thus, individuals with a non-official affiliation to the university may look to a broader of customer
range of signals to represent quality. However, consumers with a non-official affiliation
who are avid university supporters may use this avidity to further motivate their motivations
purchases. In other words, they may resemble consumers with an official affiliation
and, therefore, may have a greater value-expressive need and may be more interested
in expressing. From this we hypothesize: 77
H2. Among customers with a non-official affiliation to the university, there will be a
positive relationship between the motivation to purchase university licensed
merchandise to show support for university academic programs, athletic
teams, and religious values and the perceived influence merchandise quality
has on the purchase decision.

H3. Relative to customers with an official affiliation to the university, customers with
a non-official affiliation will report that merchandise quality has less influence
on their purchasing decisions when the purchasing motivation to support for
university academic programs, athletic teams, and religious values is low, but
there will be no difference when the purchasing motivation to support the
university academic programs, athletic teams, and religious values is high.

Method
Survey and sample
The questions used for this study are part of a customer survey commissioned by the
licensing department of a university located in the USA. The objective of this survey
was to better understand customer preferences for university licensed merchandise.
In addition, this university has highly ranked academic programs, has athletic teams
that compete at the NCAA Division I level (the university’s athletic teams have won
national championships in several different sports), and has a strong affiliation with a
Christian religious denomination. That is, the university has a national reputation for
its academic programs, its athletic teams, and its religious affiliation.
The sampling frame for this survey was a customer list from the university
bookstore. The customers represented on this list had purchased university licensed
merchandise from the bookstore through its retail stores on campus, its catalogue,
and/or its internet site. The sample consisted of 705 customers who were randomly
selected from the customer list. Each of these customers was mailed a four-page
(31-questions) survey, a postage-paid return envelope, and an entry form for a $100
bookstore gift certificate drawing as an incentive to complete the survey. In total, 317
completed surveys were received (ten surveys were returned as undeliverable) for an
effective response rate of 45 per cent.
Respondents hailed from 37 different states plus Canada. Approximately 70 per cent
of our respondents were over 35 years of age (30 per cent were 35 or younger), 52 per
cent were female (48 per cent male), and 22 per cent had an official affiliation to the
university (78 per cent had a non-official affiliation to the university). Respondents with
an official affiliation include university alumni, students, faculty, and staff, whereas
respondents with a non-official affiliation to the university include relatives and friends
of alumni, students, faculty, and staff, as well as those with no specified affiliation to
the university.
SBM Measures
4,1 The survey asked each respondent a series of questions about the type of (university
name) merchandise he/she owns, the location(s) at which the (university name)
merchandise was purchased, his/her most recent purchase of (university name)
merchandise, his/her opinions about the merchandise, and demographic information.
Following questionnaire development, all questions were pre-tested on a convenience
78 sample of alumni using cognitive think-aloud procedures (Bradburn et al., 2004).
Following these procedures, the questionnaire was submitted to a panel of experts
including two marketing faculty, a licensing attorney, and three retail managers for
a test of content validity.
Our dependent measure, influence of merchandise quality cues, was computed from
the respondent’s self-report of how influential three different merchandise
characteristics – quality, style, and manufacturers’ brand – are on the respondent’s
decision to purchase university licensed merchandise. Specifically, respondents were
asked to rate, “How influential are each of the following characteristics on your
decision to purchase [university name] merchandise?” using a seven-point scale. Scale
values ranged from 1 ¼ Not at all influential to 7 ¼ Very influential (Mquality ¼ 5.99,
SD ¼ 1.23; Mstyle ¼ 5.72, SD ¼ 1.44; Mbrand ¼ 4.34, SD ¼ 2.02). Principal components
