Sports on Traditional and Newer Digital Media

Abstract

In this essay, we examine a series of platform, content, reception, and lifestyle factors likely to shape sports fans’ use of traditional and newer digital media. Because of signal fidelity, screen size, presence, and the rights to air top-tier sports events, television is likely to remain the medium of choice for fans ready to watch live sports. Fans will use newer media, with their interactive options and affordance of agency to supplement and enhance their viewing experience. Although traditional and newer media are competing for fan attention and advertising dollars, use of these media for live sports is not a zero-sum game. This may not be the case for sports journalism and related programming about sports where, over time, fans may turn to newer media at the expense of the old.

Keywords

television sports fans digital media technological affordances agency sports content

Introduction

Advances in technology have made it possible for sports fans to follow their favorite athletes, teams, and sports 24/7—and in ways that expand and enrich the fanship experience. Traditional and newer digital media offer an enticing array of content and platform options designed to attract and retain sports fans who remain, in part because they are predominantly male, a highly desirable audience for advertisers. There is much revenue at stake: television (TV) rights fees in the United States alone for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups are around $1 billion, more than double the fees for the 2010 and 2014 competition (Longman 2011). As a result, cross-platform competition for fans is keen.

In earlier work, we described platform and reception factors likely to influence sports fans’ use of traditional and newer media (Authors 2014). Platform factors included locus of control, level of interactivity, temporal constraints, fidelity, screen size/presence and accessibility. The reception experience included fan motivations for viewing, the desire for group affiliation, companionship and identity, and lifestyle. At roughly the same time, Sundar and Limperos (2013) described four affordances associated with newer media—modality, interactivity, agency, and navigability. In this essay, we will use a subset of factors from those two articles and examine how each is likely to shape sports fans’ use of media to follow their favorites. Because print vehicles are also available online, we have chosen to focus on the electronic media in this essay. Traditional media platforms include broadcast, cable and satellite television, and radio. Newer media platforms include computers and mobile-based devices.

As we will demonstrate, strengths associated with traditional media are likely to keep fans glued to large screens for live events. On the contrary, and because of its strengths, we anticipate newer media will attract fans for coverage about those events, in all likelihood at the expense of traditional media. This year’s FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) World Cup should serve as a case in point: sports fans across the globe will watch the matches as they unfold on television; the larger the screen, the better. Networks such as ESPN are counting on that. ESPN alone will offer over 270 hours of programming (on ESPN, ESPN2, ABC, Watch ESPN, and ESPN Desportes) devoted to the World Cup. It expects fans to tune into one of its networks for the matches themselves—and, hopefully, for the studio programming about the matches its networks will offer. We anticipate fans able to watch the matches on TV will do so but that the audience for programming about the matches will split across media, with many going to second and third screens for journalistic coverage. ESPN will be there as well (i.e., ESPN.com; ESPN Sync, a second screen app)—but so will every other media organization trying to draw fans for its coverage.

Technological Affordances

Fidelity

Uses of traditional and newer media expect clear, crisp pictures, motion that is unbroken, and sound that covers the expanse of human hearing. In essence, they expect nothing short of a lifelike experience. Manufacturers as well as cable and satellite providers understand this, spend countless millions of dollars increasing the fidelity of their equipment, and then trumpet their achievements (i.e., 1080 p, 120 Hz, 14 megapixels) in advertisements and promotional activity designed to influence product purchases. Content providers incorporate all the advances in technology, too, to deliver arresting coverage of the activity on the field of play. In turn, sports fans with cable or satellite connections and reasonably new TV sets have grown to expect a viewing experience that may be more intense than being at the stadium or arena. There’s more on that when we turn to screen size and presence.

The fidelity of newer media continues to rapidly improve although these media face unique challenges associated with their mobility (i.e., battery life, coverage areas) and componentry (i.e., navigation issues, unresponsive touchscreens). Here, too, countless millions have been spent to address website crashes, buffering delays, wireless signal strength, and overall receptivity (Cui et al. 2007; Dreier 2013), yet these remain a work in progress. Consumers appear to be forgiving with these glitches, but expectations are increasingly high, perhaps a reflection of ads that blare a corporation’s perceived or real technological advantage in the marketplace (i.e., Verizon’s long-lasting “Can you hear me now?” ad campaign, Amazon’s attribute and price-point comparisons between its Kindle and Apple’s iPad).

