Fans, Fellows or Followers: A Study on How Sport Federations Shape Social Media Affordances

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I am pleased to review an original article draft entitled "Fans, Fellows or Followers: A study on how sport federations shape social media affordances." This is an interesting topic, great approach, furthermore, the paper is well-written and logically structured. However, there is room for improvement and I invite you to follow a few of my points below:

1. compelling introduction: informative and captivating. In general, it is a reader-friendly way to introduce the research questions. However, the research questions themselves sound a bit vague. My suggestions:

RQ1: WHY sport federations consider social media as a channel in their marketing strategies?

RQ2: How sport federations use social media in order to distribute content and reach an audience?

RQ3: How sport federations perceive their social media audiences?

RQ4: How and Why the social media strategies may affect federations development?

2. for the theoretical background, I would recommend:

Tarighi, R. and Salehi Rostami, M., 2022. Identifying effective factors on sport marketing capability development through social medias. Strategic Studies on Youth ans Sports.

Glebova, E., Desbordes, M., & Geczi, G. (2022). Mass Diffusion of Modern Digital Technologies as the Main Driver of Change in Sports-Spectating Audiences. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.

3. Sorry if I am wrong, but subsection 2.1. feels to be in the wrong place. It can be a part of the introduction or data collection. "Background" seems to be an outcast here.

4. (252) if possible, please mark an average duration of interviews (M=...). 

5. Also, I would highly recommend to explain why quotations are included, please see:

Corden, A & Sainsbury, R 2006, Using Verbatim Quotations in Reporting Qualitative Social Research: Researchers' views. Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, University of York, York. <http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/pdf/verbquotresearch.pdf>

6. Readers would be interested to know research limitations, and, consequently, future research directions.

thank you for your attention and good luck with revisions!

 

 

 

It is fine

Author Response

Dear Authors,

I am pleased to review an original article draft entitled "Fans, Fellows or Followers: A study on how sport federations shape social media affordances." This is an interesting topic, great approach, furthermore, the paper is well-written and logically structured. However, there is room for improvement and I invite you to follow a few of my points below:

Dear reviewer! Thank you! Your reviews have truly supported me to strengthen the article and I truly hope that you now find the quality better! Please let me know if you see areas that need to be further improved.

1. compelling introduction: informative and captivating. In general, it is a reader-friendly way to introduce the research questions. However, the research questions themselves sound a bit vague. My suggestions:

RQ1: WHY sport federations consider social media as a channel in their marketing strategies?

RQ2: How sport federations use social media in order to distribute content and reach an audience?

RQ3: How sport federations perceive their social media audiences?

RQ4: How and Why the social media strategies may affect federations development?

Thank you! I have revised the introduction a bit further to clarify the meaning, background and aim with the research questions and developed the research questions themselves with support from your suggestions to make them clearer and more convincing. Please let me know if you are happy with the revised research questions or if you see more room for improvements.

2. for the theoretical background, I would recommend:

Tarighi, R. and Salehi Rostami, M., 2022. Identifying effective factors on sport marketing capability development through social medias. Strategic Studies on Youth ans Sports.

Glebova, E., Desbordes, M., & Geczi, G. (2022). Mass Diffusion of Modern Digital Technologies as the Main Driver of Change in Sports-Spectating Audiences. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.

Great suggestions, however, I had a hard time to include them in a good way. Other references are added to support the paper.

3. Sorry if I am wrong, but subsection 2.1. feels to be in the wrong place. It can be a part of the introduction or data collection. "Background" seems to be an outcast here.

This section is now moved forward to the introduction and background section, please see p. 4.

4. (252) if possible, please mark an average duration of interviews (M=...). 

Done, please see p.6 line 253.

5. Also, I would highly recommend to explain why quotations are included, please see:

Corden, A & Sainsbury, R 2006, Using Verbatim Quotations in Reporting Qualitative Social Research: Researchers' views. Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, University of York, York. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/pdf/verbquotresearch.pdf

Thank you for the recommendation! This reference is included, p. 7 line 274.

6. Readers would be interested to know research limitations, and, consequently, future research directions.

Agree, a section on research limitations and future research is added, please see p. 22

thank you for your attention and good luck with revisions!

Thank you once again for your insightful reviews!

Reviewer 2 Report

Page Two, Paragraph Two: “It is difficult to decide the exact influence of digital media on sport organizations and the 51 process of mediatization is complex. On the one hand, digital media have supported sport 52 federations to gain more public- and commercial attention, on the other hand, the role of 53 communication in these types of organizations is undetermined or even of secondary im-54 portance.” Ideally, the authors would provide examples for each of these two points here, rather than below. It would aid the reader in understanding the contrast.

