Cover Story
MARKET RESEARCH EXPLORES CONSIDERATIONS AMONG DECISION-MAKERS IN
CHOOSING PLAYING SURFACES C
By Casey Reynolds, Ph.D., Executive Director, Turfgrass Producers International ollege and professional football season are upon us, and sports fans can feel the excitement in the air. As always, preseason polls, national championship
predictions, and other team chatter is in the news, but also making headlines this year are several recent retirements of prominent football players citing in part, concerns over their long-term safety and health. The safety and health of athletes is and should be a top priority for leagues, coaches, parents, and others. However, what other factors are considered when installing new athletic fields? Is it maintenance, costs, environment, or other factors? Is it all of the above? If so, which factors play most heavily in these decisions? This was the topic of research targeted in recent market research conducted in 2018 in the United States and Canada. Six companies submitted proposals for this market research and FleishmanHillard, a global PR firm and digital marketing agency based in St. Louis, MO was selected as the winning proposal. FleishmanHillard is an internationally recognized PR firm that was founded in 1946 that represents businesses including Barnes & Noble, Proctor & Gamble, General Motors, Energizer, EA Sports, and more. They have over 80 offices in 30 countries and as such are able to reach audiences domestically and internationally. First, FleishmanHillard analyzed the current state of affairs in print and social media with regard to natural grass and synthetic turf. Natural grass proponents and synthetic turf companies tout many of the same benefits including cost, environmental impact, durability and safety — many of consumers’ major concerns. They also analyzed the share of each group’s voice in digital media as well as the positive, neutral, and negative perceptions by subject for natural grass and artificial turf. One of the key items that jumped out was that it appears natural grass fields are taken for granted. There are fewer arguments for natural grass, rather than against artificial turf, because natural grass is in the default position. Artificial turf often gets more coverage and has non-neutral articles, in part simply because it is new and debated. In addition to an analysis of print and digital media, FleishmanHillard surveyed 141 decision-makers (coaches, athletic directors, city employees, etc.) in the United States and Canada (Figure 1) to get an idea of what they determined as motivating factors when selecting new playing surfaces for their communities. These respondents were presented with a series of statements revolving around considerations of various playing surfaces and
20
Nor th Caro lina Tur fg r as s
n
www. n c t urfg rass. o r g
n
TABLE 1
DECISION-MAKERS’ POSITIONS (n=141)
An athletic director or assistant athletic director
18%
A committee and/or board member for my city, county or state
17%
An elected official in my city, county or state
17%
A parks and recreation manager and/or superintendent from the local community/county
15%
A city manager, assistant city manager, city administrator or assistant city administrator
13%
A groundskeeper / grounds manager / athletic field manager
13%
A member of my community’s athletic association
A community leader (serves on local boards, etc.)
No v e m b e r / D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 9
6%
1%