Fidelity is likely to be a significantly more important factor for live sports than for pre- or post-game coverage of an event. When the game or match is on, fans want to see and hear perfectly. Caught up in the excitement and emotion of the moment, fans will not patiently wait for buffers, accept occasionally snowy pictures, or be willing to walk around to locate that moment’s sweet spot for reception. Fans may be more forgiving, though, when they turn to media for updates, highlights, analysis, or commentary. Getting a halftime score does not demand great fidelity. Similarly, because the arousal and emotion of a game’s climatic moments has passed, fans may tolerate newer media’s occasional glitches when they watch highlights, debate coaching decisions and player contributions, or even critique media coverage of a match. Here, and as we will describe later, interactivity and agency trump a terrific signal.

It seems reasonable to expect that the fidelity gap between traditional and newer media will continue to lessen with technological advances. But until that gap becomes insignificant—other factors equal—fans will continue to turn first to TV for its live coverage of sports.

Screen Size and Presence

At least in the United States, the most popular TV sets are widescreen. In 2012, the average TV sold to consumers featured a 36.8-inch screen (DailyMail 2012). Large screens enable viewers to fully appreciate high definition (HD) clarity and detail—and with sports, make the viewer feel within reach of the action. Live sports programming drives the sale of widescreen HD TV sets (Keating 2006). Indeed, mediated experiences that are all-encompassing and fully integrated for the viewer facilitate a feeling of “being there.” This phenomenon is regularly described as presence (Bracken 2005; Lombard et al. 2000). Presence is a sought-after experience for sports fans who turn to TV for live and in-the-moment coverage that conveys the intensity of game or match. This experience is especially relevant when the matches matter, the competition is tight and the outcomes uncertain.

Limited screen size is likely to curtail newer media inroads for live sports even as its diminished size otherwise is a central selling point. Like other consumers, sports fans want mobile, pocket-sized technology. Over the past few years, the size of mobile devices has increased. In 2012, consumers preferred a 4.5-inch screen up slightly from 4.3 inches in 2011 (Terrelonge 2013). Yet, 4.5 inches is no match for large-screen—or 3D TV sets. Several electronics companies now offer portable projector screens for mobile technology, allowing smartphone users the option of sharing their screen with others in the same physical space. Yet, this has a series of significant limitations (i.e., image quality limited by the wall upon which the image is projected, projection can be problematic in public spaces, limited sound projection) and, as a result, is not likely to be widely used for sports.

Interactivity

Interactivity is one affordance where newer media have a clear advantage over traditional media. Newer media provide more interactive opportunities, user control, and responsiveness than traditional media (Sundar and Limperos 2013). The interactive features of new media facilitate agency- allowing individuals to become sources of information- an outcome users appreciate and seek (witness the hundreds of millions who use Facebook). Fans can open multiple applications on their mobile devices and gain immediate access to convenient, self-tailored content. For instance, an ESPN app lets fans tailor ESPN’s newsfeed to include the fan’s favorite sports and favorite teams, filtering those stories first. Fans using newer technology also can access insider information online. This is particularly valuable for fantasy sports leagues where the user has complete control over the information they receive and then access. Message boards and fan forums rely on participation and interaction. Social media provide a platform for fans to publicly pronounce their loyalties to an ever-expanding audience. Sports talk radio also features interactive elements and, for those who call in and talk with the hosts, a sense of agency (Haag 1996). Yet, while the sports talk format still is in its ascendency (Ourand 2012), fans who want to share their views are likely to turn to social media outlets: sports talk call-in shows cannot compete with the unlimited access and broader audience that sports websites, blogs, and Twitter feeds provide. Increased agency is a relevant outcome here, too, with more discussion on that later.

With their interactive capabilities, newer media are likely to supplement exposure to live sports. Unless sports fans are completely riveted by action on the screen, they can text, tweet, or post and exchange messages on social media sites while they watch. It strikes us, though, that interactive online options may diminish exposure to the hours of analysis and commentary offered on TV and radio (and in print too).

