The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm
Key success factors in bidding
for hallmark sporting events
Bidding for
hallmark
sporting events
Hans M. Westerbeek, Paul Turner and Lynley Ingerson
Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia
Keywords Tendering, Sport, Marketing planning
Abstract Hallmark sporting events often are commercially driven entertainment entities which
represent an economically important part of the overall sport industry. Because of the high
popularity of international sporting contests, hallmark sporting events attract significant
commercial, media and consumer attention. Cities around the world are beginning to understand
the potential of using these events to draw attention to the host city, which is why the market for
hallmark sporting events is becoming increasingly competitive. In order to award the hosting of
the event to the most suitable organizer, event owners often require potential hosts to bid. The
most important elements in this process have been largely based on logical assumptions rather
than empirical data. This study focused on the bid process in order to ascertain the important
elements essential in achieving a successful bid. Using an international sample of 135 event
owners and organizers, principal components analysis delivered eight factors that were deemed
critical in the process of bidding for hallmark sporting events. The findings are discussed in
relation to previous research along with their managerial implications.
Introduction
Sporting events are rapidly increasing in popularity as a means of attracting
attention to particular geographic (city) locations (Getz, 1998). Increasingly,
cities are basing their city marketing efforts around hallmark events (e.g.
Manchester and the Commonwealth Games, Rotterdam and Euro 2000, Osaka
and the Olympic Games), in order to maximize the benefits to be achieved from
event-driven tourism, sponsorship, and media exposure. Sporting events make
up an important part of the overall hallmark event industry. A critical issue
that has emerged from the attractiveness of sport is the reality that a limited
number of hallmark sporting events exist. This has led to fierce competition
among cities to be successful in ``winning the business'' of playing event host.
This paper identifies the impact of sporting events on a city from the
perspective of the bidding process. In the bidding phase a host city or bidding
organization enters into a complex process, that should lead to the event being
allocated to their city. While the capacity to successfully host the event,
focusing on outcomes represented through mechanisms such as financial and
economic indicators, is the commonly expressed measure of success included in
the literature, this research identifies the elements that are critical in the initial
bid stage of the event. It is extremely difficult to be seen to be successful, if the
city cannot overcome the initial hurdle of obtaining the right to host the event
in the first place. Given the importance of the bid process in the context of
managing events, it is surprising to note that very little research has been
conducted in this area.
Integrating previous research into hallmark events, and place (city)
marketing and extending bid-related research undertaken by Ingerson and
303
Received October 2000
Revised May 2001
Accepted June 2001
International Marketing Review,
Vol. 19 No. 3, 2002, pp. 303-322.
# MCB UP Limited, 0265-1335
DOI 10.1108/02651330210430712
International
Marketing
Review
19,3
304
Westerbeek (2000), the authors analyzed the input of 135 event managers in
order to ascertain the key factors that determine success in bidding for major
sporting events. The key factors in the bid process are identified in order to
provide an insight into which measures of success (pertaining to hosting
hallmark sporting events) are considered important by both event organizers
(the event bidders) and event owners (governing body or promoter).
Hallmark events
Hallmark events are regularly defined as special events, mega-events and
unique, status or major events (Getz, 1997; Hall, 1995; Mules and Faulkner,
1996). Similar features, including ``international dimensions, short-termed, and
may be either a one-off occurrence or conducted on a regular cycle'' (Hamilton,
1997, p. 124), characterize these events. From the literature, size emerges as a
dominant distinguishing feature separating hallmark from non-hallmark
events. The size of an event can be operationalized in four different ways and is
first determined by the conspicuous involvement of national and regional
government authorities. Government agencies provide an event with the
development of policies, infrastructure or making resources available
supporting the attraction of events to major cities.
Second, the domestic and/or international media, coupled with the selling of
broadcasting rights, are important characteristics of hallmark events. The
support of the media prior to or during an event guarantees exposure and
consequently raises world-wide awareness of the event and host city. The 2000
Olympics in Sydney generated in excess of A$1.3 billion in revenue from
broadcasting the Games (Sport Business, 2001), indicating the substantial
financial returns for event owners, organizers and the host city brought about
by media support for the event.
Third, the superior technical competencies required, such as technologically
advanced (premier) facilities, suitable event location and skilled personnel, are
directly related to size of the event. The demands placed on services provided
by host cities to deliver an event that is of superior quality to other event types
(i.e. community or regional) means that the technical competencies must satisfy
a number of requirements. This includes the technical standards set by
international federations pertaining to competition (dedicated and shared
venues, competition program), non-competition elements (accommodation and
transport) and personnel issues (competition management and event
management). In particular, the event management team, made up of both bid
and operational teams, is composed of expert people capable of carrying out
professional relations with event owners and organizers prior to and
throughout the event as well as having the technical expertise to stage the
event.
Finally, as a fourth distinguishing feature, a city needs broad support from
both direct and indirect stakeholders. Overall approval must come from the
general public, government, (target) markets and other business sectors.
Because so much is invested from the ``public purse'' in bidding for and staging
an event, strong community support is essential to the process (Ernst & Young,
1992; Ingerson and Westerbeek, 2000; McGeoch and Korporaal, 1995).
Hallmark sporting events, whether they are a regular fixture (such as Super
Bowl in the USA), or a one-off special event (such as the Pan-Pacific Swimming
Championships), project a ``high status image'' (Law, 1993). An additional
benefit of these events is the number of people who are attracted to them.
People are often drawn to destinations because of a hallmark (sporting) event
rather than the region itself. For example, tourism estimates of visits to Sydney
between 1997 and 2004, as a direct response to the Olympic Games, have been
set at 1.7 million. Actual visits for the period during 2000 have been estimated
to be 20 percent of this total (Forecast, 2001).
