The Digital Transformation of Value Co-Creation

European Sport Management Quarterly
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/resm20
The digital transformation of value co-creation:

a scoping review towards an agenda for sport
marketing research
Pascal Stegmann, Siegfried Nagel & Tim Ströbel
To cite this article: Pascal Stegmann, Siegfried Nagel & Tim Ströbel (2023) The digital
transformation of value co-creation: a scoping review towards an agenda for sport
marketing research, European Sport Management Quarterly, 23:4, 1221-1248, DOI:
10.1080/16184742.2021.1976241
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2021.1976241
View supplementary material
Published online: 15 Sep 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 4472
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 10 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=resm20
EUROPEAN SPORT MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY
2023, VOL. 23, NO. 4, 1221–1248
https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2021.1976241
The digital transformation of value co-creation: a scoping

review towards an agenda for sport marketing research
a
Pascal Stegmann , Siegfried Nagela and Tim Ströbelb
a
Institute of Sport Science, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; bMarketing & Sport Management,
University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Research question: The number of studies dealing with digital Received 11 May 2020
innovation in sport marketing has increased rapidly in recent years. Accepted 24 August 2021
These studies address the global phenomenon of digital
KEYWORDS
transformation and its impact on the field of sport marketing. Digital transformation;
However, most studies have not considered digital transformation digital innovations;
in its full complexity nor analyzed its facets through the lens of engagement platforms;
value co-creation. Therefore, this article reconciles the fragmented value co-creation; research
research on digital transformation in sport marketing with the agenda
current understanding of value co-creation to develop an agenda
for sport marketing research.
Research methods: We conduct a systematic scoping review of the
literature on digital transformation of value co-creation in sport
marketing. The scoping review combines a database search and a
manual search, in which we identified 270 relevant articles.
Results and findings: Most studies on digital transformation in sport
marketing relate to research about social media. Based on the
scoping review, we reorder the literature from the perspective of
value co-creation and identify relevant research gaps. Based on
these research gaps, we develop an agenda for future research in
sport marketing, including methodological approaches.
Implications: This article provides scholars with a basis for
innovative future research in the digital era of value co-creation in
sport marketing and enhances the repertoire of sport managers for
facing the challenges of digital transformation in the sport business.
Introduction
Digital transformation is a global phenomenon that has influenced both our private
(Allmer et al., 2015; Reis et al., 2018) and professional lives (Loebbecke & Picot, 2015).
It affects the process of value co-creation for companies and their customers (Nambisan
et al., 2019; Swaminathan et al., 2020) and has altered the way people behave and interact
with each other (Payne et al., 2008). Digital transformation describes the radical, disrup-
tive, and evolutionary process of change due to information technologies in economies,
institutions, and societies (Morakanyane et al., 2017; Vial, 2019).
CONTACT Pascal Stegmann pascal.stegmann@unibe.ch Institute of Sport Science, University of Bern, Brem-
gartenstrasse 145, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2021.1976241
© 2021 European Association for Sport Management
1222 P. STEGMANN ET AL.
Digital transformation also affects the world of sport and sport marketing. For
example, GoPro initially developed a camera that was particularly suitable for capturing
video footage of action sports. By using social media and offering user-friendly software,
GoPro was able to establish a brand community involving millions of actors from around
the globe (e.g. athletes, event organizers, fans). The company transferred much of its cor-
porate power to customers; it provides brand community members with opportunities to
share their thoughts and ideas, establish new social relationships, and participate in video
challenges. Customers are able to co-create value for themselves, GoPro, and other actors
(Brodie et al., 2017). Such digital innovations are not limited to social media. Roger
Goodell, the National Football League (NFL) commissioner, introduced the NFL’s
roadmap for enhancing the in-stadium experience using digital technologies (Boorstin,
2019). Stadium operators have begun to digitalize their stadiums by providing smart-
phone applications that allow spectators, media, and other actors (e.g. sponsors) to
connect and co-create value with each other. For example, the San Francisco 49ers’
app provides fans with opportunities to order food and beverages, connect with other
fans, access real-time statistics, see inside- and outside-stadium traffic patterns, and par-
ticipate actively in light shows. The digital transformation of the in-stadium game experi-
ence enhances co-created value for the involved actors (*Horbel et al., 2021).
The examples of GoPro and the San Francisco 49ers exemplify some of the many
opportunities that digital transformation can offer to sport businesses. However, along
with these positive effects, sport managers must deal with several challenges in the use
of digital technologies for value co-creation in sport marketing. Surprisingly, sport mar-
keting research has only addressed a few facets of this evolving topic. Business research
has begun to examine the influence of digital transformation on the corporate world
(Legner et al., 2017; Swaminathan et al., 2020), but sport marketing lags behind in
research and practitioner knowledge. Building on a scoping review, this article provides
insights into the digital transformation of value co-creation in sport marketing. Accord-
ingly, it makes the following contributions to the field of sport marketing: (1) we recon-
cile the fragmented research examining digital transformation in sport marketing with
the current understanding of value co-creation; (2) we identify and discuss research
gaps pertaining to value co-creation through digital transformation in sport marketing;
and (3) we develop a research agenda for sport marketing research that summarizes
future research needs. The purpose of this article is to present a roadmap for future
studies of digital transformation of value co-creation in sport marketing, and to
enhance the repertoire of sport managers facing the challenges of digital transformation.
Theoretical background
Value co-creation in sport marketing
The current understanding of sport marketing is influenced by service-dominant logic
(SDL) (Vargo & Lusch, 2016). Earlier conceptualizations of value creation in sport mar-
keting focused on the exchange of goods or services for money (Vargo & Lusch, 2008).
According to this goods-dominant logic, buying a ticket for a football match represents
the creation of value. Woratschek et al. (2014) introduced SDL to sport marketing with
the Sport Value Framework (SVF). The SVF assumes the ticket purchase as the beginning
EUROPEAN SPORT MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY 1223
of the value co-creation process. No value-in-use is created merely by the exchange of a

ticket for money; only the resource integration of different actors enables the co-creation
of value (Vargo & Lusch, 2016). The knowledge and abilities of various actors contain
value, for example, knowing how and being able to organize and run a football match.
Products or services serve as vehicles of knowledge and thus act as intermediaries in
value co-creation (Vargo & Lusch, 2016); in other words, the ticket for the football
game represents a value proposition. The fans integrate their own resources to co-
create value by going to the stadium and cheering for their team.
Value is defined as ‘an improvement in system [e.g. actors’] well-being’ (Vargo et al.,
2008, p. 149). This means that an enhancement of an actor’s current situation is attribu-
table to co-created value. Improving the well-being of an actor’s system is differentiated
into at least three dimensions of perceived value: utilitarian (functional and cognitive),
symbolic (social image, prestige, and self-esteem), and hedonic (affective and emotional)
value (Yoshida et al., 2013). This implies that actors may perceive value differently. For
example, a diehard fan may enjoy being recognized as such by wearing club merchandise
and being associated with a fan club (symbolic value), whereas others may be interested
in the game as entertainment and in the excitement of being able to watch a football game
in the stadium (hedonic value), and a third group may focus on the game itself because
they are interested in a balanced game (utilitarian value).
Building on this general understanding, Woratschek et al. (2014) introduced founda-
tional premises for value co-creation in sport. These premises have been further devel-
oped (e.g. Vargo & Lusch, 2016) and encompass five levels of abstraction: (1) Nature
of exchange: the main subjects of exchange and a basic understanding of SDL within
sport. (2) Intra-level: individual actors in sport and their involvement in value co-cre-
ation by offering value propositions or integrating their own resources. (3) Micro-
level: dyadic or triadic interactions on engagement platforms, for example, the resource
integration between fans and players in the stadium and the resulting value co-creation.
(4) Meso-level: all related actors and their interrelationships on a specific engagement
platform, considering that the value-in-context may be different depending on the
engagement platform and the network of actors, for example, in the stadium or at
home (Chandler & Vargo, 2011; Horbel et al., 2016). (5) Macro-level: the service ecosys-
tem that includes all physical and digital engagement platforms and resource-integrating
actors (Storbacka et al., 2016; Vargo & Lusch, 2016; Woratschek et al., 2020).
Digital transformation
To date, the literature has used terms such as digitization, digitalization, and digital trans-
formation rather inconsistently (Mertens & Wiener, 2018; Riedl et al., 2017). We apply
the following definitions to provide a clear understanding:
(1) Digitization is the process of converting analog information into digitally encoded
information (Tilson et al., 2010). Digitization was introduced with the widespread
emergence of computers.
(2) Digitalization describes the phenomenon of using digital technologies, for example,
when companies go beyond traditional uses of computers and use them to facilitate
work processes (Legner et al., 2017). Digitalization, therefore, pertains to the
application of digital technologies in organizational settings and to enhance the

workforce.
(3) Digital transformation is a radical, disruptive process of change introduced by the
application of innovations (Hinings et al., 2018; Morakanyane et al., 2017; Skog
et al., 2018). A slightly more general definition specifies that it is ‘a process that
aims to improve an entity by triggering significant changes to its properties
through combinations of information, computing, communication, and connectivity
technologies’ (Vial, 2019, p. 118).
The concept of digital innovation was borrowed from disruptive innovation theory,
which was introduced by Christensen et al. (2015). Digital innovations can be defined
as business model innovations relying on digital technologies entering markets either
by low-end footholds (i.e. low pricing) or new-market footholds (i.e. creating a new
market), which represents a narrow, market-centric definition of innovation. In a
wider definition, Nambisan et al. (2017, p. 224) describe digital innovations as ‘the cre-
ation of market offerings, business processes, or models that result from the use of digital
technology’.
Methods: scoping review

Digital transformation affects the field of sport marketing (e.g. connected stadiums, social
media) and because digital transformation offers many opportunities for actors to inter-
connect, it seems essential to apply network-oriented theoretical frameworks, such as
theories of value co-creation, to understand its complexity. To investigate the phenom-
enon of digital transformation in sport marketing, and the extent to which theories of
value co-creation have been considered, we conduct a scoping review to examine the
state of research. Our purpose is to reconcile the fragmented research to identify research
gaps relevant to digital transformation of value co-creation and develop an agenda for
sport marketing research. Scoping reviews are especially useful for this purpose
because they provide an overview of high-impact research that is explored with
different methodological approaches (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). In contrast to systema-
tic reviews, they do not require a narrow focus on a research question or a research design
(Teare & Taks, 2020). Scoping reviews are guided by a five-step process to ensure
reliability and replicability (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005).
Identification of the research question

