Journal of Sport Management, 2012, 26, 258-270
© 2012 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Bringing Baseball to the Big Screen: Building Sense
of Community Outside of the Ballpark
Sheranne Fairley
University of Massachusetts
B. David Tyler
Western Carolina University
Sport fandom, particularly game attendance, offers an opportunity for social interaction. However, actual
attendance at sport events is unrealistic for many individuals. In an attempt to foster a sense of community
among such fans, sport marketers have begun to create additional consumption sites by televising live games
in central locations, such as in a movie theater. This study examines the motives and experiences of fans who
attend a cinema to view live baseball games. Data were collected through participant observation, a survey
distributed to event attendees (n = 188), and focus groups. Results suggest that the sense of community and
social environment created at the cinema were key factors in the viewing experience. The cinema provided
individuals a collective viewing experience with likeminded fans, which helped create a stadium-like environment. This atmosphere, which affords the opportunity to focus on the game (compared with viewing at home
or in pubs), allows fans to feel more connected to the team as they believe the cinema offers an authentic
environment. Thus, providing sites for fans to view the game with likeminded fans outside of the stadium can
be used as a means of creating social ties that could lead to increased fan loyalty. For some individuals, the
cinema experience was preferred over that of the ballpark.
Sport has become an integral part of the social
lives of many individuals. Therefore, it is not surprising
that social motives such as group affiliation and family
interaction have been attributed to sport fans (e.g., Sloan,
1989; Trail & James, 2001; Wann, 1995; Zillmann,
Bryant, & Sapolsky, 1989). Research has shown that
social groups such as the family play a pivotal role in
establishing interest in sport (Trail & James, 2001),
attending live matches (Holt, 1995), and maintaining
interest in viewing televised sport (Gantz & Wenner,
1995). The social connections and sense of community
that develop among fans of a particular team have been
shown to be a key part of the fan experience. For example,
Holt (1995) emphasizes the importance of community
and suggests that some sport spectators choose to sit in the
bleachers with less of a view of the game to partake in the
“celebratory, carnivalesque atmosphere [that] facilitate[s]
the communal aspect of consuming” (p. 9). Some fans
participate in team-related consumption predominantly
for the social benefits that they receive, such as traveling
to watch a team play, or attending a pub to view a game
or event (Fairley, 2003; Weed, 2006).
Fairley is with the McCormack Dept. of Sport Management,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Tyler is with the
Dept. of Sport Management, Western Carolina University,
Cullowhee, NC.
258
Recent studies in consumer behavior have highlighted the importance of the sense of community that
develops between individuals who consume a particular
type of product, brand (McAlexander, Schouten, &
Koenig, 2002; Muñiz & O’Guinn, 2001), or product constellation (Solomon & Buchanan, 1991). These studies
suggest that shared consumption of a particular brand can
lead one to feel a sense of community with other consumers of that brand, and thus lead to continual consumption
of that brand. Through the following of sports, consumption communities are formed around a sport or team’s
brand (Wann, Melnick, Russell, & Pease, 2001). This has
been evidenced in the case of sport fans, as they invest a
large amount of time and money to acquire and display
products and symbols that represent membership in, or
belongingness to, a particular consumption community
(Fisher & Wakefield, 1998; Wann et al., 2001). From a
marketing standpoint, understanding the behaviors of
sport fans and the consumption communities that they
form is integral to the financial success and viability of
sport teams.
Actual attendance at sport events is unrealistic for
many individuals given ticket availability, ticket cost
(especially for teams that are performing well), the
location of stadium, and the additional time and costs
associated with travel to and from the game. For these
reasons, sport marketers encounter the possibility that
many fans of a team may not be able to attend an actual
Bringing Baseball to the Big Screen 259
game and therefore may not be exposed to a traditional,
in-stadium experience. Sport marketers are then faced
with the challenge of developing a sense of community
among nongame attendees to create and foster a loyal fan
base outside of the stadium.
Attending live games at a stadium is not the only
option fans have to view their team in action. Live telecasts of sport events provide spectators and/or fans with
alternative locations at which they can view the live game,
such as watching the game at home or in a bar or pub.
While the emergence of bars and pubs can be largely
attributed to the entrepreneurial activities of those who
manage various establishments, some sport marketers
have recognized the importance of the social element
to sport consumption and made deliberate attempts to
develop sites external to the stadium for fans to gather
(Chalip, 2006; Sparvero & Chalip, 2007). For example,
at many mega sport events such as the Olympic and Commonwealth Games, large television screens are erected
in an open space for fans and spectators to congregate
and watch the sport event (Chalip, 2006). Further, some
teams, such as the Boston Red Sox, have gone as far as
showcasing their live games in a movie cinema. Both of
these viewing options provide an example of a third place
(Bale, 1998)—an environment that is situated between
viewing the game at home and viewing the game at the
stadium.
This study examines the experiences of Boston Red
Sox fans who attend a cinema to view their baseball
team’s live games. Specifically, the study seeks to determine what factors differentiate the cinema consumption
experience from other consumption venues such as instadium, at home, or in bars or pubs.
Literature Review
Bale (1998) refers to three spectating environments where
individuals may watch a live game: the stadium (or the
real game), on television at home, and what he refers to as
a third place, which constitutes a public venue such as a
bar, pub, or cinema. Each of these environments provides
a different experience for consumers, particularly in terms
of perceived authenticity and the sense of community
offered. Further, individuals’ behavior at these venues
is regulated by social rules, expectations, and norms
with regard to the presence of others (Goffman, 1971).
The subsequent sections discuss the varying communal
experiences and behavioral norms present for games seen
in sport stadia, at home, and at third places.
Sport Stadia
Sport stadia have long been noted to have cultural significance to the sport and/or teams to which they belong
(Unruh, 1980), and they have been perceived as the ultimate venue in which fans seek to view sport events. In
fact, authors generally equate the stadia, with its sacred
meaning to the sport or team subculture, as being the
symbolic home of the consumption community (e.g.,
Dunning, 1999; Gibson, Willming, & Holdnak, 2002).
Fans often explain their attendance at sport events in
terms of camaraderie, the sense of belonging they feel
with other fans (Melnick, 1993; Zillmann et al., 1989),
and the sense of community that is generated from
watching a game within a stadium (Holt, 1995; Melnick,
1993). This is in line with research on sport fan motives,
which has consistently identified group affiliation and
social camaraderie as a reason for sport consumption
(Kahle, Kambara, & Rose, 1996; Trail & James, 2001;
Wann, 1995).
The game is experienced through all senses (or
somatic receptors: sight, sound, touch, smell, taste) in
addition to a sixth sense which includes a sense of history and a sense of belonging to a crowd (Gaffney &
Bale, 2003). Sight refers to the way in which the game
is viewed. At the stadium, it is going to be different
for each person based on the view from his or her seat.
Sound relates to any noise that is specific to a stadium,
including the crowd at the stadium and the acoustics that
the stadium produces. At the game, where there is often
limited or no commentary, one views and interprets the
experience firsthand; this is in contrast to watching the
sport event at home, where fans are likely listening to
the live commentary added by the television broadcaster.
Touch refers to the physical proximity of others—this can
be shaped by the architecture of the stadium. The smell
of a place is a subtle element of the experience, but one
that evokes memories and nostalgia. For example, many
people recollect the smell of popcorn and hotdogs at a
baseball game. Taste is closely related to smell, but is
also part of the larger ritual process of stadium events
that serve certain foods and beverages (Eastman & Land,
1997; Gantz & Wenner, 1995). The sixth sense, the sense
of history and sense of belonging to a crowd relates to the
sense of privilege and experience of being in the stadium
that has prime importance to the subculture. The sense
of being there when history is made is often recounted
for its symbolic importance to the team or sport, as is the
meaning associated with the stadium itself, which can
be thought of as the mecca of a particular team (Gibson,
Willming, & Holdnak, 2003; Trujillo & Krizek, 1994).
