USA Cycling 2010 Membership Analysis - Amazon S3 · In order to fully characterize the membership...

2013 Membership Survey and Analysis

Prepared for USA Cycling, Inc. By

Daniel J. Larson, Ph.D. (University of Oklahoma- Department of Health and Exercise Science)

USAC Member Report 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary ................................................................................... 4

REPORT SECTIONS

1 Background/Purpose ............................................................................ 6

2 2013 Data ............................................................................................ 6

Internet collection ............................................................................ 6

Responses....................................................................................... 6

3 Overall Demographics .......................................................................... 7

Age .................................................................................................. 7

Gender ............................................................................................ 9

Income ........................................................................................... 10

Employment................................................................................... 11

Housing ......................................................................................... 12

Education ...................................................................................... 13

Family participation ........................................................................ 13

4 Participation (Competitors) ................................................................. 14

Riding ............................................................................................ 14

Disciplines ..................................................................................... 14

Other sport participation ................................................................ 15

Cycling event participation ............................................................. 16

Cycling event travel and spending ................................................. 17

Negative/Positive experiences ....................................................... 19


Member fee value .......................................................................... 20

Member benefit preferences .......................................................... 20

5 Consumption ....................................................................................... 21

Media ............................................................................................. 21

Retail consumer goods .................................................................. 24

6 Research Questions ........................................................................... 27

Travel distance v. Local Association .............................................. 27

Cyclo-cross membership characteristics ....................................... 38

8 About the Researcher ......................................................................... 43

A APPENDICIES .................................................................................... 44

A1 Open Responses: Negative Experiences ...................................... 44

A2 Open Responses: Positive Comments .......................................... 79


Executive Summary

In order to fully characterize the membership of USA Cycling, this study was commissioned to continue membership analysis into 2013, and present findings and recommendations in this summary report. The data used were generated through an updated survey of current USA Cycling members that was conducted using a web-based questionnaire. The survey instrument included 154 items in eight categories:

a. socio-demographics (17 items) b. psychographic measures (9 items) c. participation history (22 items) d. motivations for joining (5 items) e. participation experiences (53 items) f. participation constraints (12 items) g. member benefits/preferences (23 items) h. retail/media consumption (13 items)

Of the approximately 70,000 organization members asked via email and through the USAC website to complete the questionnaire, a total of 7941 questionnaires were started and 6497 (82% completion, ~9% response rate) were completed and useable for data analyses. This response rate was nearly double the 2012 rate.

The overall analysis of these surveys’ data focused on three main areas: (I) overall membership characteristics, (II) the impact of travel distance on participation, and (III) differences between partipant members according to primary competition discipline. Among these comparisons, this report focused on participation history, membership benefits, participation experiences, and levels of sport involvement. The retail and media consumption descriptions were also included to offer information valuable to USA Cycling industry partners. The following describes some of the notable findings for each area of concern:

(I) Overall. In terms of demographics, the overall USA Cycling membership is

dominated by male (85.3%), master age (63.7%), road cyclists (65.9%). The highest concentrations of members exist in California (15.8%), Texas (6.3%), and Colorado (6.1%), with the balance of the membership dispersed among the remaining states. Home ownership of members exceeds 65% and approximately 90% (89.5%) of the members have at least some college education.

(II) Member travel sensitivity. Existing USA Cycling membership data was queried to offer more detailed information about the significance of travel distance and race availability both Overall, and at the Local Association/Regional level. Summary of findings: x Members rate ‘travel distance/travel time to the event’ highest in importance

among all event attributes (with the common exception of ‘personal goals/achievements’). This is consistent across ALL Local Associations/Regions.

x Members overwhelmingly list ‘not enough events were close enough’ as the most common reason for ‘not participating in as many events as they wanted to’.

o Primary reason 76% of the time (Family Obligations is next most cited, 27%) o Primary or Secondary reason 88% of the time

These results were consistent across ALL Local Associations/Regions


x Members who have NOT RENEWED their USA Cycling membership in recent years (2009-2012), indicated ‘not participating in as many events as they wanted to’ during their membership at a higher rates compared to renewing members, 42% v. 31% respectively.

x Of the members who have NOT RENEWED their USA Cycling membership in recent years (2009-2012), ‘There weren’t as many events as I expected/wanted’ was listed as a primary or secondary reason for not renewing their membership 23% of the time. (This was only out-cited by health changes/injury, ceasing overall participation in the sport, and affordability concerns.)