The manuscript flies right through the introduction, and doesn’t quite make a firm establishment of why we are here. Take a look and see what more could be said about the topic before the Research Questions begin.

Take a look at both RQ 2 and 3, and make sure they say what you want them to say. Both are a bit unclear.

Page Three, Theoretical Framework: The explanation of “Affordances” in the context of this study is appreciated.

Page Three, Paragraph Five: “In this study, imagined affordances will be used to investigate in what way sports federations, by shaping their social media affordances, are mediatized in the way that they act 125 and communicate with their audiences.” This sounds very “academic.” The authors seem enamored with “affordances.” Let’s see how this works in the Results and Discussion.

Page Seven reveals that the interviewees’ names have been replaced. This should also be mentioned when the interviewees are first mentioned by name on Page Six.

In the Results section, the authors do tend to use a lot of longer quotes. It’s good for interviewees’ voices to be heard, but it also means the authors lean on the quotes more than academic insight at times.

I agree with the comment made on Page Nine regarding Figure 1. The Individual Federations should be listed.

The repeated use of “imagined” is notable in terms of: Don’t these interviewees have an idea= regarding their users and usage of social media?

The Discussion section is much too short and doesn’t really proceed from the Results. There needs to be a deeper dive into what was said in the results, especially after the presentation of so much of the interviewees’ voices. It does not read as if each of the RQs is re-examined with the context of what the Results showed.

Ultimately, this is an interesting idea but the authors don’t give as deep an examination as they could. The framework needs to be better established, at the beginning and end.  

The English language quality was good overall. Just some minor edits here and there which should be easy to catch. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you! Your reviews have truly supported me to strengthen the article and I truly hope that you now find the quality better! Please let me know if you see areas that need to be further improved.

Page Two, Paragraph Two: “It is difficult to decide the exact influence of digital media on sport organizations and the 51 process of mediatization is complex. On the one hand, digital media have supported sport 52 federations to gain more public- and commercial attention, on the other hand, the role of 53 communication in these types of organizations is undetermined or even of secondary im-54 portance.” Ideally, the authors would provide examples for each of these two points here, rather than below. It would aid the reader in understanding the contrast.

The introduction is now revised, and I hope the whole section is more clear, this paragraph is also revised.

The manuscript flies right through the introduction, and doesn’t quite make a firm establishment of why we are here. Take a look and see what more could be said about the topic before the Research Questions begin.

Please see my response above, the introduction is now revised and I hope it is more clear. Please let me know if you would like to see further improvements here.

Take a look at both RQ 2 and 3, and make sure they say what you want them to say. Both are a bit unclear.

I agree that they deserved a little bit more work, the research questions are now revised, please see page 3.

Page Three, Theoretical Framework: The explanation of “Affordances” in the context of this study is appreciated.

Thank you!

Page Three, Paragraph Five: “In this study, imagined affordances will be used to investigate in what way sports federations, by shaping their social media affordances, are mediatized in the way that they act 125 and communicate with their audiences.” This sounds very “academic.” The authors seem enamored with “affordances.” Let’s see how this works in the Results and Discussion.

I am not completely sure what you mean with this comment, but I have tried to clarify that the use of affordances is the driving theoretical standpoint and tool instead of mediatization that is more of the overarching term to create an understanding of the federations’ development. Further the results and discussion sections are altered and hopefully improved to clarify the use of affordances. Please let me know if I should make further adjustments to respond to this comment.

Page Seven reveals that the interviewees’ names have been replaced. This should also be mentioned when the interviewees are first mentioned by name on Page Six.

Yes, thank you. This is now mentioned on page: 6 line: 229.

In the Results section, the authors do tend to use a lot of longer quotes. It’s good for interviewees’ voices to be heard, but it also means the authors lean on the quotes more than academic insight at times.

I totally agree that there are quite a lot of long quotes, I have removed a couple of the longer quotes to balance the results section in a better way between the interviewee’s voices and the academic insights from me as researcher. Further, the discussion section is now also improved. I hope the balance is now more convincing.

I agree with the comment made on Page Nine regarding Figure 1. The Individual Federations should be listed.

Figure 1 on page 10 is now corrected and altered, showing the individual federations.

The repeated use of “imagined” is notable in terms of: Don’t these interviewees have an idea= regarding their users and usage of social media?

Thank you for this insightful comment, agree that it at places seemed like the interviewee’s voices were downplayed by the repeated use of imagined. The text is altered and imagined is removed in many places. I hope it is now more clear that imagined is not used to remove agency from the interviewees voices but rather a theoretical standpoint.