Though the benefits of the stadium are clear, the
experience is not without its restrictions. Specifically, in
watching a game in a stadium, fans are constrained by
behavior and movement. In-stadium attendees are only
able to watch a game from one viewpoint—generally
their allocated seat; thus, no two spectators see the game
in the same way given the different seating angles. This
is in contrast to viewing a televised game at home where
individuals receive the same feed.
Watching Games at Home
Modern technology and communications have significantly changed the way fans view and receive information about sport. Televised viewing of a sport is thought
to require less effort and expenditure on the part of the
viewer as he or she does not need to leave the comfort of
260 Fairley and Tyler
his or her own home (Gantz & Wenner, 1995). The home
viewing environment also gives individuals some control
over their viewing experience with the ability of instant
replay digital video recording, and time-shifted playback
(Whannel, 1992). However, the viewing experience of
sport on television is, by definition, mediated. In other
words, sport televised through the media is not sport per
se, but is mediated through the broadcast production with
selective representations of reality through both visual
and verbal cues (Jarvie, 2006).
The media has a limited capacity to transmit a full
and complete representation of the game, with the broadcasters forced to pick and choose what they will feature
and how it will be presented. In particular, the product
shown on television is manipulated in a variety of ways
including size, timing (slow motion, instant replay, collapsing time through highlights), the selection of camera
angles, and the introduction of commentary that focuses
the viewer’s attention. These factors are generally at the
broadcasters’ discretion, but are also thought to reflect the
needs and wants of the viewing audience. In some cases,
certain teams have a direct association with a regional or
local network, or their own network, and therefore the
coverage is more targeted (Jarvie, 2006). For example,
the Boston Red Sox games are telecast through the New
England Sport Network (NESN) and therefore the coverage is very focused on the Red Sox in commentary and
feed. Similarly, the New York Yankees have their own
broadcast network, the Yankees Entertainment and Sport
(YES) Network, which is focused on the broadcast of
both New York Yankees (baseball) and New Jersey Nets
(basketball) games. Regardless of the influence of the
media on the product that the consumer views, the televised product offers individuals another avenue through
which to consume the live game or event, and it provides
the consumer with alternative consumption sites in which
they can view a sport competition.
Similar to attending games in stadia, the social benefits of televised sport have also been acknowledged. In
particular, the viewing of televised sport is influenced
by the social situation in which it is viewed (Jarvie,
2006; Rothenbuhler, 1988, 1989; Sapolsky & Zillmann,
1978; Weed, 2006, 2007; Wenner & Gantz, 1989, 1998).
However, space restrictions typically limit the number
of people with whom one can watch a game at home,
thus, some individuals prefer to view sporting events in
third places.
The Third Place
Most work on sport spectators and fans has focused
on viewing the game at the stadium or site of production (e.g., Holt, 1995; Melnick, 1993) and on viewing
televised sport at home (e.g., Gantz & Wenner, 1995).
A third place is considered to be somewhere conceptually and geographically between the stadium and home.
Sport bars and pubs are prime examples of a third place
(Eastman & Land, 1997; Weed, 2006, 2007) as they are
situated between the at-home and stadium experiences.
Bars and pubs are often transformed for sport occasions and use live telecasts of events as a draw to entice
individuals to frequent their venues. Initially, low penetration levels of satellite and cable television in people’s
homes were thought to contribute to the increase in
people visiting bars and pubs to watch live games. While
for some the reason for watching games in a bar or pub
relates to access and functionality, for others the reason is
more about the social milieu that the bar or pub provides.
Weed (2006, 2007) examines the experience of viewing a sport event at a pub. In considering the experience of
fans viewing sport in pubs, Weed discusses “proximity”
in watching the game. In particular, Weed suggests that
the primary element in the consumer’s mind is watching the game (at least for those outside of the stadium),
and watching the game in a setting that is proximate
to a game-like social experience. Weed emphasizes
that it is not proximity to the actual stadium where the
game is being played that is of prime importance, but
rather, proximity to the social experience that is of key
importance to sport fans. Other authors concur that the
viewing of a game in a third place is legitimized by the
social needs that one does not get from watching a game
at home (Eastman & Land, 1997; Weed, 2007). Further,
researchers have attributed the popularity of sport viewing
at pubs to “the place-making quality of people” (Bale,
1998, p. 272), suggesting that when individuals gather in
a shared place to watch a sport event, they can set a social
climate that emulates the social experience of the game.
Third places are not limited to bars and pubs. In an
attempt to further a sense of community among fans who
are unable to attend various games, sport marketers have
begun to create additional consumption sites for their fans
by televising live games on large screens in predetermined
locations (Chalip, 2006). Further, the showcasing of live
sport events in cinemas provides another example of a
third place. Each third place may provide a distinctly
unique viewing experience given the social norms and
behaviors associated with each viewing space.
What may be considered socially acceptable
behavior in one venue may not be in another venue.
For example, how one views television in public places
is thought to be governed by unspoken rules (Lemish,
1982), and there are other conventions that govern the
American cinema experience. At the cinema, movies are
consumed in a mass group, but moviegoers want to feel
isolated in their experience. Therefore, theaters are darkened, obscuring the visibility of others, and there is an
expectation of silence to reinforce the illusion of isolation
(Ellis, 1982; Phillips, 2007; Turner, 1988). However, the
social conventions that guide the experience of viewing
a sport event in a cinema may include a unique amalgam
of sport spectator and cinema attendee norms.
Authenticity
Work in consumer behavior suggests that individuals
seek authentic offerings when they are purchasing goods,
services, brands, and experiences (Goldman & Papson,
Bringing Baseball to the Big Screen 261
1996; Holt, 2002; Kozinets, 2002; MacCannell, 1973,
1976). The way in which consumers view technology as
an authentic form of communication has received mixed
reviews. Some authors note the tension between imitation or simulated products and authenticity based on the
technological advances of television (Halliday, 2001;
Orvell, 1989), while other authors suggest that modern
technology can make the inauthentic look more authentic
(Fjellman, 1992). The cinema, as a viewing place, is by
definition a third place. However, it would seem that the
experience of viewing live games at cinemas is a unique
amalgam of a first place and a third place. The cinema
experience combines a live television broadcast on a
big screen with a deliberately themed ballpark setting.
Authenticity in this context then relates not only to the
actual televised product, but to the simulated experience
of the ballpark that includes proximity to social space.
Thus, showcasing live games in cinemas provides a different experience from traditional third places in which
fans of a team can follow their team. The cinema offers
a milieu that is different from a bar or pub given the
setting and social conventions associated with the viewing space. The current study sought to understand what
factors differentiate the cinema consumption experience
from other sport viewing alternatives through examining
the experiences of those who attend the cinema to view
the live telecast of Boston Red Sox games.
Method
Setting
The Boston Red Sox are a Major League Baseball team
that plays at Fenway Park in Boston, Massachusetts.
The city has supported professional baseball since 1871
(Voight, 1970), and Fenway Park has been the home stadium of the Red Sox since 1912. In part because it is the
oldest stadium in the league, Fenway holds considerable
symbolic importance to fans. Red Sox games, already
popular to New England residents, became increasingly
attractive as the team had greater on-field success, including a World Series championship in 2004. The team’s
history, popularity, and success combined with Fenway
Park’s limited seating (approximately 35,000) makes
acquiring Red Sox tickets extremely difficult. During
the 2005 season, Fenway Park’s 100.6% attendance-tocapacity mark led the league (“Turnstile Tracker,” 2005).