(III) Participant comparison by discipline (Cyclo-cross v. Other). The specific

differences between Cyclo-cross participant members and Other discipline members were exam across several response variables: x Cyclo-cross members are not generally different from other members in terms of

demographics with the exception of education. They report slightly higher levels of education

x Cyclo-cross members have been USA Cycling members longer on average than other discipline members

x Cyclo-cross members report HIGHER overall levels of participation (Total events), while at the same time traveling shorter distances (on average and maximum range), than other USA Cycling members

x Cyclo-cross members put LESS emphasis than other members on the importance of Categories offered, Rankings, Championships, and Prizes. They also report a LOWER importance for course safety

x Cyclo-cross members report a HIGHER importance than other members on race start times, who the promoter is, and whether friends/family are participating

x Cyclo-cross members show a HIGHER preference for tangible value member benefits (discounts) in addition to desiring MORE access to coaching/instruction

x Cyclo-cross members report LOWER levels of competitiveness than other discipline members

Further description of the data collection, results, and charts follow. An appendix

includes detailed statistical results, group mean comparisons, and complete open responses.

Contact

Please direct any questions, concerns or inquiries to: Dr. Daniel Larson [email protected] Phone: (352)262-7601

mailto:[email protected]


Report for 2013 USA Cycling Membership Analysis

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

USA Cycling membership has enjoyed robust and steady growth in its membership and license holder numbers over several recent years. In order to most effectively serve these newer members and assure overall member satisfaction and longevity of renewals, we continue to fully characterize the organization’s membership. The exploration of the USA Cycling membership focused on member characteristics, and their preferences with regard to participation, member benefits and event characteristics.

2013 DATA

The data for this report were obtained from a membership survey conducted in early 2013. Previous data (2008, 2010, 2012) are occasionally used for comparison.

Internet collection As with any questionnaire that samples using internet collection techniques, there is always the potential for selection bias from two main sources, non-responders, and members of the population of interest (overall membership) being systematically excluded from the sample. The non-responders would be individuals receiving the survey solicitation and choosing not to participate. The individuals excluded from the sample would be those members who may not have internet access, or an email address not included in the member database. If either of these classes of individuals had significant differences in the measured constructs, there would clearly be a bias present in the sample. However, although the data were collected via a web linked questionnaire and these concerns do exist, we feel fairly confident that there will be limited bias in the following examined constructs. It is difficult to argue that many of the variables listed in this questionnaire would be subject to severe bias (or differences) across responders and non-responders. Where this may be a concern, it is discussed in the report. A future inquiry could include a snail-mail version to sample some non-internet users to statistically establish that there are no significant differences or resulting bias.

Responses In terms of responses to individual items, this does vary throughout this questionnaire. This can arise either through incomplete/abandoned questionnaires, or through conscious non-response. While several questionnaire items required responses, other items that might be viewed as sensitive information (e.g. income) allowed for non-response. Therefore, the responses to individual questions in this study ranged from just over 5000 to 7917 (100%) completion. 7917 questionnaires were started and 6497 (82% completion, ~9% response rate) questionnaires were fully completed. Wherever possible, variations in the response rates are noted. Further item analysis could be conducted in the future to guard against any individual item bias OR the possibility that respondents abandoned the survey because of its length.


OVERALL DEMOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION (All Members, N = 7941)

Age

One important feature of the demographic characteristic of the age of the respondents is the continued non-normal nature of the distribution. The somewhat bi-modal characteristics of this distribution may reflect a large number of younger members in the sample, either by a large number in the overall membership, or by a higher rate of response to the questionnaire. This distribution should be cross-referenced with the membership database to confirm that it reflects the general membership and not a sampling bias. Provided that this is representative of the membership at large, the ability to satisfy and retain this group is important to consider when standing in contrast to ageing ‘Baby-Boom’ members. Also, one could consider specific “mid-life” barriers to renewal in the late twenties/early thirties that could be mitigated in some way.

2008 2010 2012 2013 Junior 5.1% 3.3% 6.2% 6.7% Senior (19-34) 29.5% 32.1% 21.4% 28.0% Masters 35+ 65.4% 64.6% 72.4% 63.7%


Age cont.

The most recent respondents were increasingly represented by Junior and Senior members, compared to the previous survey.


Gender

The study respondents’ gender distribution is generally consistent with the distribution of gender in the overall member demographics (from USAcycling.org) with a slight overrepresentation of Females in the sample (14.7% v. 13.7%). This suggests a reasonable representative sample of the membership in terms of gender.