Arising from the growth of the tourism industry has been an emphasis on
place (or city) marketing and promotion and the emergence of hallmark
sporting events to support and enhance this promotion. Place marketing
represents the techniques utilized by certain organizations to raise the
awareness of their particular destination to specified target markets (Moutinho
and Witt, 1994). Promotional objectives relate to capturing the attention of
international visitors and to providing information in an endeavor to entice
them to travel to a specific destination.
City marketing
It is increasingly accepted that for cities to (re)establish their position as a
principal center for business, culture and economic activity in a region, they
need to develop enterprising and attractive city-marketing strategies. City
marketing is a way of branding a city, so that consumers can give meaning to
the attributes, values, benefits or activities which that city offers. Ingerson and
Westerbeek (2000) argued that Melbourne is branded as the ``sporting capital of
Australia'' because of the wide range of hallmark sporting events (e.g.
Australian Open tennis and golf, Grand Prix Formula One, AFL Grand Final,
Melbourne Cup) to which it plays host, the city's international standard
sporting facilities and massive community support (both in attitude and
attendance). The city brand conveys a certain image that differentiates the city
from other cities world-wide. Arguably, it is the strength of a city's brand
image that encourages people to visit the place. The result is that governments
and private industry have embraced tourism as a means of promoting
economic growth (Hall, 1995; Syme et al., 1989). The city has emerged as a
clearly identifiable and marketable object of tourism marketing strategies.
Kotler et al. (1993) identify four target markets to which place marketers
direct their attention. These include visitors (including athletes, officials,
spectators and the media identified by Getz (1998)), residents and workers,
business and industry, and export markets. The focus of sporting events is on
the visitor segment, including business and non-business visitors. Business
visitors include persons who travel to a place for meetings, conventions, to
inspect sites or to buy or sell something. Non-business visitors include tourists
who travel to see the place and travelers who are visiting family and friends.
Bidding for
hallmark
sporting events
305
International
Marketing
Review
19,3
306
Individuals travelling to a particular destination to attend the event or teams
and participants attending events as well as organizing committees and such
can also be categorized as non-business visitors.
Building-blocks of successful cities
Hallmark sporting events have a significant impact on a city or, in other words,
on components that, when looked at holistically, make up an important part of
what is described as the city. These building-blocks of the city include political
components, economic components, architecture and city planning and
psychological and community effects.
Syme et al. (1989, p. 219) argued that ``hallmark events are, first and
foremost, political events. The very nature of the hallmark event as an imagebuilding exercise creates a situation in which personal and institutional
interests receive a high degree of publicity and visibility''. This comment
reflects the significant impact hallmark events have politically in terms of
personal and community (primarily economic) benefits they provide. The
nature of hallmark events and decisions affecting the hosting situation is
derived from the political process which involves the prominence of key actors
including individuals, interest groups and organizations, in a struggle for
power (Syme et al., 1989). From a macro-political perspective hallmark events
act as a means to enhance a destination's image and ideology. At micropolitical level politicians have the opportunity to use the event to support their
individual political ambitions and goals.
Research has revealed that government involvement in bringing events to a
city is on the increase (Law, 1993; Hall, 1995; Jackson, 1995). The strength of
governments, backing bids to attract events, can be observed by the level of
spending dedicated to the event, which is in competition with other (cultural)
activities undertaken by government and other interest groups. Openly
supporting a bid (financially) increases the pressure of accountability to the
public and hence support will only be given, if it is clear that justifiable and
measurable benefits for all stakeholders are generated by hosting the event.
The economic activity associated with staging hallmark sporting events (as
the second building-block) can create significant economic benefits for the host
destination. Howard and Crompton (1995, p. 55) defined economic impact as
``. . . the net economic change in a host economy that results from spending
attributed to a sports event or facility''. Economic impact studies enable the
quantification of the benefits to a community to be ascertained in order to
justify the investment in the event. The Olympic Games provide an obvious
example of significant economic contribution by a hallmark sporting event.
The 1984 Los Angeles Olympics made a profit of US$125 million with the
Seoul Olympics exceeding that profit by a further US$50 million (Law, 1993).
Outcomes of this magnitude serve to encourage cities to bid for high status
events.
While focusing on the economic benefits presented by hallmark sporting
events, there are significant financial burdens that such events place on host
communities. This financial commitment to events often requires a degree of
community assistance through public funding. Syme et al. (1989) indicate that
the external benefits associated with hallmark sporting events enable this
financial assistance to be classified as an investment, with clear reciprocal
benefits to the host community.
Architecture and town planning associated with an event relate to the event
venues, to accommodation analysis and allocation, and to the provision for
transport, media and supplementary services. The existing infrastructure is
crucial pertaining to the functional demands placed on the city by the event as
well as how it contributes to the (modern) image of the host destination (Syme
et al., 1989).
The National Institute of Economic and Industry Research (NIEIR, 1997)
identified that major one-off sporting and cultural events are inevitably held in
large cities to take advantage of visitor accommodation and transport links
available. It is critical to have a tight infrastructure in place in order to
influence and coerce event owners to use a city. A tight infrastructure gives
shape and direction to the way a bid is prepared and delivered. Ernst & Young
(1992, p. 7) extended the concept of infrastructure by also including the
politicians, civic and community groups, government authorities, social and
cultural movers and shakers in the community, key business leaders, and local
media. They further stated that ``after organizing the infrastructure, the event
promoter can approach the governing body or international organization
running the event with a key part of his bid being the backing of the
community infrastructure'', the latter logically leading to the fourth buildingblock of a city, that of psychological and community effects.