analysis confirmed one factor (variance explained ¼ 60 per cent) and our merchandise
quality measure was computed by averaging the scores for these three items (a ¼ 0.64).
Although the generally agreed upon lower limit for Cronbach’s a is 0.70, it may
decrease to 0.60 in exploratory research (Hair et al., 1998, p. 118); therefore, we deem
our measure to be acceptable[1].
Our first set of three independent variables measured the respondent’s motivations
to purchase university licensed merchandise. These motivations include: to show
support for academic programs; to show support for athletic teams; and to show
support for the religious values that the university represents. As single-item measures
of concrete marketing constructs have been found to predict equally as well as
multi-item measures (Bergkvist and Rossiter, 2007, 2009; Kwon and Trail, 2005), our
survey relied on a series of three single-item questions to measure these constructs.
Specifically, respondents were asked to indicate, using a seven-point Likert-like scale
where 1 ¼ strongly disagree and 7 ¼ strongly agree, how much they agree with each of
the following statements:
(1) “I purchase [university name] merchandise to show support for the
University’s academic programs” (Macademic ¼ 4.99, SD ¼ 1.83).
(2) “I purchase [university name] merchandise to show support for the
University’s athletic teams” (Mathletic ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 1.49).
(3) “I purchase [university name] merchandise because [university name]
represents religious values” (Mreligious ¼ 4.97, SD ¼ 1.94).
Our fourth independent variable asked respondents to “Please indicate your
affiliation to [university name]. (Check all that apply.)” Response alternatives
included: “Student, Alumnus/Alumna, Faculty/Staff, No affiliation, Relative/friend of
student, Relative/friend of alumni, Relative/friend of faculty or staff, Other (please
specify).” A dichotomous variable was constructed by recoding respondents into two
categories: first, those with an official affiliation to the university (22 per cent;
i.e. students, alumni, and/or faculty/staff) and second, those with a non-official
affiliation (78 per cent).
Analysis and results Exploration
We proposed that one’s affiliation with the university will moderate the relationship of customer
between one’s motivation to purchase university licensed merchandise to show support
for university academic programs, athletic teams, and religious values and how motivations
influential merchandise quality cues are on one’s purchase decision. Specifically, we
expect a significant positive relationship will exist for customers with a non-official
affiliation to the university, but that no relationship will exist for customers with an 79
official affiliation. Further, relative to customers with an official relationship to the
university, merchandise quality will be less influential on the purchasing decisions
of customers with a non-official relationship to the university when the purchasing
motivation to show support is low, but there will be no differences when purchasing
motivation to show support is high.
Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was used to test these hypotheses;
all interval scaled predictors were grand mean-centered to aid in interpretation.
Results are shown in Table I. Note that only the coefficient for the predictor,
purchase motivation to show support for athletic teams, is positive and statistically
significant. Likewise, the coefficient representing the interaction between purchase
motivation to show support for athletic teams and affiliation to the university is
statistically significant. Therefore, H1-H3 are not supported for academic programs
and religious values.
To assess H1 and H2 for athletic programs we need to gain additional insight into
the nature of the statistically significant interaction; therefore, a simple slopes analysis
was conducted. In a simple slopes analysis, each regression equation is solved for each
level of the moderating variable (i.e. affiliation to the university) and the resultant
simple slopes are tested for significance (Aiken and West, 1991; Preacher et al., 2006).
The simple slopes for the model predicting the influence of merchandise quality on
purchasing decision are presented in Table II and are depicted in Figure 2. As
proposed, among customers with a non-official affiliation to the university, the
relationship between customers’ purchase motivation to support athletic teams and
the influence of merchandise quality on their purchase decision was significantly
and positively related (B ¼ 0.272, SE B ¼ 0.063, t ¼ 4.30, po0.001); however, among

Influence of merchandise quality cues

Variable B (SE)

