Past editors' retrospective: twenty years of Sport Marketing Quarterly.

Lough, Nancy L.

Introduction

As a field of study informed by multiple disciplines, sport marketing has emerged to be recognized as a distinct area of specialization over the past few decades. During this time, Sport Marketing Quarterly (SMQ) has gained prominence as a scholarly publication seeking to fulfill a unique vision: "To be the journal of choice for authors who wish to create and disseminate intellectual contributions in the field of sport marketing and for practitioners who seek to apply this knowledge to the sport industry."

The following retrospective was designed to engage all past SMQ editors in a dialogue reflecting upon both the product as it has developed and promotion of our field. While each editorial team has worked to satisfy SMQ consumers' needs and the interests of the sport marketing community, the need to continually change and grow is apparent. All seven former editors took part in this retrospective. Reflection allows us to honestly consider who our consumers (i.e., readers, contributors) are, what value we provide, and how we can better meet our consumers' needs while providing value to the industry.

Advancing a young field by serving as the tool for knowledge development and dissemination is a worthy goal. Still, multiple constituencies often results in a variety of impressions regarding where needs are being met, and where others have gone unfulfilled. In celebration of the 20th anniversary of SMQ, and with the intent to provide direction for the future, we invite you to ponder your own answers to the following questions, and plan to join in the dialogue as SMQ seeks to reach our next milestone.

Q: "... an academic journal with a practitioner focus ..." What does this mean to you? In other words, how do you understand that statement?

Dallas Branch: "As founder and first editor of the SMQ from 1992-1995, this quote is a distortion of the original "mission statement" of the SMQ, which was to provide a publication vehicle for both the practitioner and the academician alike."

Bill Sutton & Stephen Hardy: "As founding members of the publication, we recall that a primary goal was to develop--with the industry--a research agenda on problems and issues of mutual interest. The academic term for this is now "engagement." I think we can all agree that this has been accomplished in some of the special issues over the years. On the other hand, there has been a dramatic drop-off (from the early years) in such "engaged" material in the regular or non-themed issues.

"We had hoped to encourage collaboration between scholars and practitioners, both in framing questions and in conducting research. We hoped that at least one article per issue would be a collaborative effort. In retrospect, that was not a realistic expectation. In any event, we have fallen short of creating a publication that has encouraged the participation of practitioners."

Brian Crow: "The original intent of the SMQ was to provide an outlet for academics to publish research that would broaden the body of sport management knowledge and theory, yet be practical to those working and making decisions in the sport industry. This was a challenge in the beginning and continues to be difficult."

Jacquelyn Cuneen: "To me, a focus journal casts a specific spotlight on a certain topic. Unlike a Journal of Sport Management that carries articles addressing the broad spectrum of sport management, a focus journal such as the Sport Marketing Quarterly addresses a narrower topic."

Matt Shank: "I understand this statement to mean that SMQ is written by and for academics first, but that the nature of our research will always remain applied, in large part. I believe if the reverse was true, we would simply become a glorified trade journal or publication."

Q: Who is the audience ("clientele") for SMQ? Has that changed over the years and, if so, how?

Branch: "The SMQ's clientele is clearly now academicians and sport management program students. I doubt many, if any, practitioners, are able to get much insight or useful information for the sport marketing profession. It has changed dramatically over time to become much more scholarly and much less relevant to the practitioner."

Sutton & Hardy: "We would take the position that the audience for the non-special issues is essentially academics writing for other academics. The special issues--depending upon topics--have content that we believe is interesting and of significant value for practitioners, although we are not sure that the marketing of the publication itself and the distribution system for SMQ is conducive to reaching the sport industry practitioners whom we feel could benefit significantly from the content contained in those special issues."

Crow: I think the complexity of the audience has evolved (and that SMQ helped that along), because now many faculty members in sport management and sport marketing are coming to the academy with some practical experience, not just a doctoral degree."

Cuneen: "I think the SMQ has started to bridge the gap between academe and industry, but I think it has been embraced more by academe."

Shank: "I'm not sure I have the historical perspective to answer this question, but I believe the intended target audience was initially the sport industry practitioner and this has evolved to a very high percentage of subscribers/readers being academic (I'll guess 95%). Although the intended audience is now more academic in nature, I believe it was always an academic audience in terms of readership."

Q: "... bridging the gap between theory and practice ...." What does this statement mean to you?

