Experts Matter. Find Yours.

March Madness: Experts comment on picking underdogs, prop bets and economic benefits

Why do people pick underdogs when filling out their brackets for the NCAA men's and women's basketball tournaments? How do people consume March Madness? How does the tournament benefit host cities and teams economically? University of Delaware experts have the answers. The following UD faculty members can provide their expertise for journalists working on stories about the tournaments. • Jackie Silverman, assistant professor of marketing: Why people might have chosen underdogs still hanging around in their brackets, • John Allgood, instructor of sport management: How people consume March Madness (streaming vs. cable TV) and how major collegiate sports events can help brand individual schools. Contact UD media relations to reach him. • Tim DeSchriver, associate professor of sport management: Sports gambling (including prop bets) and advertising targets. • Matthew Robinson, professor of sport management: Economic benefits of the host city. • Matt McGranaghan, assistant professor of marketing: Consumer attention span during commercial breaks. To reach these experts directly and set up interviews, visit the expert profiles below and click on the contact button.

ExpertSpotlight: Origins and History of Santa Claus

Santa Claus, the beloved figure at the heart of modern Christmas celebrations, has a rich history rooted in centuries of global tradition and folklore. His story originates from Saint Nicholas, a 4th-century bishop known for his generosity, and has evolved over time through cultural influences from Europe to North America. Santa's transformation into the jolly, red-suited icon we recognize today reflects not only the blending of mythologies but also the commercialization and globalization of Christmas. Understanding Santa’s origins offers valuable insights into cultural exchange, religious traditions, and societal values. Key story angles of interest include: The historical figure of Saint Nicholas and his influence on Santa Claus How Scandinavian folklore shaped Santa's association with winter and gifts The commercialization of Santa Claus in 19th and 20th-century America Depictions of Santa across cultures, from Europe’s Sinterklaas to Russia’s Ded Moroz The role of advertising, particularly Coca-Cola, in shaping Santa’s modern image Santa Claus as a symbol of generosity and its implications for holiday consumerism Connect with an expert about the Origins and History of Santa Claus: To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com

PACs ... What Are They and How Do They Work?

Political Action Committees (PACs) are organizations that collect and donate money to political candidates, parties, or causes. They are formed to pool contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, or other groups to support candidates who align with their goals or to oppose those who do not. PACs play a significant role in U.S. politics, allowing interest groups to influence elections and public policy through financial contributions. There are two main types of PACs: Traditional PACs: These are established by businesses, unions, trade associations, or issue groups. They can donate directly to candidates, but their contributions are limited by federal law. Traditional PACs can give up to $5,000 per candidate per election and up to $15,000 to a political party. Super PACs: Also known as "independent-expenditure-only committees," Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose political candidates. However, they are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or their campaigns. Super PACs often focus on media ads and public messaging to influence elections. The significance of PACs lies in their ability to amplify the voices of certain interest groups, industries, and ideologies within the political system. However, they are also a source of controversy, with critics arguing that they can lead to undue influence from wealthy donors and special interest groups over elected officials. This has fueled debates about campaign finance reform and the transparency of political donations. In the complex world of campaign finance, Political Action Committees (PACs) play a crucial role in shaping the political landscape, serving as a vital link between private citizens, special interest groups, and elected officials. Understanding PACs is essential to grasp the broader implications of how money influences political decisions, election outcomes, and policy-making. This topic is newsworthy as debates around the transparency, ethics, and impact of PAC contributions continue to shape public discourse, particularly in light of recent elections and campaign finance reform efforts. Key story angles that may interest a broad audience include: The role of PACs in modern elections: Exploring how PAC contributions influence candidates, elections, and policy decisions. Super PACs vs. traditional PACs: Analyzing the differences, including spending limits, transparency requirements, and their respective influence on campaigns. Campaign finance reform: Discussing current efforts to regulate PAC contributions, address dark money, and improve transparency in political donations. Ethical concerns surrounding PACs: Investigating the influence of special interest groups and corporations on political decision-making and their alignment with public interest. The rise of grassroots PACs: Highlighting citizen-driven PACs and their role in amplifying smaller donors and diverse voices in the political process. The future of PACs in digital campaigning: Examining the evolving tactics PACs use in social media and digital advertising to sway voters and influence public opinion. Connect with an expert about PACs and campaign financing: To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com

MLB playoffs are back!