Psychological and community effects relate to the impact of aspects such as
competency, self-efficacy and sense of pride on the community, athletes,
officials and tourists. Euphoria arising through the media and promotional
activities associated with hosting major sporting events tends to provide the
community with a sense of accomplishment and empowerment. These
psychological elements can heighten the destination's confidence and
encourage future bids. Equally, the successful hosting of one event can develop
skills enabling the capacity to display success and support for other regional
bids (Syme et al., 1989). The sense of pride felt by South Australia in hosting the
1985 Australian Formula One Grand Prix is highlighted by Burns and Mules
(1986, p. 182), who stated that ``for many, of course, there was the general air of
excitement and the feeling that South Australia was participating in a world
event. Perhaps for a while we secured for ourselves some of the glamour often
associated with other Grand Prix venues such as Monza, Monaco and Brands
Hatch''.
Little research has been undertaken in determining what a host city is able
to contribute to the organization of a hallmark sporting event. A host city can
positively contribute to the delivery of a successful event. For example, a city
may already have an excellent infrastructure in place such as qualified
personnel, international standard facilities and government support, which all
Bidding for
hallmark
sporting events
307
International
Marketing
Review
19,3
308
assist in organizing a successful event. Alternatively, the city's contribution
may be its ability to provide an environment that is suitable to successfully
promoting the event owner's sponsor brands and other marketing
programmes. Others may argue that a city is selected, because it is able to
provide the political leverage needed by the event owner for global activities or
that the city simply has the spectator support which adds atmosphere and
revenue opportunities to the event.
Whilst there appear to be many benefits for the host city when organizing
major sporting events, it is important to study aspects of the city itself and
the impact it has on an event's success or failure. In particular, events that
undergo a bidding process and must meet particular criteria for the city to be
chosen as the host for a hallmark event need to be given special attention. The
quality of the bid is likely to be a vital part of a city's integrated marketing
communications strategy towards securing high profile events.
Marketing a city's event-hosting capabilities and services: the bid
process
Surprisingly little research attention has been devoted to the process of bidding
for the right to host the event. Ingerson and Westerbeek (2000) ascertained the
importance of experience and knowledge in bid team structure, pointing out
that, for successive bid attempts to stage the Olympics in Australia, some
individuals have been involved with more than one bid. Experience in the bid
process enables bid team members to build relationships with event organizers
over a period of time. As bid team members gain experience, they become
better negotiators and are better able to show genuine commitment hosting
future hallmark events. Strong bid teams are able to develop effective internal
and external networks, which assist them in building alliances and increase
their competencies.
Crockett (1994, p. 13) recognized that cities bidding for events ``need to get
smarter about the bidding process'' because of the limited supply of hallmark
status events that exist and the increased demand for events world-wide. He
identified six different considerations (economic impact, region promotion,
financial returns, location decision, needs of decision makers, and professional
presentation) a bid team must assess prior to entering a bidding process.
However, there has been no empirical research to test the validity of these
considerations. Swart (1999) argued the importance of strategic planning in
bidding for hallmark events in South Africa and focused the discussion on the
theoretical components of strategic planning (mission, objectives, external
factors and internal resources, strategy formulation, implementation and
control).
Qualitative research carried out by Ingerson and Westerbeek (2000) is one
of the few empirical studies that has developed a comprehensive range of
criteria that are important in relation to the bid process for hallmark sporting
events. In their review of literature, Ingerson and Westerbeek (2000) found
eight bid process criteria that consistently emerged as being of some
significance. They classified these into primary and secondary criteria.
Primary criteria were identified as being imperative to the formal application to
host the event and included political, economic, media, infrastructure and
technical. They pointed out that for a city to be considered a potential bidder it
must meet these criteria as defined by the event owners. On the other hand,
secondary criteria, such as socio-cultural impact, competitive and business
support, not only had less research supporting their importance, they were
considered less important, because they were deemed only to enhance the bid
proposal, not to be fundamental to the success of failure or an event. Using
these criteria as a guideline, six highly experienced bid campaigners from four
countries were interviewed (semi-structured interviews). Each of the interviews
lasted between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half hours and was taped and
fully transcribed for further analysis. Much of the analysis involved codifying
data. Categories for codification were created from the literature review. With
the help of these categories, interviews were analysed independently by two
researchers. The resultant analyses were brought together and used for further
examination. The inter-judge reliability between the two researchers was 91
percent, meaning that more than nine out of ten of the criteria mentioned by
respondents during the interview were (independently) placed in the same
category by both researchers. Where information provided by interviewees did
not ``fit'' a category, it was recorded as new information for further examination
and, resulting from these interviews, eight new criteria were identified that
were perceived as significant (see Table I). The Table includes key features
further describing elements of each criterion.
In discussing the newly identified criteria it was found that some are
specifically related to the bid team. Building relations, commitment, bidding
experience and bid team composition reflect the need to recruit, train and
develop individuals with specific bidding skills. Ingerson and Westerbeek
(2000) noted, in that regard, that experienced bid members bring knowledge
and networks to new bid committees. Building relations is supported by
general relationship marketing theory that maintains that building and
enhancing interactions with key stakeholders (decision-makers) can develop
long-term satisfaction and mutually beneficial partnerships. The better the
relationship marketing skills of bid team members, the greater the strength of
relationships and the more likely that interactions will be favorable for both
parties. Bid teams (cities) must show a commitment to the cause (event) either
through continual bidding for a range of hallmark events, as Manchester has
done at both Olympic and Commonwealth Games level, or with infrastructure
and public support, as Melbourne has achieved by building a range of
international standard facilities.
