Description
This paper aims to examine the differences in expenditure and satisfaction level between
first-time and repeat spectators to a motor sport event, as well as differences in their intention to return
and to recommend the host destination.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Driving first-time and repeat spectators to a motor sport event
Giacomo Del Chiappa Cem Tinaz Douglas Michele Turco
Article information:
To cite this document:
Giacomo Del Chiappa Cem Tinaz Douglas Michele Turco , (2014),"Driving first-time and repeat spectators to a motor sport
event", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 388 - 400
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-03-2014-0023
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:25 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 67 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 602 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Sebastian Botzem, (2014),"Transnational standard setting in accounting: Organizing expertise-based self-regulation in
times of crises", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability J ournal, Vol. 27 Iss 6 pp. 933-955http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
AAAJ -04-2013-1301
Hwan Chung, Eunkyu Lee, (2014),"Does channel decentralization lead to low quality product lines?", European J ournal of
Marketing, Vol. 48 Iss 9/10 pp. 1870-1891http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJ M-06-2013-0335
Paula Goodale, Paul David Clough, Samuel Fernando, Nigel Ford, Mark Stevenson, (2014),"Cognitive styles within an
exploratory search system for digital libraries", J ournal of Documentation, Vol. 70 Iss 6 pp. 970-996http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
J D-03-2014-0045
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Driving ?rst-time and repeat spectators to
a motor sport event
Giacomo Del Chiappa, Cem Tinaz and Douglas Michele Turco
Giacomo Del Chiappa is
an Assistant Professor of
Marketing at the
University of Sassari and
CRENoS, Sassari, Italy.
Cem Tinaz is an Assistant
Professor at the Okan
University, Istanbul,
Turkey.
Douglas Michele Turco is
a Professor at Neumann
University, Aston,
Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine the differences in expenditure and satisfaction level between
?rst-time and repeat spectators to a motor sport event, as well as differences in their intention to return
and to recommend the host destination.
Design/methodology/approach – Astructured questionnaire was developed and data were collected
on-site during the 2012 Federation Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) World Rally Championship
(WRC) in Sardinia via 210 interviews. A series of descriptive analysis, independent t-tests, chi-square
tests and regression analysis were run for the purposes of the study.
Findings – Findings showed ?rst-timers spend more and are more satis?ed than repeaters, even if no
signi?cant differences were reported. Repeaters reported to be more willing to return and to
recommend, with signi?cant differences, only in the intention to return.
Research limitations/implications – The study is based on a convenience sample of a relatively small
size, and it might be in?uenced by the idiosyncratic characteristics of the location. Further, it does not
consider the mediating effect that the budget of spectators and their travel/event career ladder can
exert over their behaviour.
Practical implications – Destination marketers and event organizers need to run their marketing
operations to renew their customer mix and/or to increase the standard level of quality to be delivered
to repeaters. Further, their marketing and communication strategy should be personalized, and
incentives should be given to encourage both groups to purchase multiple products simultaneously.
Originality/value – The paper adds to the growing, and often still inconsistent, research aiming to
compare ?rst-timers’ and repeat visitors’ behaviours by offering insights from the context of motor sport
events, where no published paper exist so far.
Keywords Expenditure, First-timers, Motor sport event, Post-experience evaluation, Repeaters,
Tourism
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The growing interest in sport events this century has brought changes in destination
marketing strategies and event operations to maximize tourism bene?ts (and minimize
costs). Sport event tourism has become a vital sub-industry for many European
communities, cities and regions. Several papers have discussed costs and bene?ts of
sport event tourism on host destinations and stakeholders (Lilley and DeFranco, 1998),
categorizing their impacts as economic, socio-cultural, environmental, physical, political
and psychological, as well as touristic (Dingle, 2009; Fredline, 2005; Ritchie and Smith,
1991; Solberg and Preuss, 2007; Wood, 2005, Xing and Chalip, 2006).
In this scenario, motorsport events have long been considered a vehicle for sport tourism
development to be leveraged for the economic and social good of host areas (Chalip,
2004; O’Brien, 2007). For example, video footage of the destinations and verbal mentions
that occur during television coverage of rally events, particularly a premier World
Championship Rally, can make host communities enticing to television viewers, thereby
Received 21 March 2014
Revised 5 August 2014
Accepted 7 August 2014
PAGE 388 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4, 2014, pp. 388-400, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-03-2014-0023
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
contributing to destination awareness, image (Xing and Chalip, 2006) and, ultimately,
increased visitation.
Sport event organizers as well as sport organizations have several types of stakeholders;
spectators, competing athletes and/or teams, of?cials, media representatives, sponsors,
suppliers and members of the communities in which they operate (Turco et al., 2001).
Among these, the analysis of spectator behaviour has been of particular interest both in the
academy and the industry. Sport spectators and fans are usually not a homogenous group
of consumers; therefore, their expectations, behaviours and expenditures differ
signi?cantly (Quick, 2000). Understanding the differences between ?rst-timers and repeat
visitors is of vital importance to develop effective tourism marketing and management
strategies (Lau and McKercher, 2004; Oppermann, 1997; Petrick, 2004). Many host
communities and sport event organizers make various decisions depending on spectator
spending, and, therefore, it is highly important to understand their spending behaviours
and motivations.
Motorsports are a major global industry producing signi?cant economic, entertainment and
cultural dimensions. Based on Angus et al. (2007) in 2005, there were approximately 600 race
circuits (excluding kart tracks), 56 global motorsports events and an average of more than 52
million viewers watching each Formula One Grand Prix. Burns et al. (1986) completed a
comprehensive study of the Adelaide Grand Prix, and it remains the seminal work on sport
event tourism assessment. In their book, Burns et al. (1986) aimed to constitute a guide for
communities and their governments for special sport events. Prior research focusing on rally
events has analyzed the spectators/visitors’ overall customer satisfaction with the event and the
services provided, their intention to return and to recommend to others and the values and
image associations they express towards the World Rally Championship (WRC) brand image.
In tourism literature, there is also evidence that the willingness of spectators to visit an event
repeatedly is highly dependent on their level of satisfaction, and satis?ed people are more
willing to promote the event (Szwarc, 2005).
Still, relatively few studies have investigated the consumer behaviours of ?rst-time and
repeat sport event tourists (Scott and Turco, 2011). Prior research offers a mixed picture of
similarities and differences between the two groups, with ?ndings that are sometimes
contradictory. For example, several scholars have concluded that ?rst-timers stay longer,
spend more money per night per capita and are more satis?ed than repeaters (Anwar and
Sohail, 2004; Tang and Turco, 2001). However, other research shows the opposite (Li et al.,
2008; Oppermann, 1997; Wang, 2004). There remains a lack of consensus about ?rst-time
and repeat spectator spending behaviours, and which group is more receptive to
satisfaction. Further, no published paper has precisely examined ?rst-timers and repeaters
to a motor sport event.
This study was, therefore, carried out to assess and compare the consumer behaviours of
?rst-time and repeat sport event tourists to the Federation Internationale de l’Automobile
(FIA) WRC – Sardinia, in 2012 in terms of their spending behaviours, satisfaction and
intention to return and to recommend. Speci?cally, it presents an empirical analysis of data
obtained from a sample of 210 subjects (on average respondents were reported to be
visiting Sardinia with three persons). A literature review of prior studies on ?rst-time and
repeat visitors is provided in our paper. The research methodology is then described in
detail. Next, the study describes the socio-demographic characteristics of the spectators,
and then determines whether any signi?cant differences exist between ?rst-timers and
repeat spectators in their spending behaviour, satisfaction towards selected event features
and their intentions to return and to recommend visitation.
Literature review
Sport and tourism industries have undergone extraordinary growth since the 1960s. Alan
Reich, former of?cial of the US State Department, indicates that sport can bene?t countries
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 389
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
paving the way for contact, cultural, economic and political (Coakley, 1986). Sport can be
seen as a good opportunity for trade activities and boosts the economy in various ways, as
in the case of the 1988 Olympic Games (Houlihan, 2005). Whitson and Horne (2006)
attribute the growth of willingness to host sport events to three related reasons. First,
developments in technology have opened up new audiences, which relates to their second
reason – the opportunity to vastly increase television revenue. Together, these provide
increased commercial opportunities, particularly in the ?eld of advertising. Broadly, the
growth of interest in hosting can also be attributed to a recognition that sports events can
provide opportunities for what can be referred to as “city boosterism” (Black, 2007), a
concept that suggests several bene?ts, including urban development or redevelopment,
place marketing and resultant increases in tourism and civic “boosterism.” Speci?cally,
among the several advantages that cities and nations can obtain from hosting sport events,
we can consider the opportunity to rebuild infrastructure, to improve transportation lines
and travel connections, to attract foreign investments, to increase accommodation
availabilities, to enhance media coverage, to enhance brand image and awareness on the
global stage (Nauright, 2004; Toohey and Veal, 2007; Waitt, 2001; Whitson and Horne,
2006) and to attract visitors (athletes, spectators, their travel party, entourages, etc.)
(Quick, 2009). Further, policymakers and destination marketers use sports events to justify
their projects of urban renewal and advertise their status and personality to attract inward
investment (Essex and Chalkley, 2006), especially in the tourism sector (Bohlin, 2000).
That said, it is easy to understand why destination marketers and policymakers have widely
recognized sport events as integral tools in their destination marketing operations.
Particularly, the spending of event participants during the sport events is a decisive factor
for marketing strategies aimed at maximising the economic impact of an event. Hence, for
destinations relying on recurring sport events to attract tourists, understanding the
consumer behaviours of ?rst-time and repeater visitors is important for economic potential
and target marketing.
Tourism researchers concurred that a deep understanding of the differences between
?rst-time and repeat visitors, particularly in their pre-travel and post-trip characteristics
(Oppermann, 1997), is relevant in developing effective tourism marketing strategies, as
well as in building travel motivation and decision-making theories (Li et al., 2008). Further,
according to prior research, knowledge about ?rst-time or repeat visitors’ behaviour can be
useful in market segmentation (Formica and Uysal, 1998), can be used as a basis to
understand the development of loyalty (Fakeye and Crompton, 1991) and to identify a
destination’s position in its life cycle (Oppermann, 1998). According to Kozak (2001),
visitors tend to repeat a destination if they feel satis?ed with their visit. However, it is also
possible that some satis?ed tourists might not return to the same destination because they
prefer to discover different places on their next holiday (Gitelson and Crompton, 1984).
Moreover, less satis?ed tourists might return to the same destination and eventually
become repeat visitors, possibly to avoid a new decision process for a new destination and
to reduce the implicit risks of facing a negative experience (Oppermann, 2000a).
Generally, tourism literature argues that several reasons exist to explain why repeaters
should be considered a desirable phenomenon in marketing. Among these, we can cite the
marketing costs needed to attract repeat visitors are lower compared to those required for
?rst-timers (Oppermann, 2000a; Tang and Turco, 2001), the fact that repeat visitation is an
indicator of tourist satisfaction (Oppermann, 2000a) and the repeater’s increased intention
to return and to recommend the event and the destination to friends and relatives (Juaneda,
1996; Li et al., 2008). On the other hand, other researchers (Oppermann, 2000b; Petrick,
2004) argue that it is not always true that repeat visitors are the most desired visitors.
Further, an undersupply of new visitors is usually an indication of an event in decline (Lau
and McKercher, 2004), a key reason that researchers often suggest that destination
marketers strive to achieve a collective balance between ?rst-time and repeat visitors
(Oppermann, 1997).