It's October ... and that means one thing in America:  Major League Baseball playoffs are set to begin. It means wall to wall broadcasts of games, massive advertising buys and gate receipts that means a serious stream of revenue for all of the teams, players and owners who made it through a long season and survived to be one of the dozen teams left to play for the Commissioner's Trophy. It's going to be a wild few weeks for baseball fans and the reporters covering the games. And if you're a journalist looking to know how important the marketing and business sides are to the the playoffs - then let us help with your stories. Kirk Wakefield, Ph.D., is The Edwin W. Streetman Professor of Retail Marketing at Baylor University, where he is the Executive Director of the Curb Center for Sales Strategy in Sports and Entertainment (S3E) program in the Hankamer School of Business. Kirk is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon ow to arrange an interview today.

#Expert Insight: Political Fandom

The 2024 Presidential campaign has been a roller coaster ride this summer. The upheavals are so fast and unprecedented that the reaction to each event often seems too muted. An assassination attempt and sudden pre-convention withdrawal? In a past generation, these events would be decisive, but in 2024, they seem like just the latest blip in the news cycle. The polls never seem to move more than a couple of points. In such an oddly volatile but also stable environment, our best bet to understanding what is going to transpire during the last 100 days of the election cycle is to look at data that gets to the heart of how voters view the candidates. My choice of fundamental data or essential metric is candidate fandom. Fandom is an unusual metric in politics, but it should be more common. Fandom is about passion for and loyalty to a cultural entity, be it a team, singer, university, or even politician. In fact, MAGA Trump supporters and Bernie Bros share many characteristics with Swifties and Lakers fans. Fans of all these things show up, spend, wear branded apparel, and fiercely defend the object of their fandom. The politicians who inspire fandom, such as AOC, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and Marjorie Taylor Green, enjoy many advantages and are the celebrities of the political world. Fandom is critical in politics because fans are loyal, engaged, and resilient. Fans are not casual potential voters who may change preferences and are unlikely to make an effort to stand in line to vote. Fans are the voters who will show up rain or shine and who can’t be swayed. In 2024, a fan will interpret a conviction of their candidate as political “lawfare” rather than evidence of criminality. Also, in 2024, a fan will make excuses for signs of aging that would result in children taking a senior’s car keys. The flip side of fandom, anti-fandom, is also a powerful political force. Indeed, politics may be the cultural context in which anti-fandom has the most impact. Taylor Swift may have haters, but these anti-Swifties are not buying tickets to see Katy Perry in protest. But in politics, hatred of a candidate might be as powerful a tool for generating a vote as fandom. Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign was notoriously bad at drawing crowds, suggesting he inspired little passion. In contrast, Trump’s rallies looked like rabid sports crowds complete with matching hats. However, the hatred and fear of Donald Trump inspired sufficient anti-fandom to make Biden competitive. Of course, fandom doesn’t entirely decide elections. In most elections, there isn’t all that much fandom or passion. Beyond the presidency and senatorial contests, most candidates are barely known, and identity factors (race, gender, party affiliation) and candidate awareness are the determining factors. Even in presidential elections, get-out-the-vote efforts (ballot harvesting) and election regulations (voter suppression) combined with effective marketing to the few percent of swing (low information) voters are often the determining factors. Looking toward the future, fandom may be an increasingly salient political metric for multiple reasons. First, the last two decades have witnessed many candidates raised quickly from obscurity with somehow Hollywood-worthy origin stories (Barack Obama, AOC, JD Vance, etc.). In the modern media environment, candidates’ reputations (brands) are increasingly the product of marketing narratives rather than a lifetime of real-world accomplishments. In this new world of politics, fandom will be a critical metric. Second, with the increasing diversity of the American electorate, voting will be increasingly based on identity rather than ideology. Identity-based voting segments are likely to be driven by fandom (and anti-fandom) rather than policy. We see a form of this in 2024, as high inflation has barely made a dent in voters’ preferences for the two parties. A fragmented electorate comprised of racial and gender segments whose preferences are driven by fandom and anti-fandom will lead to increasingly negative campaigns featuring ads highlighting the threat of the non-preferred party’s candidates. When voters are focused on identity, negative advertising becomes the ideal method to use fear to create anti-fandom (hate) to motivate turnout. Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump Barring further disruptions, the matchup is set for the 2024 presidential contest (as of this writing, we do not know the Democratic VP). We do know the matchup between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris is a contest between polarizing figures. Donald Trump is a movement candidate who has redefined the Republican party. He inspires passionate fandom from his followers and amazing antipathy from major media and cultural outlets. Harris is also polarizing. In the immediate aftermath of Biden’s withdrawal, Harris received massive media and donor support. However, Harris has not demonstrated any significant national voter appeal, and her time as VP has generated ample blooper real material. My approach to assessing the race is to examine each candidate's fandom and anti-fandom. Fandom is the candidate’s core, resilient support, while anti-fandom is about antipathy. Fandom and anti-fandom are especially powerful metrics for a candidate because they are relatively fixed after a candidate gains high awareness. Once an individual identifies with the candidate (e.g., they are on the same team), an attack on the candidate is an attack on the individual. This means attack ads do not work because fans feel they are being attacked. Anti-fans are also important because they constrain a candidate’s support. A Trump anti-fan is unpersuadable by efforts from the Trump campaign because their identity is steeped in opposition to him. Fans and anti-fans are trapped in a cycle of confirmation bias