For those fans unable to get tickets or unwilling to
travel to Boston, an alternative option was available at six
National Amusements cinemas in New England that aired
17 Boston Red Sox baseball games during the season.
The games were shown in High Definition, via a live
feed from the on air broadcast. The game appeared on the
cinema screen as it would to someone watching at home,
complete with commentator dialogue and commercials.
Most games took place on Tuesday evenings and admission was $7 for all attendees; the cinema charged $10 for
games on Sunday afternoon against the Red Sox’s main
rival, the New York Yankees.
Procedure and Analysis
Multiple data collection methods were used in this study.
First, both authors conducted participant observation and
casual conversation during showings of live games at
local area cinemas. Both authors attended four games at
the local area cinema together, while the second author
attended a fifth game at another cinema. The cinemas
were both located in small cities in Massachusetts, each
at least an hour from Fenway Park. The atmosphere and
feedback from attendees was similar across both venues,
and thus the data from the two locations have been aggregated for purposes of analysis. The authors arrived at the
venue at least half an hour before the commencement of
each screening. Until the game started, the authors took
turns being stationed inside of the cinema and outside
of the cinema entrance to observe people entering the
cinema and those getting positioned for the start of the
screening. The authors took detailed field notes on the
setting itself, how individuals were positioned within,
and how individuals interacted both within the cinema
space and with the telecast. Further, the authors engaged
in casual conversations with cinema attendees so as to
further understand their experience. The casual conversation occurred both inside and outside the cinema, and
it involved discussions such as why individuals were
attending the cinema, their previous experience attending games at Fenway Park or the cinema, and why they
chose to attend the cinema rather than watch the game at
another venue (e.g., home, bar or pub, or Fenway Park).
Field notes were transcribed after each observation.
Second, a short survey with open-ended questions
was designed to assess the motives and experiences of
individuals who attended the cinema to view a live game.
The survey focused on the motivation for attending the
cinema to watch the game, how the experience at the
cinema differed from other game viewing experiences
(e.g., at the game, on television at home or at a bar or
pub), how viewers believed the cinema experience could
be improved, and standard demographic measures.
Examples of survey questions include: What motivated
you to attend the live screening of the Red Sox game at
the cinema? How did you find out that the Red Sox games
were being broadcast at the cinema? With whom did you
attend the cinema? How does the cinema experience compare with attending a game at Fenway Park? How does
the cinema experience compare with watching the game
on television (at home or in a bar or pub)? Further, the
survey was used to solicit potential focus group participants. Specifically, in the survey respondents were asked
if they would be willing to participate in a follow-up discussion group about their cinema experience. The survey
was distributed before three games toward the end of the
baseball season. Cinema attendees were approached randomly as they entered the theater and were asked if they
would complete a short survey asking for their opinion
about viewing the Red Sox games at the cinemas. This
was deemed an appropriate time to distribute surveys as
it did not require disruption of attendants during their
viewing experience. Respondents were provided with
262 Fairley and Tyler
a clipboard and a pencil and were allowed to take the
survey into the cinema to complete. Respondents were
told that the survey would be collected at the end of the
telecast of the game. While there was some overlap in
attendees over the multiple games, respondents who had
completed the survey at a previous screening were asked
not to complete the survey again. While total attendance
figures were not released, cinema staff suggested that
attendance at the cinema games ranged from about 100
people for a game against a less popular opponent to 600
for the games against the New York Yankees. Author field
notes indicate that the cinema was at 25%, 65%, 70%,
80%, and 100% capacity over the five data collection
dates. Capacity of the individual theater is 410, which
was adequate for the demand for most games. For the
Yankee game, however, a second theater was used after
the first theater sold out, and this second theater was
approximately 50% full. Thus, the number of attendees
over the five viewings were approximately 100, 250,
275, 325, and 600, respectively. A total of 500 surveys
were distributed, and 188 valid surveys were returned,
representing a response rate of 37%. Fifty-four percent
of survey participants were female; 49% of participants
were age 40 years old or above. All respondents lived in
New England at the time of the research. Ninety percent
of respondents had been to Fenway Park, thus allowing
them to compare the cinema experience with the instadium game.
Third, four focus groups were conducted to gain further insight into the experience of viewing a live baseball
game at the cinema. The following semistructured questions were included in the focus groups: Describe your
fanship with the Red Sox; Discuss how you display your
fanship with the Red Sox in terms of product consumption
and game attendance; Describe your experience inside
the theater and how the cinema experiences differs from
(or is similar to) other viewing settings; Discuss who you
watch the game with in different settings. Each focus
group ran for approximately one hour and a half with
three participants in each group. The small focus group
sizes allowed for respondents to elaborate their answers,
providing a greater depth than would have been possible
with a larger group. Fifty-eight percent (7 out of 12) of
focus group participants were female; 67% (8 out of
12) of respondents were age fifty or above. Field notes,
survey data, and focus group responses were transcribed
verbatim and were entered into the NVivo qualitative software program. The authors independently read through
the focus group transcripts and field notes coding all
phrases and opinions independently to enhance reliability
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). The authors then conferred
to compare, contrast, and develop the codes and themes
identified while working dialectically with the literature.
Core categories were systematically derived from the
data through the use of open, axial, and selective coding
(Creswell, 1998). First, each author independently coded
the data and identified common themes and categories.
Second, the authors conferred to further finalize codes
and categories and to ensure reliability (Creswell, 1998).
Three key themes were identified: proximity and
authenticity, increased focus on the game provided by the
cinema setting, and the sense of community and social
experience enabled by the cinema experience. Each of
these three themes is described below. Specific quotations
from the survey, focus groups, and observation field notes
have been included in the results section as they best
represent the views of the respondents.
Results
Proximity and Authenticity
Given that viewing a live game in a cinema is an alternative to watching the game at the ballpark or on television
(at home or at a bar or pub), respondents (through all
data collection methods) constantly made comparisons
between the experiences that each of the different viewing
sites offered. Almost one third (30%) of survey respondents thought the experience at the cinema was as good or
better than attending games at Fenway Park, while 70%
of respondents believed viewing games at Fenway Park
was the ultimate viewing location. Comparisons related
to the setting itself, the viewing experience of the actual
game, and the atmosphere and social experience at the site
of consumption. As seen from the following field note,
certain elements of the cinema were adapted to create a
game-like experience:
The cinema was purposefully themed to contain
elements that would be consistent with that of the
ballpark. Ushers were encouraged to wear teamrelated apparel, a food cart that sold “game time”
food (e.g., hotdogs, popcorn, nachos) was placed
at the front of the cinema, and beer was sold inside
the theater (which was made possible by the cinema
acquiring a one-day liquor license for each televised
game and staffing a police officer within the theater).
During each game, cinema staff did not dim the lights
to regular movie levels of darkness, but rather kept
the same lighting that is used before and after movies
are shown. With the HD feed and the surround sound,
the sounds of the ballpark were there in some ways,
and the smell of the ballpark was there with hotdogs
and popcorn. With fans dressed in their Red Sox
attire—the setting was very reminiscent of a ballpark
outside a ballpark. (Observation, Field note #1)
These themed elements created an atmosphere where
those in attendance felt as though they were in some
ways at a ballpark watching the game. One respondent
described it this way:
…you actually have the experience of being there at
the game with what they do at the cinema. You have
the food they serve; your hotdogs, nachos, popcorn,
drinks. It’s almost like actually being there without
actually being there, let’s put it that way…. The high
definition you could almost reach out and touch the
players in my experience…. You can’t experience
Bringing Baseball to the Big Screen 263
even with HD on TV, you can’t experience the fullness of the screen around you and the people actually there, and what they’re going through. With the
experience that way it’s almost like being at Fenway
Park or Yankee Stadium or any other stadium. So
it actually puts you in that perspective of actually
seeing the game the way they show it and my opinion
on it, I loved it. (male, Focus group participant #2)
In addition to the themed elements, the respondent
above noted quality and size of the picture image. This
visual presentation also contributed to the sense that
respondents felt that they were actually at the game.
