Understanding Organizational and Public Perspectives On Stadium Redevelopment Through Social Media: A Case Study of Georgia State Unive...

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/324266479
Understanding Organizational and Public Perspectives

on Stadium Redevelopment Through Social Media: A
Case Study of Georgia State Unive....
Article in International Journal of Sport Communication · April 2018

DOI: 10.1123/ijsc.2017-0108
CITATIONS READS
6 1,133
4 authors:
Glynn McGehee Armin Alberto Marquez

Georgia State University Georgia State University
3 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS 4 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Beth Cianfrone Timothy Kellison

Georgia State University Georgia State University
46 PUBLICATIONS 318 CITATIONS 53 PUBLICATIONS 557 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Building Community online View project
Research Handbook on Major Sporting Events View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Glynn McGehee on 01 October 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Sport Communication, 2018, 11, 261–285
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2017-0108
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc. CASE STUDY
Understanding Organizational and Public

Perspectives on Stadium Redevelopment
Through Social Media: A Case Study of
Georgia State University’s “New” Stadium
Glynn M. McGehee, Armin A. Marquez, Beth A. Cianfrone,
and Timothy Kellison
Georgia State University, USA
Stadium-construction projects are costly and affect the community—positively

and negatively. At urban universities, these impacts extend beyond campuses
into the broader community. Thus, athletic-department communication about the
value of stadium projects to a diverse group of stakeholders becomes important.
Following stakeholder theory, the purpose of the study was to investigate social-
media messages disseminated by an urban university engaged in a stadium-
redevelopment project (Georgia State University [GSU]) and the public
response. A content analysis of Facebook and Twitter posts by GSU (N = 39)
and the public response (N = 359) yielded 8 themes: a focus on athletics, a focus
on university, informing about urban community development impact, explain-
ing capital project funding source, maintaining the stadium legacy, promoting
public–private partnerships, and understanding effects on transit. Findings
support previous literature that organizational communication reflects organi-
zational priorities.
Keywords: communication, facilities, intercollegiate athletics, urban development
Professional sport organizations and their stadiums often draw the attention of
policy makers, developers, and ordinary citizens because of their reliance on public
financing and their potential impact on surrounding neighborhoods and urban
spaces. For example, from 2005 to 2016, 41 professional sport franchises (in Major
League Baseball [MLB], Major League Soccer [MLS], the National Basketball
Association [NBA], the National Football League [NFL], and the National Hockey
League [NHL]) renovated or built new stadiums; on average, public subsidies
accounted for 58% of stadium costs and totaled more than $9.6 billion (Center for
Sport and Urban Policy, 2018). Recent construction and renovation projects in
The authors are with the Dept. of Kinesiology and Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.
Cianfrone (bcianfrone@gsu.edu) is corresponding author.
261
262 McGehee et al.
college sports have been similarly expensive, drawing the attention of university
stakeholders including students, faculty, alumni, and the surrounding community.
In 2015, the total costs for college-stadium renovation and construction were
$1.3 billion, and a year later, a record $810.7 million was spent on college-arena
construction (“2015 by the Numbers,” 2015; “College Hoops Research,” 2015).
Unlike professional-sport facilities, college arenas and stadiums are often located
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing on 07/05/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}
on college campuses and rarely require public funding (Flanagan, 2008; Maxcy &
Larson, 2015; Mirabile, 2015). Nonetheless, college facilities can affect the
local public community and university community in other ways, especially in
the case of urban universities: When urban universities lack defined campus
boundaries, there can be an overlap between the university community and the
public. Furthermore, urban institutions have unique challenges with land acquisi-
tion for athletic facilities because of high costs and space considerations. The effect
of college stadiums on surrounding neighborhoods and communities is rarely
examined in the same manner as that of professional stadiums, but it may be
equally impactful.
Because surrounding neighborhoods and communities may be affected by
new stadium projects, college athletic directors representing urban campuses need
to be cognizant of the communities within their cities. The number of unique
stakeholders affected by urban college-stadium projects and the high costs asso-
ciated with athletic-facility projects indicate that a clear communication strategy
is needed by the athletic department and university. Aside from the positive
impacts that may come from a new facility, local residents, students, or faculty
could have concerns such as how the facility might affect their current living
standards or financial costs. Communication to the public about such capital
projects provides the athletic department an opportunity to share its plans and the
goals of the projects. The messages the athletic department broadcasts to the
university’s stakeholders are important to consider. It is often concluded that the
messages that an organization sends reflect the organization’s priorities and values
(Abeza & O’Reilly, 2014; Ciletti, Lanasa, Ramos, Luchs, & Junying, 2010). With
the significant financial costs, public investment, and visibility of stadium projects
in sports, organizations seek to communicate messages to the public to explain the
projects’ benefits.
This study explored the link between an urban university and the surrounding
community by examining the narratives emerging from a major stadium project
undertaken by the university. Specifically, this research focused on the stadium
renovation and construction project of Georgia State University (GSU), an urban
research institution. GSU is in a unique position as it has retrofitted Georgia
State Stadium (née Turner Field) from a major-league ballpark and former
Olympic stadium to a college football stadium. In addition, GSU plans to construct
a new baseball stadium on the property and develop a community for student living
in the surrounding area. The capital project will also include a mix of commercial
retail, office space, residential buildings, dormitories, and academic buildings. As
an urban university, intertwined with surrounding neighborhoods, Georgia State’s
actions can have implications for various groups of stakeholders beyond the
immediate campus community. For instance, stakeholder groups for a large public
university would include students, faculty, local business owners, residents of
nearby neighborhoods, or any state taxpayer. A stadium-centered development
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

Organizational and Public Perspectives 263
project could affect each of these groups differently and shape their perspectives on
the project. Due to the multitude of public stakeholders that could be affected by a
large-scale community development and stadium project, there is reason to expect
that the university and public stakeholders will communicate different attitudes
toward the development project. The purpose of this study was to analyze the
implications of organizational communication to diverse groups of stakeholders
regarding a stadium-centered development project by identifying and discussing

the emerging themes of (a) GSU’s communication to public stakeholders via social
media throughout the planning process of the stadium project and (b) the public
response to GSU’s communication.
Literature Review
Sport Facilities and Community Impact
On a college campus, athletic facilities such as stadiums and arenas often serve
as physical markers, which can include any “temporary or permanent physical
artifacts that are displayed, at least in part, to signal images, identities, and
reputations of an organization” (Elsbach, 2006, p. 35). As such, the college sport
stadium is typically considered not in terms of being an economic engine for the
surrounding city or region but, rather, as a meeting place and institutional icon for
the university community (Seifried & Tutka, 2016). The financial investment in
professional stadiums raises questions about the potential economic or community
impact of those stadiums; however, the same reasoning can be applied to college
stadiums that receive significant funding.
Financial Impact. In college athletics, capital projects are a large financial
investment for the athletic department, and sometimes the university community.
Recently, arena projects have ranged from a $10 million arena for Endicott
College’s (NCAA Division III) hockey teams to the University of Illinois’s
(NCAA Division I) $169.5 million renovation of the State Farm Center
(“Directory of College Arena Projects,” 2015). Costs are typically at the highest
end for football-stadium renovation projects, such as renovations at the University
of Notre Dame and Texas A&M, each of which surpassed $400 million
(Muret, 2016).
The funding of such projects may come from various streams. Students may
be affected by increased student athletic fees, and alumni or boosters may be
solicited through fund-raising projects. As in professional sport, naming rights for
stadiums can provide a revenue stream for universities. For example, in 2015, the
University of Washington announced a deal to name their football stadium Alaska
Airlines Field at Husky Stadium in return for a 10-year deal with Alaska Airlines
that pays the university $4 million annually (Jude, 2015).
The athletic director and university president are often at the forefront of
these decisions and therefore need to communicate the funding decisions to the
university community. The economic impact of the stadium or renovation is often
hard to justify with respect to eventual revenue generation. The environment of a
college campus also may place a burden on the athletic department to justify to
the university community the spending of millions of dollars on a nonacademic
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

264 McGehee et al.
facility. In addition, new college stadiums do not generally produce significant

direct economic benefits (Maxcy & Larson, 2015). Thus, university athletic
departments tend to focus on other benefits of athletics spending when informing
the public about the projects. This tactic is similar to the public relations strategies
used by professional sport franchises when they solicit public support for stadium
projects (Brand, 2006; Huberty, Kellison, & Mondello, 2016; Maxcy & Larson,
2015; Mondello, Schwester, & Humphreys, 2009; Santo, 2005).