Constant 5.298 (0.083)**

Independent variables
Purchase motivation:
Support academic programs 0.082 (0.052)
Support athletic teams 0.272 (0.064)**
Support religious values 0.001 (0.045)
Affiliation to university (non-official ¼ 0; official ¼ 1) 0.057 (0.196)
Interaction variables
Academics  Affiliation 0.026 (0.126)
Athletics  Affiliation 0.388 (0.141)**
Religious  Affiliation 0.171 (0.103)*
Adjusted R2 0.957
n 292
Table I.
Notes: *p o 0.10; **p o 0.01 OLS regression
SBM customers with an official affiliation to the university, purchase motivation and the
4,1 influence of merchandise quality on the purchasing decision was not significantly
related (B ¼ 0.116, SE B ¼ 0.127, t ¼ 0.92, p ¼ 0.36). Thus, H1 and H2 are supported
for athletic teams.
H3 proposed that relative to customers with an official affiliation to the university,
customers with a non-official affiliation will report that merchandise quality has less
80 influence on their decision to purchase university licensed merchandise when the
purchase motivation to support athletic teams is low, but not when high. The results
of a Johnson-Neyman analysis (a ¼ 0.05; Aiken and West, 1991; Preacher et al., 2006)
found that for mean-centered (i.e. M ¼ 0, SD ¼ 1.49) purchase motivation to support
athletic team scores below 1.15, customers with a non-official affiliation reported
that merchandise quality had less influence on their decision to purchase university
licensed merchandise than did customers with an official affiliation; however, there was
no difference between these two customer groups at mean-centered scores above 1.15
within our range of observations. Thus, for customers with a non-official affiliation
to the university, merchandise quality has less influence on purchasing decisions when
the purchase motivation to support university athletic teams is low (p0.77 SD
below M), but there was no difference between these two customer groups when the
purchase motivation to support athletic teams is high (40.77 SD below M). Therefore,
H3 is supported for athletic programs.

Discussion
We examined the relationship between consumers’ purchase motivations (e.g. support
for university) and the influence of merchandise quality cues on consumers’ purchase

Relationship Slope for levels of the moderator variable

Purchase motivation: show support for university’s Non-official Official

athletic teams-influence of merchandise quality cues university university
on purchase decision affiliation affiliation
B 0.272 0.116
Table II. SE B 0.063 0.127
Results of simple T 4.30 0.92
slopes analysis P o0.001 ns
quality on purchase decision

7
Influence of merchandise

6
5
4
3
2 Non-official Official
1
Low High
Figure 2.
Simple slopes analysis Purchase motivation:
show support for university athletic teams
decisions and the extent one’s affiliation with a university moderates this relationship. Exploration
We presented a conceptual model that captures these variables. In order to test the of customer
hypothesized relationships in our model, we surveyed a sample of customers of a
university’s bookstore in the USA who had previously purchased university licensed motivations
merchandise. In all, these hypotheses were developed to test the relationships in our
conceptual model. Our findings supported our hypothesized relationships, but only for
customers whose purchase motivation is to support athletic teams. 81
Perhaps the relative importance of academics, athletics, and religious values is a
dynamic relationship, as they serve as motivators for licensed merchandise purchases.
For the institution studied in this paper, it is possible that the current balance of
importance in these three areas favors the influence of athletics as a motivating factor.
Many academic institutions see the value of “big time” sports and its impact on
indirect outcomes such as community support and university admissions applications.
For example, Butler University’s success in the 2010 NCAA National Basketball
Tournament is believed to have driven much of the 41 per cent increase in applications
for admission for the 2011-2012 academic year (Stearns, 2011).
At the same time, the significance of athletic programs over academic programs
and religious values in motivating licensed merchandise purchases is perhaps not
surprising. A winning sports team enjoys a prominence in many societies that may
often overshadow the prestige and the traditional academic mission and/or religious
values of university institutions. Successful athletic program creates university
community members’ sense of belonging to their respective university, need to fit-in
and a desire for group affiliation, and self-expressive experience (Kahle et al., 1996).
This further leads to increased sales of licensed merchandise. Purchasing licensed
items is considered worthwhile, useful, and thus enhances their feelings of university
community membership and group affiliation. Not only sports fans, but also
non-sports fans, wear or possess a number of items of licensed merchandise (e.g. hats,
T-shirt, mugs, etc.) commemorating school’s championship or as a general statement of
support for school’s sports team merchandise (Kwon and Armstrong, 2006).
Supporters of the college programs customarily engage in the purchase and display
of items bearing the school name and logo, especially if those people exhibit their
affiliation with the university.
It is important for university marketers to make fans feel that purchasing licensed
items is worthwhile. And, that such purchases enhance the consumers’ feelings of
university community membership and group affiliation. Prior research has shown
that higher perceived institutional status significantly predicts fans’ support (Murrell
and Dietz, 1992; Robinson and Trail, 2005). This higher status may be especially true
for institutions which have historically had successful and enormously popular athletic
programs with a fan base comprised of those officially and unofficially affiliated
with the school. This may also imply that when consumers believe that their institution
is perceived by others as high in status, they are more likely to engage in purchasing
licensed merchandise and formulate positive attitudes to strengthen their association
with athletic programs and their teams.