The initial step is the identification of the research question. The current study is guided
by the two topics of digital transformation and value co-creation in sport marketing, and
so the research question for the scoping review is: How is digital transformation affecting
the co-creation of value in sport marketing?
Identifying relevant articles

The second step is the systematic identification of relevant articles in the field by applying
different search methods. The current study applies a two-phase search process, entailing
a systematic database search supplemented by a systematic manual search (Teare & Taks,
2020).
In the first phase, the systematic database search is carried out in four electronic data-
bases (SPORTDiscus, Scopus, Web of Science, and Business Source Ultimate). The search
is guided by the initial research question and integrates three different fields of search
criteria that are combined using Boolean connectors. (online supplemental file for full
search criteria) The first category of search criteria consists of technology-oriented
search criteria (e.g. digital, social media). The second category defines the area of analysis
(e.g. sport marketing). Lastly, we consider the different actor groups involved (e.g. fan,
sponsor, club, athlete). Due to the novelty of the literature under review, the database
search is applied for the timeframe of January 2016 to January 2021. Furthermore,
only peer-reviewed publications in English are considered.
In the second phase, we apply a systematic manual search to supplement the database
search, for which a three-stage procedure is suggested (Teare & Taks, 2020): (1) scanning
the leading journals of the field; (2) screening issues of the leading journals in a two-
round process for articles that have not been identified by the database search (in the
first round, reviewing title, keywords, and abstract; in the second round, reviewing full
texts); and (3) screening the reference lists of the manually identified articles to identify
other relevant journals. If any additional journals are identified, the screening process is
repeated for these journals. For stage one and two, we refer to the 2019 journal quality list
of the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) to assess the quality of journals in the
field of sport marketing. Based on this information, we choose to analyze the three jour-
nals that receive ABDC’s A-ranking (no journal in this field receive the ABDC’s A*
ranking), which are European Sport Management Quarterly (ESMQ), Sport Management
Review (SMR), and Journal of Sport Management (JSM). Four additional studies (three
articles from SMR and one article from JSM) are identified for inclusion. After reviewing
the reference lists of these four articles (stage three), we identify additional journals that
are screened by repeating the above process. As a result, 28 additional articles are ident-
ified. These articles were from Sport, Business, and Management: An International
Journal (SBM; 23 articles), International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship
(IJSMS; one article), International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing
(IJSMM; three articles), and Sport Marketing Quarterly (SMQ; one article).
Article selection
In the third step of the scoping review, articles are selected for inclusion based on post hoc
defined inclusion and exclusion criteria (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). This third step of the
scoping review is an iterative process of reviewing and comparing articles.
The initial search identified 1490 articles (for a detailed overview of the process, please
refer to online supplemental file). 311 duplicates were excluded, yielding 1179 articles to
be screened. An initial screening of titles (378) and abstracts (425) leads to the exclusion
of 803 articles that do not address digital transformation in sport marketing. Next, we
carry out a full-text screening of the remaining 376 articles, which leads to the exclusion
of 138 articles, for a variety of reasons (cf. online supplemental file). Thus, from the
initially retrieved 1490 articles, 238 articles are included in the scoping review, which
are complemented with 32 articles from the systematic manual search to yield 270
articles.
Charting the data

The fourth step of the scoping review is to identify all necessary information from the
selected articles. In accordance with previous literature (Inoue et al., 2015), we retrieve
the following information from each article: journal name, year of publication, author(s),
country of first author, type of study (e.g. quantitative, qualitative), study design (e.g. net-
nographical study, experimental study); and content of the study based on the searching
criteria (technology, content, actor).
Collating, summarizing, and reporting the results

The fifth step is to report the results in frequency and thematic analyses (Arksey &
O’Malley, 2005). The frequency analysis is used to provide a quantitative summary
and an overview of the distribution of the articles (Levac et al., 2010). We include the
year of publication, the journal name, the country of the first author, and the study
method. The thematic analysis is used to synthetize key research topics dealing with
digital transformation in sport marketing. We follow the suggestions of Levac et al.
(2010) and apply a qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2004) to categorize the included
studies based on themes and subthemes.
Results: scoping review

We outline the results of the scoping review starting with the frequency analysis of the
included articles (cf. Table 1 and online supplemental file for detailed results). The
number of published studies with an emphasis on digital transformation in sport market-
ing has grown since 2016 (37 articles) and peaked in 2020 (91 articles). The number of
articles demonstrates that digital transformation is a crucial topic in sport marketing
research. The majority of studies has been published in sport communication journals
(International Journal of Sport Communication: 46 articles; Communication & Sport:
29 articles). Most of the studies have applied either a quantitative (123 articles) or a quali-
tative (116 articles) approach and more than the half of the studies were published in the
USA (147 articles). In the following subsections, the thematic analysis will be outlined,
specifically research on social media, eSports, fantasy sports, and other digital inno-
vations (e.g. smartphone applications) is discussed.
Social media
Extant sport marketing research has considered digital innovations with a focus on social
media. First, research has investigated how social media impact network dynamics and
network effects, for example, by examining student–athletes’ resource mobilization on
Twitter (*Yan et al., 2018), the dynamics of social media during the 2017 UEFA Cham-
pions League Final (*Yan et al., 2019), or the speed of sharing fake news (*Li & Scott,
2020).
Table 1. Summary of the frequency analysis of the scoping review.

Year of 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016
publication
Number 4 91 53 44 41 37
Percentage 1.46% 33.58% 20.07% 16.06% 15.33% 13.50%
Journal International Communication Sport, International Sport European Sport
Journal of & Sport Business, and Journal of Management Management
Sport Management: Sports Review Quarterly
Communication An International Marketing &
Journal Sponsorship
Number 46 29 24 23 22 17
Percentage 16.79% 10.58% 9.12% 8.76% 8.03% 6.57%
Method Quantitative Qualitative Mixed Review Conceptual
Number 123 116 8 4 17
Percentage 46.35% 43.07% 2.92% 1.46% 6.20%
Country USA Australia Germany UK Canada South Korea
Number 147 19 13 13 13 7
Percentage 54.38% 6.93% 5.11% 5.11% 5.11% 2.55%
Social media research in sport marketing has also focused on specific actors’ activi-
ties, for example, by investigating general strategies in social media communication
of sport clubs, leagues, federations, or events (e.g. *Finn, 2021; *Kautz et al., 2020;
Parganas, Liasko et al., 2017; *Winand et al., 2019). In addition, researchers have ana-
lyzed communication of corporate social responsibility activities (*G. Hwang et al.,
2020; *López-Carril & Anagnostopoulos, 2020). Crisis communications and mana-
ging negative behavior by fans or other actors have been examined (*Kitchin et al.,
2020; *Utz et al., 2020), as has use of social media as a positive two-way communi-
cation tool for sport organizations’ relationship marketing (Abeza et al., 2017a;
*Achen, 2019).
Regarding fans’ use of social media, researchers have analyzed both social media
behavior of fans (*Osokin, 2019) and fan engagement (*Santos et al., 2019). Social
media activities of fans can have positive effects for sport organizations, for example,
through online word of mouth (e.g. *Wakefield & Bennett, 2018; *Wang et al., 2020).
Another research perspective has questioned the individual factors driving fans to
engage on social media. Fans engage on social media to seek information, entertainment,
social influence, and rewards (*Li et al., 2019; *Machado et al., 2020). Other studies have
investigated emotional tweets during Super Bowl 50 (*Chang, 2019), the importance of
rivalries and their activation on social media (*Watanabe et al., 2019), the relevance of
social media for displaced fans regarding their identification with their hometown
team (*Collins et al., 2016), and the power of social media to enable fans to stand together
against criminal acts (*Burroughs et al., 2021).
There has been a limited amount of research on sponsor behavior on social media, for
example, concerning social media–based sponsorship activation (*Gillooly et al., 2017),
newsjacking using social media ambush marketing (*Burton & McClean, 2020), and per-
ceptions or reactions of fans and customers to sponsors’ social media activities (*Delia,
2017; *Kaushik et al., 2020; *Weimar et al., 2020).
Social media technologies have been studied as brand management tools by sport
teams and clubs (*Anagnostopoulos et al., 2018), and as tools to build brand relationships
with fans (*Thompson et al., 2018), for example, by applying user-generated branding
(*Geurin & Burch, 2017). Furthermore, brand and anti-brand communities on social
media have been of interest to researchers (*Popp et al., 2016; *Popp & Woratschek,
2016) as well as brand associations through brand–fan interactions (Parganas, Anagnos-
topoulos et al., 2017). Athlete brands are an emerging topic; a significant number of
articles have examined athlete brand development using social media (*Doyle et al.,
2020; *Na et al., 2020), and scholars have investigated athlete brands’ social media com-
munication (*Feder, 2020) and gender differences in athlete brand development
(*Geurin-Eagleman & Burch, 2016). Furthermore, athletes’ roles as brand ambassadors
and ambush marketers have been investigated (*Abeza et al., 2017b; *Geurin &
McNary, 2021). Lastly, psychological aspects of social media for athlete brands have
been researched, such as loneliness (*Tovares, 2020) and the impact of social media
on athletes’ general distractions in their daily business (*Hayes et al., 2020).
Social media platforms have also been investigated as places of negative behavior – for
example, racism, homophobia, sexual abuse (*O’Hallarn et al., 2019; Sanderson & Whea-
ters, 2020), and transgressions by athletes and staff members (*Meadows & Meadows,
2020; *Sveinson & Hoeber, 2020) – but also as places for political statements against
racism (e.g. Colin Kaepernick’s kneeing during the US national anthem; *Schmidt
et al., 2019) or the problem of eating disorders (e.g. *Mitchell et al., 2018).
Esports
Another field of research deals with eSports. Articles in this area have discussed the scope
and acceptance of eSports in sport management (*Cunningham et al., 2018; *Tjønndal,
2021). Researchers have also examined motives and consequences of eSports gameplay,
broadcasting, and spectatorship (*Jang et al., 2021; *Pizzo et al., 2018; *Qian et al., 2020).
Furthermore, sport marketing research has dealt with eSports sponsorship, for example
regarding audience perceptions of endemic and non-endemic sponsors of eSport events
(*Rogers et al., 2020), the prediction of soccer consumption based on eSports consump-
tion (*Lettieri & Orsenigo, 2020), and eSports brand extension strategies by traditional
football brands to gain new followers and fans (*Bertschy et al., 2020; *Lefebvre et al.,
2020).
Fantasy sports
In addition to social media and eSports, fantasy sports has developed as a research field in
sport marketing. Based on a review of fantasy sports (Tacon & Vainkler, 2017), research-
ers have investigated consumers’ motives for participating in fantasy sports (*Dwyer
et al., 2018; *Jang et al., 2019) and their particular behaviors (*Drayer et al., 2019;
*Yuksel et al., 2017). Another article has investigated how consumers dehumanize pro-
fessional athletes because of fantasy sports (*Larkin et al., 2020).
Second screens, virtual reality, and other digital innovations

