Reputation

Reputation is not an impromptu judgment, but continuing cognition (Fombrun, 1996) that is a corporation’s most valuable intangible equity (Hall, 1992). The personal reputations of CEOs, politicians, and sports athletes have also been emphasized as an aggregate of cognition (Decremer & Sedikides, 2008). This cognition comes from personal characteristics and behavior, an image that has been accumulated, or an image that is described by others (Zinko, 2007).

An organization or person’s reputation is mainly the connection they need with others’ interest and support to accomplish social compensation and objectives (Fombrun, 1996). Whether an organization’s or a person’s, reputation is an increasingly essential factor in our society (Graber, 1976). Where the quality of products and services are hardly differentiated between competitive corporations reputation impacts consumers’ decisions to select and buy a corporation’s products or services (Hall, 1992).

Corporate reputation may be defined as customers’ entire evaluation of a corporation, made on the basis of its products, services, communication, CEOs, employees, and business activities (Walsh & Beatty, 2007). A corporation is a complex organization that acts like a person in a variety of aspects (Ackerman, 1984). As a long-recognized entity in many countries’ legal frameworks, corporations are endowed with the same rights and duties that a person has (Blackston, 1993). Therefore, reviewing and extracting factors of corporate reputation would be meaningful for understanding athlete’s reputations.

The Reputation Institute in the United States pinpointed four dimensions (feeling, esteem, admiration, and trust) and seven factors (products/services, innovation, workplace, governance, citizenship, leadership, and performance) that should be used as criteria for evaluating corporate reputation. Fortune magazine also selects “the most admired corporation” based on eight factors: a) quality of management; b) quality of product/service; c) innovativeness; d) long-term investment value; e) financial soundness; f) ability to attract, develop, and keep talented people; g) responsibility to the community; and h) wise use of assets. As for reorganizing factors of corporate reputation gathered from previous studies, these factors are narrowed down to corporate constituents, corporate customers, corporate products and services, and corporate management and operations.

Personal reputation is an aggregate of cognition about a certain person by others (DeCremer & Sedikides, 2008), resulted from saturated personal characteristics, behaviors, and images described by others over an extended period of time (Zinko, 2007). It is crucial to maintain a positive reputation (Foste & Botero, 2011), because a person with a positive reputation is recognized as more talented, high status, and trustworthy (Gioia & Sims, 1983). In politics, personal reputations are greatly emphasized. Most voters are more interested in a candidate’s personality or characteristics than in their political promises (Miller & Miller, 1976) if a candidate’s political promises are not differentiable from others’.

CEO groups recognize “trustworthiness,” “ethical behavior,” “corporate management capacity,” “role model,” “communication skills,” and “risk-management capacity” as factors contributing to CEO reputation. However, governmental officials, media, investors, and customers indicate “trustworthiness,” “suggesting clear vision,” and “engagement of talent” as components of CEO reputation; these components, then, are recognized differently by different corporate stakeholder groups (Gaines-Ross, 2000). In addition, previous studies have suggested as components of reputation trustworthiness, risk management, customer management, strategic vision, and human resource management for CEOs (Han, 2005) and morality, economic management, communication, government operation, and global competence for presidents (Shim, 2011).

Sports Athlete Reputation

Sports athlete and personal reputations almost mirror each other. Like the aspects of personal reputation previously mentioned, athlete reputations may be defined as others’ aggregate of cognition about a sports athlete resulting from saturated personal characteristics and behaviors shown in or outside the stadium, and images described by others over a long time (DeCremer & Sedikides, 2008; 2003; Zinko et al., 2007). Although research directly related to sports athlete reputation is hard to find, relationships between individual athletes and/or teams and corporate sponsorships have been extensively studied. Sports athlete’s endorsements of corporate brands have been relatively well studied. Therefore, reviewing previous studies regarding brand images of athletes will help to deduce the components of athletes’ reputation.

Professional teams may scout and recruit star athletes in order to transfer and associate his or her fans’ attitude and loyalty toward the athletes’ new team. In the past, fans choose to support teams on the basis of their loyalty to that team and its region, but many fans now render their support to a team based on their favorite athletes, regardless of regional background. A fan’s affection and loyalty towards an athlete associated with a particular brand or brands will sustain that brand’s image. This information is a crucial factor for a company deciding which athlete and/or team to endorse. As an athlete’s brand value increases, so does the numbers of corporations trying to utilize his or her brand to actualize their brand marketing. Tiger Woods, a golf player, secured world level sponsorships in 2000 from more than eleven global corporations such as Nike, and Rolex in the value of $54 million (Ferguson, 2000). Sports athlete’s endorsement influences the increase of stock value for their corporation sponsors. When Michael Jordan came back to the NBA (National Basketball Association), relevant corporations’ stock value was increased by the volume of one billion dollars (Costanzo, 2005). Corporations favor sports athletes as an advertising model because of the return on investment. A sports star can generate a better marketing effect than any other celebrity entertainers. The expenditure is rather low for endorsing athletes compared to endorsing TV and movie stars, and sports athletes reach a variety of demographics through sporting content with relatively fewer cultural and lingual barriers.