This distribution has been consistent over time with a small recent increase in female respondent representation for 2013.


Income

Income Level Respondents Cumulative % $400,000 or more 214 3.2% $375,000 to $399,000 18 3.4% $350,000 to $374,000 48 4.1% $325,000 to $349,000 31 4.6% $300,000 to $324,000 70 5.6% $275,000 to $299,000 64 6.6% $250,000 to $274,000 127 8.4% $225,000 to $249,000 142 10.5% $200,000 to $224,000 243 14.1% $175,000 to $199,000 285 18.3% $150,000 to $174,000 453 25.0% $125,000 to $149,000 623 34.1% $100,000 to $124,000 956 48.2% $75,000 to $99,000 972 62.6% $50,000 to $74,000 941 76.4% $25,000 to $49,000 750 87.5% $1,000 to $24,000 594 96.2% $0 to $999 257 100.0%


Employment


Housing


Education

Family participation

Nearly half of the respondents (47%) have no family members that ride or race bicycles.


PARTICIPATION (“Competitors”, N = 7202)

The following section analyzes the participation history and patterns of member respondents that indicated that their primary membership role is a “competitor”. Excluded categories: Official, Coach, Mechanic, Team Manager, and Race Director.

Riding

Discipline

74.8% of respondents reported participating in more than one discipline, 46.6% of those would require a secondary license.


Other Sport Participation

A large majority of the respondents indicated having past participations in formal team sports and/or a running sport (Running/Track and Field). The most commonly maintained formal participation outside of cycling are typically other endurance based sports (running, skiing, swimming), and/or sports that incorporate a bicycling element (triathlon, duathlon).


Cycling event participation

Event types attended (N = 5372) Mean SD Competitive Road 8.9 10.9 Mountain 1.8 4.2 Cyclo-cross 2.7 5.3 Track 0.8 4.0 BMX 0.1 1.5 Non-Competitive

Road 3.1 8.4 Mountain 1.2 5.7 Cyclo-cross 0.4 2.8 Track 0.2 2.2 BMX 0.1 1.3 All events 19.3 21.2

Of the respondents to this item, 6.3% said that they participated in no events. This might be considered a lower bound, as some similar individuals may not have responded to the questionnaire item at all (response rate: 74.6%).


Event Travel

2013 Reported Travel Distance (n = 4895)

Region Local Association DistAve DistMax

Central Texas 113 309 Arkansas 108 352 New Mexico 104 284 Oklahoma 100 251 Kansas 91 280 Utah 90 331 Arizona 86 282 Colorado/Wyoming 82 342 MidWest Nebraska 104 356 Missouri 93 271 IndianaKentucky 93 271 Michigan 90 264 MidAtl 82 276 Wisconsin 79 269 Illinois 74 276 Iowa 73 240 Ohio 70 222 Minnesota 64 286 NE NewEngland 79 228 Pennsylvania/WV 75 218 New York 72 220 New Jersey 55 203 SE LA/MS 131 352 Florida 130 352 Tennessee 111 364 Alabama 111 286 Carolinas 100 284 Georgia 97 240 West Nevada 187 406 Other (AK, HI) 136 422 Oregon 102 320 California 85 264 Idaho 79 307 Washington 73 291 USA National 89 279


Event Spending

*While the response items were presented as categorical choices, we used category midpoints to estimate the average spending of the respondents.


Negative experiences

Respondents were asked to report, classify, and describe any negative experiences they had in the past year. 77.1% of the respondents reported not having any negative experiences with their participation. The open response negative experience descriptions (614) are reported in the Appendix and are sorted by Region and State.

Positive Experiences

Respondents were also asked to report their positive expereinces in recent years. These comments (827) are reported in the Appendix and sorted by Region and State.


Membership Fee Value

Member Benefit Preferences


CONSUMPTION (All Members)

Media

What is your primary source for cycling information? (Respondents: 6317)

Which of the following sources do you use to get cycling information? And about how often? (Respondents: 6316)


What type of information would you like to see disseminated by USA Cycling? (Respondents: 5454)

Why do you visit the USA Cycling website? (Respondents: 4061)


How often do you use the following websites? (Respondents: 6187)

The usacycling.org website was largely visited weekly or less, while the next two most utilized outlets, cyclingnews.com and velonews.com were more often visited on a daily basis.

Which of the following BEST describes your reading of the USA Cycling Enewsletter?