PAGE 390 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In tourism literature, it has been widely recognized that ?rst-time and repeat visitors differ
from each other; however, little consensus still exists with regard to the variables that
differentiate the two groups (Li et al., 2008). Differences between ?rst-time and repeat
spectators were found based on socio-demographic characteristics, behavioural
characteristics, destination perception and perceived value and tripographic
characteristics (purpose of travel, mode of transportation, length of stay, distance of travel
and individual daily expenditures). Prior research showed that that ?rst-timers tend to be
younger and single compared to repeat visitors, whereas gender, education and income
were reported as not of signi?cant difference for ?rst-time and repeat visitors (Gitelson and
Crompton, 1984; Lau and McKercher, 2004). Oppermann (1997, 1998) showed that
?rst-time visitors tend to have shorter stays at a destination, whereas Turco (2010) reported
the opposite. Gitelson and Crompton (1984) pioneered the research of ?rst-time and repeat
visitors and concluded that ?rst-time and repeat visitors had different motivations. This
latter evidence is con?rmed in other studies (Iso-Ahola, 1982; Lau and McKercher, 2004)
and in the context of festivals and events (Kruger et al., 2010). For example, Lau and
McKercher’s (2004) study of travel to Hong Kong found that ?rst-time visitors were more
motivated by intellectual and cultural enrichment, while repeat visitors were more motivated
by relationship enhancement and bene?t seeking. Further, some differences exist in the
types of activities preferred and the behaviours of the two groups, with repeat visitors
seeming to prefer social activities such as shopping and dining, whereas ?rst-timers
tending to prefer major iconic attractions (Anwar and Sohail, 2004; Lau and McKercher,
2004). Other research has found differences between ?rst-timers and repeaters in their
spending behaviour and post-experience evaluation.
As far as spectators’ spending patterns are concerned, several factors can be considered
to be able to in?uence them; among these factors, economic constraints, travel-related
characteristics, socio-demographic characteristics and sport-related facets are the most
important (Sato et al., 2014). While it has been argued repeatedly that repeat visitors spend
more money (Oppermann, 2000a), prior research within the context of ?rst-time and repeat
visitation studies revealed ?ndings that are not as consistent and conclusive as one might
expect (Li et al., 2008). Consequently, an inconsistent relationship between travel
experience and travel expenditure seems to exist (Cho, 2009; Divisekera and Deegan,
2010). On the one hand, some researchers reported repeat visitors spending more than
?rst-time visitors (Kruger et al., 2010; Wang, 2004). This circumstance could be explained
based on the idea that prior travel experience is a proxy of foreign visitors’ information and
knowledge of a speci?c destination and event (Alegre and Cladera, 2010). As a result, prior
experience at the destination and related events would reduce asymmetric information
problems and increase visitor and spectator expenditures (Alegre and Cladera, 2010).
Though this seems to be quite reasonable, other research reported repeat visitors
spending less than ?rst-time visitors (Kozak, 2001; Oppermann, 1997; Tang and Turco,
2001). To generate a more detailed spending pro?le of ?rst-time vs repeat visitors, prior
research suggests analyzing spending data by subset of expenditure. For example, Li
et al. (2008) reported ?rst-time visitors spending signi?cantly more than repeaters for
transportation, lodging and entertainment, whereas repeaters reported spending more for
food and beverage, shopping and gambling. Further, it should be noted that nowadays
consumers can easily collect information about their travel using the Internet, online travel
agencies and social media (Del Chiappa, 2011, 2013), and as a consequence, they do not
merely rely on their travel experience when making choices. This could explain why prior
travel experience (i.e. repeaters) does not generate signi?cant differences in visitors/
spectators’ preferences and consumption patterns (Chang et al., 2013). It could also
explain the results from a study by Kaplanidou and Gibson (2012). In this study, the
differences between ?rst, second and third-time attendees of a football (soccer) event, as
well as attendees’ future behaviours, and images of the host destination. The results
revealed no signi?cant differences in these variables between the three groups. The
authors provide also their own explanation of their ?ndings by arguing that event spectators
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 391
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
may form strong behavioural and image perceptions the ?rst time they attend an event, and
these perceptions do not change with attendance frequency. Finally, researchers have
found a positive effect between length of stay and per capita spending by tourists (Raya,
2012; Saayman et al., 2007; Seiler et al., 2003; Thrane, 2002), However, Saayman and
Saayman (2008) observed the opposite, thus recon?rming the lack of consensus in the
research around ?rst-time and repeater visitors/spectators’ behaviours.
Other differences between ?rst-timers and repeat visitors are usually reported in their
post-trip evaluations. Tourists’ post-trip evaluations are highly valued by destination
marketers because such evaluations may directly in?uence their repurchase behaviour
(Petrick et al., 2001). According to Reid and Reid (1993), repeat visitors tend to be more
than just a stable source of revenues. They act as “information channels that informally link
networks of friends, relatives and other potential travellers to a destination” (Reid and Reid,
1993, p. 3). This word-of-mouth effect can lead to positive results in spectator participation
and engagement, as avid sport fans often communicate quickly with each other via social
media and may also travel together (Quick, 2000).
For ?rst-time and repeat visitor studies using post-trip evaluations, there is a lack of
consensus on which group is more receptive to satisfaction and more likely to return and
to recommend. Some studies show that ?rst-timers are more easily satis?ed with a
destination than repeaters (Anwar and Sohail, 2004), probably because some repeaters
can express higher expectations prior to their visitation that are not ful?lled during their stay
(McKercher and Wong, 2004). On the other hand, other studies report repeaters
expressing a higher level of satisfaction than ?rst-time visitors (Juaneda, 1996; Li et al.,
2008; Mohr et al., 1993), thus explaining (in part) why repeaters usually report a stronger
intention to return and a likeliness to give positive word-of-mouth (Kozak, 2001; Li et al.,
2008). Why some ?rst-time visitors are found to be less satis?ed than repeaters could be
explained by arguing that ?rst-timers’ pre-trip expectations rely heavily on external
information (Assael, 2004). As a consequence, an inconsistency between their
expectations and actual experiences could occur if marketing and promotion operations
overly exaggerate the experiences the destination can provide, thus resulting in
consumers’ dissatisfaction and negatively in?uencing their intention to return and to
recommend (Oliver, 1980). Based on this strand research, it could seem that satisfaction
may not be directly correlated with revisit intention. Further, it should be noted that the level
of positive correlation between satisfaction and revisit intention might change. Indeed,
Kozak (2001) found that this satisfaction–revisit intention relationship was weaker in less
developed destinations than mature destinations.
It appears that there is still a lack of consensus around the description of ?rst-time and
repeat spectators’ spending behaviours, and on who is more receptive to satisfaction. The
fact that some inconsistencies exist in the ?ndings of different studies related to this tourism
research area could be explained, as suggested in other studies (Williams and Lawson,
2001), by referring to the different settings in which studies have been conducted, all of
which are obviously highly site-speci?c (in terms of socio-demographic characteristics and
personality of visitors, tourism offer, retail and commercial facilities, etc.) and, thus, hardly
generalizable. In the speci?c context of motor sport events the situation is more severe
given that no published paper has precisely examined ?rst-timers’ and repeaters’
behaviours and consumption patterns. This study was, therefore, carried to contribute and
to grow the scienti?c debate on this topic.
Methodology
Established in 1973, the FIA WRC was featured in the 2012 rallies across 13 countries,
including Sardinia, Italy. WRC events typically include 15-25 special stages run on closed
roads. Sardinia has hosted Italy’s FIA WRC since 2004. Sardinia’s rugged island geology,
rivers, coastlines, ?ora, and Mediterranean ecosystem offer a contrasting stage to the
carbon-fuelled mechanical muscle of its WRC.
PAGE 392 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The survey instrument used for this study was developed through a two-stage approach.
First, an in-depth literature review was conducted focusing on those studies that analyzed
sport event assessments and, speci?cally, ?rst-time and repeat visitors/spectators’
behaviours. Second, a group of practitioners involved in the event organization were
consulted to verify and rede?ne the questionnaire, thus allowing a theory-in-use approach
(Zaltman et al., 1982). The survey instrument was divided into three sections and structured
based on closed questions, dichotomic and multichotomic, with simple and multi-choice
answers.
In the ?rst section, subjects were asked to give general socio-demographic information
(gender, age, level of education, professional and civil status, country of residence, travel
party). Consistent with previous literature (Oliver, 1993; Petrick and Backman, 2002), the
second section measured spectators’ satisfaction at both the attribute (12 features were
considered, please see Table I) and global levels. These were all measured on a 5-point
scale anchored by “very dissatis?ed, and “very satis?ed.” A “did not experience” option
was also provided. Further, this section also investigated respondents’ intention to return
(yes/no) and to recommend the event (5-point Likert scale anchored 1? absolutely not,
5 ?absolutely yes). The third section, asked respondents to provide information about their
immediate group’s average daily expenditure for accommodations and other services used
during their stay (namely, hotel, bed and breakfast [B&B], rented apartment, local
transportation, food and beverage, souvenirs and car rental service).
The questionnaire was created originally in Italian, and then translated into English by a
professional translator, using back-translation for quality assurance. For the purpose of the
data collection both the Italian and the English version of the questionnaire were used.
The questionnaire was pilot-tested on the ?rst day of the event by 20 spectators to verify the
validity of its content and the comprehensibility of the questions. No concerns were
reported in the pilot tests.
Data were collected on-site during the days of the 2012 FIA WRC – Sardinia Rally (18-21
October) with questionnaires administered face-to-face by three interviewers who were
instructed to collect data at the place of the special stages from spectators aged more than
18 years and with the aim of obtaining a reasonably balanced sample of responses in term
of age, gender and geographical status (Sardinian spectators vs national and international
spectators). At the end of the event a convenience sample of 210 complete responses was
obtained. Sport tourist survey data were coded and entered into the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS), and a series of descriptive analysis, independent t-tests,
chi-square tests and regression analysis were performed for the purpose of the study.
Table I Comparisons of ?rst-time and repeat WRC spectators’ satisfaction with event characteristics: mean scores
and independent t-tests
Items (5-point Likert scale)
First-time Repeaters
t Mean SD Mean SD
Atmosphere at the event 4.63 0.586 4.41 1.001 ?1.707
General appearance of the event 4.60 0.778 4.43 0.912 ?1.101
Safety of the event 4.50 0.847 4.41 0.776 ?0.654
Entry to the area 4.30 1.043 3.95 1.034 ?1.884
Moving around in the area 4.20 0.883 3.85 1.088 ?1.860
Spectator direction in the area 4.28 0.960 4.18 0.980 ?0.559
Number of restaurants in the area 4.30 1.244 4.18 1.390 ?0.504
Selection of products of the restaurants in the area 4.45 1.108 4.30 1.293 ?0.645
Amount of related events/entertainment in the area 4.50 1.519 4.36 1.573 ?4.94
Quality of related events/entertainment in the area 4.47 1.585 4.35 1.573 ?0.443
Number of toilets in the area 3.80 1.870 3.71 1.876 ?0.276
Cleanliness of toilets in the area 3.71 1.902 4.06 1.803 1.041
Overall satisfaction with the event (7-point Likert scale) 4.46 1.354 4.30 1.091 ?0.894
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 393
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Findings and discussion
Respondents were primarily male (67.9 per cent), in the age group 25-34 years (34.2 per
cent) or 35-44 years (22.5 per cent), who described themselves as with technical college
(33.9 per cent), employed (24.2 per cent) and married (35 per cent). They were mostly
Italian or international visitors (57.8 per cent), whereas 42.2 per cent resided in Sardinia
(42.2 per cent).
Domestic and international visitors were more likely to be ?rst-time visitors (69.8 per cent)
who decided to visit Sardinia because of the Rally (92.7 per cent); nearly three-quarters of
those who decided to visit Sardinia because of the event had previously attended the WRC,
thus highlighting that the event has a reasonable pattern of repeat visits. Fifty per cent of
them spent three-four days in Sardinia and were traveling with friends (53.3 per cent)
or their family (26.2 per cent). Speci?cally, domestic and international respondents
reported traveling in Sardinia with an average of 3.51 people. Approximately half (50.1 per
cent) of the respondents were “very satis?ed” with the event. Most expressed a willingness
to return to attend the WRC (64.7 per cent), and would recommend it to friends and
relatives (81.7 per cent).