where all information is processed to fit their fandom. I use data from the Next Generation Fandom Survey to assess candidate fandom and anti-fandom. The Next Generation Fandom Survey involves a nationwide sample of the U.S. population regarding fandom for sports and other cultural entities. In the 2024 edition, political figures such as Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and RFK Jr were included. The survey captured responses from 2053 subjects split evenly across the four primary generations (Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers), and the sample is representative in terms of racial background. The survey does not focus on likely or registered voters, so the results reflect overall societal sentiments rather than the electorate's opinions. The critical survey question asks subjects to rate how much of a fan they are of a celebrity on a 1 to 7 scale. In the following discussion, individuals who rated their fandom a 6 or 7 on the 7-point scale are categorized as Fans, while those who rate their fandom a 1 or 2 are classified as Anti-Fans. Table 1 shows the Fandom and Anti-Fandom rates for the entire sample. Donald Trump has a 27% fandom rate compared to Harris's 21%. The fandom rate is crucial because it identifies the candidate's core support. It also indicates something important about the candidate’s potential likability. In terms of anti-fandom, Harris has a slightly higher Anti-Fandom rate. Anti-Fandom is also critical as it shows the percentage of people who hate a candidate. The data suggests that Americans find Harris to be more dislikable than Trump. Notably, the anti-fandom rates are significantly higher than the fandom rates. The American public has significant disdain for politicians. The high anti-fandom rates are both the product of past negative advertising and the cause of future negative campaign strategies. Table 1: Candidate Fandom and Anti-Fandom Table 2 reports fandom rates based of the two gender segments. Trump has a 7%-point advantage with men and a surprising 4% advantage with women. This is a stunning result as Trump is generally regarded as having weakness with female voters. However, this weakness shows up in the anti-fandom rates. In the male segment, Trump has a 5%-point advantage in anti-fandom (fewer anti-fans), but a 3% disadvantage in the female segment. This reveals that Trump is polarizing to women, and almost half of women find Trump to be highly dislikable. This finding is why the Harris campaign is likely to use advertising that casts Trump as misogynistic or a threat to women to motivate turnout by female voters. Table 2: Candidate Fandom by Gender Table 3 shows the fandom rates for the two younger demographic segments: Gen Z and Millennials. This Table also shows Trump’s relative performance versus Biden (in parentheses in the last column). Trump enjoys higher fandom and lower anti-fandom than Harris in both the Gen Z and Millennial segments. In terms of fandom, Trump is plus 6% in Gen Z and plus 11% with Millennials. Critically, Harris outperforms Biden. The Gen Z anti-fandom gap between Trump and Biden favored Trump by 6% points. However, this gap shrinks to just 1% point when Harris is the comparison. The data suggests that Harris is stronger with Gen Z than Biden. Table 3: Candidate Fandom in Younger Generations Table 4 reports the fandom rates based on a racial segmentation scheme. Specifically, the sample is divided into White and Non-White categories. This is a crude segmentation, but it illustrates some essential points. Trump enjoys a significant 14% positive fandom advantage in the White demographic. He also enjoys a 10-point edge in (lower) anti-fandom. The pattern essentially reverses in the Non-White segment, as Harris has a 10-point advantage in fandom and a 17-point edge in anti-fandom. Trump’s anti-fandom in the Non-White segment is critical to the campaign. Nearly half of this segment has antipathy or hate for Trump. This high anti-fandom suggests an opportunity for the Harris campaign to emphasize racial angles in their attacks on Trump. Table 4: Candidate Fandom by Race In addition to fandom and anti-fandom rates across demographic categories, insights can be gleaned by looking at segmentation variables that reflect cultural values or personality. Table 5 shows fandom and anti-fandom rates for Trump and Harris for segments defined by fandom for Taylor Swift (Swifties) and Baseball. The Swifties skew towards Harris. The implication is that young women engaged in popular culture have more positive fandom for Harris and more negativity toward Trump. This is unsurprising given the content of the popular culture and Swift’s personal liberalism. The Swiftie segment shows a much stronger skew for Harris than all but the Non-White segment. Examining the data at a cultural level is vital as it indicates that it isn’t necessarily youth or gender where Harris has an advantage but a combination of youth, gender, and a specific type of cultural engagement. The table also includes fandom rates for baseball fans. In the Baseball Fan segment, Trump enjoys an 8% point fandom advantage and a 7% anti-fandom advantage (lower anti-fandom). Like the case of the Swifties, the fandom rates of Baseball Fans reveal something about Trump’s core support. Baseball is a very traditional game with an older fan base, and traditionalism is probably the core value of Trump fans. Trump’s negative advertising is likely to focus on the threats to traditional values (i.e., Harris is a San Francisco liberal). Table 5: Candidate Fandom and Cultural Segments Commentary and Prediction Fandom is a powerful metric for predicting political success, but like most data points, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Fandom is a measure of unwavering core support while anti-fandom measures the group that will never support and is likely to show up to vote against a candidate. Examining fandom rates across multiple segments reveals that Harris’ core support is concentrated in specific cultural and racial segments. The analysis also suggests that Trump's core support is broader than is usually acknowledged and that his main problem is significant anti-fandom with women and minorities. Harris’ problem is a lack of love, while Trump’s is too much hate. Notably, I am not paying too much attention to the current wave of excitement and enthusiasm surrounding Harris. The recent enthusiasm is likely more a manifestation of the Democratic base’s hopes and a relentless media onslaught than an actual increase in passion for Harris. Maybe there will be a permanent shift upward in Harris’s fandom, but I don’t see any logic for why this would occur. Harris isn’t suddenly more likable or aspirational than she was last month. The argument that the American people are becoming more acquainted with her is dubious, given that she has been the Vice President or a major