“Using standard movie theater screens, the games were
screened in High Definition on a 58’ by 25’ screen, which
is substantially larger than even the most extravagant of
home televisions” (Observation, Field note #2).
The magnitude and picture quality of the game
allowed some individuals to feel closer to the action than
if they were at the actual ballpark itself. One respondent
stated, “I’ve already been to many Red Sox games at
Showcase [cinemas]. Nothing beats the big screen” (male,
Survey respondent #143). Another respondent explained:
I think having the sense that you’re on the field. I
mean, you have a sense that you’re on the baseball
field itself, so that’s an experience you’re not going
to get even at Fenway Park. No matter where you are,
you’re not going to get that sense that you’re actually
literally on the field. That’s the sense [you get] when
you’re sitting in the seats [at the cinema], that you’re
sitting on the field. From my perspective, that’s
an excellent feeling. You feel like you’re a part of
what’s happening…. Here you’re right in the middle
of everything. (male, Focus group participant #9)
In this regard, some respondents felt that the experience at the cinema was actually a more authentic experience of viewing the game in its totality, one that would be
better than the view from any seat at the actual stadium.
In particular, being able to see the “whole game” and
follow every play in a magnified way allowed individuals
to feel “closer to the action.” Constant reference was made
to the fact that attendance at the actual ballpark did not
necessarily equate to a good viewing experience of the
game, whereas the cinema offered an experience that felt
like “you’re right behind the dugout” (male, Focus group
participant #5) from every seat. One survey respondent
described her preference for the cinema over Fenway Park
this way: “Actually, I like it better. You can see better, the
crowds are just as excited, it’s climate controlled, I didn’t
have to drive 90 miles. Plus, I didn’t realize how much
the announcers (Remdawg & Co) make the show. I really
missed their commentary attending the game at Fenway”
(female, Survey respondent #181). Notice the reference to
a combination of elements including the enhanced viewing experience, comfort, and the presence of commentary
that make viewing in a cinema the preferred setting.
The announcers’ commentary through the live feed,
coupled with screening the pregame show before the
game, provided additional elements that helped individuals to feel more connected to the game. In particular, the
commentary allowed individuals to feel that they were
getting up-to-date information in the form of statistics,
insider information, and a description of the play from
a credible source (i.e., known baseball commentators).
One respondent, who had attended live games at the cinemas before she attended her first game at Fenway Park,
described these as elements that were missed:
[when I went to Fenway I realized] there were little
things I kind of took for granted seeing it in the
theater setting [that] I really missed when I went to
Fenway, like the announcers which I think really
add to the whole experience. I found that going to
Fenway there’s just so much chitter-chatter going
around you, people not even paying attention to
what’s going on and you have to really focus because
you are so far away from what’s going on. I just like
the cinema experience much better. (female, Focus
group participant #7)
In addition to the themed elements of the theater and
the size and quality of the projected image, the atmosphere created by individuals in the cinema mimicked
that of the ballpark:
Individuals came to the cinema dressed in teamrelated apparel (shirts, hats, jerseys, etc.) just as if
they were going to the ballpark. They would also
clap, cheer, and chant for their team in a manner
consistent with what they would do at a live game….
It was interesting how you could actually match up
the sounds of the crowd through the telecast and the
sounds of the attendees at the cinema. (Observation,
Field note #5)
One respondent described the cinema experience
as follows:
It [being at the cinema] is more like being in the park
and people are cheering and clapping and “let’s go
Red Sox” and that kind of stuff. So you have that
same kind of atmosphere to it as well, so there’s a
sense that you’re in the park even though you’re
not in the park. People are doing the wave; people
are cheering or applauding. (male, Focus group
participant #9)
Another respondent described the experience this
way:
[as] soon as something exciting happened you
might just as well be on the first base line at Fenway
because everybody in the theater was chanting and
screaming and clapping so as the game develops the
same atmosphere you will find at Fenway. (female,
Focus group participant #1)
While the attendees at the cinema displayed and
engaged in ritualistic activities that are commonplace at
264 Fairley and Tyler
a ballpark on their own, at times, cinema staff prompted
individuals to participate in such activities: “Cinema
ushers arranged for children under thirteen to sing “Take
Me Out to the Ballgame” in the front of the theater during
the seventh inning stretch” (Observation, Field note #5).
Thus, the atmosphere in the theater and the actions of the
crowd contributed to the overall experience being similar
to that of the ballpark.
While in many ways the theater experience was
described as an experience equal to, or better than, the
ballpark based on the theming of the cinema and the
similarities in crowd behavior, attending the game at the
cinema provided many logistical advantages over attending the game at Fenway Park. In particular, the shorter
commute, the immunity to any changes in weather, the
comfort of the seats, and the relative low cost when
compared with attendance at the ballpark were all seen
as key advantages of being able to attend the game in the
cinema. One respondent commented:
You don’t have the long drive to and from home at
a reasonable time. You’re not paying an arm and a
leg, and you can enjoy it in the cool evening or in the
hot summer afternoon in an air-conditioned building… [compared to] the game where it’s an all-day
experience and very, very expensive. (female, Focus
group participant #6)
Respondents believed that the cinema provided a
family friendly alternative to the ballpark given these
logistical factors. In reference to family affordability,
one respondent stated, “you can’t go to Fenway with a
family or even an individual because the prices go up so
much each year” (female, Focus group participant #3).
In addition, respondents felt that the theater provided
a safer and more relaxed environment especially when
children attended with them. While alcohol was for sale
at the cinema, respondents believed that it was a safer
atmosphere as there was not as much alcohol consumption at the theater. This perception of safety was further
aided by the fact that children could purchase concessions
from the food cart at the front of the cinema while under
the watchful eye of the parent/guardian.
In summary, the combination of all of these elements, including the themed setting, the high quality of
the picture image, and the presence of other fans dressed
in team-related apparel, encourages fans to respond to
the game as if they were at the ballpark. Individuals then
perceive the theater experience as a Fenway-like experience, one that for the most part is considered to be more
feasible than attending games at the ballpark, especially
for families. Thus, the theater provides what individuals
interpret as an authentic experience through which they
can view the live game.
Increased Focus on the Game
While most fans likened the cinema experience to that of
the ballpark, a key factor that differentiated the cinema
experience from watching the game at the ballpark or at
home was the increased focus on the game that fans felt
was possible at the cinema. Individuals felt that watching
the live games in the cinema enabled them to focus more
on the game than if they were viewing the game through
any other medium. One survey respondent explained: “I
love the giant screen and the excitement the audience
brings to it. Also, it’s complete immersion – none of the
distractions of being in a bar or even at home” (female,
Survey respondent #71). Compared with the ballpark, the
increased focus related to less interference between the
individual’s line of sight and the ballgame. For example,
individuals described the common distractions of people
walking in front of them to get food and beverages and
visiting the restroom. One respondent noted:
Usually what drives me crazy at any sporting event
is the constant walking, people always walking
and walking. Got to get popcorn, got to get this.…
[People] walking back and forth.” (female, Focus
group participant #1)
Another respondent suggested that there are more
distractions the further away from the field you sit:
I think the further you are away from the field there
is a lot more stuff going on in the stands. It’s very
distracting. I like the cinema. If I had a choice and
I had really good seats, I would pick [the cinema]
anytime. I would do that right away. (female, Focus
group participant #7)
The cinema was believed to have less of these
distractions.