Table I compares the mean level of spectators’ overall satisfaction towards the WRC by
event attributes/features.
First-time spectators reported being more satis?ed than repeaters for every event attribute
and expressed a higher mean score for overall satisfaction towards the event (?rst-timers:
Mean ? 4.46, S.D ? 1.354 – repeaters: Mean ? 4.30, S.D ? 1.091), thus giving support to
prior research that ?rst-time spectators are more receptive to satisfaction (Anwar and
Sohail, 2004). That ?rst-time visitors expressed a higher mean level of satisfaction towards
event characteristics and towards the event as a whole may be due to the event/destination
ful?lling their expectations in prior editions of the event, thus pushing repeat visitors to
return with even higher expectations. However, no signi?cant differences existed between
the level of satisfaction of ?rst-time and repeat spectators based on independent t-tests.
The chi-square test was applied to determine whether any signi?cant differences existed
between ?rst-time and repeat WRC spectators in terms of their intention to return. Findings
revealed that repeaters were more willing to return (86.09 per cent) than ?rst-time visitors
(13.91 per cent) (?
2
? 11.765, p ? 0.05). By adding the responses “yes” and “absolutely
yes,” repeaters reported a higher intention to recommend (78.1 per cent) than ?rst-time
spectators (21.9 per cent); however, the intention to recommend did not differ signi?cantly
between the two groups (?
2
? 2.372, p ? 0.05). Despite the fact that repeaters reported
being less satis?ed than ?rst-time spectators, their intention to return and to recommend
was higher. This seemingly contradictory evidence could be explained by ?rst-time
spectators who were attracted to visit Sardinia because of the uniqueness of the WRC but
then considered the event itself as a “one shot” experience, compared to repeaters. Based
on this strand of research, it could seem that a lower level satisfaction may not necessarily
correlate with revisit intention and word-of-mouth referral.
To investigate which variables are able to in?uence the visitors’ total expenditures, a
regression model was run with prior visitation, age, gender, level of education, professional
status and geographical status (Sardinian spectators vs national and international
spectators), being the independent variables and the total expenditure-dependent one
(Table II).
The model resulted signi?cant (F ? 3.834, p ? 0.001) and summarized the 12.1 per cent
of total variance (R
2
? p ? 0.121). Findings revealed that age (?? 0.165; p ? 0.029) and
geographical status (? ?0.207, p ?0.009) exert a signi?cant in?uence on the visitors’ total
expenditure; speci?cally, older people and national/international spectators reported
spending more. On the contrary, the total expenditure is not in?uenced by gender
(? ? 0.054, p ? 0.463), level of education (? ? 0.038, p ? 0.628), professional status
(? ? ?0.105, p ? 0.178) or prior visitation (? ? 0.093, p ? 0.226).
PAGE 394 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
To obtain a deeper knowledge about the visitors’ spending behaviours, the mean value of
total expenditure by product category was calculated for ?rst-timers and repeaters, and
then a series of t-tests was conducted to analyze whether any signi?cant differences exist
among them; no signi?cant differences were reported to exist (Table III).
This result seems to con?rm the idea that prior travel experience (i.e. repeaters) does not
necessarily generate signi?cant differences in visitors/spectators’ preferences and
consumption levels (Chang et al., 2013). Despite this, on average, ?rst-time spectators
spent more money than repeat spectators. By category, expenditures for ?rst-timers and
repeaters were as follows: B&B accommodation (?rst-time: mean ? 75 euro, repeaters ?
41.77 euro), local transportation (?rst-time: mean ? 51.55 euro, repeaters ? 48.45 euro),
food and beverage (?rst-time: mean ? 71.62 euro, repeaters ? 60.09 euro), rental cars
services (?rst-time: mean ? 80 euro, repeaters ? 61.43 euro) and souvenirs (?rst-time:
mean ? 145 euro, repeaters ? 57.05 euro). This latter point could be easily explained by
arguing that the need to bring home souvenirs as a memento of time and space diminished
for consumers who would have satis?ed this need on prior visits to the destination or event.
Conversely, repeat spectators reported higher spending than ?rst-timers for hotel
accommodation (?rst-time: mean ? 77 euro, repeaters ? 83.48 euro) and for renting
apartment (?rst-time: mean ? 25 euro, repeaters ? 29 euro).
On the whole, our ?ndings reveal a mixed picture of similarities and differences with prior
research. Similar to prior research (Oppermann, 1997; Tang and Turco, 2001), the ?rst-time
spectators spent overall more than repeaters. Li et al. (2008) showed ?rst-time spectators
spending more than repeaters for transportation and lodging. However, contrary to Li
et al.’s (2008) study, our study found ?rst-time spectators spending more for food and
beverage as well. This could be explained by the fact that ?rst-timers, given their
inexperience with the destination, are more willing to spend to taste the uniqueness of local
food and beverage.
Table II Age, gender, level of education, professional and geographical status, prior
visitation and their in?uence on total expenditure: a regression analysis
Variables ? t Signi?cance
Constant ?1.04 0.3
Gender 0.054 0.736 0.463
Age 0.165 2.204 0.029*
Level of education 0.038 0.485 0.628
Professional status ?0.105 ?1.352 0.178
Geographical status 0.207 2.631 0.009**
Prior visitation 0.093 1.214 0.226
R
2
0.121
Adjusted R
2
0.09
F-test 3.834 0.001**
Notes: *Signi?cant at the 0.05 level; **signi?cant at 0.01 level
Table III Comparison of daily expenditures by ?rst-time and repeat WRC spectators:
mean scores (in euros)
Expenditure type
Repeaters First time
t Mean Mean
Hotel 83.48 77.00 0.591
B&B 41.77 75.00 ?0.853
Rented apartment 29.00 25.00 0.269
Local transportation 48.45 51.55 ?0.429
Food and beverages 60.09 71.62 ?1.325
Souvenirs 57.05 145.00 ?0.730
Rental car services 61.43 80.00 ?0.430
Note: The italics shows when the mean expenditure is higher
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 395
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Conclusion and managerial implications
Sport tourism events are not the only study context for comparing ?rst-time and repeaters’
behaviour; other travel and leisure segments are also important to enrich the body of
knowledge on the topic and to provide information to practitioners working in these
contexts.
The present study offers insights from a motor sport event, thus providing information that
can contribute to the scienti?c debate on ?rst-time and repeat spectators, and to support
policymakers, destination marketers and event organizers in their attempts to deeply
understand spectator consumer behaviours.
Our ?ndings reported ?rst-timers spending more and being more satis?ed than repeaters
spectators, even if no signi?cant differences were reported. This con?rms some prior
studies (Anwar and Sohail, 2004; Tang and Turco, 2001) and contradicts others (Li et al.,
2008; Oppermann, 1997; Wang, 2004), thus adding to the body of knowledge highlighting
an inconsistent relationship between travel experience and travel expenditure (Cho, 2009;
Divisekera and Deegan, 2010). The fact that no signi?cant difference was found in the
expenditures of ?rst-timers and repeaters could be due to the budgets of visitors/spectators.
It is evident that an increase in travel budget would increase a visitor’s expenditure (Chang
et al., 2013) independently of status as a ?rst-timer. This moderator effect merits future
research. However, our ?ndings revealed that age and geographical status signi?cantly
in?uence spectators’ spending behaviours, with overall expenditure increasing with older and
national/international spectators. Further, despite the fact that repeaters were less satis?ed,
their intention to return and to recommend was higher than that of ?rst-timers. This result
seemed to provide support to the body of knowledge suggesting that a lower level of
satisfaction may not necessarily correlate with revisit intention and word-of-mouth referral
(Kozak, 2001). This controversial ?nding requires further research aimed at analyzing the
factor(s) that could moderate the satisfaction–loyalty chain. For example, it could be interesting
to consider the extent to which respondents agree with the idea that the event is a “one shot”
experience to be done once in their lives.
From a marketing perspective, our ?ndings suggest that policymakers, destination
marketers and event organizers would need to manage the event as whole and the related
marketing activities to attract new visitors each year and/or to increase the standard level
of quality delivered to repeat spectators so that their perceived quality is higher than the
one they expected based on prior experience at the event. By achieving an effective
visitors/spectators mix, in which the proportion of ?rst-timers and repeaters are balanced,
the event and the destination as a whole would bene?t from higher economic impacts
generated by the ?rst-timers, without renouncing the positive marketing effects (intention to
return and to recommend) generated by repeaters. Further, our ?ndings suggest it could
be useful to run cross-selling strategy and stronger incentives to encourage both
?rst-timers and repeaters, but especially the latter, to purchase multiple products
simultaneously, thus contributing to an increase in the total tourism revenue (Chang et al.,
2013). Repeaters reported lower expenditures than ?rst-timers, and their familiarity with the
event and destination service providers negates novelty purchases. As a result, destination
marketers should put more efforts into disseminating information related to their lesser known
attractions, service providers and diverse entertainment opportunities (such as other local
events and museums) to repeaters and attempt to facilitate contact. It is evident that there is a
need to understand the most effective communication strategy to be used for different
spectator/visitor segments (?rst-timers and repeaters). This remains a challenge for destination
marketers engaged in Internet, digital and social media marketing. For example, destination
marketers may ?nd it useful to dedicate portions of their websites or links to ?rst-timers and
repeaters and then characterize them with different content. To illustrate, for ?rst-timers, who
presumably know less about the destinations, they could emphasize the presence of
information about the most known attractions and the places to buy the local and authentic
souvenirs to bring home as mementoes of place and time. For repeaters, who knowmore about
PAGE 396 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
the area, they could deliver information related to local life and entertainment. In an attempt to
increase the effectiveness of such a type of personalized communication strategy, the
destination marketers and the event organizers could ask spectators to ?ll out a form on which
they are offered some special promotion if they give their contact details and some personal
information (if they are ?rst-timers or repeaters, what types of services are most interesting,
etc.). The same could be done by inviting people to follow the of?cial social media (Twitter,
Facebook, etc.) that the destination marketers and event organizers are using to promote the
event so that information can be easily provided in real time to spectators during their stay at
the event or destination.
Aside from the theoretical and managerial contributions of this study, there are some
limitations that must be addressed. First, we used a convenience sample and its size is
rather small. Further, we introduced a concrete case study involving a sport event in a
speci?c tourism destination; the idiosyncratic characteristics of the destination could affect
the spectators’ decision-making and consumption levels and patterns. Thus, our ?ndings
cannot be generalized to other sport events or destinations. The replication of our study at
other motor sport events would allow for wider generalizations to be made from the results
obtained. In the present research, we did not consider the moderator effect that the
budgets of consumers can exert on their spending behaviours. This aspect merits future
research as related ?ndings could add to the knowledge base on ?rst-timers vs repeaters
and could suggest the sport, tourism and event industry re?ne the marketing strategies and
service packages by providing products based more on visitors’ varying travel budgets
than on previous travel experience. Another limitation of this study is that the researchers
did not know the travel histories of respondents. The fact that they are ?rst-timers does not
necessarily mean that they are inexperienced in traveling and in attending motor sport
events. According to Li et al.’s (2008) study, future research should consider explicitly the
concept of travel/event career ladder and its role in mediating the ?rst-timers’ and
repeaters’ behaviours. Finally, this research used on-site tourists as research subjects and
employed a conventional survey method, namely, an interview and questionnaire
administered face-to-face, similar to previous studies. These methods might not have
helped to capture the real expenditures of respondents and to identify the underlying
causes of the differences, which could be embedded in the pre-trip decision-making and
post-trip evaluation processes (Li et al., 2008). Future research would bene?t from using a
more sophisticated data collection method such as action-tracking technology (Della Lucia
et al., 2011) or from merging it with the traditional survey methods.