Many studies regarding brand reputations have focused mostly on products and services rather than personal brands (Yang, 2007). Product and service brands differ from personal brands in that first, the lifespan of a personal brand is relatively short. Secondly, product and service brands are capable of being adjusted through advertisement, public relations, price, manufacturing, or repackaging. Third, personal brands, including sports athlete brands, are susceptible to interdependent influences: team, peer athletes, corporate sponsors, and the media, as well as the person’s athletic skill and ability (Yang, 2007).

Factors influencing the brands of teams and athletes in a sport may be classified into individual and environmental factors. Individual factors include athletic ability, technique, personality, playing style, and behavior in and outside the stadium, while league, team, peer athletes, corporations, and the media comprise the environmental factors (Yang, 2007). In addition, attractiveness, expertise, and trustworthiness are also viewed as factors affecting athlete’s images (Spry, 2009). It is remarkable that athletes’ brands are heavily influenced by factors external to the sport, such as personality and private life, in addition to sporting ability, technique, and playing style in the stadium.

Research Design and Procedure

In order to collect factors constructing sports athlete reputation, previous research was reviewed as a pre-study, and an open-ended survey based on free association was conducted of selected sports experts. In addition, sports news articles collected from three terrestrial TV stations and a major newspaper were analyzed to extract additional factors of sports athletes’ reputations. As a result of the review, survey, and analysis of news articles, 79 items in total were collected as factors influencing sports athletes’ reputations.

As a second pre-study, 30 sports professionals associated with sport-related organizations reviewed these 79 items. Those professionals helped to determine whether the 79 items were acceptable criteria for determining sports athletes’ reputations. Those items that this review determined overlapped with others were removed or merged into one. In addition to this narrowing process, four additional items were newly recommended. The process resulted in a final number of 44 items for use in the study.

To test the reliability of these 44 items, 121 sports consumer panelists were surveyed online as a third pre-test. The final 44 items were confirmed as factors influencing sport athletes’ reputations, and the main survey was conducted with these items.

In the main survey, 452 panelists were collected through an on-line survey. Panel members were limited to those who regularly play or watch golf in order to minimize the possibility of non-response, which would include panel members who lack information or familiarity regarding the golf athletes, the research subjects in this study. To verify the 44 items of sports athletes’ reputations that were confirmed in the pre-tests Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted, and the finally selected items were applied to measure reputational indices for subjects of analysis in this study.

Subject of Analysis

Factors influencing sports athletes’ reputations may vary according to the nature of their sport. Athletes in an individual sport were the target subjects of this research, which analyzed in particular golfers belonging to both the PGA (Professional Golf Association) and LPGA (Ladies Professional Golf Association). The global popularity of this sport was one reason for this selection.

To determine the criteria for selecting specific athletes as research targets in this study, an open-ended survey was conducted of golf fans asking about the reputations of golf players in the PGA and/or LPGA, whether positive or negative. Golf athletes frequently mentioned on the survey may be regarded as having well-constructed awareness. Next, because it would be difficult to compare reputational indexes when deviation of golfing competence is too wide, golfers were selected who averaged in the top fifty golfers in the PGA and LPGA in terms of amount of awards over two years (2010–2011). Although Tiger Woods was not included on the list due to his scandal, he was included for analysis because of his 73 total PGA wins. Selected research subjects were K. J. Choi, Michelle Wie, Y. E. Yang, Seri Pak, Na Yeon Choi, Tiger Woods, Jyai Shin, and Yani Tseng.

Factor analysis

As a result of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) for the 44 items of sports athletes’ reputations those were confirmed in the pre-tests, 21 items were finally selected and grouped into six factors in the main study as reported in Table 1: a) game results; b) management of playing capability; c) personal character; d) external appeal; e) sportsmanship, and f) management of privacy.