Community Benefits. While new college stadiums do not generally produce
significant direct economic benefits (Maxcy & Larson, 2015), there are other
potential benefits that sport advocates use to justify a new stadium or renovation.
For example, Kellison and Mondello (2013) noted that professional teams focused
their social-media communication on educating members of the community about
the stadium itself, making a connection with both fans and nonfans, legitimating
the long-term sustainability of the venue, and calling for community support. By
communicating sustainability, professional sport teams can more effectively
identify with consumers and communities, thereby downplaying economic issues
and concentrating on the social benefits (Ciletti et al., 2010). Social benefits such as
increased community visibility, enhanced community image, stimulation of other
development, and psychic income—sometimes labeled spillover benefits—are
intangible in comparison with quantifiable economic gains and may also include
civic pride and becoming a “big league” or “first tier” city (Crompton, 2004;
Huberty et al., 2016; Kellison & Mondello, 2013; Owen, 2003). The extent of
spillover or alternative justifications is difficult to quantify and inherently subjec-
tive to a degree. While community benefits associated with a stadium may exist, it
is difficult to determine which groups within a community experience these
benefits without empirical measurement. Researchers are beginning to develop
and recognize the need for empirical measurement of potential community benefits
such as psychic income or social capital that result from sport (Kim & Walker,
2012; Misener & Schulenkorf, 2016).
At the college level, intangible spillovers, like enhanced sense of campus
community (Maxcy & Larson, 2015), have many benefits. A higher sense of
prestige and university prominence can result in a greater numbers of student
applications, a higher quality student body, improved retention rates, and more
donations from alumni, which are thought to be advanced by exposure from sports
(Maxcy & Larson, 2015). Although there is some disagreement among scholars,
the idea persists that on-campus stadiums may also be linked to values such as an
enhanced sense of campus community or media attention, which theoretically
result from hosting major university events like football games and nonsport events
such as graduation ceremonies and concerts (Getz & Siegfried, 2012; Goff, 2000;
Maxcy & Larson, 2015; Popp, DeSchriver, McEvoy, & Diehl, 2016). These
intangible benefits may be even more critical for urban institutions, which often
do not have traditional campuses and have geographically distant athletic facilities
or dorms. Other benefits of stadiums that may apply to urban institutions include
fostering economic and urban development (Crompton, 2004; Huberty et al.,
2016).
Urban Development. Professional teams have also presented tangible economic
benefits brought by new stadiums. Some of the benefits repeatedly presented when
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

justifying public stadium subsidies for professional teams include the stimulation
of economic activity, which promises new jobs, income, and tax revenues (Coates,
2007; Schwester, 2007), and higher property values (Dehring, Depken, & Ward,
2007). In studying public sentiments about a possible new stadium, Mondello et al.
(2009) found that the public was interested in economic benefits, as well as land use
and redevelopment, in addition to three other areas of focus. The public interest in
land use and redevelopment suggests a focus on location. Santo (2005) looked at
the trend of moving stadium sites to central downtown locations. He argued that
when stadiums are analyzed on a case-by-case basis, a positive effect on economic
development can be found in some cases. Santo provided some empirical evidence
supporting the idea that new stadiums situated in downtown locations, when
complemented with other activities and endeavors, are more likely to generate a
positive economic effect. Urban community development is often focused on
hosting events and professional teams. One aspect noted for downtown areas to be
perceived as desirable places to visit, work, study, or live is the need for cities to
reestablish public confidence in a central city’s future. Strategic investments in sites
and venues to host sport and entertainment events are often proposed as solutions
that energize downtown areas and help add the option of an urban lifestyle to the
region’s mix of living environments (Rosentraub, 2014). After analyzing several
case studies, Rosentraub concluded that the most important lesson was that each
city could secure some level of real-estate development anchored by the sports
facility. An urban university’s new-stadium or major-stadium project may provide
some of the community benefits delivered by professional sport stadiums, as well
as benefits directly linked to the university’s primary set of stakeholders.
Communication to Stakeholders
Urban institutions are embedded in the downtown landscape of their home cities.
These schools often lack the distinct campus footprint that universities located in
smaller college towns are afforded. Urban institutions may have campus buildings
situated throughout the city, and expansion via purchasing new land is often a large
financial investment because of limited real-estate opportunities in cities. Acquir-
ing land or planning a construction project in the urban core affects the surrounding
community in a different fashion than for a campus in a traditional college town.
Because of the potential impact on the wider community, an urban university needs
to have a clear communication strategy that extends beyond the university
audience. The themes of messages that an organization communicates to the
public and the extent to which it focuses on specific themes can indicate how
committed an organization is to a given message (Ciletti et al., 2010).
In the GSU case, the public, specifically the surrounding community, is an
important stakeholder. Freeman (1984) defines stakeholder as “an individual or
group who can affect the achievement of an organization’s objectives or who is
affected by the achievement of an organization’s objectives” (p. 46). As such,
stakeholders can include various groups of individuals, each with its own per-
spectives and interests. Because stakeholders can be diverse, it is important for
organizations to understand who their stakeholders are before engaging with them.
A pragmatic approach when identifying and negotiating with stakeholders is the
best way of advancing and developing business (Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Parma,
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

266 McGehee et al.
& De Colle, 2010). Beyond identifying stakeholders, organizations must determine

how to communicate with stakeholder groups. Stakeholder theory is an operational
theory, aiding organizations to develop and evaluate their strategies for engaging
with stakeholders (Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff, 2016). With a diverse group
of stakeholders, as is the case with an urban university such as GSU, it is vital that a
communication strategy reach all stakeholders and not just those that the organiza-
tion has direct access to, such as students and faculty at GSU. In developing a
strategy for identifying and engaging with stakeholders, organizations must also
consider the various methods available to interact with stakeholders. Abeza and
O’Reilly (2014) explored the use of social media as a tool to help develop and
sustain positive relationships between an organization and its stakeholders. Use of
social media is a common method of college athletic departments to disseminate
their messages to a wide audience of stakeholders (Blaszka, Burch, Frederick,
Clavio, & Walsh, 2012; Hipke & Hatchmann, 2014; Wang & Zhou, 2015).
Past researchers have studied social media and other communication from
sport organizations to understand what messages an organization emphasizes to
the public (Abeza & O’Reilly, 2014; Ciletti et al., 2010). Because a stadium’s
impact on a community is widely debated and often relies on public support, either
financially or from a fan perspective, sport administrators are challenged with
informing the public of the stadium plans, goals, and benefits of the projects. With
respect to stadiums, Kellison and Mondello (2013) examined communication from
the Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) that led a proposal to construct a new
football stadium in the hopes of luring an NFL franchise to Los Angeles. Four
themes emerged from the content analysis of communication from AEG’s website
and social-media sites: legitimating the project, educating citizens about the
project, connecting to Angelenos, and calling potential advocates of the plan
into action (Kellison & Mondello, 2013).
From the public-stakeholder perspective, Mondello et al. (2009) used content
analysis to better understand the prevailing themes of the public community in
support of or opposed to the construction of a new waterfront ballpark for the
MLB’s Tampa Bay Rays. They analyzed postings on a blog hosted by the
St. Petersburg Times about the proposed stadium, as well as a digital transcript
of public comments made at a hearing hosted by the St. Petersburg City Council
concerning the proposed stadium. Public sentiments from the blog posts and public
hearing were categorized into five groups (i.e., opportunity costs, land use and
redevelopment, economic benefits, positive or negative externalities, and public-
good benefits) based on whether the sentiments were positive or negative.
In the context of this study, it is critical for sport organizations, when
undertaking a major stadium-development project, to consider how social-media
communications reach and interact with key stakeholder groups.
GSU’s Stadium Development