Retail

What brands of Bicycles do you own?


How likely are you to purchase a bike in the next year?

How do you typically purchase a bicycle?


How do you typically purchase cycling accessories?

Annual Retail Bicycle Related Spending


RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Travel Distance v. Local Association Existing USA Cycling membership data was queried to offer more detailed information about the significance of travel distance and race availability both at the Overall, and the Local Association/Regional level. Summary of findings: x Members rate ‘travel distance/travel time to the event’ highest in importance

among all event attributes (with the common exception of ‘personal goals/achievements’). This is consistent across ALL Local Associations/Regions.

x Members overwhelmingly list ‘not enough events were close enough’ as the most

common reason for ‘not participating in as many events as they wanted to’. o Primary reason 76% of the time (Family Obligations is next most cited, 27%) o Primary or Secondary reason 88% of the time

These results were consistent across ALL Local Associations/Regions x Members who have NOT RENEWED their USA Cycling membership in recent

years (2009-2012), indicated ‘not participating in as many events as they wanted to’ during their membership at a higher rates compared to renewing members, 42% v. 31% respectively.

x Of the members who have NOT RENEWED their USA Cycling membership in

recent years (2009-2012), ‘There weren’t as many events as I expected/wanted’ was listed as a primary or secondary reason for not renewing their membership 23% of the time. (This was only out-cited by health changes/injury, ceasing overall participation in the sport, and affordability concerns.)

Travel related questions Q: What is the relative importance of travel distance? A: As shown in the following table and graphs, travel distance is consistently rated highest or 2nd highest in terms of ALL event attributes’ importance. This is consistent across ALL Local Associations and Regions.