Building brand equity is best illustrated, ``if the bid organization's name is
immediately recognized, and brand identity can be leveraged'' (Ingerson and
Westerbeek, 2000, p. 248). Given the competitive nature of hallmark event
bidding, it is becoming more important that strategic practices like reputation
building and branding are adopted. Part of the relationship marketing concept
Bidding for
hallmark
sporting events
309
International
Marketing
Review
19,3
310
Primary criteria
Political
Economic
Media
Infrastructure
Technical
Socio-cultural
New primary criteria
Building relations
Ta
Bidding brand equity
T
Commitment
T
Guarantee added value
T
Legacy
Bidding experience
T
Bid team composition
T
Creative statistics
Table I.
Key success criteria
when attracting
hallmark sporting
events to a city
Secondary criteria
Business environment
Competitive environment
Processes, policies and government infrastructures
Government support for bid
Political stability of city
Potential economic impact
Financial stability of the city
Ability to fund event (public and private)
Local media support
Global media exposure access
Portray positive image
Location and accessibility
Transport system
Existence of facilities
Communication system
Technical expertise
Image of the city
Community support
Identifying the individual needs of voting members or important
influencers
Invest time and effort in human contact
Access to people in key positions
Having established facilities, key target markets and visible
power brokers
Have a presence in the marketplace as a bidding organization
Part-time versus full-time bidders
Ability to start construction early (before announcement of the
winning bid)
Great product knowledge in order to show how value can be
increased
Ability to do primary and secondary research (viability,
attitudes, characteristics)
Ability to show where the tax money went
Ability to generate goodwill for the event owner by showing the
legacy
Having the established networks (internal)
Having the established networks (external)
Know what is considered important
Awareness of timing and event-specific issues
Mix of youth and experience
Personal selling skills of the team (bidding people are marketers)
To present those statistics the event owner wants to see
Provide correct information but in a bid-favorable fashion
Ability to attract other businesses to the area
Other city bid strategies
Other events previously bid for
Global competitors
Note: a T = critically time-dependent
Source: Ingerson and Westerbeek (2000)
is the notion of adding value to the relationship. This prompted Ingerson and
Westerbeek (2000) to identify guarantee added value and legacy as being
important criteria for consideration. As part of the determination of the value
they are offering, bid committees need to consider the perceived value from
various stakeholder perspectives. Payne and Holt (1999, p. 46) pointed out that
``the customer's perception of the value created should be determined and then
taken into account when the organization defines its offering''. For example, the
facilities, improved infrastructure, business opportunities or the development
of sport, are common examples of the legacy an event delivers to the city's
occupants. For the event owner, an attractive (popular) host city coupled with a
successfully staged event will give the organization prominence on the world
stage and attract future (high quality) bids for their events. Finally creative
statistics is the ability of event bidders to present event (organizing)-specific
information (e.g. projected spectator numbers or potential profit) in a way that
the bid and the benefits of hosting the event are placed in a bid-favorable light.
Ingerson and Westerbeek (2000) noted that, while some of the new criteria
presented in Table I may appear to be self-evident, there is little research
evidence that they are considered to be important by event managers. They
argued that ``excluding these criteria may lead to incomplete bid preparation
and evaluation'' (p. 251). Of the new criteria described, at least six are
recognized as being ``critically time-dependent'' or, ``in other words, the more
time invested in these areas, the more these criteria will be developed by the
bidding team to their advantage'' (Ingerson and Westerbeek, 2000, p. 251). This
supports Crockett's (1994) and Swart's (1999) reasoning that event bidding is a
process requiring the use of clever strategies and competitive positioning
tactics and builds on the contention of Ingerson and Westerbeek (2000) that
successful event bidding is a continuous and cyclical process. The findings of
Ingerson and Westerbeek (2000) were used as the basis for this quantitative
study. As a result of the interviews with experienced bid campaigners and the
resulting range of 16 criteria that were perceived as critically important by the
interviewees, a survey instrument to identify key success factors of bidding for
hallmark sporting events was developed.
Design of the survey instrument
Criteria presented in Table I were transformed into ``importance statements'',
allowing for importance ratings ranging from 1 (limited importance) to 7 (vital
importance). A list of 81 importance statements was sent to an international
panel of experts (Australia, Canada, the UK, Malaysia). The panel consisted
of academics in sport management (two), practicing sport facility managers
(three), event owners (two) and event organizers (two). All panel members had
either extensive experience or an academic interest (and hence knowledge) in
organizing and bidding for hallmark sporting events. The panel members were
first asked to decide whether the statement, in their opinion, contributed to
describing the criterion and, hence, to either accept or delete the statement.
When accepting the statement, they were given the opportunity to adjust the
Bidding for
hallmark
sporting events
311
International
Marketing
Review
19,3
312
phrasing of the statement, to add other (new) statements, and finally they were
asked to rank-order (from best to worst) all statements to show the researchers
which of all best contributed to the criterion.
The authors consequently analyzed the responses of the panel of experts
pertaining to every single criterion. The majority of suggested additions,
deletions and changes of phrasing were accepted, resulting in a total of 69
items being included in the final questionnaire. All items were preceded by the
phrase ``In your opinion, how important is the issue presented in the following
statement, when aiming to attract a hallmark sporting event to a city?
Importance can range from limited (1) to vital (7)''. Before respondents rated
importance of items, they were asked to respond to seven demographic
questions.