References
Alegre, J. and Cladera, M. (2010), “Tourist expenditure and quality: why repeat tourists can spend less
than ?rst-timers,” Tourism Economics, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 517-533.
Angus, T., Aylett, C., Henry, N. and Jenkins, M. (2007), Motorsport Going Global: The Challenges
Facing the World’s Motorsport Industry, Palgrave-MacMillan, Hampshire.
Anwar, S.A. and Sohail, M.S. (2004), “Festival tourism in the United Arab Emirates: ?rst-time versus
repeat visitor perceptions,” Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 161-170.
Assael, H. (2004), Consumer Behavior: A Strategic Approach, Houghton Mif?in, Boston, MA.
Black, D. (2007), “The symbolic politics of sport mega-events: 2010 in comparative perspective,”
Politikon, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 261-276.
Bohlin, M. (2000), “Travelling to events,” in Mossberg, L.L. (Ed), Evaluation of Events: Scandinavian
Experiences, Cognizant Communication, New York, NY, pp. 13-29.
Burns, J.P.A., Hatch, J.H. and Mules, T.J. (Ed). (1986), The Adelaide Grand Prix: The Impact of a
Special Event, The Centre for South Australian Economic Studies, Adelaide.
Chalip, L. (2004), “Beyond impact: a general model for host community event leverage,” in
Ritchie, B.W. and Adair, D. (Eds.), Sport Tourism: Interrelationships, Impacts and Issues, Channel View,
Clevedon, pp. 226-252.
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 397
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Chang, K.L., Chen, C.M. and Meyer, T.J. (2013), “A comparison study of travel expenditure and
consumption choices between ?rst-time and repeat visitors,” Tourism Management, Vol. 35,
pp. 275-277.
Cho, V. (2009), “A study of non-economic determinants in tourism demand,” International Journal of
Tourism Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 307-320.
Coakley, J. (1986), Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies, Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing,
St. Louis.
Del Chiappa, G. (2011), “Trustworthiness of travel 2.0 applications and their in?uence on tourist
behaviour: an empirical investigation in Italy,” in Law, R., Fuchs, M. and Ricci, F. (Eds), Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism 2011, Springer, Vienna, pp. 343-353.
Del Chiappa, G. (2013), “Internet versus travel agencies: the perception of different groups of Italian
online buyers,” Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, 1-12.
Della Lucia, M., Zeni, N., Mich, L. and Franch, M. (2011), “Assessing the economic impact of cultural
events: a methodology based on applying action-tracking technologies,” Information Technology and
Tourism, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 249-267.
Dingle, G. (2009), “Sustaining the race: a review of literature pertaining to the environmental
sustainability of motorsport,” International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 80-96.
Divisekera, S. and Deegan, J. (2010), “An analysis of consumption behaviour of foreign tourists in
Ireland,” Applied Economics, Vol. 42 No. 13, pp. 1681-1697.
Essex, S. and Chalkley, B. (2006), “Mega-sporting events in urban and regional policy: a history of the
Winter Olympics,” Planning Perspectives, Vol. 19, pp. 201-232.
Fakeye, P.C. and Crompton, J.L. (1991), “Image differences between prospective, ?rst-time,
and repeat visitors to the lower Rio Grande Valley,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 10-16.
Formica, S. and Uysal, M. (1998), “Market segmentation of an international cultural-historical event in
Italy,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 16-24.
Fredline, E. (2005), “Host and guest relations and sport tourism,” Sport in Society, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 263-279.
Gitelson, R.J. and Crompton, J.L. (1984), “Insights into the repeat vacation phenomenon,” Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 199-217.
Houlihan, B. (2005), “Public sector sport policy,” International Review for the Sociology of Sport, Vol. 40
No. 32, pp. 165-185.
Iso-Ahola, S. (1982), “Towards a social psychology of tourist motivation: a rejoinder,” Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 256-261.
Juaneda, C. (1996), “Estimating the probability of return visits using a survey of tourist expenditure in
the Balearic Islands,” Tourism Economics, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 339-352.
Kaplanidou, K. and Gibson, H. (2012), “Differences between ?rst time and repeat spectator tourists of
a youth soccer event: intentions and image approaches,” Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 15 No. 5,
pp. 477-487.
Kozak, M. (2001), “Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct destinations,” Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 784-807.
Kruger, M., Saayman, M. and Ellis, S.M. (2010), “Does loyalty pay? First-time versus repeat visitors at
a national arts festival,” Southern African Business Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 79-104.
Lau, A.L.S. and McKercher, B. (2004), “Exploration versus acquisition: a comparison of ?rst-time and
repeat visitors,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 279-285.
Li, X., Cheng, C.K., Kim, H. and Petrick, J.F. (2008), “A systematic comparison of ?rst- time and repeat
visitors via a two-phase online survey,” Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 278-293.
Lilley, W. III and DeFranco, J.L. (1998), The Economic Impact of the Network Q Rally of Great Britain,
InContext Inc, Political Economic Analysis, Washington, available at:http://tourisminsights.info/ONLI
NEPUB/SPORT%20AND%20EVENTS/SAET%20PDFS/rallyrep.pdf (accessed 5 December 2013).
PAGE 398 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
McKercher, B. and Wong, D.Y.Y. (2004), “Understanding tourism behavior: examining the combined
effects of prior visitation history and destination status,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43 No. 2,
pp. 171-179.
Mohr, K., Backman, K.F., Gahan, L.W. and Backman, S.J. (1993), “An investigation of festival
motivations and event satisfaction by visitor type,” Festival Management and Event Tourism, Vol. 1
No. 3, pp. 89-97.
Nauright, J. (2004), “Global Games: culture, political economy and sport in the globalised world of the
21st century,” Third World Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 1325-1336.
O’Brien, D. (2007), “Points of leverage: maximizing host community bene?t from a regional sur?ng
festival,” European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 141-165.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-469.
Oliver, R.L. (1993), “Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response,” Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 418-430.
Oppermann, M. (1997), “First-time and repeat visitors to New Zealand,” Tourism Management, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 177-181.
Oppermann, M. (1998), “Destination threshold potential and the law of repeat visitation,” Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 131-137.
Oppermann, M. (2000a), “Tourism destination loyalty,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 78-84.
Oppermann, M. (2000b), “Where psychology and geography interface in tourism research and
theory,” in Woodside, A.G., Grouch, G.I., Mazanec, J.A., Oppermann, M. and Sakai, M.Y. (Eds),
Consumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure, CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA, pp. 9-38.
Petrick, J.F. (2004), “First timers’ and repeaters’ perceived value,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43
No. 1, pp. 29-38.
Petrick, J.F. and Backman, S.J. (2002), “An examination of the determinants of golf travelers’
satisfaction,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 252-258.
Petrick, J.F., Morais, D.D. and Norman, W.C. (2001), “An examination of the determinants of
entertainment vacationers’ intentions to revisit,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 41-48.
Quick, D. (2009), “Runners resist recession: are sports leisure events immune from downturn?,”
available at: www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/apr/09/runners_resist_recession78071/ (accessed
4 July 2014).
Quick, S. (2000), “Contemporary sport consumers: some implications of linking fan typology with key
spectator variables,” Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 149-156.
Raya, M.J. (2012), “Length of stay for triathlon participants in the challenge Maresme-Barcelona: a
survival approach,” Journal of Sport and Social Issues, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 86-105.
Reid, L.J. and Reid, S.D. (1993), “Communicating tourism supplier services: building repeat visitor
relationships,” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 2 Nos 2/3, pp. 3-19.
Ritchie, B. and Smith, B.H. (1991), “The impact of a mega-event on host region awareness: a
longitudinal study,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Saayman, M. and Saayman, A. (2008), “Socio-demographic and behavioural determinants of visitor
spending at a national arts festival: a panel data analysis,” World Journal on Events, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 28-33.
Saayman, M., Krugell, W. and van der Merwe, P. (2007), “The determinants of spending by biltong
hunters,” South African Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 184-194.
Sato, M., Jordan, J.S., Kaplanidou, K. and Funk, D.C. (2014), “Determinants of tourists’ expenditure at
mass participant sport events: a ?ve-year analysis,” Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 9,
pp. 763-771.
Scott, A.K.S. and Turco, D.M. (2011), “Spectator pro?les and economic impact of the 2009 US open
women’s golf championship,” Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 701-708.
Seiler, V.L., Hsieh, S., Seiler, M.J. and Hsieh, C. (2003), “Modelling travel expenditures for Taiwanese
tourism,” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 47-60.
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 399
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Solberg, H.A. and Preuss, H. (2007), “Major sport events and long-term tourism impacts,” Journal of
Sport Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 213-234.
Szwarc, P. (2005), Researching Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty: Howto Find Out What People Really
Think, Kogan Page, London.
Tang, Q. and Turco, D.M. (2001), “Spending behaviours of event tourists,” Journal of Convention and
Exhibition Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 33-40.
Thrane, C. (2002), “Jazz festival visitors and their expenditures: linking spending patterns to music
interest,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 281-286.
Toohey, K. and Veal, A. (2007), The Olympic Games: A Social Science Perspective, CABI, Wallingford.
Turco, D.M. (2010), “Understanding the sport mega-event tourist: 2010 World Cup South Africa and
implications for 2014 World Cup Brasil,” XI National Congress of Sports Management APOGESD in
Lagos, Portugal, 2-3 October.
Turco, D.M., Riley, R.W. and Swart, K. (2001), Sport Tourism, FIT, Warrentown, WV.
Waitt, G. (2001), “The Olympic spirit and civic boosterism: the Sydney 2000 Olympics,” Tourism
Geographies, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 249-278.
Wang, D. (2004), “Tourist behaviour and repeat visitation to Hong Kong,” Tourism Geographies, Vol. 6
No 1, pp. 99-118.
Whitson, D. and Horne, J. (2006), “Underestimated costs and overestimated bene?ts? Comparing the
outcomes of sports mega-events in Canada and Japan,” in Horne, J. and Manzenreiter, W. (Eds),
Sports Mega-Events: Social Scienti?c Analyses of a Global Phenomenon, Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 73-89.
Williams, J. and Lawson, R. (2001), “Community issues and resident opinions of tourism,” Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 269-290.
Wood, E.H. (2005), “Measuring the economic and social impacts of local authority events,”
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 37-53.
Xing, X. and Chalip, L. (2006), “Effect of hoisting a sport event on destination brand: a test of
co-branding and match-up models,” Sport Management Review, Vol. 9, pp. 49-78.
Zaltman, G., LeMasters, K. and Heffring, M. (1982), Theory construction in Marketing. Some Thoughts
on Thinking, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
About the authors
Giacomo Del Chiappa (PhD) is an Assistant Professor of Marketing in the Department of
Economics and Business at the University of Sassari (Italy) and an Associate Researcher
at CRENoS. His research is related to destination governance and branding, consumer
behaviour and digital marketing. He has published articles in several international journals,
including the Journal of Travel Research, International Journal of Tourism Research,
International Journal of Contemporary and Hospitality Management, Current Issues in
Tourism and Information Systems and E-Business Management. Giacomo Del Chiappa is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Cem Tinaz (PhD) is an Assistant Professor in Department of Sport Management at Okan
University Istanbul, Turkey. Additionally, he works for Bahcesehir University; there he
attends to the sport communication courses at FIFA CIES Sport Management Program.
Tinaz has been a board member for Turkish Tennis Federation since 2009 and working
there as the responsible person for mainly on managing international events, marketing and
sponsoring and partly on media relations.