presidential candidate for almost five years. What are the implications for the upcoming election? Voting is not only about fandom or hate, so we must consider some additional factors. For instance, many potential voters lack passion and knowledge and are more prone to vote based on identity rather than ideology. If a region or demographic segment consistently votes for a party 75% of the time, that’s voting more based on fixed identities than current societal conditions. The American electorate has many of these types of fixed-preference voter segments. Furthermore, as the American electorate becomes more diverse, identity-based voting seems to be making presidential contests more predictable. The baseline seems to be that the Democratic candidate will win the popular vote by a few percentage points, and the Electoral College will come down to a few states, such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Examining past electoral maps shows far more shifting of states across elections. Now, all but a handful of states are regarded as non-competitive. The Figure below shows the presidential popular vote margins for the last 50 years. It shows a trend towards smaller margins for the winning candidate, which is at least partly due to growing ethnic diversity and more fixed (at least in the near and medium terms) identity-based voting. Over the last 13 cycles, the margin of victory has dropped by about 1% every four years. Demographic change has also locked in a high baseline level of support for Democratic candidates. The last time a Republican won the popular vote was in 2004, with George Bush as the incumbent. Figure 1: Presidential Vote Margin 1972 to 2020 In addition to shrinking election margins, demographic change promises to change future campaign tones. The increasing relevance of fandom and anti-fandom, combined with the growing diversity of the electorate, will make 2024 an extremely negative campaign. The 2024 election will be determined by identity-based demographic trends and negative (anti-fandom) marketing campaigns. Demographics are destiny, and America is changing rapidly in ways that make it increasingly difficult for the Republicans to win the popular vote. It doesn’t matter if the Democrat is Harris, Newsom, Clinton, or Whitmer while the Republican is Rubio, Haley, Cruz, or Burgum. The baseline is probably 52% to 48%, D to R. Candidate fandom and anti-fandom probably shift the vote 2 or 3 percent in either direction. The correlation of demographic traits with voting behaviors creates incentives for campaign strategies that focus on identity. Republicans are eager to shift some percentage of Black or Hispanic voters to their cause because it simultaneously reduces the Democrats' base and grows Republican totals. In contrast, Democrats need to motivate marginal voters in the female, Black, and Hispanic segments to turn out. Fear-based appeals are the most effective tool for both parties' goals. Negative messaging is also prevalent because of the general view of politicians. Politicians tend to inspire more antipathy (anti-fandom) than admiration (fandom). The fandom data shows this, as both candidates have far more anti-fans than fans (this holds with other politicians) . The modern election calculus is, therefore, focused on aggressive negative ads that inspire marginal voters to take the initiative to vote against a hated candidate. Passion drives behavior, and it's far easier to drive fear and hatred of a candidate than to inspire passion and admiration. Considering the fandom data and the current electorate, I have two predictions. First, we will witness an incredibly nasty race. Harris’s best bet is to demonize Trump to motivate the anti-Trump voters to turn out. The American culture of 2024 includes constant repetition that many Democratic voting constituencies are marginalized and threatened. These segments are best motivated by using messages that cast the Republicans as the danger or oppressor. Women will fear losing reproductive rights, and African Americans will be primed with threats to voting rights. Trump will also employ negative messaging, but Trump’s adoption of a negative campaign comes from a slightly different motivation. Trump’s core support consists of conservatives who are frustrated by a lack of cultural power and representation. This group is looking for someone who will fight for their values. This desire for a “fighting advocate” explains much of Trump’s appeal, as his supporters are enthusiastic about his “mean tweets and nicknames.” There will also be fear-based advertising as Harris will be positioned as wanting to defund police and open the border. Second, Trump wins in a close contest. Comparing Trump’s and Harris’ fandom and anti-fandom suggests the Harris campaign faces an uphill challenge. Despite the current blitz of enthusiasm for Harris as a replacement for a failing Joe Biden, her “brand” has not shown an ability to stimulate passion, and her dislike levels exceed Trump's. It seems unlikely that she will be able to inspire fans. While Trump has a significant fanbase and weaknesses in terms of strong anti-fandom levels in minority and cultural segments, he probably beat Clinton in 2016 because her anti-fandom was equivalent to his. In contrast, he lost to Biden because Biden had less anti-fandom (in 2020). Kamala Harris seems more like Clinton than Biden, so look for a similar outcome as in 2016. The bottom-line prediction: An exceptionally negative campaign, with Trump’s greater baseline fandom and Harris’s charisma deficit leading to a narrow Trump victory. As in 2016,Trump wins the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. Addendum: Future Fandom Lesson The structure of the American electorate and the propensity of people to vote based on identity rather than ideology mean that negative campaigns are the standard in the near future. The essential observation is that demographic trends create an electorate that is more a collection of identity segments than a homogeneous population that varies in ideology. An increasingly diverse electorate likely means increasingly negative presidential campaigns as negative or fear-based appeals are especially effective when elections focus on threats to identity groups. The tragedy of this situation is that the negative messages of campaigns amplify racial division and acrimony. When the next election occurs, the electorate is even more polarized, and negative or fear-based appeals are again the most effective. Mike Lewis is an expert in the areas of analytics and marketing. This approach makes Professor Lewis a unique expert on fandom as his work addresses the complete process from success on the field to success at the box office and the campaign trail. Michael is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.   Interested in following Future Fandom! Subscribe for free to receive new posts.