To verify these six factors and 21 items, CFA (confirmatory factor analysis) was conducted against the responses of the other 226 participants who were not used for EFA. As reported in Table 2, the χ² value was 926.580, the degree of freedom was 137, TLI was .949, CFI was .959, and RMSEA was .067. Goodness of fit for the analysis satisfies the critical value. Thus, the model measured by CFA was deemed acceptable.

In order to measure whether each item properly explains its factor, standardized coefficients were reviewed, as follows: game results were .760–.884, management of playing capability was .834–.865, personal character was .803–.862, external appeal was .763–.875, sportsmanship was .874–.901, and privacy management was .848–934. Each value was over the critical value of .4; thus, all items selected in this study turned out to well represent latent variables.

In addition, each variable is independent without exceeding the criterion (.85) for latent variables’ correlation, as shown in Table 3. As for each factor’s reliability coefficient, all the factors’ internal consistency and reliability exceeded .8, as reported in Table 4, indicating that the factors are highly reliable.

Importance of the Factors and Items for Athletes’ Reputations

Weighted values for the six factors and 21 items were computed from the main survey, which required respondents to rank the factors and items in order of most to least relative importance. The importance of the factors and items were measured using a fixed-sum scale; the total importance scores of both factors and items were converted into a score of 100 points. Of the six factors, game results presented the highest weighted value, followed by management of playing capability, sportsmanship, personal character, privacy management, and external appeal in that respective order from highest to lowest.

As reported in Table 5, of the 21 items, first, among the five items of the game results factor, “participates in world events often” presented the highest item scale, while “excellent game record” was highest for item weight. Second, among the four items of management of playing capability, “Confidence in his/her sporting area” presented the highest item scale, while “strive for self-development” was revealed as the highest weighted item by importance. Third, among the four items of personal character, “Knows his/her own mind” was highest in item scale, while “Treads carefully in personal behavior” was highest in item weight. Fourth, among the two items of external appeal, “attractive physical condition” presented the highest item scale and item weight, followed by “favorable appearance”. Fifth, among the three items of sportsmanship, “Plays responsibly in games” was highest both in item scale and item weight. Sixth, among the three items of privacy management, “Lack of negative scandals such as drug abuse” was highest in item scale and “Clean private life” was highest in item weight.

For each factor, the highest item scale is different from the highest item weight. The item scales reflect the particular research subjects, while the item weights represent the items influential for sports athletes’ reputations regardless of specific athletes. Therefore, it may be meaningful to calculate the item weighted values for application to factor and item scales when computing sports athletes’ reputations.

Sports Athlete Reputational Index

In order to measure Sports Athlete Reputational Index (SRI) for the eight golfers in this study, a factor index is computed by applying the weighted values of items to the athletes’ substantive item scales, as shown in Figure 1. Management of playing capability’s factor index was highest, with a score of 74.80, and management of playing capability, game results, privacy management, personal character, and external appeal followed in order of descending weight.

View original

Figure 1.

N = number of items, Xi = item scale, Wi = weighed value of item

Next, the weighted values of the factors are multiplied by each respective factor index, and the sum of the results is considered the average sports athlete reputational index for the research subjects: 73.19 out of 100, as reported in Table 5. The formula to calculate sports athlete reputational index is reported in Figure 2.

View original

Figure 2.

N = number of items, FIi = item scale, FWi = weighed value of item

SRI for Research Targets

The sports athlete reputational indices for the eight golf players are presented in Figure 3. Jyai Shin ranked highest in the reputation index, with K. J. Choi, Na Yeon Choi, Yani Tseng, Tiger Woods, Seri Pak, Y. E. Yang, and Michelle Wie following, respectively.

View original

Figure 3.

Sports Athlete Reputational Index for Research Targets

In order to analyze whether or not the six factors for sports athlete reputation are different for each player, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted, with posterior analysis also performed using Duncan. All the factors of athlete reputation have a statistically meaningful difference for each player (p < .001), as reported in Table 6.

In game results, Tiger Woods ranked at the top, while Michelle Wie ranked the lowest. Regarding management of playing capability, Tiger Woods, Jiyai Shin, and K.J. Choi ranked at the top, while Michelle Wie again ranked lowest among the subjects. In personal character, Jiyai Shin and K.J. Choi ranked at the top, while Tiger Woods ranked at the bottom. In external appeal, Michelle Wie was top-ranked, while Se Ri Pak and Jiyai Shin ranked lowest. In sportsmanship, Jiyai Shin and K.J. Choi ranked at the top, with Michelle Wie trailing at the end. Lastly, in privacy management, Jiyai Shin was top-ranked, while Tiger Woods came in last.