Individuals regularly left their seats to purchase
concessions and visit the restroom. The seating configuration of the cinema (with extra room between
each row of seats) did not require those in the row to
stand when people wanted to get past, thus doing so
provided minimal distraction. Most people waited for
a commercial break before they got up to purchase
food or drinks from the front of the cinema (where
they could still view the game), or when they could go
outside of the cinema to use the restroom or purchase
a wider range of concessions available at the main
cinema concession stand. (Observation, Field note #2)
Game attendees appreciated the speed and ease with
which concessions could be purchased. One respondent
stated the following:
Everything’s all wrapped up in a nice package. You
got the game televised, the announcers detailing the
game, got the refreshments right there so you don’t
have to worry about making a long trip like you do
at Fenway to the refreshment stands and don’t have
to worry about making it back to your seat after.
(male, Focus group participant #8)
The magnification of the image and the separation
from household chores and distractions were key factors
Bringing Baseball to the Big Screen 265
that allowed cinema attendees to have an increased focus
on the game in comparison with viewing the game on
television at home. One respondent described it this way:
You don’t miss anything…. You’re watching the
game, you don’t have to do ten things around the
house – answer the phone or anything like that.
You’re not distracted and that’s what I like. (female,
Focus group participant #6)
For some, this level of focus was a strange departure from their typical consumption. One female game
attendee commented,
were she watching the game at home, she would
be multitasking. She would have the game on, but
would also be folding laundry and doing other items
around the house instead of focusing totally on the
baseball game… She mentioned explicitly that it was
strange to sit and stay focused on the entire game – as
opposed to tuning in and out like she would at home.
(Observation, Field note #7)
Some respondents went as far as describing the
experience of watching the game at the cinema as though
it was akin to watching the game on the field itself:
You can see a lot more, you can see their expression more, you can see how they react like on the
TV screen you can see them get mad, but at the
cinema you know how mad they’re getting.… Puts
the viewer on the field. (female, Focus group participant #1)
Another respondent explained: “It’s like sitting in a
lounge chair just [to] the right of the pitcher’s mound.
You can call balls and strikes better than the umpire can”
(male, Focus group participant #9). One other factor that
contributed to individuals remaining more focused on
the game was the crowd’s reaction to the game itself. In
particular, respondents believed that the focus of other
fans around them and the communal reaction that took
place in the cinema to the happenings of the game allowed
individuals to remain focused on the game itself, thus
highlighting the social benefits that the setting enabled.
One respondent identified the size of the screen and the
other fans as helping her become immersed in the game,
stating, “I think what’s so nice, well, being large was
great, having the people there with you cheering and
getting right into it” (female, Focus group participant #6).
Sense of Community and Social
Experience
One key benefit of watching the live games in the cinema
was the sense of community that was felt through sharing
the experience with likeminded individuals. In particular,
being able to celebrate and enjoy the game with other
team fans was seen as a key motive identified by survey
respondents for attending the cinema. When asked what
motivated them to attend games at the cinemas, respon-
dents answered: “to experience the game with a group of
Sox fans as if I was at the game” (male, Survey respondent
#175), “the great atmosphere of watching with other fans”
(female, Survey respondent #56), “thought it would be
fun to see a game with the crowd” (gender unknown,
Survey respondent #70), and “it’s a lot of fun being with
a crowd of fans cheering on the Red Sox” (female, Survey
respondent #83). The social motive seemed to be especially strong for respondents who would have otherwise
watched the game at home by themselves:
No one at my house would watch baseball. I would
be the only one watching baseball [at home]. My
husband hated sports and I would watch everything
all by myself so I liked having the crowd there, the
more the better. (female, Focus group participant #6)
The cinema provides an organized space that encourages fans of the team to come together and celebrate a
sense of community around the team.
As soon as attendees entered the cinema they started
discussing topics related to the Red Sox, about recent
team and player performances, about the specific
shirts they were wearing, and about how they were
expecting the forthcoming game to play out. It
seemed like an instant sense of community developed between them based on their shared connection
to the team. This was also evident when individuals
started chanting during the game. (Observation,
Field note #8).
Another respondent went further to suggest that the
communal setting of the cinema encourages individuals
to outwardly express their feelings during the game: “It’s
something different than if you’re watching TV [at home]
because you don’t get out when you’re watching TV. This
lets you get out, see other people and express your feelings for the game” (male, Focus group participant #2).
With fans collectively feeling comfortable in outwardly
expressing feelings toward the team (and by extension,
the game), an atmosphere is created that is similar to that
experienced at the ballpark. These comments highlight
that, in many ways, it is the fans who simultaneously
produce and consume the experience for other fans. In
fact, the atmosphere in the cinema was said to be amplified compared with the ballpark given the enclosed nature
of the cinema. This was also observed in the field notes:
The noise generated from collective chanting and
cheering of the cinema attendees reverberates around
the enclosed space, thereby amplifying the noise in
the theater, and by extension allowing fans to feel
a sense of community with other fans within the
cinema. (Observation, Field note #5)
For some participants, the benefits of the communal
experience are not limited to being part of the crowd, but
include sitting back and watching the crowd react to the
game. As a result, numerous participants would choose
their seating position at the back of the cinema so that they
266 Fairley and Tyler
could watch the behavior and reactions of other cinema
attendees. As one respondent remarked:
I would still sit in the back. Looking down at the
crowd makes me feel more in a stadium, and I like
that part of it…. I like to watch the crowd, don’t like
to be down low, that’s part of the atmosphere. I like
to watch people here and get excited. (female, Focus
group participant #3)
Another described it this way:
I like to watch the crowd, that’s part of it and see what
they’re doing. You get into it you know, it’s part of
the crowd experience. I think if you were sitting like
right in the front two rows or something I would feel
like I missed out on something personally. (female,
Focus group participant #4)
For some fans, the cinema experience generated
a sense of community through nostalgia. In particular,
some of the older fans who could no longer attend games
at Fenway Park (for various reasons such as medical,
logistical, comfort, and convenience) expressed nostalgic
memories relating to past attendance that related specifically to the social experience with family and friends.
One respondent noted:
The Red Sox have always been a thing that our family
has been involved in since as far back as I remember.
We used to go to games with my dad when we lived
in that area and then periodically I’ve gone down, not
as much being in Western Massachusetts [two hours
from Fenway], which is why I like the idea of having
the cinemas, having the comfort of watching it on
the big screen. (male, Focus group participant #9)
While the social nature of the cinema experience
evoked nostalgic recollections for some fans, in other
cases the cinema may serve as a first encounter with the
team and a new base for future memories. Like Fenway
Park, the cinema provides an experience that encourages
repeat participation:
Actually I used to hate baseball [before attending a
game at the cinema]; the sound of it actually gave
me a headache. Then when they started having it in
the cinemas in 2004…. She’s [my mother] been a
diehard baseball fan her whole life so she wanted a
companion to go with. I went with her and after that
very first game I was hooked. I just loved it and um,
we’ve gone to every single game since, except for
when we’ve been on vacation. Other than that, every
single game. I’m absolutely a fanatic now. (female,
Focus group participant #7)
The social experience provided by the cinema allows
individuals to feel a sense of community with other fans
who are in attendance, one that many fans see as key and
central to the experience. In addition, the social setting
acts as both a setting for reflection on past experience
following the team outside of the stadium, as well as
providing an outlet through which newcomers can be
encouraged to start following the team.