The Discussion section is much too short and doesn’t really proceed from the Results. There needs to be a deeper dive into what was said in the results, especially after the presentation of so much of the interviewees’ voices. It does not read as if each of the RQs is re-examined with the context of what the Results showed.

I agree and your comment have supported me to extend the discussion section and the research questions are now more clearly discussed. Please let me know if you are happy with the revisions or if you see more room for improvements.

Ultimately, this is an interesting idea but the authors don’t give as deep an examination as they could. The framework needs to be better established, at the beginning and end.  

Thank you! As I have mentioned above, I have tried to thoroughly review and alter especially the introduction and Concluding discussion to dive deeper into the examinations. Hopefully you now find it better.

Thank you once again for your insightful reviews!

Reviewer 3 Report

 

I read the paper with great benefit. The study reveals a nuanced picture of the social media strategies of three Swedish sports federations. Many findings are surprising.

The choice and explanation of the method are convincing; therefore, I will not comment on this.

Many formulations - both in the introduction, in the findings and in the discussion - are too general (especially when it comes to imagined social affordance). The specifics, the differences, etc. are unfortunately not supported with examples.

My general criticism: it is rather a paper about mediatization in sport; specifically the communication strategy of sports federations (in the context of the presented possibilities of social media and the feedback of the "audience/users"). There is actually nothing to be found on the changes and challenges of sports journalism

Unfortunately, the conclusion does not build a bridge to the mediatization approach and especially the mediatization of sport.

Only at one point is the relevant paper by Frandsen (2016) discussed in more detail - a closer comparison to the empirical findings of this study on Danish sports organisations would be desirable. Whether a comparison to the findings of Nölleke / Birkner (2019) is sustainable would be debatable (they are concerned with a volleyball team and not a sports federation) and Birkner / Nölleke (2016) are concerned with the evaluation of media coverage by footballers). The potential for a comparison with the findings of Schallhorn et al. (2022) is wasted.

The mediatization debate is treated very roughly, and no categories are presented as to how the adoption of media logics (and a differentiated medialisation approach) is to be recorded (here, references could be found in Birkner / Nölleke (2016)).

Explanations of the mediatization approach can be found on page 4 to 5. Quite late in my understanding. The application to the mediatization of sport is also too thin. The aim to update and modernise the mediatization approach is also quite late on page 5.

In my opinion, mediatization is more than "influcence of digital media or mediated communication".

The terms or even objects "sport organisation" and "sport federation" are not clearly separated. We learn too little about the position of the sport federation in the Swedish sport system. Information on the degree of professionalisation and commercialisation of organised sport in Sweden would be helpful for understanding the study.

It would also be interesting to have an assessment of media coverage in relation to the three sport federations and sport disciplines discussed.

There is talk of "coverage produced by sport organisations" (page 1) - is this not PR by the organisations? 

I wondered whether there is support (know how, funding) from the national sport federation with regard to the social media strategy of sport federations.

The paper contains too little information about the interview partners (position, education, understanding of roles) and the communication structures of the examined sport federations (budget, number of employees, tasks of the employees) as well as the fixation of the tasks (e.g. with regard to the distinction between internal and external communication). There is also too little information about the content (especially in the case of content co-created with the user), visualisation, links, changes over time.

On page 3, the numbering of the sub-chapter is wrong, it should read 1.3.

The results are presented in three aspects / steps (p. 7) - on the one hand this is convincing, on the other hand the discussion / answering of the research questions gets out of sight.

On page 12, it is stated that in 2020 the sport federations  are considering fundamental changes in the use of social media, which limits the scope / significance of the study.

 

I think a major revision is necessary and possible.

 

ok no remarks

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read the paper with great benefit. The study reveals a nuanced picture of the social media strategies of three Swedish sports federations. Many findings are surprising.

Thank you! Your reviews have truly supported me to strengthen the article and I truly hope that you now find the quality better! Please let me know if you see areas that need to be further improved.

The choice and explanation of the method are convincing; therefore, I will not comment on this.

Thank you.

Many formulations - both in the introduction, in the findings and in the discussion - are too general (especially when it comes to imagined social affordance). The specifics, the differences, etc. are unfortunately not supported with examples.

I have tried to meet this comment by to a higher degree include the references and theoretical standpoints and generally I have worked through all sections of the article.

My general criticism: it is rather a paper about mediatization in sport; specifically the communication strategy of sports federations (in the context of the presented possibilities of social media and the feedback of the "audience/users"). There is actually nothing to be found on the changes and challenges of sports journalism

I have had a difficult time to meet this comment, I completely understand your point and have tried to clarify that this article is focusing on sport federations communication through SNS and nothing else. This to avoid misleading the reader.