Further digital innovations that have been examined in sport marketing include the use
of second screens (*Cunningham & Eastin, 2017; *Larkin & Fink, 2016) and social second
screens (*Kim & Kim, 2020; *Weimann-Saks et al., 2020). Researchers have also studied
virtual and augmented reality technology and their acceptance (*Goebert & Greenhalgh,
2020; *Kunz & Santomier, 2019; *Uhm et al., 2019) and the technological readiness, tech-
nophobia, or acceptance of consumers toward the use of wearable technology (*Aksoy
et al., 2020; *Kim & Chiu, 2019).
Smartphones have been a subject of great importance in sport marketing research in
recent years. Researchers have investigated general factors that drive sport consumption
on smartphones (*Chan-Olmsted & Xiao, 2019), but also specific usage behavior, for
example, in-stadium smartphone usage (*Horbel et al., 2021), smartphone applications
for gamification (*Tu et al., 2019), and sport team applications (*H. Hwang et al.,
2020). Spectators’ adoption of digital ticketing (*Marquez et al., 2020) and in-stadium
Wi-Fi (*Naraine et al., 2020) have also been examined.
Further research has dealt with channel preferences (*Habenstein et al., 2021; *Karg
et al., 2019), the use of smart products (*Song et al., 2018), online sportswear purchases
(*Chiu & Choi, 2018), sport consumption by millennials (*Yim et al., 2021), and live
broadcasting by clubs as innovative marketing communication (*Borges, 2019). A few
studies also dealt with branding using mobile marketing (*Baena, 2016), website market-
ing communication (*Lee et al., 2017), and integrated digital marketing communication
(*Whitburn et al., 2020).
Discussion: developing a research agenda for digital transformation of

value co-creation in sport marketing research
The scoping review shows that sport marketing research has recognized the impact of
digital technologies and has accepted digital transformation as a crucial topic of
present and future research. Most recent studies, however, have not applied an under-
standing of value co-creation. The empirical evidence in the literature must be reordered
from a value co-creation perspective to identify research gaps and provide a research
agenda. For example, by investigating the technological readiness of sport fans for the
use of wearables (e.g. *Kim & Chiu, 2019) or sport spectators’ adoption of digital ticket-
ing (*Marquez et al., 2020) from the perspective of value co-creation, researchers have
investigated the phenomenon of digital value co-creation in sport marketing at the
intra-level of abstraction. They focus on individual actors who decide which engagement
platform to use and in which contexts they choose to integrate resources (e.g. visiting the
sport venue with friends).
Digital transformation has a profound impact on value co-creation in sport marketing
research. We identify research gaps and provide a research agenda with relevant research
questions and methodological approaches (cf. Table 2). To structure the discussion, we
developed a framework (cf. Figure 1), in which we use the different levels of abstraction of
the SVF/SDL: Nature of exchange; Intra-level; Micro-level; Meso- and macro-levels.
Nature of exchange: game changers of digital transformation

Relevance and research gaps
The findings of the scoping review support what we know from the nature of exchange
outlined in the SVF (Woratschek et al., 2014). The sporting activity is at the core of digital
value co-creation, for example, when walking for ‘likes’ (*Tu et al., 2019) or using eSports
Figure 1. Framework of the digital transformation of value co-creation in sport marketing research
(adapted from Woratschek et al., 2020, p. 166).
as brand extension tool (*Bertschy et al., 2020). Additionally, several technological

aspects of digital innovation affect interactions between different actors. Three game
changers of digital transformation for the nature of exchange have been identified: (1)
Independence of location; (2) Hyperconnectivity; and (3) Abundance of information.
Nonlocal fandom (*Collins et al., 2016) has never been easier. Digital technologies
facilitate the globalization of fandom in sport and enable interactions between
different actors that are independent of their geographical location (Boczkowski et al.,
2018; Breidbach et al., 2018). Fans can watch football games together, using social
second screens, despite being in completely different places around the world (*Kim &
Kim, 2020). However, the independence of location makes interactions more complex
because actors can use multiple engagement platforms (e.g. social media, smartphone
applications) and these platforms can be interconnected (e.g. integrating the merchan-
dise shop on Instagram or using a sport team application in the sport venue;
cf. *H. Hwang et al., 2020). The integration of physical and digital engagement platforms
as sensory-rich environments (e.g. a connected stadium) may enhance customers’ atten-
tion; they may be more likely to extend their resource integration and, thus, their con-
tribution to co-creation of value (Breidbach et al., 2014). However, the opportunities
of integrated engagement platforms have not yet been studied.
Hyperconnectivity refers to high-speed data exchange between different actors. Digital
technologies enable immediate exchange of information (Boczkowski et al., 2018; Breid-
bach et al., 2018; Swaminathan et al., 2020). Fans and sport organizations can constantly
connect with each other, for example, by using social media engagement platforms. The
relevance of hyperconnectivity has been described in the context of crisis communication
(*Kitchin et al., 2020; *Utz et al., 2020); when topics are perceived negatively, sport
organizations should immediately engage in communication before the topics evolve
into negative word of mouth, online firestorms (Pfeffer et al., 2014; *Sveinson &
Hoeber, 2020), or maldevelopment of brand meaning. Similar to independence of
location, hyperconnectivity allows actors to switch back and forth between different
engagement platforms at high speed (Swaminathan et al., 2020) and derive or share a
vast amount of information in a short time (Goldfarb & Tucker, 2011). Hyperconnectiv-
ity changes the speed of information sharing among fans (*G. Hwang et al., 2020; *Li &
Scott, 2020) because it is easier to mobilize other actors to distribute the original message
(*Yan et al., 2018). Other actors integrate resources to share the information and thus co-
create value; for example, athletes appear as brand ambassadors (*Geurin & McNary,
2021). Hyperconnectivity leads to many-to-many communication and occurs concur-
rently with a loss of control by individual actors such as sport organizations (*Li &
Scott, 2020; Tellis et al., 2019). Few studies have dealt with the phenomenon of hypercon-
nectivity in sport marketing (e.g. *Kitchin et al., 2020), and the topic has hardly been con-
sidered despite how massively it affects the nature of exchange within interactions.
Digital technologies such as social media create vast amounts of data and information
(e.g. *Yan et al., 2019), and actors in the digital world leave traces that are captured and
stored (e.g. cookies in the online merchandise shop). Through structuring and analyzing
the mined data, (sport) organizations can gain thorough knowledge about their target
groups (Erevelles et al., 2016). This enables them to adapt their marketing communications
to achieve optimal engagement rates (*Parganas, Liasko, et al., 2017) or create more per-
sonalized offerings (McAfee et al., 2012), for example, special discounts on merchandise
for diehard fans. Simultaneously, sport organizations must deal with legal and ethical con-
siderations relating to social media and data usage (*Sanderson & Weathers, 2020; Swami-
nathan et al., 2020). There will be a tradeoff between data security and privacy and the use
of digital technologies (Aguirre et al., 2016; *Aksoy et al., 2020; *Kim & Chiu, 2019; Martin
et al., 2017). Further, due to information overload and filter bubbles, sport fans may miss
value propositions from the sport club in which they are interested. Sport organizations
must find innovative ways to burst filter bubbles (e.g. Seargeant & Tagg, 2019) and gain
attention, for example, by creating a sensory-rich (physical and digital) environment.
The abundance of information and its consequences have only been touched on by
research so far. However, the opportunities of personalization for sport organizations
are massive, and so are potential topics for research.
Research agenda and methodological approaches

The changes in interactions generated by independence of location, hyperconnectivity,
and abundance of information have not yet been studied in sport marketing research,
although individual actors’ behaviors and social interactions have been influenced enor-
mously (Brubaker, 2020). Sport marketing researchers must examine how the game
changers of digital transformation influence the nature of exchange between actors
such as fans, athletes, and sport organizations.
Sport marketing research should connect with business information systems engineer-
ing, service science, and psychology to integrate their understanding of digital
transformation and its consequences in the field of sport marketing. Experimental studies
on hyperconnected social interactions and on the awareness of information are crucial to
inform sport organizations about how actors perceive social interactions in the digital
world and how digitally shared information (e.g. second-screen offerings) is best used.
Intra-level: decision-making behavior

