The Constraint Negotiation Process and the Outcome of Substitution Towards Major Event Spectatorship
Amanda Ayling
Griffith University
Project Overview
Substitute major events include live sites, event celebrations and viewing parties that are held at the same time
as the actual major event, but away from the actual major event site. These events include some degree of
media simulcast and replication of the major event, in terms of activities, food, drink and dress. Some examples
of major events that attract substitute events include the FIFA Soccer World Cup, Superbowl, the Eurovision
Song Contest and the Olympic Games, as well as many sporting fixtures. Stakeholders are increasingly using
these events to counteract venue and destination capacity concerns, and in leveraging the social value
connected with major sporting and non-sporting events. They are also becoming frequently used by consumers
as a way of feeling a part of the major event, particularly when spectatorship to the actual event venue may not
be possible. However, little is known about how consumers arrive at the decision to attend a substitute event
rather than spectatorship at the actual major event.
Research on event spectatorship behaviour has begun to identify the main constraints experienced by attendees
and non-attendees to special events. However, a lack of research has focused on the constraints encountered by
substitute attendees. In addition, research has yet to identify the main ways in which consumers overcome or
alleviate the effects of constraints on spectatorship towards major and substitute events. Furthermore, event
research has yet to examine the relationships between motivation, constraints, negotiation and participation
(including substitution), in consumers’ spectatorship decisions. Similarly, research within the frameworks of
leisure constraint theory and the theory of substitutability has yet to investigate this “constraint negotiation
process” with the outcome of substitution. As such, this study built and examined a structural model that
assisted in predicting and understanding the constraint negotiation process in consumers’ decisions towards
spectatorship at substitute major events. Hubbard and Mannell’s (2001) constraint-effects-mitigation model was
adapted and extended through incorporating components of Jackson’s et al (1993) leisure constraint negotiation
and Iso-Ahola’s (1986) substitution outcome behaviour propositions.
Objectives of Study
More specifically, this study had four objectives:
1. To investigate the types of constraints and negotiation strategies that were encountered and used by actual,
substitute and non-attendees to major events,
2. To determine the use and key aspects in substitution behaviour outcomes in the constraint negotiation
process,
3. To develop scaling measures, with sound psychometric properties of constraints, negotiation and substitution
outcome in the event spectator context; and
4. To identify and compare the differences in motivation, constraints and negotiation efforts by consumers’
attendance status, which assisted in validating the structural model.
Methodology
The methodology for this study was directed to scale development and model testing. A sequential mixed
methods design was applied, beginning with a qualitative approach through to quantitative techniques. The main
data collection methods involved semi-structured interviews (n = 28) and the distribution of a self-administered
survey (n = 608) to actual, substitute and non-attendees of the Emirates Melbourne Cup, a major horseracing
event held annually in Australia. Main analysis techniques included content analysis, factor analysis, Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) and Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA).
Key Findings of Research



Results indicated that respondents encountered two distinct, yet correlated dimensions of constraints – (1)
internal constraints (e.g., psychological and social relationship factors) and (2) external constraints (e.g.,
cost and crowd factors).
Respondents also used two main negotiation strategies – (1) resource sacrifice (e.g., time, financial and
social relationship management) and (2) prior knowledge (e.g., from previous direct and/or vicarious
experiences of the major event).
Respondents selected and attended substitute event venues because they offered an opportunity to derive
acceptably equivalent benefits and outcomes, either remembered or imagined of the actual major event.
These benefits and outcomes included socialization, excitement, entertainment, enjoyment, convenience
and cost-effectiveness.

Consumers’ eventual decision to attend a substitute event was the result of a complex inter-relationship
between motivation, constraints and negotiation. Constraints and negotiation efforts each directly
increased the likelihood of a substitution outcome. However, spectatorship at a substitute major event (in
comparison to actual event attendance and non-attendance) was more likely the outcome of moderate
negotiation strategy use, triggered by an interaction between moderate levels of motivation for actual
major event spectatorship and encounters with moderate levels of constraints.