Managerial implications
These findings have significant implications for several stakeholders in the business of
retailing licensed merchandise. First, university licensors and their bookstore retailers
may consider managing their inventory of licensed products to reflect the greater
relative importance athletic teams have in the purchase decision process. This may
SBM include, but is not limited to, the breadth of licensed products carried as well as the
4,1 level of quality of product selections. Carrying higher cost/higher quality items may
not maximize the margins these stores enjoy and they therefore may be able to carry
a relatively lower quality assortment with greater margins and more total volume.
This may be especially true for those licensors who enjoy a premium brand name
resulting from athletic prominence. In these cases, university licensors may be able to
82 require higher royalty rates for athletic-based merchandise compared to other licensed
products they sell and by other institutional licensors selling similar products. In order
to increase volume, it is also recommended to place light-weight, affordable sport
merchandise, and discounted merchandise at the checkout counters, where a higher
traffic of consumers and increased exposure of licensed sport merchandises are
expected (Kwon and Armstrong, 2006).
National retailers may also see benefit in our findings as they decide on the
assortment of university products they carry in their stores or online. In many cases,
the name on the front of the shirts may carry greater weight than the name on the label.
An effective execution of marketing strategy focussed on the sport team rather than
quality attributes would also increase the sales of the licensed sport merchandise.
Merchandise that displays “University Football” instead of the generic “University”
may help retailers more profitably manage their retail space.
Finally, national manufacturers may see benefit in our findings as they decide on
the assortment of university licenses they seek. Buying a particular piece of sport
merchandise over a list of other options reflect the consumer’s identity with the
university athletic team because they often purchase sport licensed merchandise
to show support for their favorite teams or players. Therefore, manufacturing a fewer
number of products that focus on “university athletics” may be a good strategy for
some manufacturers of licensed products.

Limitations and future research

This study is among the first to assess the moderating impact of affiliation with
a specific organizational agent in the relationship between a consumer’s purchase
motivation (e.g. show support for university) and the influence of merchandise quality
cues (i.e. quality, style, and manufacturer’s brand) to purchase university licensed
merchandise. However, due to the exploratory nature of the study, limitations with
this research are evident and the findings can only be viewed as part of the continuing
development process. First, although our findings are consistent with theory, our
sample was drawn from just one university located in the USA and we used a survey to
obtain self-reported measures of past behavior (i.e. retrospective recall). Therefore, we
call for future research to replicate our findings over a broader geographical area,
including other countries, to test the potential moderating impact of affiliation with
a specific organizational socialization agent with more precise measures of actual
behavior. In addition, the cell sizes of our moderating variable, affiliation, was
unbalanced with 78 per cent of our sample classified as having a non-official affiliation.
Uneven cell sizes are frequently encountered in quasi-experiments and reflect one of the
many trade-offs between internal and external validity researchers face when
conducting field research. Fortunately, tests for interaction effects in disproportionate
designs are not as powerful and tend to be “conservative” with regard to scientific
inquiry (Perreault and Darden, 1975).
One research question that may be addressed in the future is whether boundary
spanning conditions (e.g. environmental and situational factors) exist for the relative
importance of these areas of support; if boundaries do exist, it is important for all Exploration
stakeholders to better understand how to assess and manage them. Additionally, of customer
examining the differences between consumers’ and non-consumers’ motives in
purchasing university licensed merchandise will be an interesting topic. motivations
Note
1. We also ran separate analyses using each of the three items as a dependent variable. The
results of each analysis did not differ from the model reported herein using the average of the 83
three items. Therefore, for exposition, we report just one model using a scale calculated by
averaging the three items.