Can the Olympics Help Americans Forget Politics (at Least for 16 Days)?

Americans are divided on a multitude of different issues, but could the Olympic Games unite the country – at least for the duration of an Olympiad? A Baylor University sports marketing and branding expert says yes, the Olympics can help bring people together even when it’s hard for them to agree about anything else. In his latest Forbes Sports Money column, Baylor University sports marketing and branding expert Kirk Wakefield, Ph.D., executive director of the Curb Center for Sales Strategy in Sports and Entertainment (S3E) program at Baylor’s Hankamer School of Business, analyzed a July 8 national population poll that asked Americans questions about politics but also included the Steen Happiness Index (SHI). The 20-item happiness index provides a series of statements for participants to read and choose the one from each group that describes their state at that moment. Happiness items focus on three types of happy lives: the pleasant life (experiencing and savoring pleasures), the engaged life (losing the self in engaging activities) and the meaningful life (participating in meaningful activities). Are people happier when watching the Olympics? “Happy people follow the Olympics and people who follow the Olympics are happy people,” Wakefield wrote. The higher people scored on the happiness index, the more likely they are to: Watch at least some of the Olympics (49.75%) Root for the U.S. to win (31.8%) Follow the results of the Olympics (28.1%) Read stories about athletes in the Olympics (19.6%) Will talk with others about the Olympics events (18.7%) “Controlling for age, gender, income, education, race and marital status, Americans who follow the Olympics in one, two, or three of these ways are somewhat more happy people (+4% on the SHI). But those who follow the Olympics in four or all five of these ways are significantly happier people (+10% on the SHI),” Wakefield wrote. Who is happiest when the Olympics are on? The happiest? Those would be the Americans who love to talk about the Olympics with others while also cheering for U.S. athletes to win. In fact, they are about 14% happier than those who don’t follow the Olympics, according to the SHI. “Perhaps best of all, people of all political leaning and presidential preferences are equally likely to follow the Olympics. No matter the party, people can party together in unity following the Olympics,” Wakefield wrote. “Maybe we can’t forget politics. But we can give it a break to watch the Olympics.” ABOUT KIRK WAKEFIELD, PH.D. Kirk Wakefield, Ph.D., is The Edwin W. Streetman Professor of Retail Marketing at Baylor University, where he is the Executive Director of the Curb Center for Sales Strategy in Sports and Entertainment (S3E) program in the Hankamer School of Business. The author of Team Sports Marketing and founder of Wakefield Research Partners, Wakefield has conducted fan research on partnerships, pricing, promotions, sportscape, service, and anything else that explains why fans do what they do in nearly every venue in sports, including the NBA, NFL, MLB, MLS, NHL and NASCAR. His scholarly works appear in a breadth of journals: Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Service Research, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research and Journal of Sport Management, among others. Wakefield is a regular contributor to Sports Money on Forbes.com. ABOUT THE CURB CENTER FOR SALES STRATEGY IN SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT (S3E) The Center for Sales Strategy in Sports and Entertainment (S3E) at Baylor University is the only program in the U.S. focused on generating revenue for sports. S3E graduates have career opportunities in sales, digital marketing or business analytics for major league teams, university athletics, corporations and agencies. Baylor is the only university combining learning with practice in partnership with the Athletics Department to prepare graduates for careers in the business of sports. The S3E program is unique in vision, values, mission and culture to transform the business of sports and entertainment. Consistent with the Christian mission and purpose of Baylor University, we prepare passionate servant leaders to positively influence lives in places people go to play or watch others play.