Unfortunately, the conclusion does not build a bridge to the mediatization approach and especially the mediatization of sport.

Agreed, I have solved this by trying to clarify already in the beginning of the article that Affordances is the driving theoretical approach and that mediatization is used to contextualize the findings rather than being the operational theoretical approach. I have further put a lot of effort in improving the concluding discussion section. Please let me know if you find this satisfying or if I should develop this further.

Only at one point is the relevant paper by Frandsen (2016) discussed in more detail - a closer comparison to the empirical findings of this study on Danish sports organisations would be desirable. Whether a comparison to the findings of Nölleke / Birkner (2019) is sustainable would be debatable (they are concerned with a volleyball team and not a sports federation) and Birkner / Nölleke (2016) are concerned with the evaluation of media coverage by footballers). The potential for a comparison with the findings of Schallhorn et al. (2022) is wasted.

I see your point and Frandsens (2016) study is given a lot more space and importance in the discussion. The other references are still there to support the more general discussion.

The mediatization debate is treated very roughly, and no categories are presented as to how the adoption of media logics (and a differentiated medialisation approach) is to be recorded (here, references could be found in Birkner / Nölleke (2016)).

Please see my response above, I have tried to clarify that it is the theory of affordances that is the driving theoretical approach.

Explanations of the mediatization approach can be found on page 4 to 5. Quite late in my understanding. The application to the mediatization of sport is also too thin. The aim to update and modernise the mediatization approach is also quite late on page 5.

Please see my response above.

In my opinion, mediatization is more than "influcence of digital media or mediated communication".

Please see my response above.

The terms or even objects "sport organisation" and "sport federation" are not clearly separated. We learn too little about the position of the sport federation in the Swedish sport system. Information on the degree of professionalisation and commercialisation of organised sport in Sweden would be helpful for understanding the study.

Yes, completely agree. I have moved the background section (p. 4) to the introduction and added text about the Swedish and Scandinavian sport system. Please let me know if I should develop this even further.

It would also be interesting to have an assessment of media coverage in relation to the three sport federations and sport disciplines discussed.

I see your point but unfortunately I did not find room in the text to add this.

There is talk of "coverage produced by sport organisations" (page 1) - is this not PR by the organisations? 

A clarification is now added on page 2, line:63.

I wondered whether there is support (know how, funding) from the national sport federation with regard to the social media strategy of sport federations.

There are very limited support from the Swedish sports confederation in this regard.

The paper contains too little information about the interview partners (position, education, understanding of roles) and the communication structures of the examined sport federations (budget, number of employees, tasks of the employees) as well as the fixation of the tasks (e.g. with regard to the distinction between internal and external communication). There is also too little information about the content (especially in the case of content co-created with the user), visualisation, links, changes over time.

I have tried to clarify the interviewees positions in the text and a whole section on the content produced by the federations is added. Please see p. 13–15.

On page 3, the numbering of the sub-chapter is wrong, it should read 1.3.

Corrected.

The results are presented in three aspects / steps (p. 7) - on the one hand this is convincing, on the other hand the discussion / answering of the research questions gets out of sight.

I have developed the discussion section and assured that the research questions are responded. Hopefully it is now a lot clearer and more convincing.

On page 12, it is stated that in 2020 the sport federations  are considering fundamental changes in the use of social media, which limits the scope / significance of the study.

 I couldn’t find this statement, please excuse me if it’s still there.

I think a major revision is necessary and possible.

Thank you once again for your insightful reviews!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

Thank you for the effective revisions.

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Comment on the revisions on my review to the paper

Fans, Fellows or Followers: A study on how sport federations shape social media affordances.

 

With the revisions, the paper has become much better in my eyes and can be accepted - with one small change from my side.

 

First, this small change: On page 2 at the bottom, I think another sentence could be added following RQ 3.

 

Secondly, some comments on the corrections and comments on my review. I find them very comprehensible.

I already find the correction in the introduction successful. The addition of references has clearly made the statements in the paper more specific - this is exactly what I had hoped for.

Regarding my criticism of the discussion of the mediatization approach: my criticism was probably too harsh. With the - once again elaborated - Fosus on on sport federations communication through SNS as well as the references to the work of Frandsen, I think the mediatization approach is well anchored in the paper.

I find the extensions and explanations z about the Swedish and Scandinavian sport system successful. Also, the clarification on coverage produced by sport organizations.

If there are very limited support from the Swedish sports confederation, then this is a good explanation.

I find the additions to the interviewee’s positions and the new action on the content produced by the federations important. The same applies to the addition to the references.

The most important improvement is the discussion section and the answering of the three research questions - so the paper can be read with much profit.