Data collection
Responses were collected from people who had extensive experience in relation
to the bidding process for hallmark sporting events, from the perspective either
of owning the event or of wanting to organize the event. To reach this group
of people, a database was compiled consisting of the names and contact
details of senior management of national or international sporting bodies and
commercial sport management, marketing and/or event management
organizations. National and international directories, a commercial database
for sport organizations, and Internet searches were used as means to compile
the database. This resulted in the identification of 1,200 organizations. Of
these organizations, 300 were sent an invitation to participate in the research
and a hard copy of the questionnaire by mail, and 900 were sent an e-mail
invitation to participate. The e-mail invitation contained the URL (www
address) of a purpose-designed Web site, where respondents could complete the
questionnaire. Two follow-up (e)mailings were conducted, resulting in 50 valid
responses received as a result of the physical mailing and 85 usable electronic
submissions.
Data analysis: principal components analysis
The 135 respondents represented a broad range of organizations including
the Olympic Games, the Commonwealth Games, the American PGA, the
Australian PGA, Formula One Grand Prix, the World Sailing championships,
World Power-lifting championships, the Gay Games and Grand Prix Athletics
meets. The majority of respondents had extensive experience in organizing
major sporting events. Overall, more than 70 percent of the sample had been
involved in the organisation of at least four major sporting events. Thorough
knowledge of event-organizing dynamics is an important required
characteristic of the sample. It ensures a high level of content validity.
Respondents resided in 21 different countries with the majority of respondents
coming from Australia (42 percent). Other countries well represented were the
USA (11 percent), Canada (8 percent), the UK (11 percent) and Switzerland
(8 percent). Countries from South America, Africa and South East Asia were
clearly under-represented compared with the number of invitations to
participate in the research that were sent to those continents. This is likely to
result from a language barrier (the questionnaire was only available in English)
and the fact that the majority of hallmark sporting events are still organized in
North America, Europe and to a lesser extent Australia.
Although the success criteria identified earlier in this paper could be
interpreted as success factors, there is no evidence in the literature that they are
theoretical constructs underlying the bidding process for hallmark sporting
events. From that perspective this research is exploratory, not confirmatory,
and hence it was decided to conduct principal components analysis (PCA)
using orthogonal rotation (varimax) for factor analysis. Both the Bartlett's
test for sphericity (4945.836 with significance level of 0.000) and KaiserMeyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (0.814) indicated the
appropriateness of using factor analysis for this study.
An initial unrestricted PCA delivered 12 factors with eigenvalues
exceeding 1. However, visual inspection of the scree-plot showed a distinct
``break'' in the curve indicating the existence of eight factors (Tabachnick and
Fidell, 1996). At this stage of analysis it was decided to remove those items (18)
that loaded high (> 0:4) on three or more factors in order to increase the
interpretability of the final solution. This resulted in a final number of 51 items
to be entered into a restricted PCA (extracting eight factors). The eight factors
and constituting items are presented in Table II. Eigenvalues, percent of
variance per factor, cumulative percentage, factor loadings and Cronbach
alphas are presented as well. It can be observed that all factor loadings are
higher than 0.4, indicating high significance (Hair et al., 1995; Tabachnick and
Fidell, 1996). It needs to be noted that Oblimin rotation delivered the same
factor structure. It is recognized that the literature suggests applying the rule of
thumb that five valid cases are needed per item analyzed in factor-analysis
(Hair et al., 1995). As a control measure the authors factor analyzed the top
(loading) 27 items. The resulting factor structure replicated the ``core'' of the
structure presented in this paper. In other words, the highest loading items in
the 27-item analysis load on the same factors as in the 51-item exploratory
analysis. Exploratory results were therefore used, because they provide a
``richer'' source of data. The high quality of the research instrument (internal
consistency) is evidenced by high Cronbach alphas ranging from 0.73 to 0.92.
Results and discussion: eight key success factors in the eventbidding process
As can be derived from Table II, there are eight factors that explain close to 70
percent of all variance in relation to what respondents find important issues in
the process of bidding for hallmark sporting events. These eight factors are
accountability, political support, relationship marketing, ability, infrastructure,
bid team composition, communication and exposure, and existing facilities.
The factor accountability represents the capacity of the event-organizing
team and the city to deliver high quality services to the event promoter and to
Bidding for
hallmark
sporting events
313
Table II.