Branch: "Is theory inspired by practice or is practice inspired by theory? Is SMQ serving academics or practitioners, or both? Is it realistic to think that SMQ can serve both academics and practitioners? If publications are too practically oriented, the journal might have difficulty being considered a top tier journal for tenure and promotion purposes. If, on the other hand, it is too theoretical, it might not be as user-friendly for practitioners. Is it realistic to think that we will find a happy medium? Or should we attempt to address each audience with different offerings? I believe the SMQ has long passed this noble (and original) goal."

Lynn Kahle: "As Kurt Lewin once said, 'There is nothing so practical as a good theory.' While applications to marketing are stressed throughout SMQ, good scholarship will always skew more towards theory than anything else. Data and research in the final analysis should illuminate theory. The most successful businesses will have sophisticated theories guiding them. The right big ideas are what create big successes. Academic scholars will best serve the profession when they develop and refine theories that serve the profession. The challenge is to emphasize meaningful theories that really do guide improved decision-making."

Crow: "I certainly understand the dilemma posed by this question, and would like to see SMQ become an outlet for both audiences. For example, continue to have the print version of SMQ be focused on peer-reviewed, theoretical, academic research findings (if they are also of practical value, that's a bonus). Maintain the rigor to continue to satisfy the tenure and promotion committees.

"In addition, create an online version of SMQ (although quarterly would probably not be appropriate in the title) that allows researchers to publish timely case studies, opinion pieces, best practices, etc. The review process would be much less rigorous, with no intent for these articles to serve as means for promotion and tenure. In fact, very few of these would be written by academics, unless in collaboration with an industry professional. This would also be an ideal outlet for practitioners to request research assistance from academics."

Sutton & Hardy: "Bridging the gap between theory and practice--the gap exists and unfortunately we (SMQ) are not addressing it, as the practitioners look to publications such as Street and Smith's SportsBusiness Journal and industry conferences and league meetings focusing on best practices to meet their needs. The most notable exception is the popularity of the MIT Sloan Business School Conference on Business Analytics in Sport. This conference, hosted by a business school and its faculty and featuring the work of its MBA students, has not only been attended by practitioners, but the MBA students have been hired and the majority of all professional teams have a business analytics unit. The message we take from this is that high-powered statistical analysis has a very real application and opportunity in the sport industry, if the focus of that analysis has an application that can influence business practices and profitability."

Cuneen: "I don't think the SMQ is too theoretical. However, I do think the scholarly lean of the journal tends to alienate the industry. I don't think it's unrealistic to think that the journal can serve both parties, but I think it will always be more appreciated by academe. Academe had and has a greater need for a journal such as the SMQ."

Shank: "I feel strongly that there are plenty of practitioner sources for what is going on in the industry and secondary research to support the industry via trade associations. It would be a mistake to try to compete with the industry trade publications and become too applied. On the other hand, there are very few good academic journals focusing on sport marketing, so I believe that this should be our focus moving forward. To answer the question, as with most products, when you try to serve two distinct target audiences with the same product, the result is disastrous."

Q: In your opinion, can research be valuable for practitioners while meeting high levels of academic rigor? Explain your position.

Branch: "We all would hope this would be possible, but unfortunately academicians and practitioners have goals that are not compatible in the sport marketplace."

Crow: "This isn't a question with a clear yes/no answer. My concern has always been that reviewers who may have strong statistical and theoretical knowledge may not have the practical experience to know the value of meaningful research. Conversely, someone with bountiful practical experience likely will not have the expertise to rigorously review an academic article. That may sound harsh, but it is rare to find someone with expertise in both realms who is willing. In addition, the fact that conducting rigorous academic research is a lengthy process often precludes the results from being meaningful to practitioners."

Sutton & Hardy: "Can research be valuable for practitioners while meeting high levels of academic rigor? In a word, "yes," if the article can demonstrate the value and show the application of the findings to the sport industry. This can only happen if academics take the time to involve themselves with practitioners, learn about their challenges and problems, and conduct research targeted to solving those problems. In other words, if academics become "engaged." The rigor is essential for both parties if the research design is accurate and properly investigated. To sum it up, if academics collaborate more with practitioners on framing questions of mutual interest, they will be more likely to demonstrate the value of their work. And they would be more likely to show the value of their approach to research, an engagement equally valuable to both sides. Unfortunately, most of the scholarly works we have read in SMQ appear to skip this notion of engagement. Hence, they produce fine scholarly work which is ignored by practitioners."

Cuneen: "Yes, I believe this is so. Even if industry professionals don't read SMQ, they certainly benefit from it, as faculty use the information in industry consulting and as new employees who have been exposed to the SMQ while in academe enter the workforce."