References
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,
Sage, Newberry Park, CA.
Apostolopoulou, A. (2002), “Brand extensions by US professional sport teams: motivations and
keys to success”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 205-214.
Apostolopoulou, A., Papadimitriou, D. and Damtsiou, V. (2010), “Meanings and functions in
Olympic consumption: a study of the Athens 2004 Olympic licensed products”, European
Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 485-507.
Aspara, J. (2009), “Stock ownership as a motivation of brand-loyal and brand-supportive
behaviors”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 427-436.
Assael, H. (1998), Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action, South-Western, Cincinnati, OH.
Bagozzi, R.P. (2000), “On the concept of intentional social action in consumer behavior”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 388-396.
Bearden, W.O. and Etzel, M.J. (1982), “Reference group influence on product and brand purchase
decisions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 183-194.
Bergkvist, L. and Rossiter, J.R. (2007), “The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item
measures of the same construct”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 175-184.
Bergkvist, L. and Rossiter, J.R. (2009), “Tailor-made single-item measures of doubly concrete
constructs”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 607-621.
Berning, C.K. and Jacoby, J. (1974), “Patterns of information acquisition in new product
purchases”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 18-22.
Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991), “A longitudinal analysis of the impact of service changes on
customer attitudes”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Bradburn, N., Sudman, S. and Wansink, B. (2004), Asking Questions: The Definitive Guide to
Questionnaire Design-For Market Research, Political Polls, and Social and Health
Questionnaires, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Burnkrant, R.E. and Howard, D.J. (1984), “Effects of the use of introductory rhetorical questions
versus statements on information processing”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1218-1230.
Collegiate Licensing Company (2011), “Information for retailers”, available at: www.clc.com/
clcweb/publishing.nsf/Content/retailers.html (accessed 30 March 2011).
Cox, D.F. (1967), “The sorting rule model of the consumer product evaluation process”, in Cox,
D.F. (Ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior, Division of
Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston, MA,
pp. 324-369.
Cronin, J. Jr, Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000), “Assessing the effects of quality, value,
and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218.
SBM Davis, J.A. (1985), The Logic of Causal Order, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative
Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07-001, Sage, Beverly Hills.
4,1
Deaux, K., Reid, A., Mizrahi, K. and Ethier, K.A. (1995), “Parameters of social identity”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 280-291.
Dodds, W.B. and Monroe, K.B. (1985), “The effect of brand and price information on subjective
product evaluations”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 85-90.
84 Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991), “Effects of price, brand, and store information
on buyers’ product evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 307-319.
Elliott, R. and Wattanasuwan, K. (1998), “Consumption and the symbolic project of the self”,
European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 3, pp. 17-20.
Funk, D.C., Mahony, D.F. and Ridinger, L.L. (2002), “Characterizing consumer motivation as
individual difference factors: augmenting the sport interest inventory (SII) to explain level
of spectator support”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 33-43.
Funk, D.C., Mahony, D.F., Nakazawa, M. and Hirakawa, S. (2000), “Spectator motives:
differentiating among objects of attraction in professional football”, European Journal of
Sport Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 51-67.
Garvin, D.A. (1987), “Competing on the eight dimensions of quality”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 65 No. 6, pp. 101-109.
Garvin, D.A. (1991), “How the Baldrige Award really works”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69
No. 6, pp. 80-93.
Geuens, M., Brengman, M. and S’Jegers, R. (2001), “An exploratory study of grocery shopping
motivations”, European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, pp. 135-140.
Grewal, D., Monroe, K.B. and Krishnan, R. (1998), “The effects of price-comparison advertising on
buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value and behavioral intentions”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 46-59.
Grewal, R., Mehta, R. and Kardes, F.R. (2000), “The role of the social-identity function of attitudes
in consumer innovativeness and opinion leadership”, Journal of Economic Psychology,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 233-252.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
5th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Highhouse, S., Thornbury, E.E. and Little, I.S. (2007), “Social identity functions as attraction to
organizations”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 134-146.
Hoyer, W.D. and Brown, S.P. (1990), “Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat-
purchase product”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 141-148.
James, J. and Ridinger, L. (2002), “Female and male sport fans: a comparison of sport
consumption motives”, Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 260-278.
Jacoby, J., Szybillo, G.J. and Busato-Schach, J. (1977), “Information acquisition behavior in brand
choice situations”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 209-216.
Kahle, L.R., Kambara, K.M. and Rose, G.M. (1996), “A functional model of fan attendance
motivations for college football”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 51-60.
Kardes, F.R. (1988), “Spontaneous inference processes in advertising: the effects of conclusion
omission and involvement on persuasion”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 225-233.
Kim, S., Andrew, D.P.S. and Greenwell, T.C. (2009), “An analysis of spectator motives and media
consumption behavior in an individual combat sport: cross-national differences between
American and South Korean Mixed Martial Arts fans”, International Journal of Sport
Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 157-170.
Kleine, R.E. III, Kleine, S.S. and Kernan, J.B. (1993), “Mundane consumption and the self: Exploration
a social-identity perspective”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 209-235.