GSU is a public research institution located in the heart of Atlanta, GA. It is rapidly
growing in a number of areas including enrollment, urban footprint, and invest-
ment in athletic programming. As an urban institution, GSU’s physical space
limitations for campus buildings, green space, and parking necessitate creative
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

solutions. For example, to provide additional parking for commuter students, the
university partnered with the city of Atlanta to use Turner Field, the Atlanta
Braves’ nearby ballpark, and shuttled students to campus by bus. With few
exceptions (e.g., football, women’s and men’s basketball, beach volleyball,
volleyball), the Division I athletic teams play in Panthersville, where the uni-
versity’s athletics complex is located, approximately 10 miles from the downtown
campus. However, these practices may change due to a recent high-profile land
acquisition described herein.
In 2013, the Atlanta Braves announced that they would be leaving Turner
Field, their home stadium since 1997, and relocating to a new stadium to be
constructed in nearby Cobb County. Turner Field was originally built in advance of
the 1996 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Atlanta and was repurposed into a
baseball stadium for the Braves in 1997. Many hoped that the stadium would spur
development in surrounding neighborhoods (Leslie, 2014). However, the invest-
ment and development was never fully realized, and the stadium remains sur-
rounded by parking lots and economically disadvantaged and underdeveloped
neighborhoods. After the Braves’ announcement, there was immediate speculation
on the future of Turner Field and the surrounding area.
In 2014, GSU announced their intention to purchase Turner Field, and in
2015, the city of Atlanta officially announced that Turner Field and the surrounding
67-acre property would be sold to the university and Carter, an Atlanta-based real-
estate group (Georgia State University, 2017; Leslie, 2015). Turner Field and the
surrounding property were sold to GSU and Carter for $30 million, with GSU
paying $22.8 million toward the purchase. GSU and its private partners presented
a $300 million development plan for the area in their bid to purchase the property.
In total, GSU is expected to spend $52.8 million for land acquisition and
development projects, which includes $26 million toward repurposing the stadium
for football and $22.8 million to purchase the property (Bloom & Trubey, 2016).
The stadium, currently known as Georgia State Stadium, is located approxi-
mately 1 mile from the heart of GSU’s campus. The project is still in development,
but plans include a mix of commercial retail, office space, residential buildings,
dormitories, academic buildings, and other athletic facilities. Currently, there are
limited specifics on the development, but it will be situated on the 67-acre property
sold to GSU. GSU’s initial plans focused on updating the stadium in time for
the 2017 football season. GSU’s subsequent plans include constructing a baseball
stadium across the street from the football stadium and on the former site of
Atlanta–Fulton County Stadium.
Despite the university fanfare related to the Georgia State Stadium develop-
ment, the project has not been without controversy. GSU students, faculty, and
some nonstudent residents in the neighborhoods surrounding Turner Field voiced
concerns about how the development might negatively affect the community. The
university responded to the concerns with official statements, which the commu-
nity group interpreted as dismissive of their concerns. In early 2017, the perceived
lack of progress led protestors to camp outside of Georgia State Stadium and
demand that the university agree to a community-benefits agreement (CBA) set
forth by some local community leaders known as the Turner Field Benefits
Coalition (TFBC; Trubey, 2017a). The TFBC requested that GSU and Carter
agree that the development would address community concerns outlined in the
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

268 McGehee et al.
CBA, such as providing low-income housing in the development and jobs for local
residents. A group of GSU faculty members sent letters to the student newspaper
and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) voicing their disagreement with
official university statements regarding the TFBC’s demands and their refusal
to agree to the CBA (Ainsworth et al., 2017). Although GSU has not agreed to the
CBA presented by the TFBC and has stated it is not legally able to do so, the
university eventually reached an agreement with neighborhood organizations to

address concerns about community changes. However, groups such as the TFBC
and other members of the community were critical of the significance of GSU’s
agreement and the entire development project (Georgia State University, 2017;
Stafford, 2017). Both the protest and the letters from GSU faculty suggest there
may be opinions about the development’s objectives that contrast with official
GSU communication. Further analysis of communication from GSU and the public
may reveal the extent and prevalence of differing views on the development
project.
Research Questions
Like professional franchises, universities must communicate the value of costly
stadium projects to the greater community of public stakeholders. In the case of the
Georgia State Stadium project, the community-development aspects associated
with the stadium renovation distinguish this project from most others in college
sport and provide a unique opportunity to study the messages a university
communicates to public stakeholders to promote a stadium project. The researchers
developed two research questions (RQs):
RQ1: What themes is GSU communicating to public stakeholders regarding
its “new” stadium?
RQ2: What themes are public stakeholders communicating via social media in
response to communication from GSU?
Method
In response to the research questions, a content-analysis approach was used to
examine social-media content delivered by GSU about the stadium-redevelopment
project on Facebook and Twitter. Social media provided the points of view of both
the university and the public because of its two-way communication nature. A
content analysis of the university’s social-media outlets followed previous studies on
organizational social-media communications in both professional (Kellison &
Mondello, 2013) and college (Hipke & Hatchmann, 2014; Watkins & Lee, 2016)
sport. Content analysis allows researchers to make references and to systematically
sort and analyze preexisting content (Krippendorff, 2004; Wimmer & Dominick,
2006). Furthermore, content analysis has been the most common approach to
studying social media in sport (Abeza, O’Reilly, Séguin, & Nzindukiyimana, 2015).
To address RQ1, a comprehensive sampling technique was employed to
review all applicable Twitter and Facebook posts from GSU’s official university
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

and athletics accounts. We reviewed all posts during the time frame of the study to
identify those relevant to the Georgia State Stadium project and reduce threats to
internal validity of data. All social-media posts were sorted in chronological order
by source (Facebook or Twitter) and by account (GSU university account or GSU
athletics account). In total, 39 social-media posts from Facebook (n = 14) and
Twitter (n = 25) were identified. Analysis started at the time of GSU’s initial
announcement of its intention to purchase Turner Field with their first relevant
social-media communication via a Facebook post on May 8, 2014. Analysis
continued through March 2017 to accurately reflect the emergent themes from each
perspective. To capture the variety of themes GSU communicated in their social-
media posts, external content linked from social-media posts was coded alongside
the posts themselves. GSU’s social-media posts would often include a link to a
source with more information; for instance, a GSU Facebook post on January 10,
2017, about the development plans for the area around Georgia State Stadium
included a link to a related online AJC newspaper article. Other than images and
videos, which were part of the social-media post, nine external sources were coded
with corresponding social-media posts. Inclusion of linked content allowed for a
more thorough representation of the variety of themes GSU included in their
social-media communications. The post and any linked content were recorded and
codes identified; one post could potentially contain several codes.
To address RQ2, public comments (N = 354) in response to GSU’s social-
media stadium posts were collected, with comments coming from both Facebook
(n = 300) and Twitter (n = 54). Public comments were those directly in response
to a GSU social-media stadium post to allow for analysis of public-stakeholder
communication in response to GSU’s communications. Public comments were
also recorded according to their tone—positive, neutral, or negative—to aid in
fully expressing the themes public stakeholders communicated in response to posts
from GSU. Positive comments voiced support for the stadium project, while
negative comments displayed dissenting attitudes toward it. During the collabora-
tive coding process, the reviewers reached a consensus on determining the tone of a
public comment before proceeding to the next one. Content analysis of the public
comments on GSU’s posts revealed what messages were most common in their
responses to GSU’s communication.
Data Analysis
Sampling of the data consisted of the researchers sorting through all social-media
content created by GSU in the specified time frame to identify posts that were
relevant to the Georgia State Stadium project. To operationalize the data, two
coders worked together to create a coding protocol with 46 codes (Figure 1).
Coders used deductive and inductive reasoning to identify codes based on their
personal knowledge of the stadium as city residents and university affiliates and
past content-analysis studies on organizational communications strategies sur-
rounding new stadiums (e.g., Crompton, 2004; Huberty et al., 2016; Kellison &
Mondello, 2013; Maxcy & Larson, 2015). The coders worked collaboratively to
record all the empirical material. This approach is grounded in “intensive group
discussion, ‘dialogical intersubjectivity,’ coder adjudication, and simple group
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