Shank: "Absolutely! The answer lies not in the research results or methods but in the research questions being considered. We can still perform the most rigorous academic research but we should be consulting the industry on the burning questions."

Q: Being practitioner focused does not mean simplifying the writing; it is about being cutting-edge. But our research is in many (if not most) cases reactive, thus some may say irrelevant to practitioners--which is somewhat of a paradox. Why would sport marketing practitioners be interested in SMQ research if we continue to be reactive? The industry might lack some of the theory, but they are cutting-edge in technology and marketing practices. Unless we become more proactive and cutting edge, value of SMQ research for sport marketing practitioners will be questionable. Should we become more cutting-edge? And if so, how?

Cuneen: "It never hurts to keep retesting the 'typical' for current usefulness! Also, who says the industry is cutting edge? We see very few original marketing campaigns and unique advertising entries. They all copy each other! Right now, the trend is embedded advertising and product integration, which is an extended play on the old product placement method that has been around for a century."

Shank: "I believe that in order to become more cutting edge in sport marketing, we need to monitor trends in other disciplines and adapt these methods to sport marketing research. Perhaps there is a new method for conducting qualitative research developed by the sociologists or new quantitative methods designed by psychologists. We should be aware of research trends and, at the same time, start to develop our own."

Q: In your opinion, does SMQ have any advantage over other marketing publications? How can SMQ attract high-quality work from marketing scholars doing research in sport in addition to high-quality research from sport marketing scholars?

Branch: "The SMQ does have an advantage in that it is dedicated to marketing sport, rather than marketing that happens to use sport."

Kahle: "One major advantage of sports marketing as an area of research is that it draws from several different disciplines. As an ever-more diverse group of scholars think about sport marketing, they bring new ideas that can cross-fertilize and produce ever better hybrid ideas."

Crow: "Yes, SMQ has an advantage because of the audience it has cultivated over the past 20 years and the reputation it has maintained. Perhaps inviting some marketing scholars to serve on the Editorial Board could help."

Sutton & Hardy: "In our opinion, yes, because sport is not only an accepted topic but the focus of the publication. Again, it comes back, ironically, to how well SMQ markets itself or fails to market itself at the AMA and other non-sport colloquiums and also through our own Sport Marketing Association and related conference. As of this writing, we are beginning to make inroads in the latter area."

Cuneen: "I think it does have an edge, particularly with the special feature departments. The law section and the industry insider information are very useful, as are the case studies. The SMQ seems more accepting of progress than some of the other journals in academe."

Shank: "The one advantage that SMQ has over other marketing publications is the niche it occupies, being the older sport marketing-specific journal in academia."

Q: In your institution, how is SMQ valued compared to other journals for tenure and promotion purposes? Has that changed over the years and, if so, how? Would a more international scope be beneficial? Do we need to add more special issues to add breadth to the topics covered?

Branch: "The SMQ is considered a Tier I (top tier) journal in the Sport Management promotion and tenure decisions at our institution."

Crow: "SMQ is highly valued for tenure and promotion purposes at my institution, and has been for quite some time. To my knowledge there is no restriction against submitting international work to SMQ, so a focus in that area is likely not necessary."

Sutton & Hardy: "In our experiences SMQ is unfairly ranked behind the Journal of Sport Management (JSM), even though there have been very few marketing-related articles published in JSM over the life of the Journal. JSM is a first-rate scholarly publication and is widely accepted as the premier scholarly sport management journal. SMQ should be perceived in a similar fashion as it is (or should be) the number one outlet for sport marketing-focused research."

Cuneen: "I believe a research article appearing in SMQ is valued by the sport management faculty in most programs. Frankly, I know that sometimes in some programs we must explain the value of all sport-related journals to our colleagues in other departments/programs."

Shank: "As SMQ articles continue to evolve and become more rigorous, it will take on heightened significance to T&P committees and to others who are less familiar with sport marketing. Generally, those not studying sport marketing are more concerned with methods than the questions being addressed because that is what they are comfortable evaluating."

Q: In your opinion, how might (or should) the recent move of sport management programs from education/physical education/kinesiology departments to departments of business be reflected in the mission, scope, and content of SMQ (if at all)?

Branch: "This may be premature, as many other programs still have not (and may not) make this same transition to business programs."

Crow: "This change is a long-time overdue, but I think the content and scope of SMQ has always focused on the business, not the activity, segment of the industry."

Sutton & Hardy: "In our opinion, this is a moot point as SMQ content has never focused or encouraged submissions with a PE or kinesiology focus. While the 'home' of sport management/business programs has changed, the business focus of SMQ remains true to the mission and intent."