Douglas Michele Turco (PhD) is a Professor and Director of Sport and Entertainment at
Neumann University, Aston, Pennsylvania, USA.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
PAGE 400 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_266390687.pdf
This paper aims to examine the differences in expenditure and satisfaction level between
first-time and repeat spectators to a motor sport event, as well as differences in their intention to return
and to recommend the host destination.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Driving first-time and repeat spectators to a motor sport event
Giacomo Del Chiappa Cem Tinaz Douglas Michele Turco
Article information:
To cite this document:
Giacomo Del Chiappa Cem Tinaz Douglas Michele Turco , (2014),"Driving first-time and repeat spectators to a motor sport
event", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 388 - 400
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-03-2014-0023
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:25 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 67 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 602 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Sebastian Botzem, (2014),"Transnational standard setting in accounting: Organizing expertise-based self-regulation in
times of crises", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability J ournal, Vol. 27 Iss 6 pp. 933-955http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
AAAJ -04-2013-1301
Hwan Chung, Eunkyu Lee, (2014),"Does channel decentralization lead to low quality product lines?", European J ournal of
Marketing, Vol. 48 Iss 9/10 pp. 1870-1891http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJ M-06-2013-0335
Paula Goodale, Paul David Clough, Samuel Fernando, Nigel Ford, Mark Stevenson, (2014),"Cognitive styles within an
exploratory search system for digital libraries", J ournal of Documentation, Vol. 70 Iss 6 pp. 970-996http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
J D-03-2014-0045
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Driving ?rst-time and repeat spectators to
a motor sport event
Giacomo Del Chiappa, Cem Tinaz and Douglas Michele Turco
Giacomo Del Chiappa is
an Assistant Professor of
Marketing at the
University of Sassari and
CRENoS, Sassari, Italy.
Cem Tinaz is an Assistant
Professor at the Okan
University, Istanbul,
Turkey.
Douglas Michele Turco is
a Professor at Neumann
University, Aston,
Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine the differences in expenditure and satisfaction level between
?rst-time and repeat spectators to a motor sport event, as well as differences in their intention to return
and to recommend the host destination.
Design/methodology/approach – Astructured questionnaire was developed and data were collected
on-site during the 2012 Federation Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) World Rally Championship
(WRC) in Sardinia via 210 interviews. A series of descriptive analysis, independent t-tests, chi-square
tests and regression analysis were run for the purposes of the study.
Findings – Findings showed ?rst-timers spend more and are more satis?ed than repeaters, even if no
signi?cant differences were reported. Repeaters reported to be more willing to return and to
recommend, with signi?cant differences, only in the intention to return.
Research limitations/implications – The study is based on a convenience sample of a relatively small
size, and it might be in?uenced by the idiosyncratic characteristics of the location. Further, it does not
consider the mediating effect that the budget of spectators and their travel/event career ladder can
exert over their behaviour.
Practical implications – Destination marketers and event organizers need to run their marketing
operations to renew their customer mix and/or to increase the standard level of quality to be delivered
to repeaters. Further, their marketing and communication strategy should be personalized, and
incentives should be given to encourage both groups to purchase multiple products simultaneously.
Originality/value – The paper adds to the growing, and often still inconsistent, research aiming to
compare ?rst-timers’ and repeat visitors’ behaviours by offering insights from the context of motor sport
events, where no published paper exist so far.
Keywords Expenditure, First-timers, Motor sport event, Post-experience evaluation, Repeaters,
Tourism
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The growing interest in sport events this century has brought changes in destination
marketing strategies and event operations to maximize tourism bene?ts (and minimize
costs). Sport event tourism has become a vital sub-industry for many European
communities, cities and regions. Several papers have discussed costs and bene?ts of
sport event tourism on host destinations and stakeholders (Lilley and DeFranco, 1998),
categorizing their impacts as economic, socio-cultural, environmental, physical, political
and psychological, as well as touristic (Dingle, 2009; Fredline, 2005; Ritchie and Smith,
1991; Solberg and Preuss, 2007; Wood, 2005, Xing and Chalip, 2006).
In this scenario, motorsport events have long been considered a vehicle for sport tourism
development to be leveraged for the economic and social good of host areas (Chalip,
2004; O’Brien, 2007). For example, video footage of the destinations and verbal mentions
that occur during television coverage of rally events, particularly a premier World
Championship Rally, can make host communities enticing to television viewers, thereby
Received 21 March 2014
Revised 5 August 2014
Accepted 7 August 2014
PAGE 388 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4, 2014, pp. 388-400, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-03-2014-0023
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
contributing to destination awareness, image (Xing and Chalip, 2006) and, ultimately,
increased visitation.
Sport event organizers as well as sport organizations have several types of stakeholders;
spectators, competing athletes and/or teams, of?cials, media representatives, sponsors,
suppliers and members of the communities in which they operate (Turco et al., 2001).
Among these, the analysis of spectator behaviour has been of particular interest both in the
academy and the industry. Sport spectators and fans are usually not a homogenous group
of consumers; therefore, their expectations, behaviours and expenditures differ
signi?cantly (Quick, 2000). Understanding the differences between ?rst-timers and repeat
visitors is of vital importance to develop effective tourism marketing and management
strategies (Lau and McKercher, 2004; Oppermann, 1997; Petrick, 2004). Many host
communities and sport event organizers make various decisions depending on spectator
spending, and, therefore, it is highly important to understand their spending behaviours
and motivations.
Motorsports are a major global industry producing signi?cant economic, entertainment and
cultural dimensions. Based on Angus et al. (2007) in 2005, there were approximately 600 race
circuits (excluding kart tracks), 56 global motorsports events and an average of more than 52
million viewers watching each Formula One Grand Prix. Burns et al. (1986) completed a
comprehensive study of the Adelaide Grand Prix, and it remains the seminal work on sport
event tourism assessment. In their book, Burns et al. (1986) aimed to constitute a guide for
communities and their governments for special sport events. Prior research focusing on rally
events has analyzed the spectators/visitors’ overall customer satisfaction with the event and the
services provided, their intention to return and to recommend to others and the values and
image associations they express towards the World Rally Championship (WRC) brand image.
In tourism literature, there is also evidence that the willingness of spectators to visit an event
repeatedly is highly dependent on their level of satisfaction, and satis?ed people are more
willing to promote the event (Szwarc, 2005).
Still, relatively few studies have investigated the consumer behaviours of ?rst-time and
repeat sport event tourists (Scott and Turco, 2011). Prior research offers a mixed picture of
similarities and differences between the two groups, with ?ndings that are sometimes
contradictory. For example, several scholars have concluded that ?rst-timers stay longer,
spend more money per night per capita and are more satis?ed than repeaters (Anwar and
Sohail, 2004; Tang and Turco, 2001). However, other research shows the opposite (Li et al.,
2008; Oppermann, 1997; Wang, 2004). There remains a lack of consensus about ?rst-time
and repeat spectator spending behaviours, and which group is more receptive to
satisfaction. Further, no published paper has precisely examined ?rst-timers and repeaters
to a motor sport event.
This study was, therefore, carried out to assess and compare the consumer behaviours of
?rst-time and repeat sport event tourists to the Federation Internationale de l’Automobile
(FIA) WRC – Sardinia, in 2012 in terms of their spending behaviours, satisfaction and
intention to return and to recommend. Speci?cally, it presents an empirical analysis of data
obtained from a sample of 210 subjects (on average respondents were reported to be
visiting Sardinia with three persons). A literature review of prior studies on ?rst-time and
repeat visitors is provided in our paper. The research methodology is then described in
detail. Next, the study describes the socio-demographic characteristics of the spectators,
and then determines whether any signi?cant differences exist between ?rst-timers and
repeat spectators in their spending behaviour, satisfaction towards selected event features
and their intentions to return and to recommend visitation.
Literature review
Sport and tourism industries have undergone extraordinary growth since the 1960s. Alan
Reich, former of?cial of the US State Department, indicates that sport can bene?t countries
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 389
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
paving the way for contact, cultural, economic and political (Coakley, 1986). Sport can be
seen as a good opportunity for trade activities and boosts the economy in various ways, as
in the case of the 1988 Olympic Games (Houlihan, 2005). Whitson and Horne (2006)
attribute the growth of willingness to host sport events to three related reasons. First,
developments in technology have opened up new audiences, which relates to their second
reason – the opportunity to vastly increase television revenue. Together, these provide
increased commercial opportunities, particularly in the ?eld of advertising. Broadly, the
growth of interest in hosting can also be attributed to a recognition that sports events can
provide opportunities for what can be referred to as “city boosterism” (Black, 2007), a
concept that suggests several bene?ts, including urban development or redevelopment,
place marketing and resultant increases in tourism and civic “boosterism.” Speci?cally,
among the several advantages that cities and nations can obtain from hosting sport events,
we can consider the opportunity to rebuild infrastructure, to improve transportation lines
and travel connections, to attract foreign investments, to increase accommodation
availabilities, to enhance media coverage, to enhance brand image and awareness on the
global stage (Nauright, 2004; Toohey and Veal, 2007; Waitt, 2001; Whitson and Horne,
2006) and to attract visitors (athletes, spectators, their travel party, entourages, etc.)
(Quick, 2009). Further, policymakers and destination marketers use sports events to justify
their projects of urban renewal and advertise their status and personality to attract inward
investment (Essex and Chalkley, 2006), especially in the tourism sector (Bohlin, 2000).
That said, it is easy to understand why destination marketers and policymakers have widely
recognized sport events as integral tools in their destination marketing operations.
Particularly, the spending of event participants during the sport events is a decisive factor
for marketing strategies aimed at maximising the economic impact of an event. Hence, for
destinations relying on recurring sport events to attract tourists, understanding the
consumer behaviours of ?rst-time and repeater visitors is important for economic potential
and target marketing.
Tourism researchers concurred that a deep understanding of the differences between
?rst-time and repeat visitors, particularly in their pre-travel and post-trip characteristics
(Oppermann, 1997), is relevant in developing effective tourism marketing strategies, as
well as in building travel motivation and decision-making theories (Li et al., 2008). Further,
according to prior research, knowledge about ?rst-time or repeat visitors’ behaviour can be
useful in market segmentation (Formica and Uysal, 1998), can be used as a basis to
understand the development of loyalty (Fakeye and Crompton, 1991) and to identify a
destination’s position in its life cycle (Oppermann, 1998). According to Kozak (2001),
visitors tend to repeat a destination if they feel satis?ed with their visit. However, it is also
possible that some satis?ed tourists might not return to the same destination because they
prefer to discover different places on their next holiday (Gitelson and Crompton, 1984).
Moreover, less satis?ed tourists might return to the same destination and eventually
become repeat visitors, possibly to avoid a new decision process for a new destination and
to reduce the implicit risks of facing a negative experience (Oppermann, 2000a).
Generally, tourism literature argues that several reasons exist to explain why repeaters
should be considered a desirable phenomenon in marketing. Among these, we can cite the
marketing costs needed to attract repeat visitors are lower compared to those required for
?rst-timers (Oppermann, 2000a; Tang and Turco, 2001), the fact that repeat visitation is an
indicator of tourist satisfaction (Oppermann, 2000a) and the repeater’s increased intention
to return and to recommend the event and the destination to friends and relatives (Juaneda,
1996; Li et al., 2008). On the other hand, other researchers (Oppermann, 2000b; Petrick,
2004) argue that it is not always true that repeat visitors are the most desired visitors.
Further, an undersupply of new visitors is usually an indication of an event in decline (Lau
and McKercher, 2004), a key reason that researchers often suggest that destination
marketers strive to achieve a collective balance between ?rst-time and repeat visitors
(Oppermann, 1997).