of customer
Kwon, H. and Trail, G. (2005), “The feasibility of single-item measures in sport loyalty research”,
Sport Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 69-89. motivations
Kwon, H.H. and Armstrong, K. (2006), “Impulse purchases of sport team licensed merchandise:
what matters?”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 101-119.
McNeal, J.U. (1991), “Planning priorities for marketing to children”, Journal of Business Strategy, 85
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 12-15.
Mackinzie, S.B. and Spreng, R.A. (1992), “How does motivation moderate the impact of central
and peripheral processing on brand attitudes and intentions?”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 519-529.
Madrigal, R. (2001), “Social identity effects in a belief–attitude–intentions hierarchy: implications
for corporate sponsorship”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 145-165.
Madu, C.N. and Madu, A.N. (2002), “Dimensions of e-quality”, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 246-258.
Mascarenhas, O.A.J. and Higby, M.A. (1993), “Peer, parent, and media influences in teen apparel
shopping”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 53-58.
Mears, D.P. and Ellison, C.G. (2000), “Who buys new age materials? exploring sociodemographic,
religious, network, and contextual correlates of new age consumption”, Sociology of
Religion, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 289-313.
Moschis, G.P. (1987), Consumer Socialization: A Life-Cycle Perspective, 2nd ed., Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA.
Moschis, G.P. and Churchill, G.A. Jr (1978), “Consumer socialization: a theoretical and empirical
analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 599-609.
Murrell, A.J. and Dietz, B. (1992), “Fan support of sport teams: the effect of a common group
identity”, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 28-39.
Olson, J.C. (1972), “Cue utilization in the quality perception process”, in Venkatesen, M. (Ed.),
Proceedings of 3rd Annual Conference, Association for Consumer Research, Chicago, IL,
pp. 167-179.
Park, J.Z. and Baker, J. (2007), “What would Jesus buy? American consumption of religious and
spiritual material goods”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 46 No. 4,
pp. 501-517.
Perreault, W.D. Jr and Darden, W.R. (1975), “Unequal cell sizes in marketing experiments: use of
the general linear hypothesis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 333-342.
Person, O., Snelders, D., Karjalainen, T., and Schoormans, J. (2007), “Complementing intuition:
insights on styling as a strategic tool”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23 Nos 9-10,
pp. 901-916.
Preacher, K.J., Curran, P.J. and Bauer, D.J. (2006), “Computational tools for probing interaction
effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis”,
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 437-448.
Rao, A.R. and Monroe, K.B. (1989), “The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers
perceptions of product quality: an integrative review”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 351-357.
Riketta, M. and Landerer, A. (2005), “Does perceived threat to organizational status moderate the
relation between organizational commitment and work behavior?”, International Journal
of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 193-200.
Robinson, M. and Trail, G. (2005), “Relationships among spectator gender, motives, points of
attachment, and sport preference”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 58-80.
SBM Schurr, K.T., Witting, A.F., Ruble, V.E. and Ellen, A.S. (1988), “Demographic and personality
characteristics associated with persistent, occasional, and non-attendance of
4,1 university male basketball games by college students”, Journal of Sport Behavior,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 3-17.
Shim, S., Serido, J. and Barber, B. (2011), “A consumer way of thinking: linking consumer
socialization and consumption motivation perspectives to adolescent development”,
Journal of Research on Adolescence, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 290-299.
86
Sloan, L.R. (1989), “The motives of sports fans”, in Goldstein, J.H. (Ed.), Sports, Games, and Play:
Social & Psychological Viewpoints, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ,
pp. 175-240.
Snoj, B., Korda, A.P. and Mumel, D. (2004), “The relationships among perceived quality, perceived
risk and perceived product value”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 156-167.
Solomon, M.R. and Schopler, J. (1982), “Self-consciousness and clothing”, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 508-514.
Stearns, A. (2011), “Butler applications up 41% after final four run”, WIBC New Center, available
at: www.wibc.com/news/Story.aspx?ID ¼ 1376470# (accessed 30 March 2011).
Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N. and Johnson, L.W. (1999), “The role of perceived risk in the quality-value
relationship: a study in a retail environment”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 77-105.
Tajfel, H. (1982), “Introduction”, in Tajfel, H. (Ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations,
Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-11.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979), “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict”, in Austin, W.G.
and Worchel, S. (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relation, Brooks-Cole,
Monterey, CA, pp. 33-47.
Teas, R.K. and Agarwal, S. (2000), “The effects of extrinsic product cues on consumers’
perceptions of quality, sacrifice, and value”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 280-292.
Trail, G. and James, J. (2001), “The motivation scale for sport consumption: assessment of the
scale’s psychometric properties”, Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 108-127.
Trail, G.T., Anderson, D. and Fink, J. (2005), “Consumer satisfaction and identity theory: a model
of sport spectator conative loyalty”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 98-111.
Trail, G.T., Robinson, M., Gillentine, A. and Dick, R. (2003), “Motives and points of attachment:
fans versus spectators”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 217-227.
Underwood, R., Bond, E. and Baer, R. (2001), “Building service brands via social identity: lessons
from the sports marketplace”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 1-13.
Ward, S. (1974), “Consumer socialization”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 1-14.
Wheatley, J.J. and Chiu, S.Y. (1977), “The effects of price, store image, and product and respondent
characteristics on perceptions of quality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 181-186.
Wilkie, W.L. (1994), Consumer Behavior, Wiley, New York, NY.

