CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.3 Phase 1
3.3.3 Instrument
The purpose of Phase 1 is to understand the influencing factors in the brand building process of small-scale sports events. The initial interview outlines were derived from brand building theory (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 2001; Keller & Aaker, 1992) and were designed according to the research purpose of this study.
42
The three-part interview outline is aimed at event organizers, referees, and senior athletes. Questions 1-11 focus on event organizers, with the following objectives: 1. Discuss the influencing factors in the brand building of small-scale sports events. 2. Explore the process of building a small sports event brand. Questions 12-15 explore the opinions of referees, and the purpose is to explore the influencing factors in the process of brand building of small sports events. Questions 16-26 are interviews with senior athletes, with the purposes of: 1. Discuss the influencing factors in brand building of small-scale sports events. 2. Explore the process of building a small sports event brand.
The validity of the interview syllabus was assessed using the Indexes of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC) by a five-member expert panel. Five experts from different research fields evaluated the interview outline and made suggestions from different perspectives. The list of experts is as follows:
Table 1 List of Evaluation Experts
.
Name Area University Professional
Title
SUN JR. Sport Event; Sport Management
Wuhan University of
Technology Professor
YANG Y. Sport Culture; Sport Event
Henan Polytechnic University
Associate Professor WANG BL. Traditional Chinese
Sport Cultural
Henan Polytechnic University
Associate Professor YANG L. Sport Psychology Taiyuan University of
Technology
Associate Professor C.
Ruanguttamanun Sport Business Mahasarakham
University Asst. Prof.
The expert group assessed the consistency between the research purpose and the question design at this stage. In the evaluation form, “-1” means the question is inconsistent with the purpose, “0” means uncertain, and the score “1” means the
43
question design is consistent with the research purpose. Scored by five experts, after calculation, when the value of IOC is greater than or equal to 0.5 (≥0.5), the project is valid (Ronna C. Turner & Laurie Carlson, 2003). In the first evaluation round, the scores of Q21 and Q23 were only 0.2, and the scores of Q6 and Q7 were 0.4, which did not meet the requirements of item validity. Q12, Q16, and Q19 scores are more significant than 0.5, but experts still proposed revisions. According to the suggestion of the expert group, the interview outline was redesigned and revised. After the revision, the second round of evaluation was carried out on the interview outline. The results of the second round of evaluation are as follows:
Table 2 The IOC Results of Interview Outline.
No. ITEM Results
Q1 How do you understand the concept of “brand”? How to understand the “brand of sports events”? Compared with the
“brand” of traditional goods, is there any difference in the concept of “brand” in sports events?
1
Q2 Based on your experience and understanding, what are the components of a “sports event brand”? What kind of sport event can be called a “brand”?
1 Q3 What kind of brand do you think is a valuable brand for small-
scale sport event? And why is that？ 0.8
Q4 What is the meaning of the logo and name of the event? What
impact will these logos have on the event brand? 0.8 Q5 In your opinion, what do you suggest the event brand need to
improve? 1
Q6 Can you quickly recall the logo and name of this event? Do you understand what it means? Do you think this (logo and name) will affect your choice of events?
0.8
44
Table 2 Continued.
No. ITEM Results
Q7 Based on your experience, what are the processes of sport event branding? What is the most important thing in this brand building process? What kind of effect do you expect to achieve?
1 Q8 Based on your experience, should the brand awareness of sports
events be established before creating the brand image of sports events? Why and why not？
1
Q9 What are brand building strategies currently adopted in China for
small-scale sport event? 1
Q10 Compared with other similar events, what are the differences in
building the brand of this event? 0.8
Q11 Do you have any other (brand building) suggestions for small-
scale sports events? 0.8
Q12 How do you understand the concept of “event brand”? 0.8 Q13 Based on your experience, what are the important factors in brand
building of a small-scale sport event? 1
Q14 Based on your participation experience, do you think the brand of the sport event affect the participants’ decision to attend？What other brand factors are the affecting the choice of contestants?
0.8
Q15 What are the differences in brand building between this event and other similar events? Do you have any suggestions for a small- scale sport event?
1 Q16 How do you understand the concept of event brand? What factors
do you think should be included in the concept of event brand? 0.8
45
Table 2 Continued.
No. ITEM Results
Q17 Can you quickly recall the logo and name of this event? Do you understand what it means? Do you think this (logo and name) will affect your choice of events?
1 Q18 When you choose to participate in a competition, what are factors
affecting your choice? 0.8
Q19 According to your experience, what kind of sport event do you
think has a “brand”? What are your considerations 1 Q20 How do you describe the brand of this event? How is it different
from other events? 0.8
Q21 What do you think the value of the sport event brand is reflected
in? 0.8
Q22 When you choose to participate in an event, which factor do you
consider first? why? 1
Q23 What actions will affect the image of this event in your mind? 0.8 Q24 What aspects will affect your feelings and judgment about the
brand of this event? 1
Q25 How does it affect you when you identify with an event brand and resonate with it? What is the impact on your participation
behavior?
1 Q26 Do you have any suggestions for the organizers when building a
brand of an event? 1
After further revision of the items, in the second round of IOC evaluation, the IOC value of each item was greater than or equal to 0.8 (≥0.8), indicating that the item content validity was reasonable (Ronna C Turner & Laurie Carlson, 2003).
46