Content

Across media, content is king. Consumers turn to media outlets that feature compelling content. Sports programming actually offers a healthy dose of sports journalism (Brown and Bryant 2006) although the latter is not nearly as compelling as the games and matches themselves. Sports fans want to watch sports and do so in huge numbers for major events such as the World Cup, the Olympics, and, in the United States, professional football and its climatic game, the Super Bowl. Fees for the right to air major sports run in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Multiyear packages, routine for major sports, cost rights-holders billions. Because rights fees require very deep pockets and generally are awarded to the highest bidders, major TV networks currently hold the rights to all top-tier sports programming. Regional, more narrowly focused and upstart national cable networks have made some inroads here by purchasing lower tier rights fees for sports such as boxing and mixed martial arts. Collectively, traditional media still produce the sports content newer media need to attract fans. Moreover, acknowledging the lure of online options—and the interests of fantasy sports fans—traditional broadcast and cable networks as well as satellite providers have enhanced their major sports programming by adding features fans crave. DirectTV’s Red Zone channel shows the plays of NFL (National Football League) teams from all around the league as those teams near the end zone. Lower third banner scrolls on the bottom of sports broadcasts on networks like CBS and ESPN provide up-to-date scores and fantasy statistics. AT&T’s U-verse telecommunications service provides a multi-view option where fans choose their own camera angles for watching sporting events. Beyond this, TV networks have extended their brands online, constantly cross-promoting to keep fans with them.

Using apps, newer media adapt, re-work, and re-purpose the programming that traditional media provide. In addition to being prepared for household TV screens, DirectTV’s Sunday Ticket can be streamed live on any mobile device. Newer media have yet to seriously contend for rights fees to large-scale sporting events although there is some evidence of change on the horizon: YouTube has tried its hand at negotiating deals with major sports leagues (Luckerson 2013).

Attempts to offer programming at discounted or free rates would challenge the long-standing and lucrative for-pay cable and satellite sports programming packages that fans desire. Prices for pay-TV fare have escalated in recent years—witness ESPN’s $5+ monthly fee per household, just for its premier channel—contributing to churn and, with more content available online, a slight decrease in pay-TV subscribers in Western Europe and North America. At the same time, worldwide pay-TV subscriptions are expected to top 1.1 billion before the end of this decade, providing a huge potential market for companies able to offer reduced or free programming (ABIresearch 2014). Online live streaming of games has seen growing success. NBC happily reported over 2 million people streamed its coverage of the Canada–USA semifinal hockey game at the 2014 Winter Olympics (Sandomir 2014). At the same time, these efforts still have to deal with buffering and other website roadblocks that limit truly large-scale adoption. Live streams from websites that do not have transmission rights are pirating the material. Live streaming by the TV networks owning the rights may require a subscription to cable or satellite services. In all, newer media face an uphill fight as they try to attract and keep fans for live coverage of sports.

Viewer Experiential Factors

Agency

One of newer media’s most valued outcomes of use is agency, an affordance that facilitates community-building and meaning-making (Sundar and Limperos 2013). With fewer filters and gatekeepers in place, newer media hand the locus of control to users who, in turn, are able to create content as well as modify their exposure to the content offered to all. While newer media still rely on traditional media for sports events, fans use message boards, forums, games, and apps to create their own content related to what happens on the pitch (Authors 2014; Broughton 2012; Clavio 2008). This allows users to profess their support for teams and players in a variety of ways not possible with traditional media outlets. Using the device of their choice, fans can cheer, hiss, and otherwise make their fanship known. Fantasy leagues, fan forums, and blogs enable fans to extend their networks beyond their specific geographic locale. Fans interact with teams, athletes, and sportswriters through social media as well. An increasing number of athletes have chosen to interact with their fans and followers, simultaneously bypassing the press and stepping beyond traditional parasocial interactions (Perse and Rubin 1989; Rubin and McHugh 1987). In all these ways, sports fans who use newer technology become media managers, crafting their own personal sports experience through a combination of traditional and newer media exposure. Here, the sports experience takes on new meaning, specific and unique to each fan.

Lifestyle

For many, contemporary life is marked by overscheduled days and multitasking as competing obligations and expectations associated with work, family, and friendships clamor for time and attention. Yet, despite being on the go, in a rush and spread thin, people want to remain involved, stay connected, and not miss a thing. Newer and mobile technologies fit with contemporary life and work styles because they provide anytime, anywhere access to almost everything. Technologies such as mobile TV are used at home, on commutes, and while on break in the workplace (Cui et al. 2007). Newer technologies do more than simply fill the coverage gaps left by traditional media. In addition to extending access to traditional broadcast content, Mobile TV offers interactive services not available elsewhere (Kaasinen et al. 2009). For instance, ESPN provides games and content on their mobile TV app that ESPN does not air on their cable channels. Subscribers appreciate easy and continuous access to content and appear willing to pay for those services. If anything, the availability and use of these technologies are likely to accelerate as work stretches across the week, leaving workers fewer days away from their jobs (deGraaf and Batker 2011). Sports fans are not immune to the pressures from work or the general press for time. Newer media give fans on the go the technology needed to see the action, catch the scores, and make use of game stats. Most fans will find a way to watch sports live on widescreen TV, but lifestyle factors are likely to propel fans to newer and mobile media for previews, reviews, and analyses of each event.