Factors and relevant
(post-rotation) statistics
7.058
4.676
4.224
Accountability
1. The ability to identify key target markets of importance to the event owners (0.708)
2. To have an established and recognized presence in the marketplace as a bidding
organization (0.676)
3. To have a strong reputation (as a city) in hosting successful (sporting) events (0.687)
4. Ability to show where tax money has been spent (0.533)
5. Ability to show how the local community will benefit from the event being held in their
city (0.785)
6. Ability to generate goodwill for the event owner by showing the legacy the event leaves
behind (0.812)
7. Ability to show-case a broad range of excellent sporting facilities in a city (0.628)
8. Sport-specific technical skills of bid team members (0.690)
9. Ability to present those (event-technical) statistics the event owner wants to see (0.751)
10. Ability to provide accurate information but in a bid-favorable fashion (0.536)
Political support
11. Policies of government that will clearly contribute to the quality of the event (0.747)
12. Strong support (financial, physical, human resources) by the government for the bid (0.782)
13. Political stability of the city (0.777)
14. Political stability of the country (0.749)
15. Potential economic contribution of the event to the local economy (0.604)
16. Financial stability of the city (0.616)
Relationship marketing
17. Personal interest/involvement of political leader (0.592)
18. Political power on the bid committee (0.641)
19. To invest time and effort in human contact with key decision makers (event owners)
pertaining to the event (0.540)
20. To have access to people who are in key positions when deciding which city will be given
the right to host the event (0.676)
Eigenvalue
8.4
9.4
14.1
31.9
23.5
14.1
Cumulative
variance
explained
314
Factor, constituting items (factor loading)
Variance
explained
per factor
(continued)
0.88
0.90
0.92
Cronbach
alpha
International
Marketing
Review
19,3
3.957
3.793
Infrastructure
30. Location (where situated in the city) of the proposed event site (0.740)
31. Accessibility (ease of getting there) of the proposed event site (0.705)
32. Transport systems (means) to the event site (0.677)
33. Visual (architectural) attractiveness of the (proposed) facilities (0.462)
34. Population size in the catchment area of the event (0.422)
35. Strong community support for the event (0.575)
Bid team composition
36. To show the bidding organization has established external networks (regional politicians,
corporate support) (0.520)
37. To show clear awareness (empathy) towards what is being considered important by event
owners (0.499)
38. A mix of age and experience in the bid team composition (0.588)
39. A mixture of males and females in the bid team composition (0.597)
40. Personal selling skills of the bid team members (0.730)
become ``friends'' with key decision makers (event owners) (0.743)
offer (event-related) gifts to key decision makers during the bid process (0.570)
have visible (local) power brokers associated with the bid (0.676)
host lavish functions for event owners and key decision makers (0.750)
4.051
To
To
To
To
Eigenvalue
Ability
25. Sport specific technical expertise at hand (as part of the organizing team) to run the event
(0.754)
26. Event equipment available to run the event (e.g. timing systems, audio-visual facilities)
(0.723)
27. Event management (administration)-specific expertise at hand (as part of the organizing
team) to run the event (0.714)
28. Ability of the event organizers to fund the event (public and private) (0.536)
29. To have a solid track record in organizing similar events (0.496)
21.
22.
23.
24.
Factor, constituting items (factor loading)
7.6
7.9
8.1
Variance
explained
per factor
0.84
0.80
0.87
40.0
47.9
55.5
(continued)
Cronbach
alpha
Cumulative
variance
explained
Bidding for
hallmark
sporting events
315
Table II.
Table II.
3.123
2.971
Communication and exposure
43. Reputation of the city as a major tourist destination (0.535)
44. National media exposure of the event (0.752)
45. Global media exposure of the event (0.654)
46. Communication systems in place to run the event (0.602)
47. Information technology (IT) support obtained for the event (before the announcement of the
winning bid) (0.654)
Existing facilities
48. Existence of critical event facilities at the time of the bid (0.599)
49. The pre-existence of established high quality facilities (0.583)
50. Availability of overnight accommodation (for spectators) in the host city/region (0.631)
51. To start construction of facilities early (before announcement of the winning bid) (0.565)
41. Networking skills of the bid team members (0.640)
42. Visible proof of product experts (i.e. former athletes, high profile board members) (0.546)
Eigenvalue
5.9
6.2
67.7
61.8
Cumulative
variance
explained
316
Factor, constituting items (factor loading)
Variance
explained
per factor
0.73
0.83
Cronbach
alpha
International
Marketing
Review
19,3
the various stakeholders both in the community and in political circles.
Accountability deals with the dependency relationship event bidders have with
event owners and the public(s). It relates to the ability of event bidders to
identify key target markets that are important to the event owners and their
ability to generate goodwill for the event owner by showing the legacy the
event leaves behind. Event bidders can prove that they will be accountable by
showing that they have an established and recognized presence in the
marketplace as a bidding organization, a strong reputation (as a city) in hosting
successful (sporting) events and by show-casing a broad range of excellent
sporting facilities. Bidding organizations are accountable to the public in
relation to the need to show where tax money has been spent and how the local
community will benefit from the event being held in their city (Ernst & Young,
1992; McGeoch and Korporaal, 1995). The sport-specific technical skills of bid
team members are important, especially when these technical skills can be
translated into the bid team's ability to present event-technical statistics the
event owner wants to see, while providing accurate information in a bidfavorable fashion.
The factor political support clearly incorporates the main issues that were
raised earlier (Hall, 1995; Jackson, 1995; Law, 1993; Syme et al., 1989) pertaining
to increased government involvement in the process of bidding for hallmark
sporting events. Not only is political support important from the perspective of
securing vital resources (financial, physical, human resources) but also political
and financial stability of the city and country are important in relation to the
formulation of (longer-term) policies of government that will clearly contribute
to the quality of the event. It obviously is important in this process for
government representatives to be able to show the potential economic
contribution of the event to the local economy, which will generate considerable
community support for the event and increase the popularity of the politicians
involved. The political support attributed to an event is considered important
specifically with respect to the services provided to the event promoter and the
community. The capacity of the event organizer to successfully involve the
government in activities relevant to the bidding process is essential in
enhancing the value of the event to the event promoter.
Relationship marketing deals with the power of the people on the bid
committee (e.g. the involvement of political leaders) and the consequential
influence this power base is able to generate among key decision makers
pertaining to the bid outcome. Power not only leads to increased access to key
decision makers, it also facilitates opportunities to invest in human contact
with event owners, thereby increasing the likelihood that bid team members
become ``friends'' with key decision makers. Increased access creates
opportunities to offer (event-related) gifts and host functions for event owners
and key decision makers. Because they become ``friends'', their credibility is
raised and they are less suspect than when no personal relationship has been
cultivated. This approach reflects on the views of Crockett (1994), who
``identified'' the needs of decision makers as being a key element. The capacity
Bidding for
hallmark
sporting events
317
International
Marketing
Review
19,3
318
to have good relationships with politicians and to have people with sufficient
influence and positional power on-side to support the bid is a crucial influence.