PAGE 390 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In tourism literature, it has been widely recognized that ?rst-time and repeat visitors differ
from each other; however, little consensus still exists with regard to the variables that
differentiate the two groups (Li et al., 2008). Differences between ?rst-time and repeat
spectators were found based on socio-demographic characteristics, behavioural
characteristics, destination perception and perceived value and tripographic
characteristics (purpose of travel, mode of transportation, length of stay, distance of travel
and individual daily expenditures). Prior research showed that that ?rst-timers tend to be
younger and single compared to repeat visitors, whereas gender, education and income
were reported as not of signi?cant difference for ?rst-time and repeat visitors (Gitelson and
Crompton, 1984; Lau and McKercher, 2004). Oppermann (1997, 1998) showed that
?rst-time visitors tend to have shorter stays at a destination, whereas Turco (2010) reported
the opposite. Gitelson and Crompton (1984) pioneered the research of ?rst-time and repeat
visitors and concluded that ?rst-time and repeat visitors had different motivations. This
latter evidence is con?rmed in other studies (Iso-Ahola, 1982; Lau and McKercher, 2004)
and in the context of festivals and events (Kruger et al., 2010). For example, Lau and
McKercher’s (2004) study of travel to Hong Kong found that ?rst-time visitors were more
motivated by intellectual and cultural enrichment, while repeat visitors were more motivated
by relationship enhancement and bene?t seeking. Further, some differences exist in the
types of activities preferred and the behaviours of the two groups, with repeat visitors
seeming to prefer social activities such as shopping and dining, whereas ?rst-timers
tending to prefer major iconic attractions (Anwar and Sohail, 2004; Lau and McKercher,
2004). Other research has found differences between ?rst-timers and repeaters in their
spending behaviour and post-experience evaluation.
As far as spectators’ spending patterns are concerned, several factors can be considered
to be able to in?uence them; among these factors, economic constraints, travel-related
characteristics, socio-demographic characteristics and sport-related facets are the most
important (Sato et al., 2014). While it has been argued repeatedly that repeat visitors spend
more money (Oppermann, 2000a), prior research within the context of ?rst-time and repeat
visitation studies revealed ?ndings that are not as consistent and conclusive as one might
expect (Li et al., 2008). Consequently, an inconsistent relationship between travel
experience and travel expenditure seems to exist (Cho, 2009; Divisekera and Deegan,
2010). On the one hand, some researchers reported repeat visitors spending more than
?rst-time visitors (Kruger et al., 2010; Wang, 2004). This circumstance could be explained
based on the idea that prior travel experience is a proxy of foreign visitors’ information and
knowledge of a speci?c destination and event (Alegre and Cladera, 2010). As a result, prior
experience at the destination and related events would reduce asymmetric information
problems and increase visitor and spectator expenditures (Alegre and Cladera, 2010).
Though this seems to be quite reasonable, other research reported repeat visitors
spending less than ?rst-time visitors (Kozak, 2001; Oppermann, 1997; Tang and Turco,
2001). To generate a more detailed spending pro?le of ?rst-time vs repeat visitors, prior
research suggests analyzing spending data by subset of expenditure. For example, Li
et al. (2008) reported ?rst-time visitors spending signi?cantly more than repeaters for
transportation, lodging and entertainment, whereas repeaters reported spending more for
food and beverage, shopping and gambling. Further, it should be noted that nowadays
consumers can easily collect information about their travel using the Internet, online travel
agencies and social media (Del Chiappa, 2011, 2013), and as a consequence, they do not
merely rely on their travel experience when making choices. This could explain why prior
travel experience (i.e. repeaters) does not generate signi?cant differences in visitors/
spectators’ preferences and consumption patterns (Chang et al., 2013). It could also
explain the results from a study by Kaplanidou and Gibson (2012). In this study, the
differences between ?rst, second and third-time attendees of a football (soccer) event, as
well as attendees’ future behaviours, and images of the host destination. The results
revealed no signi?cant differences in these variables between the three groups. The
authors provide also their own explanation of their ?ndings by arguing that event spectators
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 391
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
may form strong behavioural and image perceptions the ?rst time they attend an event, and
these perceptions do not change with attendance frequency. Finally, researchers have
found a positive effect between length of stay and per capita spending by tourists (Raya,
2012; Saayman et al., 2007; Seiler et al., 2003; Thrane, 2002), However, Saayman and
Saayman (2008) observed the opposite, thus recon?rming the lack of consensus in the
research around ?rst-time and repeater visitors/spectators’ behaviours.
Other differences between ?rst-timers and repeat visitors are usually reported in their
post-trip evaluations. Tourists’ post-trip evaluations are highly valued by destination
marketers because such evaluations may directly in?uence their repurchase behaviour
(Petrick et al., 2001). According to Reid and Reid (1993), repeat visitors tend to be more
than just a stable source of revenues. They act as “information channels that informally link
networks of friends, relatives and other potential travellers to a destination” (Reid and Reid,
1993, p. 3). This word-of-mouth effect can lead to positive results in spectator participation
and engagement, as avid sport fans often communicate quickly with each other via social
media and may also travel together (Quick, 2000).
For ?rst-time and repeat visitor studies using post-trip evaluations, there is a lack of
consensus on which group is more receptive to satisfaction and more likely to return and
to recommend. Some studies show that ?rst-timers are more easily satis?ed with a
destination than repeaters (Anwar and Sohail, 2004), probably because some repeaters
can express higher expectations prior to their visitation that are not ful?lled during their stay
(McKercher and Wong, 2004). On the other hand, other studies report repeaters
expressing a higher level of satisfaction than ?rst-time visitors (Juaneda, 1996; Li et al.,
2008; Mohr et al., 1993), thus explaining (in part) why repeaters usually report a stronger
intention to return and a likeliness to give positive word-of-mouth (Kozak, 2001; Li et al.,
2008). Why some ?rst-time visitors are found to be less satis?ed than repeaters could be
explained by arguing that ?rst-timers’ pre-trip expectations rely heavily on external
information (Assael, 2004). As a consequence, an inconsistency between their
expectations and actual experiences could occur if marketing and promotion operations
overly exaggerate the experiences the destination can provide, thus resulting in
consumers’ dissatisfaction and negatively in?uencing their intention to return and to
recommend (Oliver, 1980). Based on this strand research, it could seem that satisfaction
may not be directly correlated with revisit intention. Further, it should be noted that the level
of positive correlation between satisfaction and revisit intention might change. Indeed,
Kozak (2001) found that this satisfaction–revisit intention relationship was weaker in less
developed destinations than mature destinations.
It appears that there is still a lack of consensus around the description of ?rst-time and
repeat spectators’ spending behaviours, and on who is more receptive to satisfaction. The
fact that some inconsistencies exist in the ?ndings of different studies related to this tourism
research area could be explained, as suggested in other studies (Williams and Lawson,
2001), by referring to the different settings in which studies have been conducted, all of
which are obviously highly site-speci?c (in terms of socio-demographic characteristics and
personality of visitors, tourism offer, retail and commercial facilities, etc.) and, thus, hardly
generalizable. In the speci?c context of motor sport events the situation is more severe
given that no published paper has precisely examined ?rst-timers’ and repeaters’
behaviours and consumption patterns. This study was, therefore, carried to contribute and
to grow the scienti?c debate on this topic.
Methodology
Established in 1973, the FIA WRC was featured in the 2012 rallies across 13 countries,
including Sardinia, Italy. WRC events typically include 15-25 special stages run on closed
roads. Sardinia has hosted Italy’s FIA WRC since 2004. Sardinia’s rugged island geology,
rivers, coastlines, ?ora, and Mediterranean ecosystem offer a contrasting stage to the
carbon-fuelled mechanical muscle of its WRC.
PAGE 392 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The survey instrument used for this study was developed through a two-stage approach.
First, an in-depth literature review was conducted focusing on those studies that analyzed
sport event assessments and, speci?cally, ?rst-time and repeat visitors/spectators’
behaviours. Second, a group of practitioners involved in the event organization were
consulted to verify and rede?ne the questionnaire, thus allowing a theory-in-use approach
(Zaltman et al., 1982). The survey instrument was divided into three sections and structured
based on closed questions, dichotomic and multichotomic, with simple and multi-choice
answers.
In the ?rst section, subjects were asked to give general socio-demographic information
(gender, age, level of education, professional and civil status, country of residence, travel
party). Consistent with previous literature (Oliver, 1993; Petrick and Backman, 2002), the
second section measured spectators’ satisfaction at both the attribute (12 features were
considered, please see Table I) and global levels. These were all measured on a 5-point
scale anchored by “very dissatis?ed, and “very satis?ed.” A “did not experience” option
was also provided. Further, this section also investigated respondents’ intention to return
(yes/no) and to recommend the event (5-point Likert scale anchored 1? absolutely not,
5 ?absolutely yes). The third section, asked respondents to provide information about their
immediate group’s average daily expenditure for accommodations and other services used
during their stay (namely, hotel, bed and breakfast [B&B], rented apartment, local
transportation, food and beverage, souvenirs and car rental service).
The questionnaire was created originally in Italian, and then translated into English by a
professional translator, using back-translation for quality assurance. For the purpose of the
data collection both the Italian and the English version of the questionnaire were used.
The questionnaire was pilot-tested on the ?rst day of the event by 20 spectators to verify the
validity of its content and the comprehensibility of the questions. No concerns were
reported in the pilot tests.
Data were collected on-site during the days of the 2012 FIA WRC – Sardinia Rally (18-21
October) with questionnaires administered face-to-face by three interviewers who were
instructed to collect data at the place of the special stages from spectators aged more than
18 years and with the aim of obtaining a reasonably balanced sample of responses in term
of age, gender and geographical status (Sardinian spectators vs national and international
spectators). At the end of the event a convenience sample of 210 complete responses was
obtained. Sport tourist survey data were coded and entered into the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS), and a series of descriptive analysis, independent t-tests,
chi-square tests and regression analysis were performed for the purpose of the study.
Table I Comparisons of ?rst-time and repeat WRC spectators’ satisfaction with event characteristics: mean scores
and independent t-tests
Items (5-point Likert scale)
First-time Repeaters
t Mean SD Mean SD
Atmosphere at the event 4.63 0.586 4.41 1.001 ?1.707
General appearance of the event 4.60 0.778 4.43 0.912 ?1.101
Safety of the event 4.50 0.847 4.41 0.776 ?0.654
Entry to the area 4.30 1.043 3.95 1.034 ?1.884
Moving around in the area 4.20 0.883 3.85 1.088 ?1.860
Spectator direction in the area 4.28 0.960 4.18 0.980 ?0.559
Number of restaurants in the area 4.30 1.244 4.18 1.390 ?0.504
Selection of products of the restaurants in the area 4.45 1.108 4.30 1.293 ?0.645
Amount of related events/entertainment in the area 4.50 1.519 4.36 1.573 ?4.94
Quality of related events/entertainment in the area 4.47 1.585 4.35 1.573 ?0.443
Number of toilets in the area 3.80 1.870 3.71 1.876 ?0.276
Cleanliness of toilets in the area 3.71 1.902 4.06 1.803 1.041
Overall satisfaction with the event (7-point Likert scale) 4.46 1.354 4.30 1.091 ?0.894
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 393
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Findings and discussion
Respondents were primarily male (67.9 per cent), in the age group 25-34 years (34.2 per
cent) or 35-44 years (22.5 per cent), who described themselves as with technical college
(33.9 per cent), employed (24.2 per cent) and married (35 per cent). They were mostly
Italian or international visitors (57.8 per cent), whereas 42.2 per cent resided in Sardinia
(42.2 per cent).
Domestic and international visitors were more likely to be ?rst-time visitors (69.8 per cent)
who decided to visit Sardinia because of the Rally (92.7 per cent); nearly three-quarters of
those who decided to visit Sardinia because of the event had previously attended the WRC,
thus highlighting that the event has a reasonable pattern of repeat visits. Fifty per cent of
them spent three-four days in Sardinia and were traveling with friends (53.3 per cent)
or their family (26.2 per cent). Speci?cally, domestic and international respondents
reported traveling in Sardinia with an average of 3.51 people. Approximately half (50.1 per
cent) of the respondents were “very satis?ed” with the event. Most expressed a willingness
to return to attend the WRC (64.7 per cent), and would recommend it to friends and
relatives (81.7 per cent).