Adoption of Technology

Mobile technologies such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones have diffused rapidly and widely across society. Indeed, smartphones appear near-ubiquitous, with young adults and teenagers among its early adopters and most ardent supporters. There is a learning curve for all new technology, the height and steepness of the curve related to the technology’s design, correspondence with existing technology, and built-in, easy-to-use features. Adoption of mobile TV increased when its user interface approached that of more traditional media (Kaasinen et al. 2009). Older sports fans are no strangers to newer technology, but they may not embrace newer technologies with as much fervor as the young. Older consumers use electronic devices at similar rates to those of younger consumers, but they are more likely to report being frustrated by the technology’s complexity (Marketing Charts 2009). The digital divide between old and young is likely to lessen over time. Until then, sophisticated use of newer mobile technologies among sports fans is likely to be seen primarily among younger fans. It will be interesting to see if advertising dollars follow those fans, leaving traditional media, with its older base of users, stuck with a less attractive audience and fewer advertising dollars.

Emerging Experience

In this essay, we have described a short series of factors likely to influence sports fans’ use of traditional and newer electronic technologies as they follow their favorite players, teams, and sports. Unweighted, these factors point to sports fans making more frequent and expensive use of newer media, at times at the expense of traditional media outlets. But these factors need to be weighed against the expectations and motivations of sports fans and the varying content traditional and newer media provide. First and foremost, fans want to watch the games and matches themselves—and they want the viewing experience to be immersive. These essential expectations point to content delivered by broadcast, cable, and satellite networks, and displayed on large-screen televisions. Mobile, small-screen technologies cannot compete here, except for those unable to watch at a home, apartment, dorm, or sports bar. At the same time, traditional and newer media are not competing in a zero-sum game. Perhaps because there are so many breaks in the action (i.e., time between pitches or plays, time-outs for advertising and self-promotion, time for challenges and referee decisions, breaks between innings, quarters, halfs, and periods of play in baseball, American football, soccer, hockey), sports fans are able to simultaneously use traditional and newer media, the viewing experience enhanced by agency. The action on the pitch is almost continuous in soccer, creating minor challenges for viewers (and more significant one for advertisers). Fans know goal-scoring opportunities can develop within a matter of seconds. But they also know that much of the play hovers around midfield, giving them opportunity to text, tweet, or otherwise take their eyes off the TV set to second and third screen options. The simultaneous use of screens and technologies is likely to increase over time as newer technologies become even more affordable, widespread, and easy to use. As is, a large proportion of the middle class across the world have direct access to all three screens. Indeed, six billion people worldwide have access to mobile technology, far more than have access to working plumbing (Wang 2013). Traditional media outlets may, indeed, lose sports fans to newer media for programming content beyond the games themselves. While exposure to this content is not a zero-sum game either, it remains to be seen if fans will fall in line with the dictates of TV program schedules when the games are over and the content is not time-sensitive. TV networks have smartly hedged their bets here, creating and purchasing online sites and mobile apps that keep fans with them across platforms and locales. Each fan may become his or her own media manager—creating a specific and unique experience through their media choice and consumption patterns—and, at the same time, still be part of the audience sold to advertisers by a small number of sprawling media corporations.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Walter Gantz is a professor and chair of the Department of Telecommunications at Indiana University. He has been studying sports fans for three decades and is interested in how fans fit this passion into their daily lives. He also is interested in the arc of sports fanship over the course of adult life.

Nicky Lewis is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Telecommunications at Indiana University. She is interested in media psychology as it applies to media consumption behavior.

References

ABIresearch. 2014. “Worldwide Pay-TV Subscribers to Exceed 1.1 Billion in 2019 with Increasing IPTV Market Share.” ABIreseach.com, January 22. https://www.abiresearch.com/press/worldwide-pay-tv-subscribers-to-exceed-11-billion-.

Bracken

Cheryl Campanella

. 2005. “Presence and Image Quality: The Case of High-Definition Television.” Media Psychology 7 (2): 191–205.

Broughton

David

. 2012. “Survey: Social Media Continues to Fuel Fans.” SportsBusinessDaily.com, July 16. http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/07/16/In-Depth/Catalyst-Survey.aspx.

Brown

Dan

Bryant

Jennings

. 2006. “Sports Content on US Television.” In Handbook of Sports and Media, edited by Raney

Arthur A.

Bryant

Jennings

, 77–104. New York: Routledge.

Clavio

Galen

. 2008. “Uses and Gratifications of Internet Collegiate Sport Message Board Users.” Order No. 3319833, Indiana University, Bloomington. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/8163/umi-indiana-2039.pdf?sequence=1.

Cui

Yanqing

Chipchase

Jan

Jung

Younghee

. 2007. “Personal TV: A Qualitative Study of Mobile TV Users.” In Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Interactive TV: A Shared Experience, edited by Cesar

Pablo

Chorianopoulos

Konstantinos

Jensen

Jens F.

, 195-204. Amsterdam: Springer-Verlag.

DailyMail . 2012. “Television Sets Are Getting Bigger—But Can They Be Too Big?” DailyMail.co.uk, October 16. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218612/Shopping-new-TV-Screen-sizes-inching-warned-bigger-isn-t-better.html.

deGraaf

John David

Batker

2011. “Americans Work Too Much for Their Own Good.” Bloomberg.com, November 3. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-03/americans-work-too-much-for-their-own-good-de-graaf-and-batker.html.

Dreier

Troy.

2013. “Streaming Media East: Content is King in Online Sports.” StreamingMedia.com, May 21. http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Featured-Articles/Streaming-Media-East-Content-Is-King-in-Online-Sports-89748.aspx Authors. 2014.

10.

Gantz

Walter

Lewis

Nicky

. 2014. “Fanship Differences between Traditional and Newer Media.” In The Routledge Handbook of Sport and New Media, edited by Billings

Andrew C.

Hardin

Marie

, 19-31. London: Routledge.

11.

Haag

Pamela

. 1996. “‘The 50,000-Watt Sports Bar’: Talk Radio and the Ethic of the Fan.” South Atlantic Quarterly 95 (2): 453–70.

12.

Kaasinen

Eija

Kulju

Minna

Kivinen

Tuomo

Oksman

Virpi

. 2009. “User Acceptance of Mobile TV Services.” In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, 1-10. Bonn, Germany: ACM

13.

Keating

Tom

. 2006. “Sports Fans Drive HD TV Sales.” TMCnet, January 25. http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/home-entertainment/sports-fans-drive-hd-tv-sales.asp.

14.

Lombard

Matthew

Reich

Robert D.

Grabe

Maria E.

Bracken

Cheryl C.

Ditton

Theresa B.

2000. “Presence and Television.” Human Communication Research 26 (1): 75–98.

15.

Longman

Jeré

. 2011. “Fox and Telemundo Win U.S. Rights to World Cups.” New York Times.com, October 21. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/sports/soccer/fox-and-telemundo-win-us-rights-to-2018-and-2022-world-cups.html?_r=0.

16.

Luckerson

Victor

. 2013. “YouTube Throws a Curveball by Becoming a Sports Broadcaster.” Time.com, June 7. http://business.time.com/2013/06/07/youtube-throws-a-curveball-by-becoming-a-sports-broadcaster/.

17.

Marketing Charts. 2009. “Older Americans Use Technology, but Express More Frustration.” MarketingCharts.com, January 12. http://www.marketingcharts.com/interactive/older-americans-use-technology-but-express-more-frustration-7495/.

18.

Ourand

John

. 2012. “A Strong Signal.” SportsBusinesDaily.com, February 13. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/02/13/In-Depth/Lead.aspx

19.

Perse

Elizabeth M.

1989. “Attribution in Social and Parasocial Relationships.” Communication Research 16 (1): 59–77.

20.

Rubin

Rebecca B.

1987. “Development of Parasocial Interaction Relationships.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 31 (3): 279–92.

21.

Sandomir

Richard

. 2014. “Streaming of Olympic Hockey Continues to Expand.” New York Times.com, February 21. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/sports/olympics/streaming-of-olympic-hockey-continues-to-expand.html?emc=eta1&;_r=0

22.

Sundar

S. Shyam

Limperos

Anthony M.

2013. “Uses and Grats 2.0: New Gratifications for New Media.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 57 (4): 504–25.

23.

Terrelonge

Zen

. 2013. “4.5 Inches is the Most Preferred Smartphone Screen Size.” MobileEntertainment.biz, May 13. http://www.mobile-ent.biz/industry/market-data/4-5-inches-is-the-most-preferred-smartphone-screen-size/040847

24.

Wang

Yue

. 2013. “More People Have Cell Phones than Toilets, U.N. Study Shows.” Time.com, March 25. http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/03/25/more-people-have-cell-phones-than-toilets-u-n-study-shows/