270 McGehee et al.
Figure 1 — Development of the coding protocol used in content analysis of social-media posts
from Georgia State University (GSU) and the public.
consensus as an agreement goal” (Saldaña, 2016, p. 37). Furthermore, coding

collaboratively can be practically beneficial, save time, and result in a better
understanding between coders on the topic. By coding collaboratively, the coders
discussed and resolved any disagreements in an effort to mitigate either individual
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

coder’s bias. Coders read and discussed the content concurrently, and neither coder
was able to dictate the coding process in a way that could disproportionately sway
the analysis. Each code represents a specific topic that appeared in communication
from GSU or the public and was grouped into one of eight themes: A Focus on
Athletics, A Focus on University, Informing about Urban Community Develop-
ment Impact, Maintaining the Stadium Legacy, Promoting Public–Private Partner-
ships, Explaining Capital Project Funding Sources, Understanding Effects on

Transit, and Unclassified. Comments by the public that did not fit into a theme were
labeled Unclassified.
Results and Discussion

The primary foci of this study were the social-media communication from GSU
and the responses to those messages from public stakeholders. With the
financial investment in college athletics and stadiums continuing to rise, it
is valuable to consider how organizations present large-scale stadium projects
to public stakeholders and how those public stakeholders react to communica-
tion from the organization. Furthermore, GSU’s stadium project has several
features that distinguish it from other stadium projects and make it unique to
study, such as the community-development aspect associated with the stadium
project and the legacy of both the Olympic and Paralympic Games and the
Atlanta Braves.
RQ1 centered on the GSU communication to public stakeholders via social
media and the external content linked to via social-media communication. Some
posts reflected multiple codes, so the total number of codes is greater than the 39
GSU social-media posts. From the GSU Facebook and Twitter posts, the most
frequent theme was A Focus on Athletics (n = 34, or 87%). In response to RQ2, the
themes on which public stakeholders focused when responding to GSU’s posts on
social media were examined. Public comments were recorded and classified by
tone (i.e., positive, neutral, or negative). Of the 354 Facebook and Twitter
comments from the public, the theme that appeared most frequently was A Focus
on University (n = 213, or 60%). A breakdown of the frequency and percentages of
communication from GSU and the public, which includes the tone of public
responses, is provided in Table 1. Examples of other messages from GSU and
public responses for each theme can be found in Table 2.
A Focus on Athletics
A Focus on Athletics (n = 34, or 87%) was the most common theme disseminated
from GSU. Much of the coded content came from AJC articles that GSU linked to
in their social-media posts, which indicates the stadium project’s influence on
increasing media exposure. GSU’s messages were positive and primarily focused
on how the “new” stadium would contribute to the prestige of athletics, including
the baseball and football programs. For example, a GSU Facebook post from 2014
about GSU’s proposed renovation of Turner Field included a quote from the
university president about the potential impact of the renovation, stating that
he wanted a new stadium “to provide ‘the real college football experience.’”
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

272
Table 1 University Social-Media Messages and Public Social-Media Responses by Frequency of Themes and Tone,
Frequency (%)
Explaining Informing
Capital About Urban Maintaining Promoting
A Focus A Focus Project Community the Public/ Understanding
on on Funding Development Stadium Private Effects on
Athletics University Source Impact Legacy Partnerships Transit Unclassifieda
University messages
(n = 39) 34 (87) 29 (74) 14 (36) 18 (46) 15 (39) 22 (56) 3 (8)
Public responses
(n = 354) 156 (44) 211 (60) 42 (12) 77 (22) 31 (9) 13 (4) 5 (1) 76 (22)
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

Positive tone 95 (61) 107 (51) 2 (5) 27 (35) 10 (32) 8 (62) 2 (40)
Neutral tone 20 (13) 29 (14) 6 (14) 26 (34) 11 (36) 2 (15) 0 (0)
Negative tone 41 (26) 75 (35) 34 (81) 24 (31) 10 (32) 3 (23) 3 (60)
a
Tone—positive, neutral, or negative—of unclassified public posts was not considered applicable. There were no unclassified university posts.
Table 2 Examples of Messages from Georgia State University (GSU) and the Public for Each Theme
Theme GSU message Public response
A Focus on “Georgia State has never had these sorts of facilities for its athletics Super excited about the direction of @GSUPanthers athletics.
Athletics programs,” Becker said. “We are aware we’ve won three conference Proud to say I’m a Panther! #gsualumni #pantherfamily
championships this year. The program itself is on an upward #STATEment17 [positive, athletic prestige, fandom]
trajectory. This continues to support a growing and strengthening
GSU Sports doesn’t matter one bit to me. It just breeds more big-
athletics program, but one that by no means has achieved its
money corruption. Oh – Becker. I forgot. [negative, athletic
potential.” [athletic prestige, on-field success]
prestige]
A Focus on “We are extremely pleased to officially acquire the Turner Field site, It’s about building a future for the students yet to be there. The new
University and we are excited to be moving forward with a plan that will be generation of students that would want to go to Georgia State over
transformative for the city and for Georgia State,” Georgia State Tech and UGA. Look at schools like UCF/Boise State/Troy. They
President Mark P. Becker said. [university general benefits] want to be in the spotlight with athletics/campus life and academics.
Not to mention more dorms open up the campus. It’ll be an amazing
area if done correctly. [positive, classrooms/academics, student
housing, university general benefits]
Reason #1 I will not be donating any money to Georgia State
University. If you would spend this money on academics rather
than entertainment, I would wholeheartedly support it. [negative,
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

classrooms/academics, donations for GSU]
Explaining Becker said it’s too early to know how much it will cost to re- I feel that GA State should have the only choice since public funds
Capital Project purpose Turner Field or build a baseball stadium. However, he were used to help build the stadium and the proximity to the
Funding Source doesn’t plan on increasing student fees to finance the project. campus. Looks like a great plan. It’s a great day to be a Panther!
Students will pay $46.17 per registered hour—capped at $277 per [positive, tax money]
semester—to support athletics during the 2014–2015 academic
How about no : : : this is an unnecessary and expensive decision : : :
year. It is the second-most expensive portion of the 11 components
don’t be deceived folks. This WILL hurt the pockets of the students
of the mandatory student fees. [cost, student fees]
whether you wanna believe it or not : : : who else will it come
from?? Are they going to tax the general population? Cut the
President’s paycheck? Cut Athletic fees? Nope : : : wake up people
and realize what’s going on [negative, student fees, tax money]
273
(continued)
Table 2 (continued)
Theme GSU message Public response
274
Informing About Learn more about the development around Georgia State stadium, I live two blocks from the stadium and I’m absolutely psyched
Urban here. . . . Turner Field redevelopment could look like this. Here’s about the development. No more abandoned buildings and sea of
Community your first look at what the area around Turner Field could become empty parking lots! Hello restaurants and grocery store! [positive,
Development under a redevelopment. [urban community development, urban mixed-use/retail development, urban community development]
Impact community enhanced image]
Two stadiums and student housing in my neighborhood is not my
idea of a great future. [negative, urban community development]
Maintaining the Georgia State is proposing repurposing Turner Field into a 30,000- Great for the university, city and state. Great way to re purpose
Stadium Legacy seat football stadium and building another baseball stadium that will Turner Field. Site of the Olympic Games and Atlanta Fulton Co.
include Hank Aaron’s wall as part of the structure. [Braves legacy] Stadium. Site of the Hank Aaron record. Let’s do it. [positive,
Braves legacy, Olympic Legacy]
: : : The Braves and their inconsiderate fans that trash our streets can’t
leave our neighborhood soon enough. [negative, Braves legacy]
Promoting Construction begins Monday on the Georgia State stadium! We’re You’re being misled somewhere. Carter is responsible for a
Public–Private excited to be working with @JEDunn! #FlydayFriday majority of the land that is to be developed. They are leaning
Partnerships @GSUPanthers heavily on the LCI results to drive development efforts. Both Carter
[public–private partnership] and Georgia State are working with neighborhood groups. Most of
us are excited about what is coming. [positive, public–private
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

