MARKET RESEARCH EXPLORES CONSIDERATIONS AMONG DECISION-MAKERS IN CHOOSING PLAYING SURFACES
By Casey Reynolds, PhD
Editor's note: Tis article was supplied on TPI's behalf to several other industry publications to help spread the word on the importance of natural grass as related to player safety and to further the #KeepItREAL campaign.
College and professional football seasons 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. Te 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 and if so, which factors play most heavily in these decisions? Tis was the topic of research targeted in 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. Tey 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. Tey 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. Tere 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.
TPI Turf News November/December 2019
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 to get an idea of what they determined as motivating factors when selecting new playing surfaces for their communities. Tese respondents were presented with a series of statements revolving around considerations of various playing surfaces and asked for their feedback. Teir knowledge and responses to these statements were then compiled for analysis to determine the many factors that go into deciding between natural grass or synthetic turf athletic fields, mulch or rubber playground surfaces, and more.
As you can imagine, the safety and health of users was a top response. Tere are many factors that contribute to the safety of various types of playing surfaces, including but not limited to, construction and management practices, heat, surface hardness, consistency, others, and even footwear. Tere are many types of playing surfaces that each have a role in communities everywhere. For example, a playground at a child’s daycare center in the southern U.S. may be more concerned about heat loading than a multi-use event complex in the pacific northwest. Inversely, a collegiate or professional soccer or football complex may be more concerned about traction/footing than an outdoor concert venue. As you can imagine, each of these types of venues lend themselves to different playing surfaces and management techniques but a common theme throughout each of them is user safety.
93
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124