The ability to organize the event contains a number of items reflecting event
organization-and-management expertise that event owners have demanded
traditionally from event organizers. The sport-specific technical expertise and
the event management (administration) expertise at hand (as part of the
organizing team) to run the event, the event equipment available (e.g. timing
systems, audio-visual facilities), and the ability of the event organizers to fund
the event (public and private) are all basic requirements that directly relate to
the hosting of the actual event. The ability to organize an event is evidenced
by having a solid track record in organizing similar events. The technical
expertise incorporated into the ability factor, reflecting equipment and staff
knowledge, is seen as an important contributing element to the bid process.
The event owner views the ability of the event-organizing team as a critical
service in the decision to award the bid team the right to host the event.
Directly relating to the ability to organize is the infrastructure factor. In that
regard, location and accessibility (where situated in the city and how to get
there by public transport) of the proposed event site are of importance. These
issues are considered by event owners and organizers in conjunction with the
visual (architectural) attractiveness of the (proposed) facilities, as described by
NIEIR (1997). In relation to the location in particular it can be derived that
population size in the catchment area of the event is of importance as well.
Strong community support for the event in relation to a large population size
ensures that the event will be visited by many people, especially in the event
precinct area of the host city.
Infrastructure reflects on the ability of the event organizer to convince the
event promoter that the host city has the necessary city infrastructure enabling
the event to be successfully held in that city. This extends to the ability to
deliver facilities, accommodation and transportation as well as community
support for the event. With the inclusion of community support in this
factor, the Ernst & Young (1992) view of infrastructure moving beyond the
availability of merely physical, inanimate facilities is partly supported.
Bid team composition is the sixth factor that was identified. As was
indicated in the interviews with experienced bid campaigners (Ingerson and
Westerbeek, 2000), a mix of talent on the bid team is very important for both
the successful operation of the bid team and the perception of the bid team by
key decision makers ± the latter to show clear awareness (empathy) towards
what is being considered important by event owners. A mix of age and
experience, males and females on the team, and strong personal selling and
networking skills of bid team members (relationship marketing) ensures that a
wide variety of skills and approaches is available to tackle a range of complex
tasks. Visible proof of product experts (i.e. former athletes, high profile board
members) is needed to establish further credibility with event owners. In that
regard the bidding organization also needs to show that it has established
external networks (regional politicians, corporate support).
In relation to the communication and exposure factor some of the city
marketing issues come into play. The reputation of the city as a major tourist
destination and the communication and IT systems that are in place, or have
been obtained to run the event, will contribute to ensuring national and global
media exposure of the event. Obviously widespread communication and
exposure are important for both the event and the host city, both looking to
increase brand equity of their ``properties''. This process will largely benefit
from high-tech communication systems in place and familiarity with the host
community that will organize the event. Two of Getz's (1998) supply elements
of the sport event-marketing value chain, media and sponsorship, provide
further theoretical support for this factor.
Finally, the existing facilities factor relates strongly to the criterion that
was defined as legacy (Ingerson and Westerbeek, 2000). However, not from the
perspective of what is left behind for the host community when the event is
finished but much more from that of the existence of critical event facilities at
the time of the bid. In other words, the pre-existence of established high
quality facilities should have been facilitated by (hallmark) events that have
been hosted by the city in the past. This will most likely also ensure the
availability of overnight accommodation (for spectators) in the host city/
region and with a range of established facilities it is likely that the host
community is very capable of putting facilities to good use, in turn enabling
governments to start construction of facilities early (before the announcement
of the winning bid). To start construction early is in line with the views
expressed by Syme et al. (1989).
A number of factors were considered more important than others. Overall,
the importance scores indicated that all factors were perceived to be of
considerable importance, given the fact that the rating scale covered the
continuum between limited importance and vital importance. This stated, a
number of cut-off points could be observed. First, it seems that ability to
organize the event clearly is the most important factor, followed by a group of
three factors (political support, infrastructure, and existing facilities), each
perceived to be of similar importance. This group of factors represents the
components important in ensuring that physical elements are in place. The
facilities and city are ready and political support exists. A second group of
three factors (communication and exposure, accountability, and bid team
composition) are at the next level of importance. These factors represent the
capacity of the bid team and the city to present a positive image to the event
owner and to extend this image into the community. These factors are
separated from the final factor (relationship marketing) that was deemed least
important. The latter finding could be influenced by the reluctance of
respondents to rate this factor as vitally important, given the controversial
status of relationship marketing tools (e.g. offering gifts, hosting lavish
functions). It certainly is not ``politically correct'' to openly admit the use of
these tools in the process of bidding for events.
Bidding for
hallmark
sporting events
319
International
Marketing
Review
19,3
320
Conclusion and managerial implications
Although the research literature identifies as many as 16 success criteria, this
research found that, according to a sample of highly experienced hallmark
event managers, eight factors are important in the process of bidding for
hallmark sporting events. Because factors constitute elements considered to be
of importance in the context of bidding for the right to host the event, they need
to be treated as the first point of reference when preparing to host a hallmark
sporting event in a city. Irrespective of the clinical ability of event organizers to
host the event, event-owning organizations are looking for much more than the
ability to organize the event. In that context it is interesting to note that the
four factors that are perceived (see Table III) to be the most important ± ability
to organize the event, political support, infrastructure, existing facilities ± all
directly involve the actual event. It seems that event infrastructure and event
management (including securing political support) are the most important
elements in the process of ensuring a successful hosting of the event. Factors
like communication and exposure, accountability, bid team composition, and
relationship marketing are, although still perceived as important, more likely to
be supporting than vital factors. In other words, vital factors relate to the
operational aspects of organizing the event, whereas supporting factors relate
to facilitating aspects of making the event successful. In that regard it can be
assumed that, in most cases where cities are bidding for hallmark events, they
will be equally competent and prepared in relation to the operational aspects of
organizing the event. The majority of issues relating to the vital factors are
quite ``tangible'' in that physical proof of competence can be provided. Much of
this physical evidence (i.e. event-organizing skills, facilities, infrastructure) can
be bought, given the availability of financial resources. However, pertaining to
supporting factors, distinct competitive differences between event-bidding
organizations can emerge. For example, the unique (and intangible)
composition of the bid team will have a great impact on establishing
(intangible) networks with power brokers, relations with media, the reputation
of the bidding organization and the acceptance of hosting corporate functions
in the process of attracting the event. Because the quality of the bid is likely to
be on an ``even-par'' with other bidding organizations in relation to the vital
Factor
Table III.