Cuneen: "I honestly don't believe the SMQ should concern itself with the home units of any academic program."

Shank: "I don't think the trend to move to schools of business should be reflected in SMQ at all. As I said earlier, I believe the issue is asking the right questions, applying cutting-edge methods to answer these questions, and then discussing how our research is relevant. Whether that happens in a school of business or school of education is irrelevant to me."

Q: The question "Where do we belong as a discipline?" seems to re-emerge year after year. Perhaps a better question is how can we prepare our students for successful careers in sport marketing/management? What skills are needed and wanted by employers and are we giving those skills to our students? It could very likely be that different sport management programs have different foci and are even housed in different departments, but that all fit within the academy of sport management. Is SMQ serving a vital role with regard to preparing future professionals in the field?

Branch: "The SMQ is rather self-serving to the academician rather than for students who want to enter the sport marketing field."

Kahle: "Scholars from education, leisure, psychology, sociology, and business all view the world somewhat differently. True interdisciplinary interaction can improve how we understand sport marketing. Everyone who cares about advancing the field should welcome and promote the dialogue. Ideally, new ideas and theories unique to sports will emerge and justify such a specialized journal."

Crow: "Only on rare occasions. The only students who are helped by SMQ are those few master's students who are looking to move to a doctoral program, and those already in doctoral programs looking for a research outlet. Undergraduate students and master's students looking to work in the industry receive very little benefit from SMQ beyond intellectual stimulation."

Sutton & Hardy: "We do believe that SMQ is serving a role in preparing students to enter the sport industry because it demonstrates critical thinking, offers a standard academic way to identify and articulate research problems, and illustrates effective research techniques and analyses. However, there is room for significant improvement if the content was more clearly related to the best practices and techniques utilized in the industry and, like medical research, was focused on solving problems and offering a 'cure for the ailments or illness causing the industry to suffer.' We believe this would happen with more engaged scholarship."

Cuneen: "I think the majority of programs are doing an excellent job in preparing students for entry-level positions in sport management. I am one of the believers in the former sport management program approval council and the current commission on sport management accreditation. A student enrolled in a good program emerges with a head start in the industry. I know there are detractors in both academe and industry who undervalue or outright condemn sport management as an academic major, but anyone who supervises interns knows that most of the industry appreciates our major as well as the students' skills and contributions."

Shank: "I believe where we belong as a discipline is, in fact, the critical question. Let me reframe my response. I'm not sure it matters if we are housed in schools of business or education or other areas of the university. What matters is that we are moving forward as an academic discipline in order to gain credibility and, of course, continue to move our field forward with new knowledge that will in turn help the profession.

"I still believe the fundamental skills required by employers are the same as those from any industry. Employers want strong communication skills (both written and oral) and employees who are critical thinkers and problem solvers. Also, I believe we need to have special emphases on sales skills and the principles of selling."

Q: The industry has changed significantly in the past 20 years. Please share additional thoughts regarding how this change has been reflected in Sport Marketing Quarterly, and how SMQ can continue to improve over the next 20 years.

Branch: "The SMQ may evolve (out of necessity) to becoming more of a practitioner-relevant publication in the next 20 years, but as long as academicians are calling the shots on its future direction, it is highly unlikely this change will indeed take place."

Kahle: "Not all articles are equally brilliant at explicating ideas in a manner that everyone appreciates. Authors need to submit their best work to a journal to help it prosper. Editors can only publish manuscripts that they receive. The review process may in some cases improve the quality of published manuscripts, but ultimately authors bear the responsibility for what they write."

Crow: "I really think the only way to improve is through becoming timelier for practitioners. Social media allows decision-makers in sport marketing to measure the results of their promotions, events, etc., within minutes, while an academic journal could take over a year. I'm not sure what the final product would look like, but we have to be able to be relevant in a timely manner."

Sutton & Hardy: "For the most part SMQ has always tried to be very topical and timely with the research agenda. For example, the number of articles related to social media seems to be consistent with the attention the topic is receiving in other journals as well as trade publications."

Cuneen: "I note some very sophisticated and strong designs in the current SMQ research. While the questionnaire method was essential to answer the kinds of questions that needed solutions in the past, current authors have really devised some great ways to find new information about every aspect of sport marketing."

Shank: "Because of the tremendous popularity and growth of sport marketing programs over the last decade, I feel that sport marketing is becoming more mainstream. To me, mainstream means those that are not in the discipline recognize it and I think this is happening regardless of how we might 'borrow' from other disciplines."