partnership]
You are far more optimistic than I am that it will bring in
revenue : : : Most of the money from the development will go to the
developers. [negative, public–private partnership]
Understanding His firm and Georgia State will also be heavy advocates for You mean the one (that currently doesn’t exist by Turner Field) that
Effects on Transit extending light rail to the site from downtown under the recently would be a transit source for students from the main campus to that
approved MARTA sales tax initiative. A line that would connect site? [positive, Atlanta Streetcar]
downtown to the Beltline down Hank Aaron Drive is one potential Notice the waste of tax dollars, useless street car there in the center.
project on the MARTA expansion list. [Atlanta Beltline, Atlanta [negative, Atlanta Streetcar]
Streetcar, MARTA]
Note. Code(s) and tone—positive, neutral, or negative—noted in brackets. Tone only noted for public responses. Unclassified theme not included. Posts and comments may have more
recorded codes than shown. Only codes recorded in the given theme are shown for examples of GSU messages and public responses.
In addition, the wide scope of tangible and intangible benefits the stadium could
offer the football program and the university was described often, as illustrated in a
GSU-linked article:
A 30,000-seat stadium would be attractive to recruits, could re-energize the
alumni and students, provide revenue that Georgia State doesn’t get from the
Georgia Dome, and would be more in line with what the rest of the teams in
the Sun Belt Conference use. (Roberson, 2014, p. 1)
This messaging is consistent with Maxcy and Larson (2015), who suggested that
stadiums provide intangible benefits like improving prestige, visibility, and
branding.
The Focus on Athletics theme was also popular among the public (n = 156, or
44%). Like GSU, public comments were primarily concerned with broad, general
effects that the stadium project would have on athletics. Unlike GSU, the public
was less concerned with specific or tangible topics such as tickets and stadium
amenities. Comments related to athletics were generally very positive (61%).
There was excitement with the announcement of the stadium project, and more
recent topics like seating charts and ticketing commonly received positive fan
responses such as “Can’t wait until we are sitting at our new stadium!” (Twitter).
Within the theme, athletics prestige was a frequent common emphasis of both
GSU and the fans. For instance, a GSU Facebook post on January 5, 2017, unveiled
GSU’s new signage at the stadium. This post, and others like it, resulted in mostly
positive comments and supportive reactions such as “I’m so excited! Go Panthers!”
(Twitter). GSU’s focus on athletics prestige indicates that it believes in the positive
impact a stadium can have on intangible benefits, such as enhanced image.
Differences in the messaging in the theme occurred in a few areas. For
example, GSU referenced revenue generated for athletics more frequently than the
public, and the public comments had a higher proportion of negative comments.
Also, GSU promoted team apparel and merchandise, ticketing, and the potential
for naming rights more frequently than the public. This disparity suggests that GSU
is interested in communicating tangible financial benefits associated with the new
stadium, while the public is less interested in and more cynical of these athletics-
related justifications of the capital project.
It is interesting to note that as GSU became the official owners of the property
and began to renovate the stadium in January 2017, there was an increase in GSU’s
athletics-focused social-media posts, especially on Twitter. Once GSU acquired
ownership of the property, posts began to focus on the reality of the project as it
commenced, with images of construction progress or information on buying tickets
to the stadium for football season.
A Focus on University
A Focus on University was a popular theme expressed by GSU (n = 29, or 74%)
and the public (n = 213, or 60%). GSU discussed broad concepts of how the
stadium would enhance the prestige or image of GSU as a higher education
institution. GSU and the public shared in their overall positivity and emphasis on
the general benefits the stadium development would bring to the university. GSU’s
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

276 McGehee et al.
communication focused heavily on providing information on the planning process

throughout the stadium project and frequently mentioned how the stadium project
would benefit student housing. The student-housing piece of the stadium project is
unique and indicates how the project extends beyond athletics to include the
university and the general student body.
Approximately half of the public comments were positive (while the other half
contained a mix of negative and neutral comments). Most of the public responses in
the theme were concerned with university general benefits. However, there were
some topics within the theme that resulted in negative responses. GSU mentioned
some codes with greater frequency than the public, such as student housing and
planning, President Mark Becker, and classrooms/academics, but public comments
related to those codes had a higher proportion of negativity. An example of a code
that engendered negative public reactions was parking, a common concern because
the Turner Field parking lots are used for student commuters. In response to a post
about GSU finalizing the Turner Field purchase, one Facebook commenter was
upset with students not being able to park in specific Turner Field lots and asked,
“So does this mean we get to park in more than just the blue lot or : : : ?”
(Facebook). GSU responded directly to this person’s comment, explaining that
“It is really early in the process, so we don’t have all of the details worked out at this
point” (Facebook). We note that this was one of a few times GSU interacted with a
commenter by responding to a public post. Responding directly to stakeholders’
social-media comments may be an option for organizations to address concerns
by creating a two-way dialogue and providing transparency.
When public comments were negative, they were usually tied to an individual
code, which was often less communicated by GSU. For example, 97% of public
comments on WRAS, a student radio station, were negative. This topic was
unrelated to the stadium project, but the public associated it with the stadium
project. GSU sold WRAS around the same time it announced its plans to purchase
the Turner Field property. Many public stakeholders were upset about the loss of
WRAS; consequently, many public comments nearer to the time WRAS was sold
reflected the negative opinions associated with that decision.
Promoting Public–Private Partnerships

Promoting Public–Private Partnerships was important to GSU (56% of their posts),
while the public only referenced it in 4% of their comments. The Promoting Public–
Private Partnerships theme allowed GSU to bring attention to the financial invest-
ment of private partners, most notably Carter Developments, yet it was not a
prominent interest for the public. Articles that GSU linked to via their social-media
posts (such as AJC articles or GSU website articles) would mention Carter alongside
information about the financial investment and the development of the neighbor-
hoods around Georgia State Stadium. For instance, a Facebook post indicated, “In
concert with our partners at Carter : : : a development plan : : : will bring new energy
and vitality to this historically significant part of Atlanta.” The frequency of these
posts may suggest that GSU wanted to both highlight the existence of the
community-development aspect of the project and note that the bulk of the financial
investment in that development would not be coming from the university. Most of
GSU’s messages about promoting public–private partnerships dealt with GSU’s
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

partnership with Carter and other private commercial partners. However, GSU also
would mention the role of the City of Atlanta in facilitating public–private partner-
ships. A GSU Facebook post from August 2016 contains a link to an AJC article:
“Mayor Kasim Reed announced today (Aug. 18) the Georgia State University
Foundation has finalized its purchase of the Turner Field site” (Facebook). In this
case, GSU’s message is highlighting the city’s role in facilitating public–private
partnership rather than the role of private partners like Carter Developments.
Informing About the Impact of Urban Community

Development
The community-development aspects of the stadium project are part of what
distinguishes it from other college-stadium projects, yet it was not the top focus for
GSU. The Informing about Urban Community Development Impact theme was
relayed in about half of GSU’s posts (n = 18, or 46%). The messages were again
positive, such as a Facebook post with the university president explaining that “a
plan that will be transformative for the city and for Georgia State.” They continued
to highlight the private partnerships with Carter, who would fund and control the
community-development aspect. As such, GSU focused mostly on mixed-use/
retail development and residential development and on broader urban community
development.
The public comments related to urban community development resulted in
more divided opinions than the tone of public comments overall or within other
themes. Thirty-five percent of comments in the Informing about Urban Community
Development Impact theme were positive, 33% were neutral, and 32% were
negative. The positive respondents frequently reflected enthusiastically about the
potential of the stadium project to have a positive impact on students and on
residents living in the previously neglected neighborhoods around Georgia State
Stadium: “This plan as advertised is more than Atlanta has done in 60 years with
the area” (Facebook). However, there was a fair amount of skepticism from the
public on the potential benefits. The public was more critical or neutral in their
comments regarding topics such as the CBA and gentrification, neither of which
was emphasized by GSU. Some Twitter comments reflected the sentiment that
GSU was using “community development” as nothing more than a talking point:
“If GSU cares about the community so much, why is President Becker refusing to
sign the Community Benefits Agreement brought to him by students and neigh-
borhood residents? #BeckersigntheCBA.” Another Twitter user asked, “Where is
the collaboration with the community? Not one GSU rep has knocked on my door
or asked me what I want.” Comments on the CBA and gentrification highlight the
negative community impact that capital projects may result in, especially those in
an urban setting. Administrators need to be aware of this potential reaction and
have a communication plan for such responses.
GSU’s emphasis within the Informing about Urban Community Development
Impact theme avoided negativity and focused on areas such as mixed use/retail
development, residential development, and urban community development.
GSU’s communication strategy focused on highlighting the private partners’
responsibility in community development. This may have shifted accountability
regarding community development of the neighborhoods around the stadium.
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

278 McGehee et al.
In the community-development theme, GSU avoided discussing the CBA, gentri-

fication, and enhancing the image and economic impact of the urban community,
all topics in which the public showed great interest. Overall, while community
development may be a unique aspect and a selling point for the stadium project,
GSU appears to be cautious in promising that they will be accountable for or the
driving force behind the potential community development. GSU’s apparent
restraint in addressing topics related to the impact of urban community develop-

ment may be justified by the public’s negative comments on certain controversial
topics within the theme.
Maintaining the Stadium Legacy

The history of the stadium and the potential legacy of both the Atlanta Braves and
the Olympic and Paralympic Games at Turner Field are part of what makes GSU’s
stadium project unique. GSU mentioned Maintaining the Stadium Legacy (38%)
more than the public did (9%), and both focused on the Braves legacy more than
the Olympic Games legacy. This may be related to the fact that the Braves were the
most recent occupants and in the process of relocating just outside of Atlanta,
making the Braves Legacy code more topical. GSU mentioned subjects such as
keeping a popular Hank Aaron statue outside of Georgia State Stadium and how
GSU was continuing the legacy of having a downtown stadium in the neighbor-
hood. In this way, GSU used the legacy theme to position itself as a prominent
symbol of downtown Atlanta.
Public comments related to legacy were predominantly neutral, but negative
comments focused on the Braves legacy and not on the Olympic legacy. For
instance, a GSU Facebook post highlighting new signage going up at the stadium
included a public response that seemed sarcastic toward the Braves by stating,
“The ‘big baseball’ left for Smyrna [the town near the new Braves ballpark]”
(Facebook). For the most part, the public did not mention legacy in terms of GSU
continuing the Braves’ downtown legacy. Rather, the comments included ancillary
Braves stadium information such as the future of Braves-related signage/items at
the stadium or negative comments about the Braves move.
Explaining Capital Project Funding Sources

Like the Maintaining the Stadium Legacy theme, the amount of content from the
Explaining Capital Project Funding Sources theme was not the most prominent for
GSU (36%) or the public (12%) but is noteworthy because of the strong negative
response. Public comments were overwhelmingly negative (81%) and focused on
student-related issues such as tuition and student fees (e.g., “So basically, get ready
for higher tuition fees : : : ”). These concerns about students funding the project
were common. For example, “GSU is great for academics but with the focus on
sports it is causing tuition & fees to go up and quality go down. GSU is supposed to
be affordable” (Facebook). Similar to how ownership of professional-sport stadi-
ums needs to tout the benefits of new stadiums to the public because of its reliance
on public support and funding, in college athletics, it appears that universities may
also benefit from focusing communications on how funding is acquired and the
financial impact on the direct constituents—the students. The messaging about
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

promoting public–private partnerships was frequent but may not have been clear
enough for stakeholders, such as students to see that the funding would not come
from student tuition.
Understanding Effects on Transit

Finally, the Understanding Effects on Transit theme was the least mentioned by
GSU or the public, and the public responded more negatively (60%) to transpor-
tation-related issues than any other theme. Traffic and public transit, including the
city’s bus-and-rail system (MARTA) and Atlanta Streetcar, were common con-
cerns. GSU discussed how the capital project might improve public transportation
and infrastructure in Atlanta. An AJC article linked from a GSU social-media post
stated that Carter Developments and
Georgia State will also be heavy advocates for extending light rail to the site
from downtown under the recently approved MARTA sales tax initiative.
A line that would connect downtown to the Beltline down Hank Aaron Drive
is one potential project on the MARTA expansion list. (Trubey, 2017b,
para. 1)
On the other hand, public comments related to the theme were often negative, such
as a sarcastic comment on a post about the countdown to the first football game
at Georgia State Stadium: “ : : : no tailgating and sitting in traffic! : : : ” (Twitter).
Although Understanding the Effects on Transit was not one of the most prominent
themes, it reflects a common trend across all themes, in which GSU communicated
the least about topics that spur more negative responses.
Implications
The results of the study indicate that GSU and the public both focused their
communication primarily on issues that focused on athletics or the university more
generally. Despite some differences between the two perspectives, there is an
apparent association between the frequency of comments from GSU about a given
theme and the amount of comments from the public on the same theme. The public
generally communicated the most about the themes that GSU communicated
the most. This pattern is consistent with the idea that organizations strategically
use social-media communication to both establish and sustain relationships with
stakeholders (Abeza & O’Reilly, 2014).
This study used stakeholder theory to investigate messages communicated
through social media by an organization and how those messages were received by
public stakeholders. Stakeholder theory involves the identification and strategic
development of means to reach stakeholders (Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff,
2016). In their social-media communication to public stakeholders, GSU
highlighted certain topics, which is a reflection of organizational commitment
to those topics (Ciletti et al., 2010). If the themes most communicated by GSU
indicate their commitment to those themes, then our findings suggest that GSU and
other organizations may want to shift their communications to target themes that
stakeholders are most concerned about. For instance, the least communicated
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

280 McGehee et al.
themes from GSU generally coincided with the themes that public stakeholders
were most negative toward. Rather than avoiding controversy, organizations could
use communication to display their commitment to a topic and alleviate public
stakeholders’ concerns.
The case of Georgia State’s stadium-renovation project builds on existing
research that outlines alternative or spillover social benefits of a stadium, by
showing that a university can use these concepts in communication to stakeholders

(Crompton, 2004; Huberty et al., 2016; Kellison & Mondello, 2013; Owen, 2003).
Some of the potential benefits of a new stadium that GSU also touches on include
advertising the university due to increased media exposure, enhancing the uni-
versity’s sense of community, and improving fan experience with appealing
stadium aesthetics (Maxcy & Larson, 2015). GSU’s communication also indicates
that they believe that the stadium can help elevate the status of both the university
and the athletic program, which is similar to the justification used in professional
sport that stadiums contribute to a community’s achieving “major league status”
(Crompton, 2004). The public tended to have positive perceptions of GSU’s
messages that were related to these alternative or spillover benefits (e.g., prestige)
that the stadium may provide. While alternative justifications for a stadium are
difficult to quantify, these finding do suggest that college organizations believe that
they are valuable to communicate to their stakeholders.
The results of this research also show that organizational and public-
stakeholder messages about a refurbished stadium are consistent with new-stadium
research. For instance, concerning public-stakeholder messages about a proposed
stadium project, Mondello et al. (2009) classified public messages into five
recurring themes: Opportunity Costs, Perceived Economic Benefits of Stadiums,
Land-Use and Redevelopment Issues, Positive and Negative Externalities, and
Public-Good Benefits. Many concepts overlapped, such as perceived economic
benefits. While the themes in this study were tailored to the GSU stadium project,
the contents of public-stakeholder comments from this study support categoriza-
tion of public concerns into these five themes based on other literature. For
instance, a public comment about student housing categorized under the A Focus
on University theme in this study could also fit under the Land-Use and Redevel-
opment theme. From the organizational side, Kellison and Mondello (2013) found
that organizational messages about a proposed stadium in Los Angeles were
focused on legitimating the project, educating citizens about the project, connect-
ing to Angelenos, and calling potential advocates of the plan into action. Calling
potential advocates into action was not a significant theme in organizational
messages in this study; however, unlike the Los Angeles example, GSU did
not have raise support for building a new stadium. Other than this difference, the
themes from the Kellison and Mondello (2013) study are consistent with our
findings on organizational communications from GSU.
The findings also have practical implications for sport-media-relations profes-
sionals on the issue of communicating the value of a new stadium. In this research,
A Focus on Athletics and A Focus on University were the most frequently
communicated themes by both GSU and the public, with GSU emphasizing
and public stakeholders being receptive to the more intangible spillover benefits
discussed herein. GSU therefore focused its communication on these broad,
intangible benefits rather than making more specific and measurable claims about
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

the benefit of the stadium project. Because tangible benefits of a new stadium, such
as economic impact, are less likely to materialize, and public stakeholders appear
receptive to the alternative justifications, practitioners seeking community support
may want to focus on these messages in communicating with stakeholders.
This research may also inform college athletics and communications practi-
tioners on how to responsibly and effectively take advantage of social-media
communication. Other research has shown that the social-media sites utilized
(Facebook and Twitter) and the attributes of the content in communication from a
sport organization can influence how individuals react to content on social media
(Watkins & Lee, 2016). If organizations wish to establish and sustain relation-
ships by engaging with public stakeholders via social media, they should
anticipate what topics may result in negative reactions from the public and
use social media as an opportunity to directly discuss sensitive topics with
stakeholders. An inherent advantage of social media is that they allow for a two-
way dialogue between organizations and stakeholders; organizations can capi-
talize on this feature by responding directly to questions or concerns about
stadium projects. Social-media managers in college athletics can use these
findings to consider how they can better communicate and interact with public
stakeholders regarding capital projects.
Limitations and Future Research

This study compared social-media communication from a large urban university
with responses from public stakeholders regarding a major stadium-redevelopment
project. Therefore, the transferability of the results may be limited. Further research
is needed to determine whether the results from this research are applicable to other
similar scenarios. For instance, the results indicate that public posts mirrored posts
that the university provided (i.e., both focused predominantly on Athletic Focus
and University Focus). Future research can determine if this pattern is consistent in
other cases and if it is reflective of the topics that are most important to public
stakeholders. Another outcome of this research is that community development
was not one of the predominantly communicated themes in messages from either
public stakeholders or the university. Future research is necessary to determine
if community development is not a primary concern for public stakeholders or
if the frequency of community-development-related messages is influenced by
the frequency of community-development messages from the university. While
researchers have previously examined how organizations and consumers sepa-
rately engage with social media, there is less research on how these perspectives
interact when studying a specific case. This study indicates that the interaction
between an organization and public stakeholders on social media may play a role
in what messages an organization chooses to communicate to the public and how
the public responds in turn. A replication study could use content analysis to
understand the interaction between different perspectives on social media and
apply it to another university engaging in a similar project. Comparing the findings
of future research with this study can reveal whether there are any consistent trends
in communication and similarities or differences between universities and their
public stakeholders.
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

282 McGehee et al.
Case Study Questions

1. Why is it important for organizations to consider multiple stakeholder
perspectives when communicating about a stadium project?
2. Should an organization prioritize certain stakeholder groups over others?
3. Do urban universities face unique challenges compared with traditional

universities or professional franchises in pursuing a stadium project?
4. To what extent do public universities have an obligation to have a positive
impact in developing surrounding communities, outside of groups such as
student, faculty, staff, and alumni who are more directly associated with a
university?
5. Given the high cost of stadiums and other new facilities, how would you
justify the value—economic or intangible—through social-media commu-
nication regarding a new stadium?
6. Are social media an effective tool for relationship building in the case of a
stadium project? Are they better suited for relationship building and
engagement in scenarios other than a new stadium?
7. As a social-media or communication manager, how would you handle
negative comments from public stakeholders?
8. As in this study, if an organization is engaging in a stadium project that is
tied to a broader community-development project, does the organization
have an obligation to engage with stakeholders on the topic of community
development? To what extent can or should social media be used to
communicate the purported positive impact on the community?
9. Should stakeholder opinions play a role in a university’s decision to engage
in a large-scale development? How would you gauge different groups’
opinions? If they are at odds with the university’s vision, how do you
resolve this?
10. If an organization wishes to highlight the positive influence and value of a
development project, is it appropriate to tailor communications to avoid
topics that stakeholders may consider important but are sensitive about?
11. Based on the findings of this study, if you were asked to advise on a
communication strategy for a university considering a large-scale stadium
project, what would you recommend? How much interaction with the public
on social media would you advise? Do you feel it would be best to
communicate more content or less content on the subject? What would
you advise regarding the frequency of posting stadium-related messages on
social media?
12. Based on the findings of this study, do you feel that a public university
should partner with private businesses in an urban-renewal project? Is this
outside the scope of the university?
13. Do you feel that GSU handled their communication on social media
responsibly? Could (or should) they have done more to engage with
stakeholders?
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

References
2015 by the numbers. (2015, December 14). SportsBusiness Journal, 18(35), 38.
Retrieved from http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/12/14/Year-
End/Numbers.aspx?hl=%22college%20stadiums%22&sc=0
Abeza, G., & O’Reilly, N. (2014). Social media platforms’ use in building stakeholder
relationships. Journal of Applied Sport Management, 6(3), 103–126.

Abeza, G., O’Reilly, N., Séguin, B., & Nzindukiyimana, O. (2015). Social media scholar-
ship in sport management research: A critical review. Journal of Sport Management,
29, 601–618. doi:10.1123/JSM.2014-0296.
Ainsworth, J., Akinyela, M., Curcio, A., Edmundson, W., Konrad, M., Oakley, D., . . . West,
E. (2017, April 5). Letter to the editor. The Signal. Retrieved from https://issuu.com/
gsusignal/docs/tuesday_issu
Blaszka, M., Burch, L.M., Frederick, E.L., Clavio, G., & Walsh, P. (2012). #WorldSeries:
An empirical examination of a Twitter hashtag during a major sporting event.
International Journal of Sport Communication, 5, 435–453. doi:10.1123/ijsc.5.
4.435.
Bloom, M., & Trubey, S. (2016, November 9). Georgia State’s $53M Turner Field
redevelopment plan approved. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved from http://
www.ajc.com/news/local-education/georgia-state-53m-turner-field-redevelopment-
plan-approved/7GNOtIxm0xzYwcWVaPf8HL/
Bonnafous-Boucher, M., & Rendtorff, J.D. (2016). Stakeholder theory: A model for
strategic management. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Brand, M. (2006). The role and value of intercollegiate athletics in universities. Journal of
the Philosophy of Sport, 33(1), 9–20. doi:10.1080/00948705.2006.9714687.
Center for Sport and Urban Policy. (2018). Publictrack. Retrieved from http://www.
stadiatrack.org
Ciletti, D., Lanasa, J., Ramos, D., Luchs, R., & Junying, L. (2010). Sustainability
communication in North American professional sports leagues: Insights from
Web-site self-presentations. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3, 64–91.
doi:10.1123/ijsc.3.1.64.
Coates, D. (2007). Stadiums and arenas: Economic development or economic redistribu-
tion? Contemporary Economic Policy, 25, 565–577. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.
00073.x.
College hoops research: Construction, attendance, media. (2015, March13). SportsBusiness
Journal, 19(45), 19–21. Retrieved from https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/
Issues/2017 /03/13/In-Depth/Research.aspx
Crompton, J. (2004). Beyond economic impact: An alternative rationale for the public
subsidy of major league sports facilities. Journal of Sport Management, 18, 40–58.
doi:10.1123/jsm.18.1.40.
Dehring, C.A., Depken, C.A., & Ward, M.R. (2007). The impact of stadium announcements
on residential property values: Evidence from a natural experiment in Dallas-Fort Worth.
Contemporary Economic Policy, 25, 627–638. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00077.x.
Directory of college arena projects. (2015, November 9). SportsBusiness Journal, 18(30),
22. Retrieved from http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/11/09/
In-Depth/Arena-projects.aspx?hl=college%20stadium%20renovation%20cost&sc=0
Elsbach, K.D. (2006). Organizational perception management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Flanagan, K.E. (2008). Factors affecting attendance at bowl games during the BCS era.
Sport Journal, 11(3), 1.
Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA:
Pitman.
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

284 McGehee et al.
Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parma, B.L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder
theory: The state of the art. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Georgia State University. (2017). The stadium—Georgia State University. Retrieved from
http://stadium.gsu.edu/
Getz, M., & Siegfried, J.J. (2012). College sports: The mystery of the zero-sum game.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(1), 52–59. doi:10.1080/00091383.
2012.636006.
Goff, B. (2000). The effects of university athletics on the university: A review and extension
of empirical assessment. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 85–104.
Hipke, M., & Hatchmann, F. (2014). Game changer: A case study of social-media strategy
in Big Ten athletic departments. International Journal of Sport Communication, 7,
516–532.
Huberty, L.L., Kellison, T.B., & Mondello, M. (2016). Fan mobilization and the Minnesota
sport-stadium campaign. International Journal of Sport Communication, 9, 191–208.
Jude, A. (2015, September 2). UW, Alaska Airlines agree to naming-rights deal for Husky
Stadium’s field. Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-
husky-football/uw-alaska-airlines-agree-to-naming-rights-deal-for-husky-stadium/
Kellison, T.B., & Mondello, M.J. (2013). In the continued pursuit of stadium initiatives
following past failures: An analysis of the Los Angeles Farmers Field proposal. Journal
of Venue & Event Management, 4(2), 36–46.
Kim, W., & Walker, M. (2012). Measuring the social impacts associated with Super Bowl
XLIII: Preliminary development of a psychic income scale. Sport Management Review,
15, 91–108. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2011.05.007.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Leslie, K. (2014, May 23). For Turner Field neighbors, a time of cautious hope. Atlanta
Journal-Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.myajc.com/news/local/for-turner-
field- neighbors-time-cautious hope/FCrFJoJd2P3ZgzjUFBKpyK/
Leslie, K. (2015, December 21). Turner Field to be sold to Georgia State and developer
Carter. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/news/local/
turnerfield-sold-georgia-state-and-developer-carter/ODlrYKmKtDcyrR3lydwCTM/
Maxcy, J.G., & Larson, D.J. (2015). Reversal of fortune or glaring misallocation: Is a new
football stadium worth the cost to a university? International Journal of Sport Finance,
10, 62–87.
Mirabile, M.P. (2015). The determinants of attendance at neutral site college football games.
Managerial and Decision Economics, 36, 191–204. doi:10.1002/mde.2670.
Misener, L., & Schulenkorf, N. (2016). Rethinking the social value of sport events through
and asset-based community development (ABCD) perspective. Journal of Sport
Management, 30, 329–340. doi:10.1123/jsm.2015-0203.
Mondello, M.J., Schwester, R.W., & Humphreys, B.R. (2009). To build or not to build:
Examining the public discourse regarding St. Petersburg’s stadium plan. International
Journal of Sport Communication, 2, 432–450. doi:10.1123/ijsc.2.4.432.
Muret, D. (2016, May2). New tradition. SportsBusiness Journal, 19(4), 1. Retrieved from
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/05/02/Facilities/Notre-Dame.
aspx?hl=col lege%20stadium%20renovation%20cost&sc=0Owen
Owen, J.G. (2003). The stadium game: Cities versus teams. Journal of Sports Economics 4,
183–202 . doi:10.1177/1527002503251710.
Popp, N., DeSchriver, T., McEvoy, C., & Diehl, M.A. (2016). A valuation analysis of
corporate naming rights for collegiate sport venues. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 25,
7–20.
Roberson, D. (2014, May 7). Georgia State wants to turn Turner Field into a football
stadium. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/sports/
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

college/georgia-state-wants-turn-turner-field-into-football-stadium/bExIMyZjOHNWC
axJEg xgUN/
Rosentraub, M.S. (2014). Reversing urban decline: Why and how sports, entertainment, and
culture turn cities into major league winners. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
Santo, C. (2005). The economic impact of sports stadiums: Recasting the analysis in context.
Journal of Urban Affairs, 27, 177–192. doi:10.1111/j.0735-2166.2005.00231.x.

Schwester, R.W. (2007). An examination of the public good externalities of professional
athletic venues: Justifications for public financing? Public Budgeting & Finance, 27(3),
89–109. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5850.2007.00884.x.
Seifried, C.S. & Tutka, P. (2016). Southern Methodist University football and the stadia:
Moving toward modernization. Sport History Review, 47, 172–192. doi:10.1123/shr.
2015-0018.
Stafford, L. (2017, April 24). GSU-Turner Field neighborhoods strike deal to address com-
munity change. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/
news/local-govt--politics/gsu-turner-field-neighborhoods-strike-deal-address-community-
change/RM4aSNuQcPytuWNTQTpDDO/
Trubey, S. (2017a, April 3). Group takes to tents to protest Georgia State’s plans for Turner
Field. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/news/local/
group-takes-tents-protest-georgia-state-plans-for-turnerfield/nuzsKO2bppa7vYHXAv
HYcP/
Trubey, S. (2017b, January 10). How Turner Field might look in the near future. Atlanta
Journal-Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.myajc.com/business/how-turner-
field-might-look-the-near-future/Z8BbXzXqAvhmywysbg5i3K/?utm_source=ajc&utm_
mediu m=social&utm_campaign=turnerfield_firstlook
Wang, Y., & Zhou, S. (2015). How do sports organizations use social media to build
relationships? A content analysis of NBA clubs’ Twitter use. International Journal
of Sport Communication, 8, 133–148. doi:10.1123/ijsc.2014-0083.
Watkins, B., & Lee, J.W. (2016). Communicating brand identity on social media: A case
study of the use of Instagram and Twitter for collegiate athletic branding. International
Journal of Sport Communication, 9, 476–498. doi:10.1123/IJSC.2016-0073.
Wimmer, R.D., & Dominick, J.R. (2006). Mass media research: An introduction (8th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

Copyright of International Journal of Sport Communication is the property of Human Kinetics
Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
View publication stats

Understanding Organizational and Public Perspectives On Stadium Redevelopment Through Social Media: A Case Study of Georgia State Unive...

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding Organizational and Public Perspectives On Stadium Redevelopment Through Social Media: A Case Study of Georgia State Unive...

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Understanding Organizational and Public Perspectives

Article in International Journal of Sport Communication · April 2018

Glynn McGehee Armin Alberto Marquez

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Beth Cianfrone Timothy Kellison

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Building Community online View project

Research Handbook on Major Sporting Events View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Understanding Organizational and Public

Stadium-construction projects are costly and affect the community—positively

Keywords: communication, facilities, intercollegiate athletics, urban development

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

regarding a stadium-centered development project by identifying and discussing

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

facility. In addition, new college stadiums do not generally produce signiﬁcant

2015; Mondello, Schwester, & Humphreys, 2009; Santo, 2005).

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

& De Colle, 2010). Beyond identifying stakeholders, organizations must determine

GSU’s Stadium Development

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

university eventually reached an agreement with neighborhood organizations to

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

consensus as an agreement goal” (Saldaña, 2016, p. 37). Furthermore, coding

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

ships, Explaining Capital Project Funding Sources, Understanding Effects on

Results and Discussion

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

communication focused heavily on providing information on the planning process

Promoting Public–Private Partnerships

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

Informing About the Impact of Urban Community

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

In the community-development theme, GSU avoided discussing the CBA, gentri-

restraint in addressing topics related to the impact of urban community develop-

Maintaining the Stadium Legacy

Explaining Capital Project Funding Sources

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

Understanding Effects on Transit

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

showing that a university can use these concepts in communication to stakeholders

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

Limitations and Future Research

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

Case Study Questions

3. Do urban universities face unique challenges compared with traditional

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

relationships. Journal of Applied Sport Management, 6(3), 103–126.

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

Journal of Urban Affairs, 27, 177–192. doi:10.1111/j.0735-2166.2005.00231.x.

IJSC Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018

View publication stats

You might also like