Table I compares the mean level of spectators’ overall satisfaction towards the WRC by
event attributes/features.
First-time spectators reported being more satis?ed than repeaters for every event attribute
and expressed a higher mean score for overall satisfaction towards the event (?rst-timers:
Mean ? 4.46, S.D ? 1.354 – repeaters: Mean ? 4.30, S.D ? 1.091), thus giving support to
prior research that ?rst-time spectators are more receptive to satisfaction (Anwar and
Sohail, 2004). That ?rst-time visitors expressed a higher mean level of satisfaction towards
event characteristics and towards the event as a whole may be due to the event/destination
ful?lling their expectations in prior editions of the event, thus pushing repeat visitors to
return with even higher expectations. However, no signi?cant differences existed between
the level of satisfaction of ?rst-time and repeat spectators based on independent t-tests.
The chi-square test was applied to determine whether any signi?cant differences existed
between ?rst-time and repeat WRC spectators in terms of their intention to return. Findings
revealed that repeaters were more willing to return (86.09 per cent) than ?rst-time visitors
(13.91 per cent) (?
2
? 11.765, p ? 0.05). By adding the responses “yes” and “absolutely
yes,” repeaters reported a higher intention to recommend (78.1 per cent) than ?rst-time
spectators (21.9 per cent); however, the intention to recommend did not differ signi?cantly
between the two groups (?
2
? 2.372, p ? 0.05). Despite the fact that repeaters reported
being less satis?ed than ?rst-time spectators, their intention to return and to recommend
was higher. This seemingly contradictory evidence could be explained by ?rst-time
spectators who were attracted to visit Sardinia because of the uniqueness of the WRC but
then considered the event itself as a “one shot” experience, compared to repeaters. Based
on this strand of research, it could seem that a lower level satisfaction may not necessarily
correlate with revisit intention and word-of-mouth referral.
To investigate which variables are able to in?uence the visitors’ total expenditures, a
regression model was run with prior visitation, age, gender, level of education, professional
status and geographical status (Sardinian spectators vs national and international
spectators), being the independent variables and the total expenditure-dependent one
(Table II).
The model resulted signi?cant (F ? 3.834, p ? 0.001) and summarized the 12.1 per cent
of total variance (R
2
? p ? 0.121). Findings revealed that age (?? 0.165; p ? 0.029) and
geographical status (? ?0.207, p ?0.009) exert a signi?cant in?uence on the visitors’ total
expenditure; speci?cally, older people and national/international spectators reported
spending more. On the contrary, the total expenditure is not in?uenced by gender
(? ? 0.054, p ? 0.463), level of education (? ? 0.038, p ? 0.628), professional status
(? ? ?0.105, p ? 0.178) or prior visitation (? ? 0.093, p ? 0.226).
PAGE 394 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
To obtain a deeper knowledge about the visitors’ spending behaviours, the mean value of
total expenditure by product category was calculated for ?rst-timers and repeaters, and
then a series of t-tests was conducted to analyze whether any signi?cant differences exist
among them; no signi?cant differences were reported to exist (Table III).
This result seems to con?rm the idea that prior travel experience (i.e. repeaters) does not
necessarily generate signi?cant differences in visitors/spectators’ preferences and
consumption levels (Chang et al., 2013). Despite this, on average, ?rst-time spectators
spent more money than repeat spectators. By category, expenditures for ?rst-timers and
repeaters were as follows: B&B accommodation (?rst-time: mean ? 75 euro, repeaters ?
41.77 euro), local transportation (?rst-time: mean ? 51.55 euro, repeaters ? 48.45 euro),
food and beverage (?rst-time: mean ? 71.62 euro, repeaters ? 60.09 euro), rental cars
services (?rst-time: mean ? 80 euro, repeaters ? 61.43 euro) and souvenirs (?rst-time:
mean ? 145 euro, repeaters ? 57.05 euro). This latter point could be easily explained by
arguing that the need to bring home souvenirs as a memento of time and space diminished
for consumers who would have satis?ed this need on prior visits to the destination or event.
Conversely, repeat spectators reported higher spending than ?rst-timers for hotel
accommodation (?rst-time: mean ? 77 euro, repeaters ? 83.48 euro) and for renting
apartment (?rst-time: mean ? 25 euro, repeaters ? 29 euro).
On the whole, our ?ndings reveal a mixed picture of similarities and differences with prior
research. Similar to prior research (Oppermann, 1997; Tang and Turco, 2001), the ?rst-time
spectators spent overall more than repeaters. Li et al. (2008) showed ?rst-time spectators
spending more than repeaters for transportation and lodging. However, contrary to Li
et al.’s (2008) study, our study found ?rst-time spectators spending more for food and
beverage as well. This could be explained by the fact that ?rst-timers, given their
inexperience with the destination, are more willing to spend to taste the uniqueness of local
food and beverage.
Table II Age, gender, level of education, professional and geographical status, prior
visitation and their in?uence on total expenditure: a regression analysis
Variables ? t Signi?cance
Constant ?1.04 0.3
Gender 0.054 0.736 0.463
Age 0.165 2.204 0.029*
Level of education 0.038 0.485 0.628
Professional status ?0.105 ?1.352 0.178
Geographical status 0.207 2.631 0.009**
Prior visitation 0.093 1.214 0.226
R
2
0.121
Adjusted R
2
0.09
F-test 3.834 0.001**
Notes: *Signi?cant at the 0.05 level; **signi?cant at 0.01 level
Table III Comparison of daily expenditures by ?rst-time and repeat WRC spectators:
mean scores (in euros)
Expenditure type
Repeaters First time
t Mean Mean
Hotel 83.48 77.00 0.591
B&B 41.77 75.00 ?0.853
Rented apartment 29.00 25.00 0.269
Local transportation 48.45 51.55 ?0.429
Food and beverages 60.09 71.62 ?1.325
Souvenirs 57.05 145.00 ?0.730
Rental car services 61.43 80.00 ?0.430
Note: The italics shows when the mean expenditure is higher
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 395
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Conclusion and managerial implications
Sport tourism events are not the only study context for comparing ?rst-time and repeaters’
behaviour; other travel and leisure segments are also important to enrich the body of
knowledge on the topic and to provide information to practitioners working in these
contexts.
The present study offers insights from a motor sport event, thus providing information that
can contribute to the scienti?c debate on ?rst-time and repeat spectators, and to support
policymakers, destination marketers and event organizers in their attempts to deeply
understand spectator consumer behaviours.
Our ?ndings reported ?rst-timers spending more and being more satis?ed than repeaters
spectators, even if no signi?cant differences were reported. This con?rms some prior
studies (Anwar and Sohail, 2004; Tang and Turco, 2001) and contradicts others (Li et al.,
2008; Oppermann, 1997; Wang, 2004), thus adding to the body of knowledge highlighting
an inconsistent relationship between travel experience and travel expenditure (Cho, 2009;
Divisekera and Deegan, 2010). The fact that no signi?cant difference was found in the
expenditures of ?rst-timers and repeaters could be due to the budgets of visitors/spectators.
It is evident that an increase in travel budget would increase a visitor’s expenditure (Chang
et al., 2013) independently of status as a ?rst-timer. This moderator effect merits future
research. However, our ?ndings revealed that age and geographical status signi?cantly
in?uence spectators’ spending behaviours, with overall expenditure increasing with older and
national/international spectators. Further, despite the fact that repeaters were less satis?ed,
their intention to return and to recommend was higher than that of ?rst-timers. This result
seemed to provide support to the body of knowledge suggesting that a lower level of
satisfaction may not necessarily correlate with revisit intention and word-of-mouth referral
(Kozak, 2001). This controversial ?nding requires further research aimed at analyzing the
factor(s) that could moderate the satisfaction–loyalty chain. For example, it could be interesting
to consider the extent to which respondents agree with the idea that the event is a “one shot”
experience to be done once in their lives.
From a marketing perspective, our ?ndings suggest that policymakers, destination
marketers and event organizers would need to manage the event as whole and the related
marketing activities to attract new visitors each year and/or to increase the standard level
of quality delivered to repeat spectators so that their perceived quality is higher than the
one they expected based on prior experience at the event. By achieving an effective
visitors/spectators mix, in which the proportion of ?rst-timers and repeaters are balanced,
the event and the destination as a whole would bene?t from higher economic impacts
generated by the ?rst-timers, without renouncing the positive marketing effects (intention to
return and to recommend) generated by repeaters. Further, our ?ndings suggest it could
be useful to run cross-selling strategy and stronger incentives to encourage both
?rst-timers and repeaters, but especially the latter, to purchase multiple products
simultaneously, thus contributing to an increase in the total tourism revenue (Chang et al.,
2013). Repeaters reported lower expenditures than ?rst-timers, and their familiarity with the
event and destination service providers negates novelty purchases. As a result, destination
marketers should put more efforts into disseminating information related to their lesser known
attractions, service providers and diverse entertainment opportunities (such as other local
events and museums) to repeaters and attempt to facilitate contact. It is evident that there is a
need to understand the most effective communication strategy to be used for different
spectator/visitor segments (?rst-timers and repeaters). This remains a challenge for destination
marketers engaged in Internet, digital and social media marketing. For example, destination
marketers may ?nd it useful to dedicate portions of their websites or links to ?rst-timers and
repeaters and then characterize them with different content. To illustrate, for ?rst-timers, who
presumably know less about the destinations, they could emphasize the presence of
information about the most known attractions and the places to buy the local and authentic
souvenirs to bring home as mementoes of place and time. For repeaters, who knowmore about
PAGE 396 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
the area, they could deliver information related to local life and entertainment. In an attempt to
increase the effectiveness of such a type of personalized communication strategy, the
destination marketers and the event organizers could ask spectators to ?ll out a form on which
they are offered some special promotion if they give their contact details and some personal
information (if they are ?rst-timers or repeaters, what types of services are most interesting,
etc.). The same could be done by inviting people to follow the of?cial social media (Twitter,
Facebook, etc.) that the destination marketers and event organizers are using to promote the
event so that information can be easily provided in real time to spectators during their stay at
the event or destination.
Aside from the theoretical and managerial contributions of this study, there are some
limitations that must be addressed. First, we used a convenience sample and its size is
rather small. Further, we introduced a concrete case study involving a sport event in a
speci?c tourism destination; the idiosyncratic characteristics of the destination could affect
the spectators’ decision-making and consumption levels and patterns. Thus, our ?ndings
cannot be generalized to other sport events or destinations. The replication of our study at
other motor sport events would allow for wider generalizations to be made from the results
obtained. In the present research, we did not consider the moderator effect that the
budgets of consumers can exert on their spending behaviours. This aspect merits future
research as related ?ndings could add to the knowledge base on ?rst-timers vs repeaters
and could suggest the sport, tourism and event industry re?ne the marketing strategies and
service packages by providing products based more on visitors’ varying travel budgets
than on previous travel experience. Another limitation of this study is that the researchers
did not know the travel histories of respondents. The fact that they are ?rst-timers does not
necessarily mean that they are inexperienced in traveling and in attending motor sport
events. According to Li et al.’s (2008) study, future research should consider explicitly the
concept of travel/event career ladder and its role in mediating the ?rst-timers’ and
repeaters’ behaviours. Finally, this research used on-site tourists as research subjects and
employed a conventional survey method, namely, an interview and questionnaire
administered face-to-face, similar to previous studies. These methods might not have
helped to capture the real expenditures of respondents and to identify the underlying
causes of the differences, which could be embedded in the pre-trip decision-making and
post-trip evaluation processes (Li et al., 2008). Future research would bene?t from using a
more sophisticated data collection method such as action-tracking technology (Della Lucia
et al., 2011) or from merging it with the traditional survey methods.