Goizueta Professors on Olympic Fandom, Viewership, Economics of the Games

As we countdown to the July 26 opening of the Olympic Games in Paris, we have two Goizueta Business School experts who can discuss the Olympics, including fandom, viewership, and the economics of the Paris Games. Professor Mike Lewis studies fandom and has spent many years tracking how sports can stay relevant and lucrative across generations. “While the Olympics is presented as a pure sports competition, it’s actually a unique sports entertainment event that leverages underpaid athletes and national identities to create one of the foremost sports-based advertising platforms.” His research on this year’s Olympics finds: Viewership skews to an older audience - with Baby Boomers showing the biggest fandom. The Games have an ongoing challenge to attract a younger audience. The Olympic broadcast will have to work hard to gain the attention of Gen Z and Millennials. Olympic fans are pretty even between genders, which is very different from typical sports fans that are more than 50% male. Check out his latest research: And his latest podcast on the Games: Professor Tom Smith studies the economics of sports. He can discuss: The economic impact of the Games for Paris during what is usually a high tourist season. The economics of decisions by city leaders to repurpose current facilities, landscape and architecture for the Paris games. What other cities can learn from the Paris games. Both Tom and Mike are available to speak with media about the upcoming Olympic Games - simply click on either expert's icon now to arrange an interview today.

It Has to Matter Who Wins: Futurecasting the MLB All-Star Game

Globe Life Field in Arlington, home of the 2023 World Series champion Texas Rangers, will play host to the 94th edition of the Major League Baseball All-Star Game on July 16, marking the second time in franchise history the Rangers will host the Midsummer Classic. MLB’s All-Star game – which matches up the best players from the American League and National League as selected by fans, managers and players – is considered one of best all-star contests among professional sports, said Kirk Wakefield, Ph.D., executive director of the Curb Center for Sales Strategy in Sports and Entertainment (S3E) program at Baylor University’s Hankamer School of Business. However, the game faces continued headwinds, Wakefield said, ranging from lagging viewership to fan voting to a game that is more an exhibition than a meaningful game. Wakefield Weighs In: Five Thoughts on MLB's All-Star Game Is the MLB All-Star game the best All-Star contest of all major leagues? Wakefield: Yes, it’s the only one where players seem to try their best. The NBA and NFL – who have practically given up – have declining viewership since 2011. Unfortunately, MLB All-Star game is on the same downhill skid. (According to Statista, viewership has declined from 22 million in 1993 to seven million in 2023.) The reason why is it doesn’t really matter who wins. If the players don’t care who wins, neither will fans. Further, fans aren’t particularly a fan of only one league so that it really matters if one league has bragging rights. That was less the case years ago before interleague play. How could viewership improve in any of the All-Star games? Wakefield: It has to matter who wins. MLB tried this with home field advantage for the World Series. They gave that up. The current approach in baseball is truly an exhibition because every player gets to play, so it’s like three players at every position playing three innings. That’s not how a manager would play it if trying to win. And it’s not like it used to be when the starters (who were more likely to be the best at their positions) played longer. One suggestion I’ve heard is to make the payoff big enough for the winners so that the players gave it their best. Get a sponsor to put up the money so the winners each make seven figures and could be the players and managers will play more like a team trying to win. Does Monday’s prelude, the hugely popular Homerun Derby, enhance Tuesday’s game? Wakefield: The Homerun Derby is popular because fans do follow individual players. It matters more who wins. That said, the HR derby’s viewership has still lagged. Bottom line: Fans are loyal to teams more than to leagues or individual players. Fan voting… Need we say more? Wakefield: Major market teams with huge fan bases will dominate, but what about the Kansas City Royals, who at one point in the season were on pace for the biggest year-over-year improvement in wins and losses? Given the way fan voting has become essentially a promotion game to get more fans to vote more often, it’s hardly representative of anything other than largest markets with the best promoters. The good news is that the MLB All-Star game will be quite the occasion in Arlington, Texas, with a bevy of game-related activities and events July 13-16. Wakefield: Arlington is an optimal location central to the U.S. with plenty of space to blow out the occasion. It’s like the Texas State Fair came to baseball, where all the rides and attractions are baseball-happy. ABOUT KIRK WAKEFIELD, PH.D. Kirk Wakefield, Ph.D., is The Edwin W. Streetman Professor of Retail Marketing at Baylor University, where he is the Executive Director of the Curb Center for Sales Strategy in Sports and Entertainment (S3E) program in the Hankamer School of Business at Baylor University. The author of Team Sports Marketing and founder of Wakefield Research Partners, Wakefield has conducted fan research on partnerships, pricing, promotions, sportscape, service, and anything else that explains why fans do what they do in nearly every venue in sports, including the NBA, NFL, MLB, MLS, NHL and NASCAR. His scholarly works appear in a breadth of journals: Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Service Research, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research and Journal of Sport Management, among others. Wakefield is a regular contributor to Sports Money on Forbes.com. ABOUT THE CURB CENTER FOR SALES STRATEGY IN SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT (S3E) The Center for Sales Strategy in Sports and Entertainment (S3E) at Baylor University is the only program in the U.S. focused on generating revenue for sports. S3E graduates have career opportunities in sales, digital marketing or business analytics for major league teams, university athletics, corporations and agencies. Baylor is the only university combining learning with practice in partnership with the Athletics Department to prepare graduates for careers in the business of sports. The S3E program is unique in vision, values, mission and culture to transform the business of sports and entertainment. Consistent with the Christian mission and purpose of Baylor University, we prepare passionate servant leaders to positively influence lives in places people go to play or watch others play.