In asking the past editors for some final thoughts, several ideas were shared with regard to possible future directions for SMQ and the editors weighed in with their opinions.

* Introduce a new section in SMQ written by a sport marketing professional that will present best practices in a specific sport marketing area (something like a "From the Field" section). Contributors could also represent companies/vendors who do business with sport organizations (e.g., providers of database software, ticketing systems, specialized services, other technologies). Potential contributors could be identified through the Sport Marketing Association, North American Society for Sport Management, and other conferences or through personal contacts. If successful, this would become a permanent feature in each SMQ issue.

Branch: "Good idea. This could be done in the online version and much more often than four times per year."

Cuneen: "First, when I was editor I tried to get an industry professional to read a selected manuscript and write a reaction to it, so their reaction would appear directly after the article in the same issue. I tried this a couple of times, and each time the executive backed out at the last minute, and I subsequently abandoned the idea.

"Second, I always wanted to make an SMQ Executive Summary for the industry professionals and send out an email telling them how to find it on the Fitness Information Technology website. This summary would have been a series of detailed abstracts with directions on how to access the entire article or subscribe to SMQ. I thought that would be a good way to get past the gate and reach the top echelon and make them aware of the SMQ and the valuable information in it. Alas, I couldn't find anyone willing to write the summary for each issue."

* Address under-studied areas with one special issue each year. Invite the sport marketing scholar-expert in the field to serve as guest editor. Examples of emerging and continuing trends in

sport marketing and/or areas where additional study is needed include the following:

* Green marketing, sustainability

* New media, social media

* Pricing strategies, yield management

* Fantasy sports

* Global expansion, serving global markets

* Brand extensions, expansion in new business ventures

* Corporate social responsibility, cause-related marketing

* Gambling

* Sport and entertainment marketing as an emerging academic area

* Relationship marketing

* Datamining/analytics

* Data-driven decision making

Sutton & Hardy: "We are extremely supportive of some of the future directions/concepts mentioned. We particularly support the 'From the Field' concept, utilizing practitioners as guest authors as this is in line with the intent of the journal in our original conceptualization."

"The special issue concept is also critical. Prior to the Irwin/Sutton special issue earlier this year focusing on sales, there had only been one article published on sales in the 20-year history of SMQ. The special issue format provides an opportunity to not only be timely but also to add depth and possibly alternative views of a topic within the same issue."

"We agree with all of the potential topics and would recommend adding experiential marketing and engagement marketing (sponsor activation) as areas that are not only timely but under-represented in SMQ."

Cuneen: "The special issues are wonderful. I hope the editorial board decides to keep them. That's where we find some very sharp cutting-edge work. Anything we can do with green sustainability, social media, and one-to-one relationship marketing is essential."

Conclusion

Having served as editor for the past two years, a few key points bear repeating. We are reliant upon the choices made by those who elect to submit their work for consideration. Content is not dictated by the editor. SMQ has reflected industry trends well over the years, and the authors responsible for these studies deserve the credit. With regard to special issues addressing timely topics, the interest must be expressed by those who are willing to take on the challenge. Fortunately for SMQ, several leading scholars have noticed a gap and responded by creating a call for papers to create a special issue. SMQ maintains a standard process accessible via the website for those who have an interest in serving as a special issue guest editor.

Lastly, in this editor's opinion, the following question encapsulates the call SMQ was designed to answer. "Can research be valuable for practitioners while meeting high levels of academic rigor?" As Matt Shank enthusiastically indicated, "Absolutely! The answer lies ... in the research questions being considered. We can still perform the most rigorous academic research but we should be consulting the industry on the burning questions."

This shift in perspective, toward the industry as the source of our research questions and toward a more "engaged" approach as depicted by Bill Sutton and Stephen Hardy, would seemingly bridge the gap between academic research and meaningful answers for the industry we serve. What will the burning questions be over the next 20 years? This remains to be seen, but if the past tells us something about the future, we can expect SMQ will be leading the way.

Special gratitude is extended to all past editors for their willingness to share their wisdom: Dallas Branch (1992-1995), Bill Sutton & Stephen Hardy (1996-1999), Lynn Kahle (2000), Brian Crow (2001-2003), Jacquelyn Cuneen (2004-2006), and Matt Shank (2007-2009).

Nancy L. Lough is a professor in the Higher Education Leadership program in the College of Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Her research interests include marketing women's sport, corporate sponsorship, social marketing, and leadership in intercollegiate athletics.