Actors integrate their resources to maximize their own well-being (Vargo et al., 2008), in
line with their commitment towards another actor or consistent with fulfilling their
motives and their need for identification (Horbel et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2020). Con-
sidering the various types of value (e.g. utilitarian, social, hedonic), different actors
have different motives and seek different benefits. For example, a football club that
offers a digital engagement platform might mainly expect high utilitarian value (e.g.
financial revenue), whereas fans will perceive hedonic (e.g. positive emotions) or social
(e.g. self-esteem) value. These actors have distinct motives and do not integrate their
resources for the same reasons.
Actors may show resistance using digital technologies if they believe that these are not
trustworthy, or if it is difficult to adapt to a certain technology (Sundar & Limperos,
2013). Trust plays a crucial role in individual actors’ motives to interact with other indi-
viduals, and it may be even more important when it comes to the use of digital technol-
ogies (Chen et al., 2019; *Kunz & Santomier, 2019). Digital innovations are new for many
actors and they are accompanied by a decrease in transparency and perceived integrity, as
well as an increase in anonymity (Chen et al., 2019). Reluctance and doubt about data
security decrease the acceptance of newer technologies such as wearables or other
digital solutions (*Aksoy et al., 2020; *Karg et al., 2019; *Kim & Chiu, 2019; *Song
et al., 2018). Many sport clubs have invested in fan tokenizing using token-based cryp-
tocurrencies built on blockchain technology. Although blockchain technology was devel-
oped to increase integrity and transparency, sport fans who do not accept blockchain
technology may not integrate their resources using this value proposition because they
might expect to experience a decrease in their personal well-being (Vargo et al., 2008).
The reduction of hierarchies and personal barriers in the digital world are further factors
that impact actors’ decision-making behavior (Holmqvist et al., 2015). This can typically be
observed on social media, where fans utilize the anonymity and distance of the internet to
criticize brands (*Popp et al., 2016), sponsors (*Delia, 2017), or athletes (*Sveinson &
Hoeber, 2020). Actors can develop personalities in the digital world that might differ
from their offline selves (Suh, 2013). This implies that sport fans can behave differently
when they are online and when they are offline. The actors’ decision-making processes
can also be influenced in a positive way, for example, through the opportunity to be
part of innovative product co-designs. LEGO (2019) asked their customers to design
their own LEGO; customers then evaluate these designs in online votes, and LEGO
officially produces the winning one. Similar ideas could be applied for the design of
sport club merchandise or by soliciting feedback on social network platforms. Digital tech-
nologies facilitate these interactions, compared to face-to-face communication.
The issues investigated at the intra-level of abstraction were initially approached in
terms of how they might affect decision-making behavior; it is yet to be fully explored
how they affect resource integration by different actors in sport marketing. Furthermore,
the literature is missing an in-depth understanding of how different actors develop and
perceive trust in their relationships.

Digital transformation affects the decision-making behavior of individual actors in sport mar-
keting. The investigation of how the use of digital technologies can change individual actors’
behavior is perhaps most crucial, for example, for understanding how trust or the reduction
of hierarchies impact resource integration in value co-creation. Studies could apply qualitative
designs such as observation, videography (Belk & Kozinets, 2005), smartphone tracking
(Deng et al., 2019), customer journeys (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016), netnography (Kozinets,
2002), or explorative interviews to investigate how digital technologies are perceived in
sport marketing and what factors prevent or promote their use (e.g. *Aksoy et al., 2020;
*Kim & Chiu, 2019; *Marquez et al., 2020; *Naraine et al., 2020; *Tu et al., 2019). Quantitative
surveys based on further developed versions of the technology acceptance model such as the
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (*Kunz & Santomier, 2019) may be highly
useful for understanding how different technologies are accepted and used. However, exper-
imental studies may be most helpful in providing an in-depth understanding of the factors
that impact trust toward digital technologies (Foehr & Germelmann, 2020).
Value co-creation differs among different engagement platforms. Thus, investigations
of resource integration and value co-creation on different engagement platforms may
benefit from applying practice theory (Grohs et al., 2020; Schau et al., 2009) to identify
patterns of resource integration and value co-creation (Gerke et al., 2020a, 2020b).
Additionally, conjoint-based experimental studies could be helpful to investigate the
motives or expected co-created value (e.g. utilitarian, hedonistic, symbolic) associated
with the use of different engagement platforms (Green & Srinivasan, 1978).
Micro-level: engagement platforms and digital actors

Digital technologies can be defined as operand resources – in other words, carriers of
applied knowledge and skills. Carriers can be described as intermediaries of value co-cre-
ation and, thus, as engagement platforms (Fehrer, Woratschek, & Brodie, 2018). Digital
technologies can form touchpoints through which actors can integrate their resources
and co-create value with other actors. The most researched digital engagement platform
in sport marketing is social media (*Santos et al., 2019); however, other digital engagement
platforms exist including smartphone applications (*Tu et al., 2019), second-screen plat-
forms (*Kim & Kim, 2020; *Larkin & Fink, 2016), fantasy sports platforms (Tacon & Vaink-
ler, 2017), websites (*Lee et al., 2017), and blockchain technology (*Naraine, 2019).
Hyperconnectivity and independence of location change the concept of digital engagement
platforms. Digital engagement platforms can connect with each other (e.g. social network
feeds on a website), and these integrated platforms can even be enabled to interact with
each other automatically (e.g. the Internet of things). Applications of digital integrated
engagement platforms are already in use, for example, second screens during live sport
events entail a sport event live stream on an over-the-top platform (Keating, 2018; Lind-
holm, 2019) integrated with access to real-time statistics via smartphone.
Integrated engagement platforms are not limited to digital engagement platforms, but
should also be understood in terms of the connection between physical and digital
engagement platforms (Breidbach et al., 2014; Ng & Wakenshaw, 2017). Digital ticketing
(*Marquez et al., 2020), Wi-Fi (*Naraine et al., 2020), and smartphone applications in
sport venues integrate different solutions in a connected stadium (*H. Hwang et al.,
2020) to enhance the on-site experience of a sporting event through digital engagement
platforms. Thus, fans and other actors can integrate resources within the physical
environment (e.g. chanting for their team) or the digital environment (e.g. participating
in a light show).
Digital technologies can also contribute to value co-creation directly. In this sense,
digital technologies alone provide no value (Barrett et al., 2015); they only provide a
value proposition. Various actors can integrate their resources and co-create value
with these digital technologies (Lusch & Nambisan, 2015). Therefore, digital technol-
ogies can be considered interaction partners in a human-to-machine interactions
(e.g. chatbots, artificial intelligence). Machine-to-machine interactions (e.g. the Inter-
net of things), without the direct integration of humans, also provide opportunities for
value co-creation (Storbacka et al., 2016). In the field of sport marketing, we can
observe both human-to-machine and machine-to-machine interactions that offer
value propositions to other actors. Human-to-machine interactions happen, for
example, in customer service interactions on websites using intelligent chatbots.
Machine-to-machine interactions can be found in customer relationship marketing
when different digital databases integrate their gathered data and, under unsupervised
machine learning, develop personalized value propositions for specific actors (Stor-
backa et al., 2016).
This understanding of the duality of digital technologies in value co-creation in
sport marketing reveals several research gaps. In non-digital value co-creation, the
owner of the engagement platform (e.g. the sport venue) is usually the sport organ-
ization. Value propositions on such engagement platforms are often created by the
sport organization itself. However, we must be aware that fans can initiate value prop-
ositions (e.g. by showing fan-choreography at the beginning of a game). Digital
engagement platforms are typically initiated by the sport organization, it is likely
that other actors will use these platforms to offer value propositions (Uhrich,
2014). For example, a football club can initiate a social media engagement platform
and its fans could then use it to discuss the team’s performance, the latest trades,
and the club’s governance, or to criticize the coach’s decisions. Moreover, platforms
and propositions in digital spheres do not necessarily need to originate from the same
actor, especially considering the multisided openness of digital platforms (Payne et al.,
2017). Sport organizations can encourage other actors to integrate resources in
sharing their own content on the sport organizations’ social media platform
(*Geurin & Burch, 2017). Integrating user-generated content in communication
enhances customer engagement and positive word of mouth (Meire et al., 2019).
Additionally, fans may initiate their own digital engagement platform (e.g. WhatsApp
chat group, Facebook group) to co-create value (Uhrich, 2014).
A serious challenge arises in measuring co-created value in sport marketing (cf. Kim
et al., 2020). Recent studies have tried to conceptualize measurement scales to quantify
co-created value: the customer value co-creation behavior scale (Yi & Gong, 2013), the
customer co-creation value scale (Merz et al., 2018), the value co-creation scale (Ranjan &
Read, 2016), and a multidimensional scale of co-created value from tourism (Busser &
Shulga, 2018). The four scales consider value co-creation as a complex phenomenon
that can only be described using second-order constructs (e.g. customer citizenship
behavior, co-production, value-in-use, customer-owned resources). In line with a
recent study by Kim et al. (2020) which conceptualized perceived value as an antecedent
of customer citizenship behavior in sport management, further measurement scales for
value co-creation in sport marketing are needed.

Three topics should be further investigated: (1) Value co-creation on digital and
integrated engagement platforms; (2) Value co-creation in human-to-machine or
machine-to-machine interactions; and (3) Quantification of co-created value.
Most research in sport marketing has dealt with the understanding of digital tech-
nologies (e.g. social media) as engagement platforms. Sport marketing researchers
should start characterizing value co-creation activities and resource integration pro-
cesses. Social practice theory (Schau et al., 2009) has been used to identify value co-
creation practices on sport event engagement platforms (Grohs et al., 2020; Stieler
& Germelmann, 2018), but no studies have yet applied social practice theory to
value co-creation practices on digital or integrated engagement platforms. There-
fore, future research should focus on several questions: (1) Which actors offer
value propositions as an initiation for value co-creation on engagement platforms
in specific contexts? (2) Which actors integrate their resources to co-create value
in specific contexts? (3) Which value co-creation practices are carried out on phys-
ical, digital, and integrated engagement platforms? Several methodological
approaches could be applied, for example, case study analysis (cf. Yin, 2011),
including netnography, interview studies with different actors, and social media
text mining. Case study analysis would allow for in-depth understanding of value
co-creation practices on digital and integrated engagement platforms, whereas
text mining could be applied to compare sport organizations’ value co-creation
practices using social media.
Developing a broad set of knowledge (e.g. by using experiments or observational
studies) of human-to-machine interactions could generate more insights into how
sport organizations should apply digital technologies as actors in value co-creation. By
investigating machine-to-machine value co-creation, sport marketing research could
contribute to the understanding of digital value co-creation. Research questions that
focus on machine-to-machine interactions could be used to investigate how personalized
value propositions are developed on specific engagement platforms through unsuper-
vised machine learning based on previous customer behavior.
Furthermore, sport marketing research must develop measurement scales appropriate
to the scope of its specific contexts. Investigating value co-creation practices (Grohs et al.,
2020; Stieler & Germelmann, 2018) could be valuable in measuring how actors integrate
resources. Thus, social practice theory could be beneficial in developing a valid scale to
determine (digital) value co-creation in specific contexts. Additionally, investigating
extra-role and citizenship behavior (Kim et al., 2020) might be as fruitful as customer
engagement behavior (Fehrer, Woratschek, Germelmann, & Brodie, 2018).
Meso- and macro-levels: engagement platforms and service ecosystems