Unlike the stadium, where there is a visible presence of fans of the opposing team, there was minimal
attendance from fans of the opposing team at the cinema.
The homogeneity of attendees was particularly apparent
based on the lack of cheering for the Red Sox’s opponent,
as supported in the following field note: “The first real
cheers were in the bottom of the third, when Bill Mueller of the Red Sox hit a home run to right. This brought
heavy applause and cheering from the fans” (Observation,
Field note #3). With the exception of when the Boston
Red Sox played the New York Yankees, the crowd was
made up almost solely of Red Sox fans. The cinema
therefore is a space where group members can celebrate
their shared identity as Red Sox fans without the presence of a particularly salient and relevant out-group (fans
of the other team). However, while there is no direct
contact with members of relevant outgroups, the normal
group processes that take place at a game when fans of
both teams are present still exist in the cinema setting,
including outgroup derogation toward both the players
and the fans.
Discussion
Sport is fundamentally a social experience in the way that
it is consumed (Holt, 1995; Melnick, 1993). Common
sites for consumption are useful as they promote interactions among fans and spectators and provide a place
where individuals can parade and celebrate a shared
identity. In addition, common consumption sites (such as
a stadium or pub) act as venues through which individuals
congregate and are socialized into a consumption activity or consumption community. The social interaction
provided by subcultural membership may become a key
attraction for continued participation (Anderson & Stone,
1981; Green, 2001; Green & Chalip, 1998). The stadium
as a venue for consumption is thought to be particularly
conducive to a social experience (Melnick, 1993). Similar
to other consumption sites (Fairley, 2003; Melnick, 1993;
Weed, 2006), the cinema appears to provide a setting
where a weakening of traditional social conventions
fosters a liminoid sense of communitas (Turner, 1982).
Thus, united by a shared interest in a particular team,
fans begin to interact and socialize with each other during
the course of the game. This is aided by the fact that the
cinema is a more intimate venue than most other venues
for viewing the game. The layout of the cinema and the
size of the screen engulf the audience into the game.
Further, there is less noise and fewer distractions than
experienced when viewing the game at a pub or at home.
Thus, in terms of the actual viewing of the on-field play,
the cinema provides a more authentic experience than
that of the ballpark—one where individuals feel close
proximity to the game. Specifically, the cinema experience provides consumers with a more intimate and vivid
visual connection with the athletes and their on-field play.
Bringing Baseball to the Big Screen 267
It is often thought that consumers search for
authenticity in experience (MacCannell, 1973; Rose &
Wood, 2005). Some define authenticity as that related to
“originals” and thus suggest that no reproduction could
be authentic (Bruner, 1994). From this perspective, stadia
are thought to have particular significance as the central
geographic site where the sport product is simultaneously
produced and consumed (Bale, 1998). The significance
of stadium to a sport or team subculture is evident in the
way that fans attach particular meaning to certain sites
as the geographic home and therefore go on pilgrimages
to the mecca (Bale, 1998; Gibson et al., 2003). By extension, this would suggest that given the chance, fans would
prefer to attend a game at the stadium for its authentic
appeal. Therefore, this view would have us believe that
watching the game live at the stadium is the preferred
sport experience. From this perspective the sport experience is geographically limited or constrained. Not all
fans can attend games at the stadia, yet they are still able
to watch the mediated live sport product through select
media at various locations. The findings of this study suggest that some fans perceive the mediated experience of
watching the game in the cinema as an authentic experience, one that rivals that of the experience at the stadium.
Baudrillard (1983) suggests that social and consumption experiences do not require a sense of place
and therefore that the fan experience need not be in the
stadium itself to be authentic. Thus, consistent with the
work of Bale (1998) and Weed (2007), the results suggest that authenticity in the sport viewing experience
is not embedded in place, or in game form, but rather
in the social setting and the experience when viewing.
Further, the results highlight the ability of the viewing
setting to provide an authentic experience as it relates
to displaying and celebrating a shared identity. These
findings echo the work of Leigh, Peters, and Shelton
(2006), which suggests that there are multiple ways of
understanding authenticity in the context of consumption
including through a) ownership of an object, b) experience with the object, and c) identity construction and
confirmation. The experience provides individuals with
a subjective feeling that they are actively displaying their
identity and supporting their team through viewing the
live game with likeminded others—an experience that
takes place in a liminoid space, one that engenders a
sense of communitas among sport fans. The experience
provides a sense of social authenticity in that the setting
provides an environment through which individuals have
the opportunity to share, communicate and gain acknowledgment from likeminded others within the subculture
(Thornton, 1996; Wang, 1999). It is this role performance
and acknowledgment from others that legitimates one’s
identity as a devoted fan of the team (Leigh et al., 2006).
The findings in this study are more consistent with
other conceptualizations of authenticity that suggest
that authenticity is a social construction where reality
is a product of human interpretations and constructions
(Schwandt, 1994), and therefore, what might be deemed as
inauthentic or staged to an expert may be perceived as real
from the consumers’ perspective (Wang, 1999). This study
further emphasizes the “place-making quality of people”
(Bale, 1998, p. 272) and lends support to the notion that
for fans, the consumption of sport is not so much about
the place, but about the shared communal experience.
Specifically, a “sporting place” can be created with the
addition of spectators who temporarily transform a space
into a “sporting place”—and that the socially created place
can be viewed by consumers as a preferred alternative
to attending the game at the stadium. The authenticity is
then not in the venue, but in the construction of a social
milieu and experience based around supporting a sport
team. The cinema provides a social setting that allows
individuals to meet the need of consuming sport together
(Urry, 2002). Thus, the findings are consistent with the
proposition that the primary element of sport spectatorship is sharing the experience with likeminded others
(Weed, 2007). The experience is enhanced and encouraged by modern technology and the theming efforts of
both the sport and cinema marketers. Fans then view the
experience of attending games at the cinema as an activity that legitimates their identity—as a fan of the team.
Authenticity is thus negotiated by both the cinema, in the
form of theming, and by the consumers in their attempt to
replicate ritualistic displays that would occur at the game.
This is not surprising as it is often thought that simulation is frequently substituted for genuine experience, and
perhaps even preferred (Baudrillard, 1983); in the case of
the cinema, the preference seems to come from its ease
of access, a superior visual presentation of the game, and
modern comforts inherent to the theater environment.
Just as Gaffney and Bale (2003) suggest that the
game in the stadium is consumed by all senses, the game
in the cinema is also interpreted in a similar way. The
game is viewed by participants in high definition from
more angles than they would get while sitting in a seat
at the ballpark. Modern technology can often make the
inauthentic look more authentic (Fjellman, 1992). The
sounds of the game are transmitted through the telecast,
which include the sounds of the players, sounds of the
crowd, and sounds of the commentary that directs the
focus of the viewer. In addition, the sounds of the crowd
in the cinema are often similar to that of the crowd in
the stadium. Being in an enclosed space, the sound in
the cinema is amplified and adds to the atmosphere,
with some believing the amplification coupled with the
surround sound technology produces a more intense
experience. Tastes and smells of the ballpark are provided
through the availability of the same food and beverage
that are provided in the ballpark. Touch is provided by the
proximity to others in the cinema. The sixth sense noted
by Gaffney and Bale (2003), sense of community and
history, is also experienced in the cinema. The sense of
community is provided by sharing the experience with a
group of likeminded others (most of whom are strangers),
through the history of the team, and through nostalgic
recollections of past game attendance and team performance. Further, new memories and personal histories are
created by being at the cinema.