AI Art: What Should Fair Compensation Look Like?

New research from Goizueta’s David Schweidel looks at questions of compensation to human artists when images based on their work are generated via artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is making art. That is to say, compelling artistic creations based on thousands of years of art production may now be just a few text prompts away. And it’s all thanks to generative AI trained on internet images. You don’t need Picasso’s skillset to create something in his style. You just need an AI-powered image generator like DALL-E 3 (created by OpenAI), Midjourney, or Stable Diffusion. If you haven’t tried one of these programs yet, you really should (free or beta versions make this a low-risk proposal). For example, you might use your phone to snap a photo of your child’s latest masterpiece from school. Then, you might ask DALL-E to render it in the swirling style of Vincent Van Gogh. A color printout of that might jazz up your refrigerator door for the better. Intellectual Property in the Age of AI Now, what if you wanted to sell your AI-generated art on a t-shirt or poster? Or what if you wanted to create a surefire logo for your business? What are the intellectual property (IP) implications at work? Take the case of a 35-year-old Polish artist named Greg Rutkowski. Rutkowski has reportedly been included in more AI-image prompts than Pablo Picasso, Leonardo da Vinci, or Van Gogh. As a professional digital artist, Rutkowski makes his living creating striking images of dragons and battles in his signature fantasy style. That is, unless they are generated by AI, in which case he doesn’t. “They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But what about the case of a working artist? What if someone is potentially not receiving payment because people can easily copy his style with generative AI?” That’s the question David Schweidel, Rebecca Cheney McGreevy Endowed Chair and professor of marketing at Goizueta Business School is asking. Flattery won’t pay the bills. “We realized early on that IP is a huge issue when it comes to all forms of generative AI,” Schweidel says. “We have to resolve such issues to unlock AI’s potential.” Schweidel’s latest working paper is titled “Generative AI and Artists: Consumer Preferences for Style and Fair Compensation.” It is coauthored with professors Jason Bell, Jeff Dotson, and Wen Wang (of University of Oxford, Brigham Young University, and University of Maryland, respectively). In this paper, the four researchers analyze a series of experiments with consumers’ prompts and preferences using Midjourney and Stable Diffusion. The results lead to some practical advice and insights that could benefit artists and AI’s business users alike. Real Compensation for AI Work? In their research, to see if compensating artists for AI creations was a viable option, the coauthors wanted to see if three basic conditions were met: – Are artists’ names frequently used in generative AI prompts? – Do consumers prefer the results of prompts that cite artists’ names? – Are consumers willing to pay more for an AI-generated product that was created citing some artists’ names? Crunching the data, they found the same answer to all three questions: yes. More specifically, the coauthors turned to a dataset that contains millions of “text-to-image” prompts from Stable Diffusion. In this large dataset, the researchers found that living and deceased artists were frequently mentioned by name. (For the curious, the top three mentioned in this database were: Rutkowski, artgerm [another contemporary artist, born in Hong Kong, residing in Singapore] and Alphonse Mucha [a popular Czech Art Nouveau artist who died in 1939].) Given that AI users are likely to use artists’ names in their text prompts, the team also conducted experiments to gauge how the results were perceived. Using deep learning models, they found that including an artist’s name in a prompt systematically improves the output’s aesthetic quality and likeability. The Impact of Artist Compensation on Perceived Worth Next, the researchers studied consumers’ willingness to pay in various circumstances. The researchers used Midjourney with the following dynamic prompt: “Create a picture of ⟨subject⟩ in the style of ⟨artist⟩”. The subjects chosen were the advertising creation known as the Most Interesting Man in the World, the fictional candy tycoon Willy Wonka, and the deceased TV painting instructor Bob Ross (Why not?). The artists cited were Ansel Adams, Frida Kahlo, Alphonse Mucha and Sinichiro Wantabe. The team repeated the experiment with and without artists in various configurations of subjects and styles to find statistically significant patterns. In some, consumers were asked to consider buying t-shirts or wall art. In short, the series of experiments revealed that consumers saw more value in an image when they understood that the artist associated with it would be compensated. Here’s a sample of imagery AI generated using three subjects names “in the style of Alphonse Mucha.” Source: Midjourney cited in http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4428509 “I was honestly a bit surprised that people were willing to pay more for a product if they knew the artist would get compensated,” Schweidel explains. “In short, the pay-per-use model really resonates with consumers.” In fact, consumers preferred pay-per-use over a model in which artists received a flat fee in return for being included in AI training data. That is to say, royalties seem like a fairer way to reward the most popular artists in AI. Of course, there’s still much more work to be done to figure out the right amount to pay in each possible case. What Can We Draw From This? We’re still in the early days of generative AI, and IP issues abound. Notably, the New York Times announced in December that it is suing OpenAI (the creator of ChatGPT) and Microsoft for copyright infringement. Millions of New York Times articles have been used to train generative AI to inform and improve it. “The lawsuit by the New York Times could feasibly result in a ruling that these models were built on tainted data. Where would that leave us?” asks Schweidel. "One thing is clear: we must work to resolve compensation and IP issues. Our research shows that consumers respond positively to fair compensation models. That’s a path for companies to legally leverage these technologies while benefiting creators." David Schweidel To adopt generative AI responsibly in the future, businesses should consider three things. First, they should communicate to consumers when artists’ styles are used. Second, they should compensate contributing artists. And third, they should convey these practices to consumers. “And our research indicates that consumers will feel better about that: it’s ethical.” AI is quickly becoming a topic of regulators, lawmakers and journalists and if you're looking to know more - let us help. David A. Schweidel, Professor of Marketing, Goizueta Business School at Emory University To connect with David to arrange an interview - simply click his icon now.