Perceived importance
of the eight factors
(total sample)
Ability to organize the event
Political support
Infrastructure
Existing facilities
Communication and exposure
Accountability
Bid team composition
Relationship marketing
n
Mean a
Std. dev.
133
132
132
130
131
125
133
127
5.77
5.20
5.07
5.07
4.99
4.83
4.68
4.08
0.98
1.30
0.92
1.12
1.18
1.19
1.15
1.23
Note: a 1 = limited importance, 7 = vital importance
factors (because they are easier to manage), the decision made over which of the
bidding organizations will gain the right to host the event is likely to be the
result of a competitive advantage in relation to one or more of the supporting
factors. However, it needs to be noted that the importance ratings do not
provide conclusive evidence on these matters and hence further research into
potential significant differences in importance ratings between factors is
required.
Finally, this research did not distinguish between the perspectives of the
event owner and the event bidder. However, in order to identify whether the
perceptions of those who offer the event-organizing services (event bidder) are
in line with those who will base their decision (event owner) on which
organization obtains the right to organize the event on the package of services
that offers the best value, future research needs to determine whether both
groups have similar views on what are key success factors in the bid process.
At that particular stage of data collection, confirmatory factor analysis needs to
be considered.
References
Burns, J. and Mules, T. (1986) ``A framework for analysis of major special events'', in Burns, J.,
Hatch, J. and Mules, T. (Eds), The Adelaide Grand Prix: The Impact of a Special Event, The
Centre for South Australian Economic Studies, Adelaide, pp. 5-38.
Crockett, S. (1994), ``Tourism sport ± bidding for international events'', Journal of Tourism Sport,
Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 11-21.
Ernst & Young (1992), in Catherwood, D. and Van Kirk, R. (Eds), The Complete Guide to Special
Event Management: Business Insights, Financial Advice, and Successful Strategies from
Ernst & Young, Advisors to the Olympics, the Emmy Awards, and the PGA Tour, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Forecast (2001), The 11th Report of the Tourism Forecasting Council, Tourism Forecasting
Council, February.
Getz, D. (1997), Event Management and Event Tourism, Cognizant Communication Corporation,
New York, NY.
Getz, D. (1998), ``Trends, strategies and issues in sport-event tourism'', Sport Marketing
Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 8-13.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, C. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis, 4th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hall, C. (1995), Introduction to Tourism in Australia: Impacts, Planning and Development,
2nd ed., Longman Australia, Melbourne.
Hamilton, L. (1997), ``Sporting events and place marketing: a means for generating tourism in
Victoria, Australia'', Conference Proceedings, 5th Congress of the European Association for
Sport Management, September.
Howard D. and Crompton, J. (1995), Financing Sport, Fitness Information Technology,
Morgantown.
Ingerson, L. and Westerbeek, H. (2000), ``Determining key success criteria for attracting hallmark
sporting events'', Pacific Tourism Review, Vol 3 No. 4. pp. 239-53.
Jackson, I. (1995), An Introduction to Tourism, Hospitality Press, Melbourne.
Kotler, P., Haider, D. and Rein, I. (1993), Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industry and
Tourism to Cities, States and Nations, Maxwell Macmillan International, New York, NY.
Bidding for
hallmark
sporting events
321
International
Marketing
Review
19,3
322
Law, C. (1993), Urban Tourism: Attracting Visitors to Large Cities, Mansell Publishing Ltd, New
York, NY.
McGeoch, R. and Korporaal, G. (1995), The Bid: Australia's Greatest Marketing Coup, Mandarin,
Melbourne.
Moutinho, L. and Witt, S. (1994), Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook, Prentice-Hall,
New York, NY.
Mules, T. and Faulkner, B. (1996), ``An economic perspective on special events'', Tourism
Economics, Vol. 2 No. 2. pp. 107-17.
NIEIR (1997), ``The economic role of Australian cities'', National Economic Review, No. 37.
pp. 8-36.
Payne, A. and Holt, S. (1999), ``A review of the `value' literature and implications for relationship
marketing'', Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 41-51.
Sport Business (2001), ``Editorial'', Sport Business, Vol. 55, p. 50.
Swart, K. (1999), ``Strategic planning ± implications for the bidding of sport events in South
Africa'', Journal of Sport Tourism, Vol. 5 No. 2, available at: www.mcb.co.uk/journals/jst/
vol5no2/vol5no2.htm
Syme, G.J., Shaw, B.J., Fenton, D.M. and Mueller, W.S. (Eds) (1989), The Planning and Evaluation
of Hallmark Events, Avebury, Brookfield, VT.
Tabachnick, B. and Fidell, L. (1996), Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd ed., HarperCollins College
Publishers, New York, NY.