Mean importance ratings for various event factors

Region Local Assn Pers

onal

Go

als/

Achi

evem

ents

Dist

ance

/ Ti

me

to

the

Even

t

Cour

se

Safe

ty

Cate

gorie

s O

ffere

d At

trac

tiven

ess o

f Ev

ent

Loca

tion

Cour

se/R

ace

Di

fficu

lty

Entr

y Fe

es

Race

Sta

rt

Tim

es

Frie

nds o

r Fa

mily

Pa

rtic

ipat

ion

St

ate

or

Nat

iona

l Ch

ampi

ons

hips

The

Prom

oter

Rank

ing

Poin

ts

Prize

s

Oth

er

Impo

rtan

t Fa

ctor

SE Alabama 4.26 4.36 3.73 3.93 3.65 3.04 3.09 2.78 2.69 2.72 2.48 2.64 2.50 3.07 SE Florida 4.16 4.19 4.08 3.95 3.77 3.41 3.18 3.17 3.11 3.13 2.94 2.92 2.87 2.80 SE Georgia 4.15 4.21 3.90 3.84 3.55 3.29 3.52 3.20 3.14 3.08 3.07 3.14 2.93 2.71 SE LA/MS 4.25 4.02 3.47 3.55 3.63 3.12 2.92 2.59 3.37 2.61 2.57 2.66 2.57 3.11 SE Tennessee 4.13 4.23 3.87 3.75 3.63 3.32 3.30 3.08 3.01 2.78 2.67 2.74 2.74 2.61 SE Carolinas 4.14 4.17 3.76 3.79 3.60 3.37 3.41 3.11 3.14 2.74 2.71 2.64 2.68 2.92 Central Arizona 4.22 4.25 3.83 3.79 3.76 3.49 3.41 3.01 2.94 2.80 2.60 2.72 2.54 2.84 Central Arkansas 4.28 4.21 3.77 3.74 3.77 3.49 3.18 2.76 3.36 3.05 2.69 2.69 2.79 3.29 Central Colorado/WY 4.11 3.97 3.69 3.64 3.71 3.52 3.48 3.03 2.82 2.68 2.44 2.56 2.49 2.86 Central Kansas 4.18 4.07 3.81 3.68 3.42 3.08 3.47 2.88 3.22 2.71 2.51 2.55 2.63 2.58 Central Oklahoma 4.20 4.13 3.84 3.65 3.60 3.31 3.15 3.09 3.22 2.95 2.73 2.79 2.73 2.36 Central New Mexico 4.15 4.04 3.81 3.56 3.54 3.59 3.40 2.78 2.93 2.53 2.85 2.39 2.54 2.72 Central Texas 4.13 4.18 3.81 3.71 3.67 3.26 3.22 3.12 3.20 2.65 2.63 2.66 2.57 2.71 Central Utah 4.28 4.07 3.79 3.58 3.76 3.39 3.29 2.91 3.16 2.59 2.64 2.66 2.56 2.79 West California 4.15 4.19 3.92 3.95 3.67 3.51 3.24 3.20 3.00 2.78 2.68 2.76 2.65 3.00 West Idaho 4.18 4.02 3.60 3.44 3.70 3.29 3.24 2.57 3.08 2.71 2.62 2.44 2.45 3.03 West Nevada 4.30 4.13 3.94 3.85 3.63 3.39 3.09 2.92 3.28 2.70 2.62 2.85 2.72 2.83 West Oregon 3.84 3.96 3.62 3.40 3.51 3.40 3.49 2.73 2.73 2.84 2.57 2.48 2.61 3.00 West Washington 4.05 4.05 3.89 3.62 3.68 3.47 3.10 2.97 3.11 2.49 2.66 2.40 2.34 2.78 West Other 4.27 4.34 3.67 3.71 3.77 3.33 3.17 2.95 3.21 2.98 2.81 2.70 2.69 3.29 MidWest Illinois 4.28 4.23 3.82 3.69 3.64 3.32 3.15 3.04 3.16 2.50 2.40 2.40 2.27 2.57 MidWest IndianaKentucky 4.19 4.04 3.68 3.68 3.57 3.13 3.43 2.94 3.02 2.73 2.79 2.69 2.84 2.75 MidWest Iowa 4.09 4.23 3.73 3.78 3.41 3.16 3.00 3.20 3.39 2.94 2.69 2.70 2.79 3.00 MidWest Michigan 4.27 4.01 3.53 3.38 3.81 3.37 3.14 2.81 3.17 2.25 2.48 2.28 2.36 2.50 MidWest MidAtl 4.17 4.18 3.70 3.86 3.56 3.48 3.30 3.08 3.05 2.52 2.60 2.46 2.58 2.91 MidWest Minnesota 4.10 4.04 3.43 3.54 3.69 3.36 3.22 2.94 3.02 2.69 2.38 2.35 2.45 2.63 MidWest Missouri 4.06 4.14 3.75 3.66 3.71 3.29 3.28 3.04 3.10 2.70 2.67 2.42 2.51 3.08 MidWest Nebraska 4.33 4.16 3.81 3.57 3.48 3.30 3.40 3.02 3.19 2.60 2.58 2.63 2.81 3.31 MidWest Ohio 4.18 4.19 3.83 3.70 3.53 3.21 3.20 2.98 2.96 2.66 2.72 2.62 2.62 2.77 MidWest Wisconsin 4.15 4.06 3.77 3.57 3.55 3.27 3.23 2.89 2.99 2.61 2.54 2.66 2.58 2.63 NE New Jersey 4.28 4.19 4.06 3.92 3.66 3.39 3.24 3.31 3.18 2.87 2.71 2.74 2.56 2.67 NE New York 4.00 4.17 3.91 3.89 3.69 3.46 3.34 3.14 2.93 2.36 2.65 2.71 2.38 2.65 NE NewEngland 4.07 4.11 3.76 3.90 3.48 3.51 3.23 3.13 2.98 2.30 2.64 2.44 2.29 2.83 NE Pennsylvania/WV 4.11 4.12 3.81 3.93 3.55 3.30 3.29 3.18 2.98 2.71 2.67 2.70 2.63 3.05 USA National 4.15 4.14 3.80 3.76 3.64 3.39 3.27 3.06 3.05 2.66 2.64 2.63 2.56 2.84







Q: Clearly participants have a preference for closer events, but how often does this distance actually constrain participation, i.e. what are the participation constraints related to travel?

A1: When considering participants who stated that they did not participate in as many events as they would have liked to last year, which turned out to be 31% of the membership overall, events being too far away dominated as the primary reason, and was a common secondary reason.

A2: The individual state averages are shown below, first graphically, and then in table form.

Constraints Primary reason Secondary reason Primary or Secondary

Races too far away 76% 12% 88% Family Obligations 27% 24% 51% Category Not Offered 18% 19% 37% High Entry Fees 18% 29% 47% No Category I could compete in 14% 20% 33% Races Too Early or Late in the day 13% 22% 35% Races Too Short 9% 20% 29% Races Full 8% 21% 29% Religious activities 6% 18% 24% Courses Too Dangerous 2% 19% 22% Courses Too Difficult 2% 20% 22% Other (primary or secondary) 14% 14%



Local Association (resp.) Not

En

ough

Ev

ents

Too

Far

Hig

h F

ees

Ful

l R

aces

NoC

at

Offe

red

Too

Ear

lyL

ate

NoC

omp

Cat

Too

D

iffic

ult

Rac

es

Too

S

hort

Too

D

ange

r

Fam

ily

Obl

ig.