Significance of Research to Stakeholders
Generally, major event and tourism stakeholders have a range of needs, such as (a) increasing visitation to
enhance financial and touristic benefits, (b) increasing venue and destination capacity, and (c) positioning the
event and destination in relation to competing markets. These stakeholders also encounter a range of issues that
influence domestic and international travel behaviour, and ultimately event spectatorship. These issues include
increases in the cost of living, fuel prices and global warming awareness, as well as the impacts of worldwide
economic market factors. Additionally, as the major event industry increases in size and more events are
televised globally, stakeholders face extra competition as the result of more alternatives and choices for
consumers. An understanding of the key elements, processes and differences in the decisions of a variety of
consumers is crucial to these stakeholders in tailoring product and marketing strategies to maintain and entice
visitation. Major event stakeholders could use the findings from this study in two main ways.
First, the results could be used in attracting more people towards spectatorship at the actual major event site.
Stakeholders could alter and enhance aspects of the event product and marketing efforts to reflect some of the
main constraints and negotiation tactics that consumers experience and apply towards major event
spectatorship. This study suggests that stakeholders make the actual major event more accessible to consumers
by lessening some of the perceived external constraints towards actual major event spectatorship. The results
also suggest that stakeholders should incorporate some of the resource sacrifice methods that consumers
employ in their spectatorship decisions.
Second, stakeholders should be advised to incorporate and leverage substitute major events in their product and
marketing strategies. The inclusion of these events can enable stakeholders to (a) have a competitive edge over
rivals, (b) increase the awareness of the major event and destination, and (c) influence the future travel and
spectatorship intentions of consumer markets. These events also have the potential to generate extra revenue
for stakeholders through increased broadcasting and sponsorship opportunities. This study suggests that
stakeholders need to design and promote a number of substitute events that offer a range of similar benefits and
outcomes of the actual major event. In particular, these events need to include varying (i.e., simple to
elaborate) replications of the major event, in terms of food, drink, dress and activities. Marketing strategies
should reflect the socialisation, excitement, entertainment and enjoyment aspects of these celebrations.
Convenience and cost-effectiveness over rival venues and other alternatives should be promoted. In addition,
organisers need to implement crowd management techniques and promote crowd safety and “hassle-free”
aspects of these events. This diversity in the substitute event product would enable stakeholders to cater to a
range of motivation levels, and to what consumers may consider as being “acceptably equivalent” to actual
major event spectatorship. This directive would assist stakeholders in capturing and benefiting from a greater
share of the consumer market.
It is also important to note that often many substitute events exist whether the major event stakeholders
provide them or not. Members of the public are increasingly hosting substitute major events in a number of
commercial and non-commercial venues. The problem associated with this trend is that many major event
stakeholders are missing out on potential revenue from these events. A way in which stakeholders could take a
share of this revenue is through licensing substitute events, in particular celebrations that are held at
commercial venues. Event organisers could develop a range of sponsorship packages that reflect the size of the
substitute event. These sponsorship packages could include official or limited event merchandise and exclusive
television coverage of the event.
Conclusion
This study has made a significant and unique contribution to knowledge on event spectatorship behaviour
and to research within the leisure constraint theory and the theory of substitutability fields in terms of
confirmations, disconfirmations and additions. The study also has a number of implications to the areas of
major events, tourism, leisure, recreation, consumer behaviour, marketing and decision-making. These
implications include: (a) an integrated theoretical framework, (b) scale development, and (c) insights into
behaviour that is not dichotomous. Future research directions include the replication of the study with
different samples and settings; and a longitudinal approach to understand additional factors that influence
consumers’ constraint negotiation processes and substitution outcomes.
What Next
Dr Ayling is working as the project manager on two Australian Research Council (ARC) grants in the School of
Psychology and the Department of Tourism, Leisure, Hotel and Sport Management at Griffith University.
For more information please contact Dr Amanda Ayling by email a.ayling@griffith.edu.au or phone 07 5552
8075.