268 Fairley and Tyler
Unlike attending games at pubs or at the stadium,
where fans of the other team are present, there are no
opponents other than the virtual ones on the screen. As
the live broadcasts in the cinemas are currently only
marketed to fans of one of the teams that are playing,
the cinema provides a space that is unique to fans of
that particular team. In some ways, it provides a place
of “insulated adventure” (Schmidt, 1979, p. 441), where
fans are physically away from the presence of a relevant
outgroup. Cinema attendees can still hear and see the
presence of a relevant outgroup in the coverage (i.e., the
opposing team and fans of the opposing team), but the
opportunity to engage in the face-to-face interaction and
exchange with this relevant outgroup is very unlikely.
The absence of a physical outgroup, however, does not
inhibit intergroup behavior toward the virtual opponent.
As watching sport events in movie cinemas is a relatively new experience for sport fans, attendees negotiate
the social conventions and the way that they act and react
to the broadcast. Baseball stadia are uniquely for sport,
whereas cinemas are not. Modern cinemas are typically
considered quiet places, where attendees listen silently
to the movie with a feeling of losing oneself in the dark
(Ellis, 1982). This desire for isolation is ironic given that
cinema attendees may be motivated by a desire to relieve
feelings of loneliness and to conform to societal norms
(Austin, 1989; Jowett & Linton, 1989). Watching sports
at the cinema, however, offers a greater opportunity to
remain part of the social aggregate. Fans in the cinema
cheer, clap, and react to what is happening in the game
as a collective group. Further, watching movies at the
cinema is a more emotionally passive experience than
watching a live baseball game on the big screen with
other fans of the team. Movies can clearly evoke emotions, however given the added emotional connection
that fans have with their favorite sport team, the sense of
community that fans feel with likeminded others, and the
relaxed social conventions allowing fans to openly react
to the broadcast, the experience is considerably different.
Similar to studies on the television viewing of sport
competitions, the commentators play a substantial role in
the viewing experience of sport fans (Duncan & Brummett, 1989). Unlike watching the televised game in a
bar or pub where there are other distractions, and the
site is not limited to fans of a particular team, fans are
more likely to listen to and hear the commentary. The
commentary acts to fill nonaction time, updates fans on
key happenings in the game, and essentially directs the
attention and subsequent conversations of the fans. This
commentary is not readily available to fans attending the
game. The added information and knowledge provided
through the commentary are then integrated into fans’
accounts of the game. It allows individuals to tell the story
of their viewing experience with added detail, thereby
further legitimizing cinema viewing as an authentic fan
experience. This is a way of communicating added subcultural capital to others, serving to further legitimatize
the behavior as authentic (Leigh et al., 2006). In addition,
the larger screen/picture in the cinemas allows individuals
to feel more intimately linked with the players, the team,
and the action that is happening on the field.
Just as ritual is produced and consumed at the ballpark and while watching the broadcast of sport in the
home (Gantz & Wenner, 1995), ritual is also constructed
and enacted in the cinema. Fans arrive at the cinema up
to an hour early so that they can secure their preferred
seats, socialize, and watch the pregame coverage—they
are thus extending their viewing experience in both time
and space. Ritualistic display of team-related apparel,
merchandise, and memorabilia helps authenticate the
experience. Wearing team-related apparel to the game
denotes ritualized consumption that fans associate with
watching a sport team. The chants and cheers in which
individuals engage are the same as those shouted at the
ballpark. These activities act as “authenticating acts and
authoritative performances” (Rose & Wood, 2005, p. 287)
that further help to transform and legitimize the cinema
as a “sport place”.
Nostalgic recollection of past attendance at ballgames encourages initial consumption of the cinema
experience for some. However, the repeat consumption
is not necessarily in its original form or venue. This does
not mean that a consumer views one experience as being
any more or less authentic than another as an individual’s
viewpoint is real based on one’s own interpretation of
authenticity (Cohen, 1988). The extent to which the
experience is viewed as authentic is, in part, based on
the meaning that the individual places on it.
Implications and Future Research
Screening live games at cinemas can be used to create
and foster a sense of community among fans who are
unable to attend games at the stadium as the cinema setting is particularly conducive for social interaction. The
game-like atmosphere, accompanied by the opportunity
to focus on the game (and not multitask), allows fans
to feel more connected to the team as they believe the
cinema provides an authentic environment in which to
view live games. Thus, providing sites for fans to view
the game with likeminded fans outside of the stadium
can be used as a means of creating social ties that could
lead to increased fan loyalty. Furthermore, such viewing
occasions can lead to social benefits that extend the social
leveragability of the team (Chalip, 2006). Sport marketers
should consider creating themed viewing environments,
particularly for events that are sold out or outside of the
geographic region. These settings would provide individuals with the opportunity to socialize and celebrate a
shared team identity with likeminded others.
In order for marketers to best take advantage of
“third place” viewing sites, they should maximize certain
features of the viewing experience. The “third place”
location offers a collective space in which likeminded
individuals can unite in their shared common interest;
therefore, a primary goal should be to cultivate the organic
interaction among event attendees. A setting where viewers can see one another and move freely may be ideal,
Bringing Baseball to the Big Screen 269
though as detailed above, even the rows of seats of a
cinema can be effective. Another factor is the structure
of the event itself. An event with frequent downtime and
stoppages of play provides attendees with opportunities to
engage one another (Holt, 1995; Melnick, 1993). Where
event structure may be somewhat outside the marketer’s
control, he or she can nevertheless provide interaction
opportunity through extending the viewing period beyond
that of the core event. Giving attendees reason to gather
early for an event (e.g., airing the pregame show at the
cinema) or remain after the event’s conclusion provides
participants further time to extend their social experience.
Lastly, Melnick (1993) suggests that the physical comfort
of event attendees is conducive to communal formation.
While most event organizers would already want to keep
their customers comfortable, the potential communal
benefits offer added motivation.
Future research should examine the use of third
places as venues for creating and fostering a shared
sense of community among sport fans. This research
should focus on third places as sites of socialization into
a subculture of sport fandom. Given watching games at
cinemas is a relatively new phenomenon, longitudinal
work is needed that examines how the cinema setting can
develop and affect sense of community among team fans
over time. Further, the results hint that the cinema may
work as a venue for the socialization of new fans. Future
research should examine how the cinema experience, and
by extension the experience at a third place, can be used
as a venue for socialization and thus create and foster
new fans into the consumption community. Research
should also examine how existing fans’ identification
with a team is affected after being exposed to live games
in the cinema as opposed to exposure to other settings for
viewing games. The setting used in this study consisted
of fans of a single team, thus there was no physical presence of outgroup members (i.e., fans of the other team).
Future research should examine how sense of community
cultivated among attendees differs in these single team
settings, compared with a traditional game-like setting
where fans of both teams are present.
References
Anderson, D.F., & Stone, G.P. (1981). Sport: A search for
community. In S.L. Greendorfer & A. Yiannakis (Eds.),
Sociology of sport: Diverse perspectives (pp. 164–172).
West Point, NY: Leisure.
Austin, B.A. (1989). Immediate seating: A look at movie audiences. Belmont, CA: Wadworth.
Bale, J. (1998). Virtual fandoms: Futurescapes of football. In
A. Brown (Ed.), Fanatics: Power, identity, and fandom in
football (pp. 265–278). London: Routledge.
Baudrillard, J. (1983). Simulations. New York: Semiotexte.
Bruner, E.M. (1994). Abraham Lincoln as authentic reproduction. American Anthropologist, 96, 397–415.
Chalip, L. (2006). Towards social leverage of sport events.
Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11, 109–127.
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization of tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 371–386.
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Duncan, M.C., & Brummett, B. (1989). Types and sources of
spectating pleasure in televised sports. Sociology of Sport
Journal, 6, 195–211.