References
Alegre, J. and Cladera, M. (2010), “Tourist expenditure and quality: why repeat tourists can spend less
than ?rst-timers,” Tourism Economics, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 517-533.
Angus, T., Aylett, C., Henry, N. and Jenkins, M. (2007), Motorsport Going Global: The Challenges
Facing the World’s Motorsport Industry, Palgrave-MacMillan, Hampshire.
Anwar, S.A. and Sohail, M.S. (2004), “Festival tourism in the United Arab Emirates: ?rst-time versus
repeat visitor perceptions,” Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 161-170.
Assael, H. (2004), Consumer Behavior: A Strategic Approach, Houghton Mif?in, Boston, MA.
Black, D. (2007), “The symbolic politics of sport mega-events: 2010 in comparative perspective,”
Politikon, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 261-276.
Bohlin, M. (2000), “Travelling to events,” in Mossberg, L.L. (Ed), Evaluation of Events: Scandinavian
Experiences, Cognizant Communication, New York, NY, pp. 13-29.
Burns, J.P.A., Hatch, J.H. and Mules, T.J. (Ed). (1986), The Adelaide Grand Prix: The Impact of a
Special Event, The Centre for South Australian Economic Studies, Adelaide.
Chalip, L. (2004), “Beyond impact: a general model for host community event leverage,” in
Ritchie, B.W. and Adair, D. (Eds.), Sport Tourism: Interrelationships, Impacts and Issues, Channel View,
Clevedon, pp. 226-252.
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 397
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Chang, K.L., Chen, C.M. and Meyer, T.J. (2013), “A comparison study of travel expenditure and
consumption choices between ?rst-time and repeat visitors,” Tourism Management, Vol. 35,
pp. 275-277.
Cho, V. (2009), “A study of non-economic determinants in tourism demand,” International Journal of
Tourism Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 307-320.
Coakley, J. (1986), Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies, Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing,
St. Louis.
Del Chiappa, G. (2011), “Trustworthiness of travel 2.0 applications and their in?uence on tourist
behaviour: an empirical investigation in Italy,” in Law, R., Fuchs, M. and Ricci, F. (Eds), Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism 2011, Springer, Vienna, pp. 343-353.
Del Chiappa, G. (2013), “Internet versus travel agencies: the perception of different groups of Italian
online buyers,” Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, 1-12.
Della Lucia, M., Zeni, N., Mich, L. and Franch, M. (2011), “Assessing the economic impact of cultural
events: a methodology based on applying action-tracking technologies,” Information Technology and
Tourism, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 249-267.
Dingle, G. (2009), “Sustaining the race: a review of literature pertaining to the environmental
sustainability of motorsport,” International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 80-96.
Divisekera, S. and Deegan, J. (2010), “An analysis of consumption behaviour of foreign tourists in
Ireland,” Applied Economics, Vol. 42 No. 13, pp. 1681-1697.
Essex, S. and Chalkley, B. (2006), “Mega-sporting events in urban and regional policy: a history of the
Winter Olympics,” Planning Perspectives, Vol. 19, pp. 201-232.
Fakeye, P.C. and Crompton, J.L. (1991), “Image differences between prospective, ?rst-time,
and repeat visitors to the lower Rio Grande Valley,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 10-16.
Formica, S. and Uysal, M. (1998), “Market segmentation of an international cultural-historical event in
Italy,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 16-24.
Fredline, E. (2005), “Host and guest relations and sport tourism,” Sport in Society, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 263-279.
Gitelson, R.J. and Crompton, J.L. (1984), “Insights into the repeat vacation phenomenon,” Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 199-217.
Houlihan, B. (2005), “Public sector sport policy,” International Review for the Sociology of Sport, Vol. 40
No. 32, pp. 165-185.
Iso-Ahola, S. (1982), “Towards a social psychology of tourist motivation: a rejoinder,” Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 256-261.
Juaneda, C. (1996), “Estimating the probability of return visits using a survey of tourist expenditure in
the Balearic Islands,” Tourism Economics, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 339-352.
Kaplanidou, K. and Gibson, H. (2012), “Differences between ?rst time and repeat spectator tourists of
a youth soccer event: intentions and image approaches,” Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 15 No. 5,
pp. 477-487.
Kozak, M. (2001), “Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct destinations,” Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 784-807.
Kruger, M., Saayman, M. and Ellis, S.M. (2010), “Does loyalty pay? First-time versus repeat visitors at
a national arts festival,” Southern African Business Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 79-104.
Lau, A.L.S. and McKercher, B. (2004), “Exploration versus acquisition: a comparison of ?rst-time and
repeat visitors,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 279-285.
Li, X., Cheng, C.K., Kim, H. and Petrick, J.F. (2008), “A systematic comparison of ?rst- time and repeat
visitors via a two-phase online survey,” Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 278-293.
Lilley, W. III and DeFranco, J.L. (1998), The Economic Impact of the Network Q Rally of Great Britain,
InContext Inc, Political Economic Analysis, Washington, available at:http://tourisminsights.info/ONLI
NEPUB/SPORT%20AND%20EVENTS/SAET%20PDFS/rallyrep.pdf (accessed 5 December 2013).
PAGE 398 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
McKercher, B. and Wong, D.Y.Y. (2004), “Understanding tourism behavior: examining the combined
effects of prior visitation history and destination status,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43 No. 2,
pp. 171-179.
Mohr, K., Backman, K.F., Gahan, L.W. and Backman, S.J. (1993), “An investigation of festival
motivations and event satisfaction by visitor type,” Festival Management and Event Tourism, Vol. 1
No. 3, pp. 89-97.
Nauright, J. (2004), “Global Games: culture, political economy and sport in the globalised world of the
21st century,” Third World Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 1325-1336.
O’Brien, D. (2007), “Points of leverage: maximizing host community bene?t from a regional sur?ng
festival,” European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 141-165.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-469.
Oliver, R.L. (1993), “Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response,” Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 418-430.
Oppermann, M. (1997), “First-time and repeat visitors to New Zealand,” Tourism Management, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 177-181.
Oppermann, M. (1998), “Destination threshold potential and the law of repeat visitation,” Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 131-137.
Oppermann, M. (2000a), “Tourism destination loyalty,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 78-84.
Oppermann, M. (2000b), “Where psychology and geography interface in tourism research and
theory,” in Woodside, A.G., Grouch, G.I., Mazanec, J.A., Oppermann, M. and Sakai, M.Y. (Eds),
Consumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure, CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA, pp. 9-38.
Petrick, J.F. (2004), “First timers’ and repeaters’ perceived value,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43
No. 1, pp. 29-38.
Petrick, J.F. and Backman, S.J. (2002), “An examination of the determinants of golf travelers’
satisfaction,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 252-258.
Petrick, J.F., Morais, D.D. and Norman, W.C. (2001), “An examination of the determinants of
entertainment vacationers’ intentions to revisit,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 41-48.
Quick, D. (2009), “Runners resist recession: are sports leisure events immune from downturn?,”
available at: www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/apr/09/runners_resist_recession78071/ (accessed
4 July 2014).
Quick, S. (2000), “Contemporary sport consumers: some implications of linking fan typology with key
spectator variables,” Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 149-156.
Raya, M.J. (2012), “Length of stay for triathlon participants in the challenge Maresme-Barcelona: a
survival approach,” Journal of Sport and Social Issues, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 86-105.
Reid, L.J. and Reid, S.D. (1993), “Communicating tourism supplier services: building repeat visitor
relationships,” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 2 Nos 2/3, pp. 3-19.
Ritchie, B. and Smith, B.H. (1991), “The impact of a mega-event on host region awareness: a
longitudinal study,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Saayman, M. and Saayman, A. (2008), “Socio-demographic and behavioural determinants of visitor
spending at a national arts festival: a panel data analysis,” World Journal on Events, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 28-33.
Saayman, M., Krugell, W. and van der Merwe, P. (2007), “The determinants of spending by biltong
hunters,” South African Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 184-194.
Sato, M., Jordan, J.S., Kaplanidou, K. and Funk, D.C. (2014), “Determinants of tourists’ expenditure at
mass participant sport events: a ?ve-year analysis,” Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 9,
pp. 763-771.
Scott, A.K.S. and Turco, D.M. (2011), “Spectator pro?les and economic impact of the 2009 US open
women’s golf championship,” Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 701-708.
Seiler, V.L., Hsieh, S., Seiler, M.J. and Hsieh, C. (2003), “Modelling travel expenditures for Taiwanese
tourism,” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 47-60.
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 399
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Solberg, H.A. and Preuss, H. (2007), “Major sport events and long-term tourism impacts,” Journal of
Sport Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 213-234.
Szwarc, P. (2005), Researching Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty: Howto Find Out What People Really
Think, Kogan Page, London.
Tang, Q. and Turco, D.M. (2001), “Spending behaviours of event tourists,” Journal of Convention and
Exhibition Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 33-40.
Thrane, C. (2002), “Jazz festival visitors and their expenditures: linking spending patterns to music
interest,” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 281-286.
Toohey, K. and Veal, A. (2007), The Olympic Games: A Social Science Perspective, CABI, Wallingford.
Turco, D.M. (2010), “Understanding the sport mega-event tourist: 2010 World Cup South Africa and
implications for 2014 World Cup Brasil,” XI National Congress of Sports Management APOGESD in
Lagos, Portugal, 2-3 October.
Turco, D.M., Riley, R.W. and Swart, K. (2001), Sport Tourism, FIT, Warrentown, WV.
Waitt, G. (2001), “The Olympic spirit and civic boosterism: the Sydney 2000 Olympics,” Tourism
Geographies, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 249-278.
Wang, D. (2004), “Tourist behaviour and repeat visitation to Hong Kong,” Tourism Geographies, Vol. 6
No 1, pp. 99-118.
Whitson, D. and Horne, J. (2006), “Underestimated costs and overestimated bene?ts? Comparing the
outcomes of sports mega-events in Canada and Japan,” in Horne, J. and Manzenreiter, W. (Eds),
Sports Mega-Events: Social Scienti?c Analyses of a Global Phenomenon, Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 73-89.
Williams, J. and Lawson, R. (2001), “Community issues and resident opinions of tourism,” Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 269-290.
Wood, E.H. (2005), “Measuring the economic and social impacts of local authority events,”
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 37-53.
Xing, X. and Chalip, L. (2006), “Effect of hoisting a sport event on destination brand: a test of
co-branding and match-up models,” Sport Management Review, Vol. 9, pp. 49-78.
Zaltman, G., LeMasters, K. and Heffring, M. (1982), Theory construction in Marketing. Some Thoughts
on Thinking, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
About the authors
Giacomo Del Chiappa (PhD) is an Assistant Professor of Marketing in the Department of
Economics and Business at the University of Sassari (Italy) and an Associate Researcher
at CRENoS. His research is related to destination governance and branding, consumer
behaviour and digital marketing. He has published articles in several international journals,
including the Journal of Travel Research, International Journal of Tourism Research,
International Journal of Contemporary and Hospitality Management, Current Issues in
Tourism and Information Systems and E-Business Management. Giacomo Del Chiappa is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Cem Tinaz (PhD) is an Assistant Professor in Department of Sport Management at Okan
University Istanbul, Turkey. Additionally, he works for Bahcesehir University; there he
attends to the sport communication courses at FIFA CIES Sport Management Program.
Tinaz has been a board member for Turkish Tennis Federation since 2009 and working
there as the responsible person for mainly on managing international events, marketing and
sponsoring and partly on media relations.
Douglas Michele Turco (PhD) is a Professor and Director of Sport and Entertainment at
Neumann University, Aston, Pennsylvania, USA.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
PAGE 400 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_266390687.pdf