The meso-level of abstraction considers actor constellations on engagement platforms,
meaning that it focuses on the full range of relevant actors (Vargo & Lusch, 2016). In
sport marketing, mainly two types of engagement platforms have been conceptualized:
sport event engagement platforms (Woratschek et al., 2014) and sport sponsorship
engagement platforms (Buser et al., 2020). However, there are additional types of engage-
ment platforms that have been introduced in the literature, for example, public screening,
restaurants, or the home (Horbel et al., 2016). Barely considered were digital and inte-
grated engagement platforms (e.g. online forums, social media; connected stadium;
Uhrich, 2014).
To fully understand value co-creation on engagement platforms, sport marketing
researchers must be aware of actor constellations that use specific engagement platforms
to integrate their resources. Although the actors involved in a sport event or sponsorship
engagement platform might be known, their interrelationships are not. Additionally,
actor constellations must not be reduced to one specific engagement platform. The
macro-level perspective consists of all relevant engagement platforms and actors involved
in a sport service ecosystem (e.g. sport club service ecosystem). Framed by institutional
arrangements and governed by systemic governance (Vargo & Lusch, 2016), the macro-
level perspective determines the behavioral norms and boundaries of a sport service eco-
system. Digital transformation, however, has started to blur these boundaries and –
similar to what has been discussed for engagement platforms – made ecosystems
loose, permeable and dynamic (Swaminathan et al., 2020). The complex phenomenon
of value co-creation can only be investigated by applying an oscillating focus (Wor-
atschek et al., 2020). This implies that it is not possible to comprehensively investigate
networks of interactions on a single engagement platform while ignoring other engage-
ment platforms.

Existing studies have only scratched the surface of engagement platforms and service eco-
systems in sport marketing. There is a need for sport marketing researchers to concep-
tualize digital engagement platforms within the logic of value co-creation to contribute to
theoretical and practical advances. Sport marketing researchers and practitioners must
develop a shared understanding of which actors and engagement platforms determine
a sport organization’s service ecosystem. Applying an oscillating focus and investigating
several levels of abstraction of value co-creation may be most beneficial (Woratschek
et al., 2020). Case studies are the most obvious methodological approach, and multicase
studies could be used to compare different relationship patterns in sport service ecosys-
tems. By determining the actors and engagement platforms belonging to a service ecosys-
tem, social network analyses (Wäsche et al., 2017) may also be appropriate for evaluating
the relationship patterns of different actors and platforms (Cranmer & Desmarais, 2011).
Beyond the investigation of relationship structures and networks of actors on engage-
ment platforms in the sport service ecosystem, the general governance of sport service
ecosystems may be crucial. Studying how digital technologies affect institutional arrange-
ments in ecosystems will be of interest to sport marketing practitioners. Finally, to
Table 2. Research agenda for digital transformation of value co-creation in sport marketing.
Level of Research Key research Methodological
abstraction focus topics approaches
Nature of . Independence of . Independence of geographical . Experimental studies
exchange geographical location location (e.g. second screens)
. Hyperconnectivity . Integrated marketing solutions (e.g.
. Abundance of information merchandise store using social
media)
. Integrated engagement platforms
. Sharing (fake) news in high-speed
. Mobilization of actors
. Brand ambassadors to share
information
. Data analysis to enhance customer
engagement
. Personalization of value propositions
. Legal/ethical considerations of data
security and privacy
. Filter bubbles on social media
Intra-level . Motives and needs of . Motives in developing digital . Observational studies

individual actors engagement platforms . Videography
. Resistance and acceptance . Motives to engage in resource . Smartphone tracking
of digital technologies integration on digital engagement . Customer journey
. Trust in digital platforms . Interview studies
technologies . Factors influencing acceptance of . Quantitative surveys
. Hierarchical and personal digital technologies . Experimental studies
barriers . Factors influencing transparency vs. . Conjoint-based
anonymity of digital technologies experiments
. Trust in digital technologies/trust in
others on digital engagement
platforms
. Anonymity / perceived distances and
resource integration on digital
engagement platforms
. Differentiation of the self and
. Resource integration using different
digital/physical engagement
platforms
Micro-level . Digital and integrated . Types of digital engagement . Case study analysis
engagement platforms platforms (e.g. social media, . Netnographical
. Digital actors in smartphone apps) and types of approaches
interactions resource integration . Interview studies
. Facilitation of value co- . Multiple digital engagement . Social media text
creation in digital resource platforms as integrated touchpoints mining
integration . Integrated engagement platforms of . Observational studies
. Measurement of value co- the physical and digital world (e.g. . Quantitative surveys
creation connected stadiums) . Experimental studies
. Chatbots and artificial intelligence in
value co-creation
. Machine-to-machine value co-
creation to develop personalized
value propositions
. Differentiation of the focal actor in
engagement platforms (e.g. sport
organizations, sport consumers)
(Continued)
Table 2. Continued.
Level of Research Key research Methodological
abstraction focus topics approaches
. Differentiation of initiator of digital
. Development of scales to quantify
value co-creation on digital
Meso- and . Actor constellations on . Logic of service ecosystems in sport . Conceptual papers
macro- engagement platforms marketing . (Multi-) case studies
levels . Constellations of . Application of oscillating focus in . Descriptive and
engagement platforms in investigating value co-creation inferential social
service ecosystem . Actor constellations on engagement network analyses
. Digital transformation of platforms and service ecosystems
institutional arrangements . Constellations of engagement
. Oscillating focus in value platforms in sport organizations
co-creation studies service ecosystems
. Governance and institutional
arrangements in service ecosystems
. Effects of digital transformation on
governance of digital engagement
platforms
. Connection of value co-creation with
established marketing theories
understand the complex phenomenon of value co-creation, sport marketing researchers

should make efforts to conceptually connect the logic of value co-creation to more estab-
lished marketing theory frameworks, as has been done in branding (Brodie et al., 2017;
*Ströbel & Germelmann, 2020) and relationship marketing (Abeza et al., 2017a).
Conclusions and implications

This article reveals several key topics and research questions (cf. Table 2) that contribute
to sport marketing research in several manners. First, we outline the importance of digital
innovations for sport marketing and structure the current research streams. Different
aspects of digital transformation in sport marketing are discussed and classified in line
with theories of value co-creation. Most studies in sport marketing consider social
media, although there is little knowledge of how to use social media engagement plat-
forms to co-create value. Even less is known about other disruptive digital innovations
that are relevant for the future of sport marketing. Second, we examine critical aspects
of digital transformation on all levels of abstraction of value co-creation, based on the
current state of research. Third, we develop a research agenda that summarizes future
research needs and discusses methodological approaches. The scoping review and
research agenda broaden the understanding of value co-creation in sport marketing in
a digitally transformed world and offer a roadmap for future inquiries.
There are some limitations of the present study. First, scoping reviews are, in contrast
to systematic reviews, not designed to measure the weight of specific effects (Arksey &
O’Malley, 2005). Second, although we apply a systematic search (database and
manual) for the scoping review, it is possible that key studies are omitted, for
example, if they were published before 2016 or not in English.
Our study has the following implications. First, sport marketing practice should
acknowledge the platform- and network-based understanding of its service ecosystem
so that practitioners can enhance their strategic marketing in today’s digital world.
Second, sport marketing practitioners should integrate existing and new physical and
digital engagement platforms (e.g. smartphone-supported fan engagement in the sport
venue) to offer integrated solutions for value co-creation. Digital transformation will
offer an enormous realm of possibilities to facilitate value co-creation in sport marketing.
Third, although sport fans may be irrationally loyal and emotionally bounded to an
organization, there are barriers regarding trust and acceptance in digital innovations.
Sport marketers must find fan-centered, innovative, and creative ways to enhance
sport fans’ adoption of digital technologies (Schmidt & Koenigstorfer, 2021).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Pascal Stegmann http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8948-2186
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the systematic scoping review.
*Abeza, G., O’Reilly, N., Seguin, B., & Nzindukiyimana, O. (2017a). Social media as a relationship
marketing tool in professional sport: A netnographical exploration. International Journal of
Sport Communication, 10(3), 325–358. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2017-0041
*Abeza, G., O’Reilly, N., Séguin, B., & Nzindukiyimana, O. (2017b). The world’s highest-paid ath-
letes, product endorsement, and Twitter. Sport, Business and Management: An International
Journal, 7(3), 332–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBM-08-2016-0040
*Achen, R. M. (2019). Re-examining a model for measuring Facebook interaction and relationship
quality. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 9(3), 255–272. https://doi.
org/10.1108/SBM-10-2018-0082
Aguirre, E., Roggeveen, A. L., Grewal, D., & Wetzels, M. (2016). The personalization-privacy
paradox: Implications for new media. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 33(2), 98–110. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JCM-06-2015-1458
*Aksoy, N. C., Alan, A. K., Kabadayi, E. T., & Aksoy, A. (2020). Individuals’ intention to use sports
wearables: The moderating role of technophobia. International Journal of Sports Marketing and
Sponsorship, 21(2), 225–245. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-08-2019-0083
Allmer, T., Sevignani, S., & Prodnik, J. A. (2015). Mapping approaches to user participation and
digital labour: A critical perspective. In E. Fisher & C. Fuchs (Eds.), Reconsidering value and
labour in the digital age (pp. 153–171). Palgrave Macmillan.
*Anagnostopoulos, C., Parganas, P., Chadwick, S., & Fenton, A. (2018). Branding in pictures:
Using Instagram as a brand management tool in professional team sport organisations.
European Sport Management Quarterly, 18(4), 413–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.
2017.1410202
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1364557032000119616
*Baena, V. (2016). Online and mobile marketing strategies as drivers of brand love in sports teams.
International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 17(3), 202–218. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJSMS-08-2016-015
Barrett, M., Davidson, E., Prabhu, J., & Vargo, S. L. (2015). Service innovation in the digital age.
MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 135–154.
Belk, R. W., & Kozinets, R. V. (2005). Videography in marketing and consumer research.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8(2), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.
1108/13522750510592418
*Bertschy, M., Mühlbacher, H., & Desbordes, M. (2020). Esports extension of a football brand:
Stakeholder co-creation in action? European Sport Management Quarterly, 20(1), 47–68.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2019.1689281
Boczkowski, P. J., Mitchelstein, E., & Matassi, M. (2018). ‘News comes across when I’m in a
moment of leisure’: Understanding the practices of incidental news consumption on social
media. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3523–3539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817750396
Boorstin, J. (14 July 2019). NBA and NFL commissioners tell how they’re turning to technology to
draw in fans. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/
*Borges, F. (2019). Soccer clubs as media organizations: A case study of Benfica TV and PSG TV.
International Journal of Sport Communication, 12(2), 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.
2019-0001
Breidbach, C. F., Brodie, R., & Hollebeek, L. (2014). Beyond virtuality: From engagement plat-
forms to engagement ecosystems. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 24(6),
592–611. https://doi.org/10.1108/MSQ-08-2013-0158
Breidbach, C. F., Choi, S., Ellway, B., Keating, B. W., Kormusheva, K., Kowalkowski, C., Lim, C., &
Maglio, P. (2018). Operating without operations: How is technology changing the role of the firm?
Journal of Service Management, 29(5), 809–833. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-05-2018-0127
Brodie, R. J., Benson-Rea, M., & Medlin, C. J. (2017). Branding as a dynamic capability: Strategic
advantage from integrating meanings with identification. Marketing Theory, 17(2), 183–199.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593116679871
Brubaker, R. (2020). Digital hyperconnectivity and the self. Theory and Society, 49(5–6), 771–801.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-020-09405-1
*Burroughs, B., Rugg, A., Becker, D., & Edgmon, M. (2021). # VegasStrong: Sport, public memor-
ialization, and the Golden Knights. Communication & Sport, 9(1), 110–127. https://doi.org/10.
1177/2167479519855085
*Burton, N., & McClean, C. (2020). Exploring newsjacking as social media–based ambush market-
ing. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal. Forthcoming. https://doi.org/
10.1108/SBM-12-2019-0116
Buser, M., Woratschek, H., & Schönberner, J. (2020). ‘Going the extra mile’ in resource inte-
gration: Evolving a concept of sport sponsorship as an engagement platform. European Sport
Management Quarterly, 1–21. Forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2020.1820061
Busser, J. A., & Shulga, L. V. (2018). Co-created value: Multidimensional scale and nomological
network. Tourism Management, 65, 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.09.014
Chandler, J., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Contextualization and value-in-context: How context frames
exchange. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593110393713
*Chang, Y. (2019). Spectators’ emotional responses in tweets during the super bowl 50 game. Sport
Management Review, 22(3), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.04.008
*Chan-Olmsted, S., & Xiao, M. (2019). Smart sports fans: Factors influencing sport consumption
on smartphones. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 28(4), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.32731/SMQ.
284.122019.01
Chen, J., Tian, Z., Cui, X., Yin, L., & Wang, X. (2019). Trust architecture and reputation evaluation
for internet of things. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 10(8), 3099–
3107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-018-0887-z
*Chiu, W., & Choi, H. (2018). Consumers’ goal-directed behavior of purchasing sportswear pro-
ducts online. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 8(2), 118–133. https://
doi.org/10.1108/SBM-03-2017-0020
Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation?
Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44–53.
*Collins, D. R., Heere, B., Shapiro, S., Ridinger, L., & Wear, H. (2016). The displaced fan: The
importance of new media and community identification for maintaining team identity with
your hometown team. European Sport Management Quarterly, 16(5), 655–674. https://doi.
org/10.1080/16184742.2016.1200643
Cranmer, S. J., & Desmarais, B. A. (2011). Inferential network analysis with exponential random
graph models. Political Analysis, 19(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpq037
*Cunningham, G. B., Fairley, S., Ferkins, L., Kerwin, S., Lock, D., Shaw, S., & Wicker, P. (2018).
Esport: Construct specifications and implications for sport management. Sport Management
Review, 21(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.11.002
*Cunningham, N. R., & Eastin, M. S. (2017). Second screen and sports: A structural investigation
into team identification and efficacy. Communication & Sport, 5(3), 288–310. https://doi.org/10.
1177/2167479515610152
*Delia, E. B. (2017). A digital ethnography of fan reaction to sponsorship termination. European
Sport Management Quarterly, 17(3), 392–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2016.1276208
Deng, T., Kanthawala, S., Meng, J., Peng, W., Kononova, A., Hao, Q., & David, P. (2019).
Measuring smartphone usage and task switching with log tracking and self-reports. Mobile
Media & Communication, 7(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157918761491
*Doyle, J. P., Su, Y., & Kunkel, T. (2020). Athlete branding via social media: Examining the factors
influencing consumer engagement on Instagram. European Sport Management Quarterly, 1–21.
Forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2020.1806897
*Drayer, J., Dwyer, B., & Shapiro, S. L. (2019). Fantasy millionaires: Identifying at-risk consumers
based on motivation. Journal of Sport Management, 33(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.
2018-0164
*Dwyer, B., Lupinek, J. M., & Achen, R. M. (2018). Challenge accepted: Why women play fantasy
football. Journal of Sport Management, 32(4), 376–388. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2017-0313
Erevelles, S., Fukawa, N., & Swayne, L. (2016). Big data consumer analytics and the transformation of
marketing. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 897–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.001
*Feder, L. (2020). From ESPN to Instagram LIVE: The evolution of fan–athlete interaction amid
the Coronavirus. International Journal of Sport Communication, 13(3), 458–464. https://doi.
org/10.1123/ijsc.2020-0233
Fehrer, J. A., Woratschek, H., & Brodie, R. J. (2018). A systemic logic for platform business models.
Journal of Service Management, 29(4), 546–568. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-02-2017-0036
Fehrer, J. A., Woratschek, H., Germelmann, C. C., & Brodie, R. J. (2018). Dynamics and drivers of
customer engagement: Within the dyad and beyond. Journal of Service Management, 29(3),
443–467. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-08-2016-0236
*Finn, M. (2021). From accelerated advertising to fanboost: Mediatized motorsport. Sport in
Society, 24(6), 937–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2019.1710131
Foehr, J., & Germelmann, C. C. (2020). Alexa, can I trust you? Exploring consumer paths to trust
in smart voice-interaction technologies. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 5(2),
181–205. https://doi.org/10.1086/707731
*Geurin, A. N., & Burch, L. M. (2017). User-generated branding via social media: An examination of six
running brands. Sport Management Review, 20(3), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2016.09.001
*Geurin, A. N., & McNary, E. L. (2021). Athletes as ambush marketers? An examination of rule 40
and athletes’ social media use during the 2016 Rio Olympic Games. European Sport
Management Quarterly, 21(1), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2020.1725091
*Geurin-Eagleman, A. N., & Burch, L. M. (2016). Communicating via photographs: A gendered
analysis of Olympic athletes’ visual self-presentation on Instagram. Sport Management
Gerke, A., Woratschek, H., & Dickson, G. (2020a). How is value co-created in a sport business-to-
business context? Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 10(4), 403–430.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SBM-04-2019-0032
Gerke, A., Woratschek, H., & Dickson, G. (2020b). The sport cluster concept as middle-range
theory for the sport value framework. Sport Management Review, 23(2), 200–214. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.12.004
*Gillooly, L., Anagnostopoulos, C., & Chadwick, S. (2017). Social media-based sponsorship acti-
vation – a typology of content. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 7
(3), 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBM-04-2016-0016
*Goebert, C., & Greenhalgh, G. P. (2020). A new reality: Fan perceptions of augmented reality
readiness in sport marketing. Computers in Human Behavior, 106, 106231. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.chb.2019.106231
Goldfarb, A., & Tucker, C. E. (2011). Privacy regulation and online advertising. Management
Science, 57(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1246
Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook.
Journal of Consumer Research, 5(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1086/208721
Grohs, R., Wieser, V. E., & Pristach, M. (2020). Value cocreation at sport events. European Sport
Management Quarterly, 20(1), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2019.1702708
*Habenstein, D., Kirchhoff, K., & Schlesinger, T. (2021). Club fan shop or not? A conjoint analysis
of online jersey purchase behavior. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal,
11(1), 54–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBM-10-2019-0102
*Hayes, M., Filo, K., Geurin, A., & Riot, C. (2020). An exploration of the distractions inherent to
social media use among athletes. Sport Management Review, 23(5), 852–868. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.smr.2019.12.006
Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An
institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
infoandorg.2018.02.004
Holmqvist, J., Guest, D., & Grönroos, C. (2015). The role of psychological distance in value cre-
ation. Management Decision, 53(7), 1430–1451. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2014-0335
*Horbel, C., Buck, C., Diel, S., Reith, R., & Walter, Y. (2021). Stadium visitors’ smartphone usage
and digital resource integration. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 11
(1), 10–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBM-10-2019-0099
Horbel, C., Popp, B., Woratschek, H., & Wilson, B. (2016). How contexts shapes value co-creation:
Spectator experience of sport events. The Service Industrial Journal, 36(11–12), 510–531. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2016.1255730
*Hwang, G., Kihl, L. A., & Inoue, Y. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and college sports fans’
online donations. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 21(4), 597–616.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-07-2019-0079
*Hwang, H., Yang, H., Williams, A. S., & Pedersen, P. M. (2020). A gratification model of sport
team mobile application usage. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 29(3), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.
32731/SMQ.293.092020.01
Inoue, Y., Berg, B. K., & Chelladurai, P. (2015). Spectator sport and population health: A scoping
study. Journal of Sport Management, 29(6), 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1123/JSM.2014-0283
*Jang, W., Byon, K. K., BakerIIIT. A., & Tsuji, Y. (2021). Mediating effect of esports content live
streaming in the relationship between esports recreational gameplay and esports event broad-
cast. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 11(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/
10.1108/SBM-10-2019-0087
*Jang, W., Kwak, D. H., & Ko, Y. J. (2019). Vitalizing effect of athlete-drafting task in fantasy
sports: The role of competitive goal-framing, involvement, and competitiveness trait.
European Sport Management Quarterly, 20(4), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.
2019.1618889
*Karg, A., McDonald, H., & Leckie, C. (2019). Channel preferences among sport consumers:
Profiling media-dominant consumers. Journal of Sport Management, 33(4), 303–316. https://
doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2018-0185
*Kaushik, K., Mishra, A., & Dey, S. (2020). ‘The tweeting sponsor’: Effect of a sponsor’s SNS
message articulation/interactivity on consumers’ online response. European Sport
Management Quarterly, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2020.1776748
*Kautz, F., Schaffrath, M., & Gang, A. C. (2020). Identifying the different approaches in use of
social media outlets: A case study of German professional sport teams. International Journal
of Sport Communication, 13(2), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2020-0006
Keating, C. (2018). Over the top or over the heads of sports broadcasting: Sports and
entertainment content licensing and distribution in a new era. Sports Lawyers Journal, 25,
177–198.
*Kim, H. S., & Kim, M. (2020). Viewing sports online together? Psychological consequences on
social live streaming service usage. Sport Management Review, 23(5), 869–882. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.12.007
Kim, K., Byon, K. K., & Baek, W. (2020). Customer-to-customer value co-creation and co-destruc-
tion in sporting events. The Service Industries Journal, 40(9-10), 633–655. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02642069.2019.1586887
*Kim, T., & Chiu, W. (2019). Consumer acceptance of sports wearable technology: The role of
technology readiness. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 20(1), 109–
126. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-06-2017-0050
*Kitchin, P. J., Paramio-Salcines, J. L., & Walters, G. (2020). Managing organizational reputation
in response to a public shaming campaign. Sport Management Review, 23(1), 66–80. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.009
Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in
online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.
39.1.61.18935
*Kunz, R. E., & Santomier, J. P. (2019). Sport content and virtual reality technology acceptance.
Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 10(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.
1108/SBM-11-2018-0095
*Larkin, B., & Fink, J. S. (2016). Fantasy sport. FoMO, and Traditional Fandom: How Second-
Screen use of Social Media Allows Fans to Accommodate Multiple Identities. Journal of Sport
Management, 30(6), 643–655. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2015-0344
*Larkin, B., Dwyer, B., & Goebert, C. (2020). Man or machine: Fantasy football and dehumaniza-
tion of professional athletes. Journal of Sport Management, 1(aop), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.
1123/jsm.2019-0106
*Lee, W. Y., Hur, Y., Kim, D. Y., & Brigham, C. (2017). The effect of endorsement and congruence
on banner ads on sports websites. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 18
(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-08-2017-096
*Lefebvre, F., Djaballah, M., & Chanavat, N. (2020). The deployment of professional football clubs’
eSports strategies: A dynamic capabilities approach. European Sport Management Quarterly, 1–
19. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2020.1856165
Legner, C., Eymann, T., Hess, T., Matt, C., Böhmann, T., Drews, P., & Ahlemann, F. (2017).
Digitalization: Opportunity and challenge for the business and information systems engineering
community. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59(4), 301–308. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12599-017-0484-2.
LEGO. (2019). LEGO Ideas Challenge. Retrieved 9 March 2020 from https://ideas.lego.com/
Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the cus-
tomer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420
*Lettieri, E., & Orsenigo, C. (2020). Predicting soccer consumption: Do eSports matter? Empirical
insights from a machine learning approach. Sport, Business and Management: An International
Journal, 10(5), 523–544. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBM-10-2019-0093
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology.
Implementation Science, 5(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
*Li, B., & Scott, O. (2020). Fake news travels fast: Exploring misinformation circulated around Wu
Lei’s Coronavirus case. International Journal of Sport Communication, 13(3), 505–513. https://
doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2020-0056
*Li, B., Dittmore, S. W., Scott, O. K., Lo, W. J., & Stokowski, S. (2019). Why we follow: Examining
motivational differences in following sport organizations on Twitter and Weibo. Sport
Lindholm, J. (2019). The Netflix-ication of sports broadcasting. The International Sports Law
Journal, 18(3–4), 99–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-019-00145-8
Loebbecke, C., & Picot, A. (2015). Reflections on societal and business model transformation
arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 24(3), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2015.08.002
*López-Carril, S., & Anagnostopoulos, C. (2020). COVID-19 and soccer teams on Instagram: The
case of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Sport Communication, 1(aop), 1–
11. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2020-0230
Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: A service-dominant logic perspective. MIS
Quarterly, 39(1), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.1.07
*Machado, J. C., Martins, C. C., Ferreira, F. C., Silva, S. C., & Duarte, P. A. (2020). Motives to
engage with sports brands on Facebook and Instagram – The case of a Portuguese football
club. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 21(2), 325–349. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJSMS-06-2019-0066
*Marquez, A., Cianfrone, B. A., & Kellison, T. (2020). Factors affecting spectators’ adoption of
digital ticketing: The case of interscholastic sports. International Journal of Sports Marketing
and Sponsorship, 21(3), 527–541. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-07-2019-0080
Martin, K. D., Borah, A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2017). Data privacy: Effects on customer and firm
performance. Journal of Marketing, 81(1), 36–58. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0497
Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. A Companion to Qualitative Research, 1(2), 159–
176.
McAfee, A., Brynjolfsson, E., & Davenport, T. H. (2012). Big data: The management revolution.
Harvard Business Review, 90(10), 60–68.
*Meadows, C. Z., & Meadows III, C. W. (2020). He will never walk outside of a prison again: An
examination of Twitter users’ responses to the Larry Nassar case. Communication & Sport, 8(2),
188–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479519825620
Meire, M., Hewett, K., Ballings, M., Kumar, V., & Van den Poel, D. (2019). The role of marketer-
generated content in customer engagement marketing. Journal of Marketing, 83(6), 21–42.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919873903
Mertens, P., & Wiener, M. (2018). WRiding the digitalization wave: Toward a sustainable nomen-
clature in Wirtschaftsinformatik. A comment on Riedl et al. (2017). Business Information
System Engineering, 60(4), 367–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-018-0545-1
Merz, M. A., Zarantonello, L., & Grappi, S. (2018). How valuable are your customers in the brand
value co-creation process? The development of a customer co-creation value (CCCV) scale.
Journal of Business Research, 82, 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.018
*Mitchell, F. R., Santarossa, S., & Woodruff, S. J. (2018). Athletes as advocates: Influencing eating-
disorder beliefs and perceptions through social media. International Journal of Sport
Communication, 11(4), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2018-0112
Morakanyane, R., Grace, A. A., & O’Reilly, P. (2017). Conceptualizing digital transformation in
business organizations: A systematic review of literature. Bled eConference (pp. 427–444),
Bled, Slovenia, 2021, June 18–21.
*Na, S., Kunkel, T., & Doyle, J. (2020). Exploring athlete brand image development on social
media: The role of signalling through source credibility. European Sport Management
Quarterly, 20(1), 88–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2019.1662465
Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital innovation management:
Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 223–
238. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41:1.03
Nambisan, S., Wright, M., & Feldman, M. (2019). The digital transformation of innovation and
entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes. Research Policy, 48(8), 1–9. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.018
*Naraine, M. L. (2019). The blockchain phenomenon: Conceptualizing decentralized networks
and the value proposition to the sport industry. International Journal of Sport
Communication, 12(3), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2019-0051
*Naraine, M. L., O’Reilly, N., Levallet, N., & Wanless, L. (2020). If you build it, will they log on?
Wi–Fi usage and behavior while attending National Basketball Association games. Sport,
Business and Management: An International Journal, 10(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/

SBM-02-2019-0016
Ng, I. C. L., & Wakenshaw, S. Y. L. (2017). The internet-of-things: Review and research directions.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.
2016.11.003
*O’Hallarn, B., Shapiro, S. L., Wittkower, D. E., Ridinger, L., & Hambrick, M. E. (2019). A model
for the generation of public sphere-like activity in sport-themed Twitter hashtags. Sport
*Osokin, N. (2019). User engagement and gratifications of NSO supporters on Facebook.
International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 20(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJSMS-11-2017-0115
*Parganas, P., Anagnostopoulos, C., & Chadwick, S. (2017). Effects of social media interactions on
brand associations. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 18(2), 149–165.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-05-2017-087
*Parganas, P., Liasko, R., & Anagnostopoulos, C. (2017). Scoring goals in multiple fields. Sport,
Business and Management: An International Journal, 7(2), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1108/
SBM-11-2016-0072
Payne, A. F., Frow, P., & Eggert, A. (2017). The customer value proposition: Evolution, develop-
ment, and application in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(4), 467–
489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0523-z
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0
Pfeffer, J., Zorbach, T., & Carley, K. M. (2014). Understanding online firestorms: Negative word-
of-mouth dynamics in social media networks. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1–2),
117–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2013.797778
*Pizzo, A. D., Na, S., Baker, B. J., Lee, M. A., Kim, D., & Funk, D. C. (2018). Esport vs. Sport: A
Comparison of Spectator Motives. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 27(2), 108–123.
*Popp, B., & Woratschek, H. (2016). Introducing branded communities in sport for building
strong brand relations in social media. Sport Management Review, 19(2), 183–197. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.06.001
*Popp, B., Germelmann, C. C., & Jung, B. (2016). We love to hate them! Social media-based anti-
brand communities in professional football. International Journal of Sports Marketing and
*Qian, T. Y., Wang, J. J., Zhang, J. J., & Lu, L. Z. (2020). It is in the game: Dimensions of esports
online spectator motivation and development of a scale. European Sport Management Quarterly,
20(4), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2019.1630464
Ranjan, K. R., & Read, S. (2016). Value co-creation: Concept and measurement. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), 290–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0397-2
Reis, J., Amorim, M., Melão, N., & Matos, P. (2018). Digital transformation: A literature review and
guidelines for future research. World Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (pp.
411–421). Cham, CH: Springer, (2018, March 27–29).
Riedl, R., Benlian, A., Hess, T., Stelzer, D., & Sikora, H. (2017). On the relationship between infor-
mation management and digitalization. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59(6),
475–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0498-9
*Rogers, R., Farquhar, L., & Mummert, J. (2020). Audience response to endemic and non-endemic
sponsors of esports events. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 21(3),
561–576. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-09-2019-0107
*Sanderson, J., & Weathers, M. R. (2020). Snapchat and child sexual abuse in sport: Protecting
child athletes in the social media age. Sport Management Review, 23(1), 81–94. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.04.006
*Santos, T. O., Correia, A., Biscaia, R., & Pegoraro, A. (2019). Examining fan engagement through
social networking sites. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 20(1), 163–
183. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-05-2016-0020
Schau, H. J., Muñiz Jr, A. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices create
value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30–51. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.5.30
*Schmidt, S. H., Frederick, E. L., Pegoraro, A., & Spencer, T. C. (2019). An analysis of Colin
Kaepernick. Megan Rapinoe, and the National Anthem Protests. Communication & Sport, 7
(5), 653–677. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479518793625
Schmidt, S., & Koenigstorfer, J. (2021). Fan centricity of German soccer teams: Exploring the con-
struct and its consequences. Soccer & Society, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2021.
1915780
Seargeant, P., & Tagg, C. (2019). Social media and the future of open debate: A user-oriented
approach to Facebook’s filter bubble conundrum. Discourse, Context & Media, 27, 41–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2018.03.005
Skog, D. A., Wimelius, H., & Sandberg, J. (2018). Digital disruption. Business & Information
Systems Engineering, 60(5), 431–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-018-0550-4
*Song, J., Kim, J., & Cho, K. (2018). Understanding users’ continuance intentions to use smart-
connected sports products. Sport Management Review, 21(5), 477–490. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.smr.2017.10.004
Stieler, M., & Germelmann, C. C. (2018). Actor engagement practices and triadic value co-creation
in the team sports ecosystem. Marketing ZFP, 40(4), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.15358/0344-
1369-2018-4-30
Storbacka, K., Brodie, R. J., Böhmann, T., Maglio, P. P., & Nenonen, S. (2016). Actor engagement
as a microfoundation for value co-creation. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3008–3017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.034
*Ströbel, T., & Germelmann, C. C. (2020). Exploring new routes within brand research in sport
management: Directions and methodological approaches. European Sport Management
Quarterly, 20(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2019.1706603
Suh, A. (2013). The influence of self-discrepancy between the virtual and real selves in virtual commu-
nities. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.09.001
Sundar, S. S., & Limperos, A. M. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(4), 504–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08838151.2013.845827
*Sveinson, K., & Hoeber, L. (2020). ‘So begins the demise of# Superman from Metropolis’:
Consumers’ Twitter reactions to an athlete’s transgression. Sport Management Review, 23(5),
810–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.03.001
Swaminathan, V., Sorescu, A., Steenkamp, J. B. E., O’Guinn, T. C. G., & Schmitt, B. (2020).
Branding in a hyperconnected world: Refocusing theories and rethinking boundaries. Journal
of Marketing, 84(2), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919899905
*Tacon, R., & Vainker, S. (2017). Fantasy sport: A systematic review and new research directions.
European Sport Management Quarterly, 17(5), 558–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2017.
1347192
Teare, G., & Taks, M. (2020). Extending the scoping review framework: A guide for interdisciplin-
ary researchers. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 23(3), 311–315. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2019.1696092
Tellis, G. J., MacInnis, D. J., Tirunillai, S., & Zhang, Y. (2019). What drives virality (sharing) of
online digital content? The critical role of information, emotion, and brand prominence.
Journal of Marketing, 83(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919841034
*Thompson, A. J., Martin, A. J., Gee, S., & Geurin, A. N. (2018). Building brand and fan relation-
ships through social media. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 8(3),
235–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBM-04-2017-0024
Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., & Sørensen, C. (2010). Research commentary – digital infrastructures:
The missing IS research agenda. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 748–759. https://doi.
org/10.1287/isre.1100.0318
*Tjønndal, A. (2021). ‘What’s next? Calling beer-drinking a sport?!’: Virtual resistance to consid-
ering eSport as sport. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 11(1), 72–88.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SBM-10-2019-0085
*Tovares, A. V. (2020). The public loneliness of endurance athletes: Creating ambient affiliation
through involvement strategies on Twitter. Discourse, Context & Media, 34, 100380. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100380
*Tu, R., Hsieh, P., & Feng, W. (2019). Walking for fun or for ‘likes’? The impacts of different
gamification orientations of fitness apps on consumers’ physical activities. Sport Management
*Uhm, J. P., Lee, H. W., & Han, J. W. (2019). Creating sense of presence in a virtual reality experi-
ence: Impact on neurophysiological arousal and attitude towards a winter sport. Sport
Management Review, 23(4), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. smr.2019.10.003
Uhrich, S. (2014). Exploring customer-to-customer value co-creation platforms and practices in
team sports. European Sport Management Quarterly, 14(1), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/
16184742.2013.865248
*Utz, S., Otto, F., & Pawlowski, T. (2020). ‘Germany Crashes out of World Cup’ 1: A mixed-
method study on the effects of crisis communication on Facebook. Journal of Sport
Management, 1(aop), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2019-0430
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergence of
logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 254–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2007.07.004
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-
dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11747-015-0456-3
Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service
systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145–152. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.003
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.
003
Wäsche, H., Dickson, G., Woll, A., & Brandes, U. (2017). Social network analysis in sport research:
An emerging paradigm. European Journal for Sport and Society, 14(2), 138–165. https://doi.org/
10.1080/16138171.2017.1318198
*Wakefield, L. T., & Bennett, G. (2018). Sports fan experience: Electronic word-of-mouth in
ephemeral social media. Sport Management Review, 21(2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
smr.2017.06.003
*Wang, J. J., Pifer, N. D., Scremin, G., & Zhang, J. J. (2020). Modeling environmental antecedents
of online word-of-mouth on team social media: A perspective of information value. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 29(2), 79–93. http://doi.org/10.32731/SMQ.292.062020.01
*Watanabe, N. M., Pegoraro, A., Yan, G., & Shapiro, S. L. (2019). Does rivalry matter? An analysis
of sport consumer interest on social media. International Journal of Sports Marketing and
*Weimann-Saks, D., Ariel, Y., & Elishar-Malka, V. (2020). Social second screen: WhatsApp and
watching the World cup. Communication & Sport, 8(1), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2167479518821913
*Weimar, D., Holthoff, L. C., & Biscaia, R. (2020). When sponsorship causes anger: Understanding
negative fan reactions to postings on sports clubs’ online social media channels. European Sport
Management Quarterly, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2020.1786593
*Whitburn, D., Karg, A., & Turner, P. (2020). The effect of digital integrated marketing communi-
cations on not-for-profit sport consumption behaviors. Journal of Sport Management, 1(aop),
1–18. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2019-0306
*Winand, M., Belot, M., Merten, S., & Kolyperas, D. (2019). International sport federations’ social
media communication: A content analysis of FIFA’s Twitter account. International Journal of
Sport Communication, 12(2), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2018-0173
Woratschek, H., Horbel, C., & Popp, B. (2014). The sport value framework – a new fundamental
logic for analyses in sport management. European Sport Management Quarterly, 14(1), 6–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2013.865776
Woratschek, H., Horbel, C., & Popp, B. (2020). Conceptualizing resource integration: The peculiar
role of pure public resources. Journal of Service Management Research, 4(2–3), 157–169. https://
doi.org/10.15358/2511-8676-2020-2-3-157
*Yan, G., Pegoraro, A., & Watanabe, N. M. (2018). Student-athletes’ organization of activism at the
university of Missouri: Resource mobilization on Twitter. Journal of Sport Management, 32(1),
24–37. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2017-0031
*Yan, G., Watanabe, N. M., Shapiro, S. L., Naraine, M. L., & Hull, K. (2019). Unfolding the Twitter
scene of the 2017 UEFA Champions League Final: Social media networks and power dynamics.
European Sport Management Quarterly, 19(4), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2018.
1517272
Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2013). Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation.
Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1279–1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.026
*Yim, B. H., Byon, K. K., Baker, T. A., & Zhang, J. J. (2021). Identifying critical factors in sport
consumption decision making of millennial sport fans: Mixed-methods approach. European
Sport Management Quarterly, 21(4), 484–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2020.1755713
Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research. Sage Publishing.
Yoshida, M., James, J. D., & Cronin, J. (2013). Value creation: Assessing the relationships between
quality, consumption value and behavioural intentions at sporting events. International Journal
of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 14(2), 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-14-02-2013-
B005
*Yuksel, M., McDonald, M. A., Milne, G. R., & Darmody, A. (2017). The paradoxical relationship
between fantasy football and NFL consumption: Conflict development and consumer coping
mechanisms. Sport Management Review, 20(2), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2016.
07.001
Zhang, J., Byon, K. K., Tsuji, Y., & Pedersen, P. M. (2020). Co-created value influences residents’
support toward the sporting event through the mediating mechanism of gratitude. European
Sport Management Quarterly, 1–23. doi:10.1080/16184742.2020.1836011

The Digital Transformation of Value Co-Creation

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

The Digital Transformation of Value Co-Creation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Sport Management Quarterly

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/resm20

The digital transformation of value co-creation:

Pascal Stegmann, Siegfried Nagel & Tim Ströbel

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2021.1976241

View supplementary material

Published online: 15 Sep 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4472

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

The digital transformation of value co-creation: a scoping

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

of the value co-creation process. No value-in-use is created merely by the exchange of a

application of digital technologies in organizational settings and to enhance the

Methods: scoping review

Identiﬁcation of the research question

Identifying relevant articles

Charting the data

Collating, summarizing, and reporting the results

Results: scoping review

Table 1. Summary of the frequency analysis of the scoping review.

Second screens, virtual reality, and other digital innovations

Discussion: developing a research agenda for digital transformation of

Nature of exchange: game changers of digital transformation

as brand extension tool (*Bertschy et al., 2020). Additionally, several technological

Research agenda and methodological approaches

Intra-level: decision-making behavior

Research agenda and methodological approaches

Micro-level: engagement platforms and digital actors

Research agenda and methodological approaches

Meso- and macro-levels: engagement platforms and service ecosystems

Research agenda and methodological approaches

Intra-level . Motives and needs of . Motives in developing digital . Observational studies

understand the complex phenomenon of value co-creation, sport marketing researchers

Conclusions and implications

Business and Management: An International Journal, 10(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/

You might also like