Dunning, E. (1999). Sport matters: Sociological studies of sport,
violence, and civilization. London: Routledge.
Eastman, S.T., & Land, S.M. (1997). The best of both worlds:
Sport fans find good seats at the bar. Journal of Sport and
Social Issues, 21, 156–178.
Ellis, J. (1982). Visible fictions: Cinema, television, video. New
York: Routledge.
Fairley, S. (2003). In search of relived social experience: Group
based nostalgia sport tourism. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 284–304.
Fisher, R.J., & Wakefield, K. (1998). Factors leading to group
identification: A field study of winners and losers. Psychology and Marketing, 15, 23–40.
Fjellman, S.M. (1992). Vinyl leaves: Walt Disney World and
America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Gaffney, C., & Bale, J. (2003). Sensing the stadium. In P. Vertinsky & J. Bale (Eds.), Sites of sport: Place, space and
experience (pp. 25–38). London: Frank Cass.
Gantz, W., & Wenner, L. (1995). Fanship and the television
sports viewing experience. Sociology of Sport Journal,
12, 56–74.
Gibson, H.J., Willming, C., & Holdnak, A. (2002). “We’re
gators...not just gator fans”: Serious leisure and University of Florida football. Journal of Leisure Research, 34,
397–425.
Gibson, H.J., Willming, C., & Holdnak, A. (2003). Small-scale
event sport tourism: Fans as tourists. Tourism Management, 24, 181–190.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the
public order. New York: Basic Books.
Goldman, R., & Papson, S. (1996). Sign wars: The cluttered
landscape of advertising. New York: Guilford.
Green, B.C. (2001). Leveraging subculture and identity to
promote sport events. Sport Management Review, 4, 1–19.
Green, B.C., & Chalip, L. (1998). Sport tourism as the celebration of subculture. Annals of Tourism Research, 25,
275–291.
Halliday, S. (2001). Deceit, desire, and technology: A media
history of secrets and lies. Forum for Modern Language
Studies, 37, 141–154.
Holt, D.B. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology
of consumption practices. The Journal of Consumer
Research, 22, 1–16.
Holt, D.B. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical
theory of consumer culture and branding. The Journal of
Consumer Research, 29, 70–90.
Jarvie, G. (2006). Sport, culture and society: An introduction.
London: Routledge.
Jowett, G., & Linton, J.M. (1989). Movies as mass communication (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kahle, L.R., Kambara, K.M., & Rose, G.M. (1996). A functional
model of fan attendance motivations for college football.
Sport Marketing Quarterly, 5(4), 51–60.
Kozinets, R.V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities.
JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 39(2), 61–72.
Leigh, T.W., Peters, C., & Shelton, J. (2006). The consumer
quest for authenticity: The multiplicity of meanings within
the MG subculture of consumption. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 481–493.
270 Fairley and Tyler
Lemish, D. (1982). The rules of viewing television in public
places. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 26,
757–781.
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements
of social space in tourist settings. American Journal of
Sociology, 79, 689–603.
MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist. New York: Schocken Books.
McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W., & Koenig, H.F. (2002).
Building brand community. Journal of Marketing, 66(1),
38–54.
Melnick, M.J. (1993). Searching for sociability in the stands:
A theory of sports spectating. Journal of Sport Management, 7, 44–60.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Milne, G.R., & McDonald, M.A. (1999). Sport marketing:
Managing the exchange process. Sudbury, MA: Jones
and Bartlett.
Muñiz, A., & O’Guinn, T.C. (2001). Brand community. The
Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 412–433.
Orvell, M. (1989). The real thing: Imitation and authenticity in
American culture, 1880-1940. Chapel Hill, NC: University
of North Carolina Press.
Phillips, P. (2007). Spectator, audience and response. In J.
Nelmes (Ed.), Introduction to film studies (4th ed., pp.
143–171). New York: Routledge.
Rose, R.L., & Wood, S.L. (2005). Paradox and the consumption
of authenticity through reality television. The Journal of
Consumer Research, 32, 284–296.
Rothenbuhler, E.W. (1988). The living room celebration of
the Olympic Games. The Journal of Communication,
38(4), 61–81.
Rothenbuhler, E.W. (1989). Values and symbols in public orientations to the Olympic media event. Critical Studies in
Mass Communication, 6, 138–157.
Sapolsky, B.S., & Zillmann, D. (1978). Enjoyment of a televised
sport contest under different social conditions of viewing.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 29–30.
Schmidt, C. (1979). The guided tour: Insulated adventure.
Urban Life, 7, 441–467.
Schwandt, T.A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to
human inquiry. N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118-137). London: Sage.
Sloan, L.R. (1989). The function and impact of sports for fans:
A review of theory and contemporary research. In J.H.
Goldstein (Ed.), Sports, games, and play: Social and psychological viewpoints (2nd ed., pp. 175–240). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Solomon, M.R., & Buchanan, B. (1991). A role-theoretic
approach to product symbolism: Mapping a consumption
consolation. Journal of Business Research, 22, 95–109.
Sparvero, E., & Chalip, L. (2007). Professional sport teams as
leverageable assets: Strategic creation of community value.
Sport Management Review, 10, 1–30.
Thornton, S. (1996). Club cultures: Music, media, and subcultural capital. Hanover, VT: University Press of New
England.
Trail, G., & James, J. (2001). The motivation scale for sport
consumption: Assessment of the scale’s psychometric
properties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 108–127.
Trujillo, N., & Krizek, B. (1994). Emotionality in the stands
and in the field: Expressing self through baseball. Journal
of Sport and Social Issues, 18, 303–325.
Turner, G. (1988). Film as social practice. New York: Routledge.
Turner, V. (1982). Celebration studies in festivity and ritual.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Turnstile tracker: MLB regular-season ticket sales up 2.3%.
(2005, October 6). Street & Smith’s SportsBusiness Daily.
Retrieved from http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/
Daily/Issues/2005/10/Issue-19/The-Back-Of-The-Book/
Turnstile-Tracker-MLB-Regular-Season-Ticket-SalesUp-23.aspx
Unruh, D.R. (1980). The nature of social worlds. Pacific Sociological Review, 23, 271–296.
Urry, J. (2002). The tourist gaze. London: Sage.
Voight, D.Q. (1970). The Boston Red Stockings: The birth of
Major League Baseball. The New England Quarterly, 43,
531–549.
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 349–370.
Wann, D.L. (1995). Preliminary validation of the sport fan
motivation scale. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19,
377–396.
Wann, D.L., Melnick, M.J., Russell, G.W., & Pease, D.G.
(2001). Sport fans: The psychology and social impact of
spectators. New York: Routledge.
Weed, M.E. (2006). The story of an ethnography: The experience of watching the 2002 World Cup in the pub. Soccer
and Society, 7, 76–95.
Weed, M.E. (2007). The pub as a virtual football fandom
venue: An alternative to being there? Soccer and Society,
8, 399–414.
Wenner, L.A., & Gantz, W. (1989). The audience experience
with sports on television. In L.A. Wenner (Ed.), Media,
sports and society (pp. 241–269). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Wenner, L.A., & Gantz, W. (1998). Watching sports on television: Audience experience, gender, fanship, and marriage.
In L.A. Wenner (Ed.), Mediasport (pp. 233–251). London:
Routledge.
Whannel, G. (1992). Fields in vision: Television sport and
cultural transformation. London: Routledge.
Zillmann, D., Bryant, J., & Sapolsky, B. (1989). Enjoyment
from sports spectatorship. In J. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports,
games, and play: Social and psychological viewpoints
(2nd ed., pp. 241–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum
and Associates.