Further reading
EPM Communications, Inc. (2010), The Licensing Letter’s Sports Licensing Report, EPM
Communications Inc., New York, NY.
McCarthy, M. (2006), “Texas hooking in record royalties after national title”, USA Today,
19 January, available at: www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/big12/2006-01-19-
texas-sales_x.htm (accessed 26 July 2011).
Moschis, G.P. and Moore, R.L. (1983), “Decision making among the young: a socialization Exploration
perspective”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 101-112.
of customer
Robinson, M., Trail, G.T., Dick, R. and Gillentine, A. (2005), “Fans vs spectators: an analysis
of those who attend intercollegiate football games”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 14 motivations
No. 1, pp. 43-53.
Tajfel, H. (1981), Human Groups and Social Categories, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wann, D.L., Schrader, M.P. and Wilson, A.M. (1999), “Sport fan motivation: questionnaire 87
validation, comparisons by sport, and relationship to athletic motivation”, Journal of Sport
Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 114-139.

About the authors

Dr Joan M. Phillips, PhD, is a Professor of Marketing, Quinlan School of Business, Loyola
University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Her research interests include understanding how
personal values and the valence of brand attitudes impact consumer decision making and
choice. Her research has been published in Journal of Consumer Research, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Review of Marketing Research, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
Marketing Letters, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
and Qualitative Market Research. Dr Joan M. Phillips is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: jphillips@luc.edu
Dr Robert I. Roundtree, PhD, is a Visiting Professor of Marketing, School of Business,
The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. His research interests focus on
sports marketing and consumer behavior as well as technology-based service marketing
strategy. His research has been published in Journal of Marketing, Journal of Advertising,
Journal of Business Research, and California Management Review. Dr Roundtree also has extensive
professional industry experience including working with The National Basketball Association
in their league offices.
Professor DaeHyun Kim, is a PhD Candidate, University of Florida and a Clinical Instructor
of Sports Marketing, Quinlan School of Business, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois,
USA. His research interests lie in the areas of sports marketing and sports consumer behavior.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints