the influence of communication...

THE INFLUENCE OF COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES

ON CHARITABLE RACES

___________________________

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies

School of Professional Studies

Gonzaga University

___________________________

Under the Supervision of Dr. Michael Hazel

Under the Mentorship of Dr. Popa

__________________________

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies

___________________________

By

Vicky J. Daniels

May 2013

Abstract

Charitable races are happening all over the United States. These races are a competitive

way for charities to receive funds to help support their causes. However, not all charity athletic

events and races are promoted equally. This success or lack thereof is in part due to how the

events’ messages are communicated and perceived by potential attendees. This study

interviewed experts in the field of marketing charitable events, and surveyed participants of

charitable events to see what communication strategies most influenced their decisions to attend.

The study highlighted the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon series, which has been very successful for

over a decade. By focusing some of the survey questions to this particular race, communication

strategies for reaching potential attendees were actively examined. The results from this inquiry

show that word of mouth and electronic communications are a key factor in improving

attendance to charitable races.

Keywords: charity, races, communication strategies, marketing

Table of Contents Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION:....................................................................................................... 1

The Study Goal ........................................................................................................................... 1

Importance of the study .............................................................................................................. 1

Statement of the problem ............................................................................................................ 2

Definitions of Terms Used .......................................................................................................... 2

Organization of Remaining Chapters.......................................................................................... 2

Chapter 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............................................................................. 4

Philosophical Assumptions and Theoretical Basis ..................................................................... 4

The Literature.............................................................................................................................. 6

Motivation for participation. ................................................................................................... 6

Communication strategies. ...................................................................................................... 7

Source credibility. ................................................................................................................... 8

Sponsorships. .......................................................................................................................... 9

Effectiveness of Communication Strategies. .......................................................................... 9

Types of advertising. ............................................................................................................. 10

Destination events. ................................................................................................................ 11

The development of the casual marathon. ............................................................................ 11

Competitor Group, Inc. ......................................................................................................... 12

Rationale ................................................................................................................................... 13

Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 13

Objectives of the Study. ........................................................................................................ 14

Chapter Three: Scope and Methodology ...................................................................................... 15

The Scope of the Study ............................................................................................................. 15

Methodology of the Study ........................................................................................................ 16

Data Analysis, Ethical Considerations, and Procedure. ............................................................ 17

Validity and reliability. ......................................................................................................... 18

Strengths and limitations....................................................................................................... 19

Implications........................................................................................................................... 20

Chapter Four: The Study .............................................................................................................. 21

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 21

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 21

Results of the Study .................................................................................................................. 22

Demographics and general questions.................................................................................... 23

Research question one........................................................................................................... 24

Research question two. ......................................................................................................... 27

Interviews and Survey Results .................................................................................................. 28

Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 30

Chapter 5: SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................... 32

Limitations of the Study............................................................................................................ 32

Further Study or Recommendations ......................................................................................... 32

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 32

References ..................................................................................................................................... 34

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 38

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 39

Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 41

Appendix D ................................................................................................................................... 47

Running head: COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES 1

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION:

The Study Goal

Not all charitable athletic events and races are promoted equally. This success or lack

thereof is in part due to how the event is communicated and perceived by potential attendees.

Events range from small hometown runs with just a few runners, to large events such as the Rock

‘n’ Roll Marathon series, which travels through the county. Charities hold events such as races

as a way to raise money to support their causes.

The goal of this study is to understand what communication campaigns and strategies

work for charitable athletic events and races. The successful communications strategies

identified in the study can serve as a template for charities developing their own events. Using a

template of proven successful communication strategies, races’ attendance, and subsequent

profit, races can experience overall improvement, saving both time and money.

Importance of the study

When advertising a race, the communication strategies used are a main determining

factor to the success and profitability of a race. If potential participants do not have knowledge

about the race, they are not able to attend. This study looks at successful races and what

communication strategies the races use to inform attendees. This information is important

because without knowledge of successful strategies, time and money is wasted on

communication strategies that might not bring in the most participants. This study helps to

clarify what communication strategies are the most successful at promoting and helping build a

template for future, charitable races.


Statement of the problem

The objectives of this study are to review which communication strategies have most

influenced athletes to attend a charitable event, and how the communication strategies of the

Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon influence athletes to attend in comparison to other events. These

objectives are met through investigating what communication strategies the Competitor Group,

Inc. successfully uses to promote the Rock and Roll Marathon series to its targeted affinity

groups. In addition, the study reviews the target audience characteristics and latitude of

acceptance for the communications strategies used by charitable races; looking for which

strategies have most influenced athletes to attend a charitable race. Ultimately, the goal is to

figure out what strategies are the most successful, so other charitable events can achieve similar

positive results.

Definitions of Terms Used

For the purpose of this study, athletes are defined as anyone who has participated in a

charitable race within the last year, and a charitable race is defined as any race that contributes to

a charitable cause, regardless of the races profit or non-profit status. Additionally, an affinity

group is defined as a group that has similar attitude about a common interest, while source

credibility is the believability of the communicator of a message, as perceived by the recipient.

Organization of Remaining Chapters

The remaining chapters of this study provide a look into the communication strategies

used to promote charitable races. Chapter two, the literature review, is divided into two parts.

Part one describes the theoretical basis and philosophical assumptions for how participants

perceive the communication strategies of charitable races. Part two presents a review of

published findings on motivation to participate in races, communication strategies, and the


development of the casual marathon. Chapter three describes the scope and mythology of the

study. Chapter four presents the study results, analyzes the data, and discusses the findings.

Chapter five looks at the study limitations and study conclusions, while suggesting areas for

future research.


Chapter 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Philosophical Assumptions and Theoretical Basis

With thousands of charity sporting events to choose from, it is important to understand

what motivates people to participate in an event. Bennett (2007) states that “from a charity’s

perspective the fundraising potential of these events is substantial, consequent to their frequent

occurrence and the large number of people involved” (p. 156). A recipient’s attitude and

experiences highly influence how they receive communicated information from charity

organizers. Sherif (1967) defines attitude as “the individual’s set of categories for evaluating a

stimulus domain, which he has established as he learns about the domain in interaction with

other persons” (p. 344). Messages are not simply evaluated on a yes or no basis.

How can a charity organizer create more “yes” responses to their communications?

Muzafer Sherif’s (1961) social judgment theory of communication suggests that interpretation of

a message “goes beyond a simple pro-con evaluation and considers a second dimension of

attitude—how important the issue is to the respondent” (Griffin, 2009, p. 181). Sherif and

Cantril (1947) break down a person’s attitude of acceptance into three sections: latitude of

acceptance, rejection, and non-commitment. The first section is latitude of acceptance where

“the latitude of acceptance is simply the most acceptable position plus other positions the

individual finds acceptable” (p. 345). The second is latitude of rejection, in which “the position

most objectionable to the individual…plus other items or positions also objectionable to him” (p.

345), and finally the third is latitude of non-commitment, the range of ideas or “the positions on

which he (the person) prefers to remain non-committal” (p. 345).

The closer a communication fits the latitude of the recipient’s attitude, the more likely the

recipient will react in the desired fashion. If a charity organizer can judge the intended


recipient’s latitude of acceptance, rejection, and non-commitment, they can tailor their

communication strategies to influence decisions in their favor. Like-minded or affinity groups

tend to have similar attitudes, and communication strategies can be applied using Sherif’s social

judgment theory to groups as well as individuals. Event sponsors apply this attitude knowledge

as they market to target affinity groups they desire for their events. Social Judgment Theory

helps categorize stimuli on a series. The participants in this study are naturally categorized by

the survey restrictions as an affinity group. The participants are an affinity group because their

attitude of acceptance is similar when it comes to attending charitable races. Social Judgment

theory will help determine the importance of a race having a charity affiliation for participants in

races, as well as help evaluate what communication strategies most influence this particular

affinity group.

Social Judgment theory was crafted in the socio-psychological tradition, “The socio-

psychological tradition epitomizes the scientific or objective perspective” (Griffin, 2009, p. 42).

By observing the relationships between the communication strategies used by successful races

and participants attending the races, we will be able to discover the motives of participants to

attend a race. Messages from a highly credible source such as an established race will influence

participants to a greater degree than those from a less credible source. Griffin states that there

are two types of credibility, expertness, and character. Credibility is a determining factor in a

person’s latitude for acceptance of a message. While expertness starts as a stronger form of

credibility, after time character becomes equally important. This change occurs because, over

time, people disassociate what they have heard from the source. When deciding what

communication strategies to use for promoting a race, both sources of credibility are utilized


depending on factors such as a potential participant’s motives for attending and past race

experiences.

The Literature

There is not a lot of literature specifically on communication strategies used to market

charitable events, but there is a fair amount of literature on the pieces involved in making a race

successful. This section reviews the literature detailing participant motives for participation.

The literature also includes different types of communication strategies, and the history of the

casual marathon.

Motivation for participation.

Understanding what motivates people helps to explain why people attend an event.

Bennett (2007) suggests that there is a lot of research on sports and fitness-related motives but

little on cause-related motives, which is his focus of study. Bennett’s study looked at 12 motives

and administered a questionnaire to people that reported attending at least one charity- affiliated

sporting event. He concluded that “overall the results imply that need for event managers to

promote charity-affiliated occasions in manners that complement the core motives of potential

participants” (Bennett, 2007, p. 174). The core motives of participants can be individual, shared

with in an affinity group or a combination of both. Participants have many motives to

participate, but the two main motives are physical activity and the charitable cause. People, who

participate for the physical activity aspect, are less likely to care if a race has a charitable cause

affiliated to it. On the other end of the spectrum are people who only participate when the race is

for a cause they support. The wide range of motivation means that people of all levels of athletic

ability attend races. From professional athletes to non-athletes, the scope of potential


participants is far-reaching. In order for people to participate, they need to know about the event

and the event’s cause to participate.

People can be motivated by their peers, even in individual sports. “Individual sport

athletes often spend hundreds or even thousands of hours with teammates in training and

competition” (Evans, Eys & Bruner, 2012, p. 301). These athletes train together and group

influence should not be dismissed. “Group Norm become the standards for evaluation of group

members’ actual self and thereby guides affect and motivation” (Sassenberg, Matschke, &

Scholl, 2011, p. 896). Sherif (1966) suggests that once an individual’s social attitude is formed,

it serves as a frame of reference “determining to an important degree the preferences or likes and

dislikes of the individual” (p. 117). When athletes train in a group, they discuss potential races

and different experiences. These shared experiences can influence another’s latitude of

acceptance to a particular race.

Sports branding also motivates participation. Časlavová and Petráčková, (2011) suggest

that there are multiple factors that determine sports branding. These factors include fan platform,

history of success, and communication strategy of the brand, brand value, and regulated

attendance. Parent and Sequin (2008) state that leadership is a key component in creating a

brand. Leadership needs to have the money and skills to make an event successful. The

combination of these factors develops a sport’s brand and suggests the best form of marketing an

event.

Communication strategies.

Maina, Hughes, Buriak, & Creasy (2007) state that hosting and developing a fun run can

be a great way to bring together individuals of all ages and ability levels. A charity event can

utilize many communication strategies. Some of the most common ways to advertise are


sponsorships, website, television, print, radio, and word of mouth. The promotion phase of a fun

run can be one of the most challenging. “The trick to promoting a fun run relies on timing,

saturation, targeting population, and minimizing promotional expenders” (Maina et al., 2007, p.

64). Even the cost of an event can affect potential attendee levels. The goal of charitable events

is to make a profit to benefit the charity or charities it supports. Kalyanaram and Little (1994)

state that an individual’s latitude of acceptance of pricing is based on experience. Prices over the

individual’s experienced range will be considered high. Higgins and Lauzon (2002) state that

the majority of nonprofit organizations rely on donated resources to cover both capital needs and

operating expenditures. “Event marketing provides organizations with a way to focus on distinct

target markets that other mass marketing alternatives fail to reach” (Higgins & Lauzon 2002, p.

363). A large percentage of charitable organizations rely on income from events. Higgins &

Lauzon report, “figures from the USA include estimates which indicate that about 50 percent of

social service agencies rely on income from special events” (Higgins & Lauzon, 2002, p. 364).

Source credibility.

Charities’ use their special events to promote their organization’s financial and service

goals. A desire to help a worthy cause is part of the event participants’ motivation. Both rely on

the credibility and intentions of one another to promote the cause. Source credibility is the

believability of the communicator of a message, as perceived by the recipient. Gale (2008) states

that source credibility, a facet of ego-involvement, is a good way to measure how an individual

will react to a message. Source credibility will affect a person’s latitude of acceptance. If the

individual receiving the message believes the sender has low source credibility, they will view

the message with a latitude of rejection. For example, “Advertisers must use exaggerated claims

in advertisements with caution, because the negative effects of skepticism toward advertising not


only influence brand attitude and purchase intention but can erode a company’s long standing

reputation” (Fang-Ping Chen & Jun-Der, 2011, p. 158). Anytime there is a negative impression

of a company, a participant’s latitude of rejection is greater.

Sponsorships.

Sponsorships not only help advertise an event, but the event in turn is a marketing tool

for the sponsor. Multiple studies support this relationship. “The success of a sporting event of

any size depends upon the collaboration and the synergy of a large number of actors such as

federations, sponsors, local authorities, organizing committees or media” (Chanavat, Martinent,

& Ferrand, 2010, p. 50). Sponsorship denotes one of the principal sources of private funding.

Chanavat et al. (2010) demonstrated that a sponsor’s brand image influences the brand image of

the company they are sponsoring. Research shows that “sponsor brand image dimensions can

impact on the sponsor’s brand image dimension specifically in a multi sponsorship context”

(Chanavat et al., 2010, p. 69). They warn that both the sponsor and the event should use

precaution when choosing the sponsorship that will help the event and brand image.

Effectiveness of Communication Strategies.

A charity event’s website can be a large determining factor on event participation. Filo,

Funk, & Hornby, (2009) state the once a consumer recognizes the need or desire to attend an

event, the next step they take is to engage in the process of information search. Using the

internet for this search is fast and efficient. “A challenge exists for sport event organizations to

ensure that their web site communication successfully provides relevant event information to

consumers” (Filo et al., 2009, p. 23). Consumers must be aware of an event prior to researching

details on attending it. The decision to attend may depend on the social situational and

psychological factors found in the content of events website. To gain attendance “events may


attempt to use their web site communication to highlight event attributes and benefits” (Filo et

al., 2009, p. 25). Filo et al.’s (2009) study found that individuals that are low in strength of

motivation could be impacted by website communication. The study suggests that “sport event

organizations should focus on providing information content complemented by images and

multimedia that can contribute to a sport event’s brand and image, as well as enhance

information retrieval” (Filo et al., 2009, p. 35).

Types of advertising.

Television advertising is one way to reach a large group of potential attendees. This form

of advertising has been perceived as expensive, but the cost divided by the amount of number of

individuals reached it is a rather cheap form of advertising (Aldrich, 2003). Aldrich defines

direct response television advertising as a way to generate a measurable response quickly. The

goal of television advertising is to gain support for charitable campaigns and build charity brand

awareness (Aldrich, 2003). It takes time to produce direct response television advertising, but it

has the potential to be a great way to advertise a cause.

Bennett (2008) suggests that newspaper and radio advertising are considered traditional

charity advertising techniques, and are going out of style. At the same time, there has to be

advertising to bring the potential attendee to the events website. There are monthly magazines

and flyers that strictly advertise running events. These magazines may be a way to direct

participants to online advertising.

Advertising via word of mouth, depending on a person’s experience, can be negative or

positive. Lee Thomas, Mullen and Fraedrich, J. (2011) state that properly aligned charity and

race partners in cause related marketing can translate to positive word of mouth advertising. The

results of Lee Thomas et al.’s study states the word of mouth advertising should be expected


when a race is strategically linked to a charity, this should yield long-term positive benefits.

Sherif & Sherif (1956) suggest a group’s social norms come from shared values, standards, or

ideals. Groups that have similar latitude of acceptance to a charitable cause will tend to

participate as an affinity group.

Destination events.

For some participants, charity-sponsored sporting events can become an excuse for a

vacation. “The Travel Industry Association of America indicated that over 75 million Americans

over the age of 18 have traveled at least one sport event as either a spectator or participant within

the last three years” (Filo, Funk, & Hornby, 2009, p. 21). “Charity sports events are a type of

event that can be leveraged by local businesses and destination marketers as a way of stimulating

flow-on tourism, shaping an image and generating word of mouth” (Snelgrove & Wood, 2010, p.

269). Snelgrove and Wood (2010) surveyed participants of charity cycling events to compare

the differences in motives of first time participants and repeat participants and examined the way

motives could predict the choice and type of event involvement. The study found that the

motives of first time participants was more focused on the tourist attraction and repeat visitors

were more attracted by the cause. The study shows that it is possible to predict that a destination

event will bring in more first time participants, and the cause will bring in the repeat participant’s

no matter where the race is held.

The development of the casual marathon.

Marathon participation is growing. In the past, marathons were just for elite runners but

now they have become a common event with runners and walkers alike. In 1994, Los Angeles

was “struggling to find the marathon’s niche in a growing roster of events; organizers added a

new feature to their race that year: local entertainers and musicians performing along the route,


creating a more festive and interactive atmosphere for the runners” (Allison, 2010, p. 85). In

1998, Tim Murphy took the entire concept a step further introducing the inaugural Rock ‘n’ Roll

Marathon; the new concept had rock bands entertaining runners at every mile. This brought a

new group of more relaxed and casual runners to the sport. “Without the pressure of having to

push for a personal best every time out, slower marathoners began to discover a meaningful

reason for participation…raising money for charity” (Allison, 2010, p. 88).

Tim Murphy developed the idea for the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon when a group of

marathon runners urged him to put on a marathon in San Diego (Rock, 2005, p. 164). The

participation response to the inaugural Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon was outstanding; “the entries

swelled to 19,978 the largest field in history for a first time marathon” (Rock, 2005, p. 166).

Even with the large amount of entries the first year, the race did not make a profit. As with any

event, there were changes made to improve the next year’s race. These included adding more

sponsors to ensure profit. The opportunity was seen to reinforce the Rock ‘n’ Roll brand, which

includes branding of entertainment and excitement during a marathon.

Competitor Group, Inc.

Tim Murphy, of Elite Racing, only managed the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon series for ten

years. The Competitor Group under Falconhead Capital now manages it. “Falconhead Capital

(www.falconheadcapital.com) became a major player in the marathon race business in 2008 with

the acquisition of the Rock ‘n’ Roll marathons (http://funrocknroll.competitor.com/) from Elite

Racing” (Miller & Washington, 2011, p. 280). Miller and Washington (2011) suggest the appeal

for marketers of marathon sponsorships is the high-end demographics of race participants.

The Competitor Group, Inc., which currently runs the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathons series,

has been growing the event. The company’s website Competitormediakit.com gives a sense of


how big the running and event business really is. The Competitor Group, Inc. is headquartered

in San Diego, California; “it owns and operates more than 55 events around the world, including

the Rock 'n' Roll Marathon Series, TriRock Triathlon Series and Columbia Muddy Buddy Series,

which will deliver more than 600,000 professional and amateur participants in 2012” (Cruse,

2009, par 3). The Competitor Group, Inc. also publishes four magazine titles including Velo,

Inside Triathlon, Triathlete, and Competitor and has a captive lifestyle community online at

competitor.com (2009).

Rationale

Promotion of charitable athletic events and races varies greatly between groups. Event

communication to potential attendees and positive perception of the communications is key to

achieving fundraising and participation. Events range from small hometown runs with just a few

runners to large events such as the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon series, which travels through the

United States. Charities hold events such as races as a way to raise money to support their

causes. Understanding what communication campaigns and strategies work for these types of

events and affinity groups is important, because the research can be used to develop other events,

improve attendance and profit, for the event and the charities it supports. Focusing on proven

successful communication strategies will save time and money.

Research Questions

The Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon series has been very successful for over a decade. The

Competitor Group, Inc. currently manages the race series. The corporation gives a portion of its

proceeds to charity. The more profitable the race is the more money can be given to the charities

it supports. This paper will examine communication campaigns and strategies Competitor

Group, Inc. successfully uses to promote the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon series. The objectives of


this study are to review which communication strategies have most influenced athletes to attend

a charitable event, and the communication strategies of the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon influence

athletes to attend in comparison to other events.

RQ 1. Which communication strategies have most influenced athletes to attend a

charitable event?

RQ 2. In comparison to other events, how do the communication strategies of the

Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon influence athletes to attend?

Objectives of the Study.

This research study will investigate what communication campaigns and strategies the

Competitor Group, Inc. successfully uses to promote the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon series to its

targeted affinity groups. For purpose of this study, athletes will be defined as anyone who has

participated in a charitable run in the last year. The goal is to figure out what strategies are the

most successful, so other charitable events to achieve similar positive results.


Chapter Three: Scope and Methodology

Event communication to potential attendees and positive perception of the event’s

communication strategies is crucial to the charity's successful achievement of their goals.

Charities hold events such as races as a way to raise money to support their causes. Highly

profitable races best support each charity's fundraising goals and allow them to fund their

charitable missions. Understanding what communication campaigns and strategies work for

these types of events is important, because they can be used to develop other events, improve

attendance and profit, for the event and the charities it supports. Focusing on proven successful

communication strategies will save time and money.

The Scope of the Study

This study focused on the communication strategies of the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon series.

This race series was chosen due to its current and past popularity. The study looked at

participants of charitable runs and asked what communication strategies have most influenced

their attendance. It asked if they have participated or heard of the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon series.

The goal was to investigate what communication campaigns and strategies the Competitor

Group, Inc. successfully uses to promote the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon series to its targeted

affinity groups based on this measure of popularity. Optimally, other charitable events will be

able to use this information to achieve similar positive results.

To develop the survey, the design process started with interviews of experts in the field of

charity event marketing. The experts were asked which marketing strategies seem to be the most

successful for their events and why. These interviews enhanced the findings of the survey and

helped to explain why certain communication strategies work better than others do. The survey

development will also include a review of the Rock ‘n” Roll Marathon series’ communication


strategies. The communication strategies used by the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon Series were

evaluated for the period from 2007 to 2013. Each communication strategy was charted for

reference for developing the survey data. Communication tools included, but were not limited

to; print advertising, air advertising, and social media utilization. Each charted communication

strategy was used in the formation of the survey questions. The survey also enquired how the

communication strategies of the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon influenced athletes to attend in

comparison to other events.

Survey Monkey was the selected tool for survey design and deployment. The survey was

administered utilizing a snowball sampling method. This survey was limited to adults who

attended at least one charitable race in the past year. The survey focused on how the participants

learned about the races they attended and if the charitable cause motivated them to attend. The

survey also focused on what communication strategies participants encountered for the Rock ‘n’

Roll Marathon series. All participants were required to be at least 18 years old, they were given

full anonymity. The participants consented to use of their answers and were not contacted after

completing the survey.

Methodology of the Study

E-mail was the selected tool for administering the quantitative survey using snowball

sampling. Snowball sampling is “a nonrandom sample in which the researcher begins with one

case, and then based on information about interrelationships…repeats the process again”

(Neuman, 2006, p. 223). The survey design process started with interviews of experts in the

field of charity event marketing. In these interviews, we discussed the target audience and their

perceived latitude of acceptance, as defined by Muzafer Sherif’s (1961) social judgment theory.


The interviews included discussion of the race; including communication strategies used in

promotion and the characteristics making them successful.

The snowball survey began with all the people in the authors personal contact list who

have participated in a charity-affiliated run. The letter in the email asked participants to forward

the survey on to their personal contacts in order to gain more participants adding to the snowball

effect. It was hoped that from this survey method there would be 50 or greater survey

participants, evenly represented across genders.

This study was limited to participants 18 and over. All participants had full anonymity.

There were no requests in the survey for names. The survey required no additional feedback

from participants. The body of the email contained a short description of the survey,

requirements to participate and sentence stating this is an anonymous survey. The final

paragraph thanked them for their help and asked that they forward the survey on to anyone they

know who has participated in a charitable run with in the last year. A timeline was placed on the

survey, where after a week the survey was closed and there was no reason to send out the email.

The survey of approximately 10 questions and was be administered online. The

questions types ranged from simple yes or no such as have they participated in at least one

charitable event in the past year, to a likert-type scale system to see what type of media swayed

their decision to attend or not. Participants were asked to indicate what type of communication

strategies they have seen or used to decide if they will attend a race.

Data Analysis, Ethical Considerations, and Procedure.

Human subjects were solicited for survey data. Gonzaga University’s policy (2009) in

using human subjects requires adhering to acceptable ethical and professional standards. This

survey was strictly on a volunteer basis and respected the anonymity of the participants.


Participants were not identified or contacted about the results of the survey. They was minimal

risk in answer the questions and there was no harm to participants. The snowball sampling

method insured that no particular group of participants were targeted or excluded.

Survey responses were evaluated to establish a snapshot representation of what

advertising is reaching participant. In an effort to decrease data error, the survey data was not

tallied until after the survey was completed. Utilizing the data collection software from the

survey tool resulted in fewer inaccuracies, because the computerized tally eliminated human

errors. Each survey result was checked for accuracy and completeness, before the data was used.

Once data was computed the results were analyzed to identify communication stratigies

reaching and influencing participants of charitable athletic events. The survey also looked at the

affinity group of people that participate in charitable sporting events. Affinity groups tend to

have similar attitudes, and communication strategies can be applied using Sherif’s social

judgment theory to groups as well as individuals. Event sponsors seek to apply this attitude

knowledge as they market it to the affinity groups they are targeting to participate. The survey

reviewed the questions to see if similar attitude and answers to questions applied to the group as

a whole, or if there were a few different attitudes. A review of the survey responses was

conducted to find correlations to the experts' opinions in the interviews.

Validity and reliability.

Using the information from the interviews helped strengthen the reliability for the study.

The experts interviewed were selected, because they have already produced one or more

successful charitable events. The experts have utilized multiple communication strategies to in

order to make their events successful. The data from the interviews was similar to the results

from the survey.


Charitable races are all limited to the same basic communication strategies. Asking the

participants to select which communication strategies they have been influenced by helped show

which strategies reach the participants. Careful survey development helped avoid any prodding

of the participants and gave them a chance to share any options unforeseen by the author. .

Questions were designed, so that the participants understand them in a clear easy fashion.

Strengths and limitations.

One strength of this survey is its quantitative nature, the free text boxes allowed

participants to add additional communication strategies they have encountered not listed in the

survey selections. Another strength is how Sherif’s Social Judgment theory works with the

existing literature and with the new survey data. Social Judgment theory supports how people

perceive the communication strategies of charitable races. The nature of this snowball survey

method gave potential to increase the number of participants and open the survey up to more

potential participants. The respondents were able share the communication strategies they have

experienced, and share which ones influenced their decisions to participate or not participate. It

also gave the participants a chance to acknowledge what marketing strategies they have

experienced. Marketing campaigns are only successful if the campaign moves and influence

people in a positive way.

Limitations include the online survey format, which could prevent less technically skilled

runners from participating. If runners did not have access to email or computers, they did not

have the opportunity to participate in the survey. The survey was also limited to the time

constraints of this study. The use of a single method of data collection narrowed the

investigation. With more time, a triangulated design using surveys and personal interviews may


have enhanced the number of participants and the depth of data. Time restraints on the research

period limited the survey's reach as well.

Implications.

Survey results describe types of communication strategies influencing runners, and the

marketing strategies of the Competitor group that are successful. It also helps model what other

charitable races can do to market their event successfully to the same types of affinity groups.

The size of the group and set of questions is a broad enough sample to get a snapshot

representation of the type of successful marketing campaigns the competitor group is utilizing.

Looking at the communication campaigns and strategies Competitor Group, Inc.

successfully uses to promote the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon series and its other charity-affiliated

athletic events will help build a roadmap, so other events obtain the same type of success.

Understanding what campaign strategies influence potential attendees will help organizations

strategically plan other charitable runs with minimizing the cost of unsuccessful strategies.


Chapter Four: The Study

Introduction

This study explored the communication strategies of the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon series.

Through semi-structured interviews of three experts who have produced successful races, the

study’s survey questions were developed. The questions focused on inquiring which

communication strategies have most influenced athletes to attend a charitable event, and in

comparison to other events, how does the communication strategies of the Rock ‘n’ Roll

Marathon influence athletes to attend. The survey was open for one week, producing 31 survey

results. Initially the survey went out to 24 contacts in the author’s personal email list and 30

contacts in the author’s professional contact list. Not all the initial contacts fit the survey

requirements, however there was hope they would forward the survey on to more people who

qualified. This chapter describes analysis of the survey results.

Data Analysis

Evaluation of survey responses established a snapshot of the advertising reaching

participants and of the most successful campaigns for this demographic. In an effort to decrease

data error, the survey data was not tallied until after the survey was complete. Utilizing the data

collection software from the survey tool helped result in fewer inaccuracies because the

computerized tally helped eliminate human errors. A reviewer checked each survey result for

accuracy and completeness before the presentation of the questions. The review of the survey

responses’ correlation to the experts' opinions in the interview occurred. The comparison of

results and the experts’ opinions help explain why certain communication strategies work better

than others do.


Analysis of the quantitative survey data helped determine answer frequencies and

participant similarities of attitude. Descriptive statistics were used to provide summaries of the

survey questions. Coding for frequency of the participant’s answers occurred for questions two,

three, and six, and were the questions without set quantitative answers. For question three, the

option for “other” was categorized by response type. The next question with a quantitative

response option was question six; asking about which communication strategies of the Rock ‘n’

Roll Marathon the participants had seen the “other” response were coded for frequency of

answers.

The survey answers were compared to the information from the three experts that were

interviewed to develop the survey. The first expert interviewed was Don Kardong, the founder

of Bloomsday. Bloomsday is a successful non-profit race that has 40,000 to 70,000 entrants per

year. The second expert interviewed was Scott Douglass, co-owner of Cascade Lakes Race

Group, a for-profit business, established in 2008 that supports local non-profit and community

groups. The third expert interviewed was Emily Cebulski, Manager of Charity Partnerships,

Competitor Group, Inc. The competitor group is a large corporation, which owns and operates

over 55 events around the world. All three experts were chosen because of their successful

races, even with the differences in their companies and company size, while successfully

producing races with large participant attendance and positive revenue.

Results of the Study

The survey results are tabulated by question and then put into categories. The first

category is demographics and general data. The questions in this category enhance the answers

to both research questions and help give an overview of the participants and their preferences for

attending charitable races. The second categories addresses research question one. The third


category addresses research question two. The final category the interviews, and how the

interviews supported the survey data.

Demographics and general questions.

The survey only asked one demographic question. Question one asked the participant’s

gender. Of the 31 participants, 23 were female and six were male leaving two that did not

answer the question. The intent of the survey administration methodology was to achieve an

even representation of male and female respondents, which did not occur. The reason for this

probably has to do with the initial email list, which had a higher ratio of females to males.

The survey consisted of nine questions. The first questions asked if the survey

respondents participated in a charitable run with in the last 12 months. Of the 31 participants of

the survey, 27 qualified and were able to fill out the other survey questions. Four people did not

participate in a race within the last year. With this data in, the total number of qualifying

participants was 27.

The second question inquired of the survey respondent what the last charitable race that

they participated in was held. The information placed them into the general answer categories of

a relay race, Bloomsday, marathon or half marathon, Race for the Cure, or other. This gives a

good snapshot of what type of races the survey participants are entering, and the general

grouping of this affinity group.


Question 4 asked the importance of a charity in attending the event. This answer was

split, showing there is more than one type of motivation. This result is consistent with Bennett’s

2007 study looking at what motivates individuals to attend a charity-affiliated sporting event.

Scott Douglass, co-owner of Cascade Lakes Race Group, said people like to feel good about

what they are doing. They will attend a race, but the charity component makes them feel good

about the race (personal communication, March 6, 2013).

How important is it that the races you participate in contribute to a charitable cause?

Answer Options

Unimportant Of Little

Importance Moderately Important

Important Very

Important N/A

Rating Average

Response Count

2 2 17 5 2 2 3.11 30 answered question 30

skipped question 1

Research question one.

Survey questions three, six, and eight all addressed research question one. Research

question one was which communication strategies have most influenced athletes to attend a

charitable event. Survey question three asked participants to indicate which communication

strategies influenced then to participate in their last charitable event. Participants were allowed

Relay

Bloomsday

Race for the cure

Marathon or ½marathon

Other

Bike


to select more than one answer. Twenty-nine percent said event website, 71 percent said word of

mouth, 5 percent said newspaper, 19 percent said e-mail, and 5 percent said a website

advertisement. There were 12 other comments coded into three categories, the types included

five people choosing other or friends, four people choosing tradition, and three people choosing

location as their main reason for attending.

What communication strategies influenced you to participate in the event? (Check all that apply)

Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

Event website 28.6% 6 Word of mouth 71.4% 15 Television 0.0% 0 Newspaper 4.8% 1 Mail 0.0% 0 Magazine 0.0% 0 Email 19.0% 4 Radio 0.0% 0 Website advertisement 4.8% 1 Other (please specify) 12

answered question 21 skipped question 10

Question six asked if a participant had heard of the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon series and

what communication strategies they had seen. Fifty percent had seen the event website, while 72

percent had heard the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon series through word of mouth. Additionally 11

percent recalled hearing about it on Television, 6 percent by newspaper, 11 percent by mail, 44

percent in a magazine, 28 percent by email, 6 percent on the radio, and 40 percent via a website

advertisement. There were two other responses, one was Facebook, and the other one was a

flyer at another race.

If you have heard of and or participated in the Rock 'n' Roll Marathon series what communication strategies have you seen? (Check all that apply)



Response Count

Event website 50.0% 9 Word of mouth 72.2% 13 Television 11.1% 2 Newspaper 5.6% 1 Mail 11.1% 2 Magazine 44.4% 8 Email 27.8% 5 Radio 5.6% 1 Website 38.9% 7 Other (please specify) 2


Question eight asked participants to select which communication strategies most

influenced them to attend a charitable event. The findings were 26 percent from the event

website. Ninety-three percent was from word of mouth, 4 percent by mail, 19 percent from a

magazine, 22 percent from an email, 4 percent from the radio, and 15 percent from website

advertising.

Of all the communication strategies, which have most influenced you to attend a charitable event? (Check all that apply)


Response Count

Event website 25.9% 7 Word of mouth 92.6% 25 Television 0.0% 0 Newspaper 0.0% 0 Mail 3.7% 1 Magazine 18.5% 5 Email 22.2% 6 Radio 3.7% 1

Website advertisement 14.8% 4 Other (please specify) 0



Research question two.

Questions five, six, and seven addressed research question two. Research question two

asked in comparison to other events how do the communication strategies of the Rock ‘n’ Roll

Marathon influence athletes to attend its race series. Question five asked if the survey

participants had heard of the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon series. Sixty percent, of the survey

participants had heard of the series and 40 percent of the participants had not heard of the series.

This shows that even the highly popular Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon has untapped markets for

expansion and their communications could be reaching a wider audience despite their success.

Have you heard of and or participated in the Rock 'n' Roll Marathon Series?


Response Count

Yes 60.0% 18 No 40.0% 12

answered question 30

skipped question 1

Survey question six asked if the participants had heard of and or participated in the Rock

'n' Roll Marathon series and what communication strategies they recall. Participants were

allowed to give multiple answers. The breakdown ended up as 50 percent had seen the event

website, 72 percent had heard of it through word of mouth, 11 percent saw it on television, 6

percent by newspaper, 11 percent through mail, 44 percent through a magazine, 28 percent

through an email 6 percent by radio, and 39 percent through a website advertisement. The two

answers under the other option were on Facebook, and from a flyer when doing another race.



Response Count

Event website 50.0% 9


Word of mouth 72.2% 13 Television 11.1% 2 Newspaper 5.6% 1 Mail 11.1% 2 Magazine 44.4% 8 Email 27.8% 5 Radio 5.6% 1 Website 38.9% 7 Other (please specify) 2


Survey question seven asked participants, in comparison to other events, how the

communication strategies of the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon compared. The answer choices were a

five point likart-type scale ranging from very good to very poor. The results of the questions

were 9 percent said very good, 27.3 percent said good, 64 percent were neutral.

In comparison to other events, how do the communication strategies of the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon compare?

Answer Options

Very good

Good Neutral Poor Very poor

Rating Average

Response Count

2 6 14 0 0 2.55 22 answered question 22

skipped question 9

Interviews and Survey Results

The communication strategy influencing the highest percentage of survey participants

was word of mouth. Scott Douglass co-owner of Cascade Lakes Race Group says word of

mouth is their biggest advertisement. Once participants know the race as a fun event and the

race reaches its' tipping point, advertising is not as important (personal communication, March 6,

2013). They use communication strategies at that point just to remind people about the race.

The survey results agree with Scott Douglass’ statement. Both Scott Douglass co-owner of

Cascade Lakes Race Group and Don Kardong founder of Bloomsday talked about the need for

advertising being more important when a race is new or unknown (personal communication,


March 6 & 8, 2013).. At that point, advertising especially with a personal touch is important. If

a charity organizer can judge the intended recipient’s latitude of acceptance, rejection, and non-

commitment, they can favorably tailor their communication strategies to influence decisions.

Like-minded or affinity groups tend to have similar attitudes, and communication strategies can

be applied using Sherif’s social judgment theory to groups as well as individuals. The second

most popular communication strategy was the events website so insuring that a website is

appealing and easy to navigate is important. The goal of a new race would be to get people to

their website. This can be done with flyers at other races, and website advertising.

Participants were asked how important it is that races they participate in contribute to a

charitable cause. Social Judgment theory helped determine the affinity groups opinion of the

importance of a charity as a factor for participants deciding to participate in races. The majority

of survey participants felt the charitable cause was moderately important with only a few

responses in the extreme importance or unimportance answer options. Based on question two it

was discovered that the latitude of acceptance of this affinity group is slightly higher if a race has

a charity affiliation. This information is important when establishing a race. Even without a

major charity if a race has even a small chartable presence it is important to disclose this

information to potential participants. Scott Douglass co-owner of Cascade Lakes Race Group

says donating to a charity is not as important as having good race timing and location (personal

communication, March 6, 2013). After establishing a race with a good location and timing, the

charity aspect becomes more important because it makes people feel good about what they are

doing. Emily Cebulski, Manager, Charity Partnerships, Competitor Group, Inc. works with the

charity aspect of the competitors groups races. Depending on the level of sponsorship the charity

has with the Competitor Groups races depends on how much advertisement and money goes


back to the charity. When a charity is in the first tier of sponsorship, the race becomes more

about the charity and draws more people to the event that are there for the charity more then to

race (personal communication, March 15, 2013).

The survey data shows the most influential form of advertising is word of mouth, which

is consistent with the views of experts in the field of marketing charitable events. The second

most important is a strong website presence, 25 to 50 percent of participants find information on

races on the internet. Scott Douglass co-owner of Cascade Lakes Race Group and Don Kardong

founder of Bloomsday both mentioned this is a reasonable priced way to reach a large audience

(personal communication, March 6 & 8, 2013). Don Kardong has watched the communication

strategies move from a paper system to a web system over the years. Kardong says it is easier to

process the entries online and it is a fast economical way to get race information to participants

(personal communication, March 8, 2013).

Discussion

The research results indicate that the strategies that are the most influential for

participants are word of mouth and the event’s website. Surprisingly word of mouth was almost

three times more popular as all the other advertising together. The interviews supported the

importance of word of mouth, giving a large part of the discussions to how word of mouth leads

to attendance. Given the growth of technology, electronic advertising it has become the new

more cost efficient way to solicit potential participants. Filo et al.’s (2009) study explains event

websites can help influence participants decision to attend an event. Sherif’s social judgment

theory (1931) expands on this idea with the idea of a person’s attitude influencing how they

perceive an idea as acceptable. The closer person’s latitude of acceptance is to attending a race

the more influential a well-developed website will be.


The results also showed that race participants have similar preferences on the importance

of a race having a charity affiliation. The majority of survey responses said a charity affiliation

was moderately important to important. Newly developing races should note this preference and

have at least a minimal amount of charity affiliation. The interviews supported the importance of

a charity affiliation, because it makes runners feel good about what they are doing. Allison

(2010) discussed non-competitive marathon runners have another reason for participating

supporting a charity.

Just over half the survey participants had previously heard of the of the Rock ‘n’ Roll

Marathon series. The Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon series is a larger race with more money to spend

on advertising then smaller races. Even with different advertisement finances, the largest

percentage of response of how participants had heard of the race was word of mouth. Gale

(2008) discussed source credibility and the results of the survey support the idea that the

credibility of the source is important to an individual’s decision to attend a race. The larger

financial ability of the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon series grew the range of advertising that was seen

by potential participants. The Communication strategies of the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon series

were seen as slightly better in quality then smaller races.

The research builds on past research and gives a new perspective of the best ways to

advertise a new race. The attitude of race participants can be categorized by the affinity groups

attitude of acceptance using Sherif’s social judgment theory (1931). Understanding what

influences the affinity group, should help future races get the most participants per

communication strategies used.


Chapter 5: SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS

Limitations of the Study

The main limitation in this study was the number of participants that responded to the

survey. The low sample size is due in part to time limitations, since the survey was only open

for responses one week. Snowball forwarding occurred during that time, but later recipients may

not have had enough time to respond within the time frame allotted. Another limitation is

gender; about two-thirds of the author’s email contacts were women. This initial disparity in

gender, when sending out the snowball sample, may have caused the imbalance in gender

responses. Another limitation is geographic area. The initial contact list for the survey

contained email addresses mainly from the northwest area of the United States. A larger

demographic area could further develop results on a more national scale.

Further Study or Recommendations

Further analysis of upcoming races coming into public awareness will validate the

practical viability of applying different communication strategies to races. After discovering

how important word-of-mouth is for a race, it would be beneficial to study the best

communication strategies for getting participants to talk about a race. Future research should

focus on what type of attendees will bring more people to a race as it develops, and the personal

touches that make a race a tradition each year.

Conclusions

Charitable races will continue to be a popular activity for athletes of all ability levels and

a good way to help fund charities. With so many races available for athletes to choose among, it

is important that race organizers understand how to reach potential participants. Race

participants tend to be an affinity group with a similar attitude of acceptance, and communication


strategies can be applied to the group using Sherif’s (1931) social judgment theory. If a charity

race organizer can judge the intended affinity group’s latitude of acceptance, rejection, and non-

commitment, they can tailor their communication strategies to influence people’s decisions to

participate.

The survey questions helped discover what communication strategies are influencing

athletes’ decisions to participate in charitable races. Sassenberg, Matschke, & Scholl (2011)

talked about how “group norm” acts as the standard for group motivation. Additionally, word of

mouth becomes important when people train together. The training team may talk about races

and decide to participate based on the group’s collective knowledge. Gale (2008) states that

source credibility, a facet of ego-involvement, is a good way to measure how an individual will

react to a message. When people interact as a group, they see the members as more credible.

This credibility means that group members are more likely to participate in races they speak

favorably about to each other.

The size of the survey participant group and set of survey questions was a broad enough

sample to see what type of marketing campaigns are reaching potential participants. This

information will help model what other charitable races need to do, in order to market their event

to the same type of affinity group. Looking at the communication campaigns and strategies

Competitor Group, Inc. uses to successfully promote the Rock and Roll Marathon series and its

other charity-affiliated athletic events will help build a roadmap so other events obtain the same

type of success. Understanding which campaign strategies influence potential attendees will also

help organizations strategically plan other charitable runs while minimizing the cost of

unsuccessful strategies.


References

Aldrich, T. (2004). Do-it-yourself DRTV: A practical guide to making direct response television

advertising work for charities. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector

Marketing, 9(2), 135-144.

Allison, D. (2010). The unstoppable 21st-century marathon boom. Marathon & Beyond, 14(5),

80-92.

Bennett, R. (2008). Research into charity advertising needs a new direction. Warc LTD.

Bennett, R., Mousley, W., Kitchin, P., & Ali-Choudhury, R. (2007). Motivations for

participating in charity-affiliated sporting events. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 6(2), 155-

178. doi: 10.1362/147539207X223375

Časlavová, E., & Petráčková, J. (2011). The brand personality of large sport events. Kinesiology,

43(1), 91-106.

Chanavat, N., Martinent, G., & Ferrand, A. (2010). Brand images causal relationships in a

multiple sport event sponsorship context: Developing brand value through association with

sponsees. European Sport Management Quarterly, 10(1), 49-74.

Cruse, R. (2009). The Competitor Group. Retrieved from http://competitorgroup.com/

Evans, M. B., Eys, M. A., & Bruner, M. W. (2012). Seeing the "we" in "me" sports: The need to

consider individual sport team environments. Canadian Psychology, 53(4), 301-308.


Fang-Ping Chen, & Jun-Der, L. E. U. (2011). Product involvement in the link between

skepticism toward advertising and its effects. Social Behavior & Personality: An

International Journal, 39(2), 153-159.

Filo, K., Funk, D. C., & Hornby, G. (2009). The role of web site content on motive and attitude

change for sport events. Journal of Sport Management, 23(1), 21-40.

Filo, K., Funk, D., & O'Brien, D. (2010). The antecedents and outcomes of attachment and

sponsor image within charity sport events. Journal of Sport Management, 24(6), 623-648.

Gale, M. (2008). Changing latitudes: A quantitative measure of social judgment theory.

Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1.

Gonzaga University PDF on human subjects

http://www.gonzaga.edu/campus+resources/offices+and+services+a-

z/Academic+Vice+President/IRBGUPolicies3-09final.pdf

Griffin, E. (2009). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Higgins, J. W., & Lauzon, L. (2003). Finding the funds in fun runs: Exploring physical activity

events as fundraising tools in the nonprofit sector. International Journal of Nonprofit &

Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(4), 363-377.

Kalyanaram, G., & Little, J. D. C. (1994). An empirical analysis of latitude of price acceptance

in consumer package goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 408-418.


Lee Thomas, M., Mullen, L. G., & Fraedrich, J. (2011). Increased word‐of‐mouth via strategic

cause‐related marketing. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Marketing, 16(1), 36-49.

Maina, M. P., Hughes, J. D., Buriak, J., & Creasy, J. (2007). Fund-raising via a fun run: Ready,

set, go! Coach & Athletic Director, 77(1), 62-64.

Miller, R. K., & Washington, K. (2011). Chapter 61: Marathons. Sports Marketing, 279-282.

Parent, M. M., & Séguin, B. (2008). Toward a model of brand creation for international large-

scale sporting events: The impact of leadership, context, and nature of the event. Journal

of Sport Management, 22(5), 526-549.

Rock 'n' roll marathon San Diego: Scenery and entertainment make for a winning combination.

(2005). Marathon & Beyond, 9(1), 162-173.

Sassenberg, K., Matschke, C., & Scholl, A. (2011). The impact of discrepancies from in group

norms on group members' well-being and motivation. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 41(7), 886-897. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.833

Sherif, M. (1966). The Psychology of Social Norms. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Sherif, M. (1967). Social Interaction. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.

Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The Psychology of Ego-Involvements. New York, NY: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. (1961. Social Judgment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.


Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1956). An Outline of Social Psychology. New York, NY: Harper &

Row.

Snelgrove, R., & Wood, L. (2010). Attracting and leveraging visitors at a charity cycling event.

Journal of Sport & Tourism, 15(4), 269-285.


Appendix A

Survey letter

Subject: Thesis Research - Survey

Hello,

My name is Vicky Daniels and I am a graduate student at Gonzaga University. I am currently

conducting research for my thesis to fulfill the requirements for an MA in Communication and

Leadership Studies.

Study Focus: What communication strategies influence attendance at charitable races?

Study Participation Requirements: Participants must be 18 years of age or older and have

participated in a charitable race within the last year. Examples of charitable races include

Bloomsday, Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon, Cascade Lakes Relay, etc. A charitable race is defined as

any race that contributes to a charitable cause. If you meet these criteria, please consider

participating in this study.

Participation: Please complete the following survey questionnaire:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/racead

Completion time should take no more than 10 minutes. Participation is voluntary and

anonymous. You may stop at any point.

Survey Completion Deadline: March 19, 2013

If you know of anyone in who may meet the above criteria, please forward this email to them.

Your assistance in enlisting others to participate in my study would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my study. If you have any questions, concerns, or

are interested in my findings, please contact me at [email protected] or 509-209-

1023

Thank you.

Vicky

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/racead


Appendix B

Survey

1. Did you participate in charitable run within the last 12 months? (Charitable runs include

Bloomsday, Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon, Cascade Lakes Relay, or any other race that contributed to

a charity in some way)

Yes

No

2. What was the last charitable race you participated in?

3. What communication strategies influenced you to participate in the event? (Check all that

apply)

Event website

Word of mouth

Television

Newspaper

Mail

Magazine

Email

Radio

Website advertisement

Other (please specify)

4. How important is it that the races you participate in contribute to a charitable cause?


Importance

Moderately

Important Important

Very

Important N/A


Importance

Moderately

Important Important

Very

Important N/A

5. Have you heard of and or participated in the Rock 'n' Roll Marathon Series?

Yes

No

6. If you have heard of and or participated in the Rock 'n' Roll Marathon series what

communication strategies have you seen? (Check all that apply)

Event website


Word of mouth

Television

Newspaper

Mail

Magazine

Email

Radio

Website


7. In comparison to other events, how do the communication strategies of the Rock ‘n’ Roll

Marathon compare?

Very good Good Neutral Poor Very poor

Very good Good Neutral Poor Very poor

8. Of all the communication strategies, which have most influenced you to attend a charitable

event? (Check all that apply)

Event website

Word of mouth

Television

Newspaper

Mail

Magazine

Email

Radio

Website advertisement



Appendix C

Survey Data

Race

Did you participate in charitable run within the last 12 months? (charitable runs include

Bloomsday, Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon, Cascade Lakes Relay, or any other race that

contributed to a charity in some way)

Answer Options Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 87.1% 27

No 12.9% 4


skipped question 0

What was the last charitable race you participated in?

Answer Options Response Count

30 answered question 30

skipped question 1

Number

Response Date Response Text


1 Mar 19, 2013 10:49 PM Spokane to Sandpoint relay 2 Mar 19, 2013 8:45 PM Hot Summer 10K 3 Mar 19, 2013 8:41 PM Bloomsday 4 Mar 19, 2013 5:32 PM Bloomsday 5 Mar 19, 2013 12:22 PM charleston half marathon

6 Mar 19, 2013 4:42 AM Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Seattle 10K

7 Mar 19, 2013 3:09 AM never have 8 Mar 19, 2013 1:30 AM Mt. Spokane to Sandpoint Relay 9 Mar 19, 2013 1:17 AM MS Rock n Roll Arizona Marathon

10 Mar 18, 2013 11:00 PM partners in pain 11 Mar 18, 2013 10:45 PM Bloomsday 12 Mar 18, 2013 10:19 PM jingle bell run 13 Mar 18, 2013 10:19 PM Susan G Breast Cancer 14 Mar 18, 2013 10:03 PM Cascade lakes 15 Mar 16, 2013 9:13 PM BLOOMSDAY 16 Mar 16, 2013 3:51 PM bloomsday

17 Mar 15, 2013 9:34 PM SandyHook 5K (unless Partners in Pain 5K was charitable)

18 Mar 14, 2013 11:41 PM Levanworth Marathon 19 Mar 14, 2013 5:12 PM Turkey Trot for Spokane Food Bank 20 Mar 14, 2013 4:28 PM Hot Chocolate 15k Seattle

21 Mar 14, 2013 4:12 PM Race for the Cure for the Susan Komen Fdn

22 Mar 14, 2013 3:49 PM Bloomsday 23 Mar 14, 2013 3:39 PM Race For The Cure 24 Mar 14, 2013 5:36 AM Bloomsday 25 Mar 13, 2013 10:10 PM Mercedes Benz Half Marathon 26 Mar 13, 2013 8:45 PM Bloomsday 27 Mar 13, 2013 2:47 PM Coeur d fondo 28 Mar 13, 2013 2:04 AM Bloomsday 29 Mar 12, 2013 10:23 PM Spokane to Sandpoint 30 Mar 12, 2013 7:41 PM Roaring Run in Scio, OR



Response Count

Event website 28.6% 6 Word of mouth 71.4% 15 Television 0.0% 0 Newspaper 4.8% 1 Mail 0.0% 0 Magazine 0.0% 0 Email 19.0% 4 Radio 0.0% 0


Website advertisement 4.8% 1 Other (please specify) 12


How important is it that the races you participate in contribute to a charitable cause?

Answer Options


Importance Moderately Important

Important Very

Important N/A

Rating Average

Response Count

2 2 17 5 2 2 3.11 30 answered question 30

skipped question 1



Response Count

Yes 60.0% 18 No 40.0% 12


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%





Response Count

Event website 50.0% 9 Word of mouth 72.2% 13 Television 11.1% 2 Newspaper 5.6% 1 Mail 11.1% 2 Magazine 44.4% 8 Email 27.8% 5 Radio 5.6% 1 Website 38.9% 7 Other (please specify) 2


In comparison to other events, how do the communication strategies of the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon compare?

Answer Options

Very good

Good Neutral Poor Very poor

Rating Average

Response Count

2 6 14 0 0 2.55 22 answered question 22


Yes

No


skipped question 9

Of all the communication strategies which have most influenced you to attend a charitable event? (Check all that apply)


Response Count

Event website 25.9% 7 Word of mouth 92.6% 25 Television 0.0% 0 Newspaper 0.0% 0 Mail 3.7% 1 Magazine 18.5% 5 Email 22.2% 6 Radio 3.7% 1 Website advertisement 14.8% 4 Other (please specify) 0


What is your gender?


Response Count

Male 20.7% 6

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

Of all the communication strategies which have most influenced you to attend a charitable event? (Check all that apply)


Female 79.3% 23 N\A 0.0% 0


What is your gender?

Male Female N\A


Appendix D

Coded Survey Data

What was the last charitable race you participated in?

Answer Options Response Count

30


skipped question 1

Num

ber Response Date Response Text

1 Mar 19, 2013 10:49 PM Spokane to Sandpoint relay

2 Mar 19, 2013 8:45 PM Hot Summer 10K

3 Mar 19, 2013 8:41 PM Bloomsday


5 Mar 19, 2013 12:22 PM charleston half marathon

6 Mar 19, 2013 4:42 AM Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Seattle 10K

7 Mar 19, 2013 3:09 AM never have

8 Mar 19, 2013 1:30 AM Mt. Spokane to Sandpoint Relay

9 Mar 19, 2013 1:17 AM MS Rock n Roll Arizona Marathon

10 Mar 18, 2013 11:00 PM partners in pain


12 Mar 18, 2013 10:19 PM jingle bell run

13 Mar 18, 2013 10:19 PM Susan G Breast Cancer

14 Mar 18, 2013 10:03 PM Cascade lakes

15 Mar 16, 2013 9:13 PM BLOOMSDAY

16 Mar 16, 2013 3:51 PM bloomsday

17 Mar 15, 2013 9:34 PM

SandyHook 5K (unless Partners in Pain 5K was

charitable)

18 Mar 14, 2013 11:41 PM Levanworth Marathon

19 Mar 14, 2013 5:12 PM Turkey Trot for Spokane Food Bank

20 Mar 14, 2013 4:28 PM Hot Chocolate 15k Seattle

21 Mar 14, 2013 4:12 PM Race for the Cure for the Susan Komen Fdn


23 Mar 14, 2013 3:39 PM Race For The Cure

24 Mar 14, 2013 5:36 AM Bloomsday

25 Mar 13, 2013 10:10 PM Mercedes Benz Half Marathon


27 Mar 13, 2013 2:47 PM Coeur d fondo

28 Mar 13, 2013 2:04 AM Bloomsday

29 Mar 12, 2013 10:23 PM Spokane to Sandpoint

30 Mar 12, 2013 7:41 PM Roaring Run in Scio, OR


Relay 4

Bloomsday 9

Race for the cure 3

Marathon or ½ marathon 4

Other 9

Bike 1

Facebook

3/19/2013 1:45 PMView Responses

Tradition


could fly there on airline miles

3/19/2013 5:22 AMView Responses

I had just started distance running and heard about this race from friends and I have run every

race since. (36 to date)


past participation


Location


Personal friend


Friends


Tradition


Friend's recommendation


I always do Bloomsday (31 years in a row) and just know it's the first Sunday in May.


portlandrunner.com (was just looking for any race in OR the weekend I was going to be there)


Relay

Bloomsday

Race for the cure

Marathon or ½marathon

Other

Bike

http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_ResponsesDetail.aspx?sm=mIbpNUtw4MVjQLzXDdSJkYE6KzPo/icoSK0_2B1lnk2K1GnFeJz_2BCcS37G4gP2J7yXUlFWCbAykD/E_0APyjuSV10tw_3D_3D_0A

http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_ResponsesDetail.aspx?sm=mIbpNUtw4MVjQLzXDdSJkYE6KzPo/icoSK0_2B1lnk2K1GnFeJz_2BCcS37G4gP2J7yXy12XLYq7jwED_0At3_2BQ4xGZYA_3D_3D_0A

http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_ResponsesDetail.aspx?sm=mIbpNUtw4MVjQLzXDdSJkYE6KzPo/icoSK0_2B1lnk2K1GnFeJz_2BCcS37G4gP2J7yXULVbf8jdYZoo_0AQITdduYfrQ_3D_3D_0A

http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_ResponsesDetail.aspx?sm=mIbpNUtw4MVjQLzXDdSJkYE6KzPo/icoSK0_2B1lnk2K0L1Rfu/E53qcn4W6uVVYCpbhgoFNea_2BvM/_0AcnBxhS3KpQ_3D_3D_0A

http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_ResponsesDetail.aspx?sm=mIbpNUtw4MVjQLzXDdSJkYE6KzPo/icoSK0_2B1lnk2K0L1Rfu/E53qcn4W6uVVYCpyXUjMqB5qK_2BT_0A8mwMcRerRw_3D_3D_0A

http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_ResponsesDetail.aspx?sm=mIbpNUtw4MVjQLzXDdSJkYE6KzPo/icoSK0_2B1lnk2K0L1Rfu/E53qcn4W6uVVYCpF46MZAWHa40x_0AXT6G2op03g_3D_3D_0A

http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_ResponsesDetail.aspx?sm=mIbpNUtw4MVjQLzXDdSJkYE6KzPo/icoSK0_2B1lnk2K0L1Rfu/E53qcn4W6uVVYCp_2BkJrYVnZXJh8_0AsbWMyV1nTA_3D_3D_0A

http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_ResponsesDetail.aspx?sm=mIbpNUtw4MVjQLzXDdSJkYE6KzPo/icoSK0_2B1lnk2K0L1Rfu/E53qcn4W6uVVYCpDcrBCKv0KL4m_0AR6gccTKdBg_3D_3D_0A

http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_ResponsesDetail.aspx?sm=mIbpNUtw4MVjQLzXDdSJkYE6KzPo/icoSK0_2B1lnk2K0L1Rfu/E53qcn4W6uVVYCprDQnCG5EcMv1_0Ay14jnQSIjg_3D_3D_0A

http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_ResponsesDetail.aspx?sm=mIbpNUtw4MVjQLzXDdSJkYE6KzPo/icoSK0_2B1lnk2K0L1Rfu/E53qcn4W6uVVYCp9PC3Tdfr4GRL_0AtU_2BXZd98TQ_3D_3D_0A

http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_ResponsesDetail.aspx?sm=mIbpNUtw4MVjQLzXDdSJkYE6KzPo/icoSK0_2B1lnk2K0L1Rfu/E53qcn4W6uVVYCpP0r5lB2NsjSg_0ASOm6bUsXQg_3D_3D_0A

http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_ResponsesDetail.aspx?sm=mIbpNUtw4MVjQLzXDdSJkYE6KzPo/icoSK0_2B1lnk2K0L1Rfu/E53qcn4W6uVVYCp75X4iofMiglM_0Ap_2BGhd0Kigg_3D_3D_0A

the influence of communication...

Documents