The Fast Food Wars are on! Let our experts explain the history behind the industry

In the contemporary culinary landscape, fast food stands as a pervasive and influential force, shaping not only our eating habits but also broader societal trends. This topic is newsworthy due to its significant impact on public health, economic structures, and cultural dynamics. The history of fast food offers a rich narrative that intersects with various pressing issues such as nutrition, labor practices, and globalization. Furthermore, the evolution of fast food reflects changes in consumer behavior, technological advancements in food production, and shifts in marketing strategies. Key areas for exploration include: The Rise of Fast Food Chains: Examining the origins and growth of iconic fast food brands and their role in transforming the food industry. Health Implications and Nutritional Debates: Analyzing the impact of fast food on public health, including discussions around obesity, dietary choices, and nutritional content. Economic Influence and Labor Practices: Investigating the economic contributions of the fast food industry, its employment practices, and the ongoing debates around wages and working conditions. Cultural Impact and Globalization: Exploring how fast food has influenced cultural identities, consumer behaviors, and the spread of Western food culture globally. Technological Innovations in Food Production: Looking at advancements in food technology that have enabled the mass production and distribution of fast food, from kitchen automation to supply chain logistics. Marketing and Consumer Psychology: Assessing the strategies used by fast food companies to attract and retain customers, including advertising techniques and menu innovations. The history of fast food offers journalists a multifaceted topic with numerous angles to explore, each revealing important insights into how this ubiquitous industry has shaped—and continues to shape—various aspects of modern life. Connect with an Expert about the history of Fast Food: Aidin Namin, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Marketing Analytics, College of Business Administration · Loyola Marymount University Melissa Melough Assistant Professor, Department of Health Behavior and Nutrition Sciences · University of Delaware Matthew McGranaghan Assistant Professor, Marketing · University of Delaware Anna McAlister Assistant Professor of Advertising and Public Relations · Michigan State University David Julian McClements Distinguished Professor of Food Science · University of Massachusetts Amherst To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com Photo credit: Jonathan Borba