Rel

igio

n

Oth

er

Alabama (36) 42% 93% 20% 13% 27% 27% 27% 20% 27% 13% 53% 27% 20% Arizona (144) 34% 90% 59% 22% 31% 47% 33% 24% 31% 24% 57% 24% 4% Arkansas (30) 30% 89% 56% 44% 56% 78% 56% 44% 44% 44% 78% 44% 11% California (845) 31% 85% 48% 38% 47% 43% 36% 27% 36% 26% 47% 28% 14% Carolinas (247) 34% 94% 41% 16% 35% 28% 45% 20% 27% 22% 54% 22% 11% Colorado/WY (348) 32% 82% 52% 20% 31% 27% 22% 15% 26% 15% 42% 15% 15% Florida (142) 35% 96% 29% 14% 49% 31% 37% 20% 29% 16% 55% 18% 16% Georgia (97) 38% 89% 46% 24% 35% 35% 41% 24% 32% 30% 57% 30% 11% Idaho (72) 22% 100% 56% 19% 25% 31% 31% 19% 13% 6% 56% 19% 0% Illinois (185) 25% 87% 41% 30% 26% 24% 26% 22% 24% 20% 59% 26% 13% IndianaKentucky (134) 36% 92% 67% 33% 38% 35% 42% 33% 33% 33% 60% 35% 19% Iowa (64) 13% 100% 50% 38% 63% 38% 38% 50% 38% 38% 50% 50% 13% Kansas (62) 31% 89% 32% 21% 21% 21% 16% 16% 16% 21% 63% 42% 5% LA/MS (65) 45% 93% 48% 24% 45% 24% 48% 34% 21% 31% 45% 21% 14% Michigan (205) 18% 78% 57% 16% 24% 19% 19% 14% 19% 16% 46% 16% 11% MidAtl (265) 31% 95% 56% 42% 49% 37% 35% 22% 38% 26% 49% 23% 20% Minnesota (93) 28% 77% 35% 15% 27% 23% 27% 15% 31% 15% 58% 19% 31% Missouri (84) 27% 83% 43% 13% 26% 13% 26% 17% 22% 13% 52% 17% 17% Nebraska (33) 45% 93% 27% 7% 27% 33% 20% 7% 20% 13% 53% 13% 7% Nevada (40) 60% 88% 33% 29% 21% 33% 29% 13% 17% 13% 33% 21% 8% New Jersey (111) 32% 78% 42% 42% 42% 53% 33% 31% 36% 22% 64% 31% 11% New Mexico (58) 43% 88% 36% 28% 16% 36% 16% 16% 28% 12% 44% 20% 24% New York (232) 36% 86% 50% 39% 44% 40% 42% 24% 25% 19% 52% 24% 12% NewEngland (304) 38% 85% 52% 39% 41% 36% 34% 15% 24% 16% 55% 18% 16% Ohio (100) 36% 97% 47% 22% 44% 31% 47% 25% 31% 22% 56% 25% 17% Oklahoma (62) 19% 92% 17% 25% 25% 50% 33% 17% 17% 17% 58% 25% 17% Oregon (33) 52% 88% 65% 29% 47% 47% 41% 29% 35% 29% 41% 29% 29% Other (AK, HI) (52) 48% 100% 48% 28% 36% 24% 36% 20% 32% 20% 56% 24% 12% Pennsylvania/WV (219) 29% 88% 39% 28% 44% 33% 41% 19% 22% 17% 48% 16% 14% Tennessee (91) 40% 100% 44% 28% 33% 44% 36% 31% 33% 28% 58% 31% 14% Texas (314) 26% 91% 52% 32% 33% 43% 31% 28% 33% 30% 48% 30% 11% Utah (105) 30% 81% 69% 34% 38% 44% 34% 25% 34% 31% 63% 34% 25% Washington (227) 30% 88% 35% 26% 29% 34% 25% 19% 19% 21% 50% 18% 15% Wisconsin (120) 17% 75% 25% 15% 5% 5% 10% 5% 20% 5% 35% 15% 15%

Q: What is the ultimate effect of this travel constraint for membership renewal? A1: When considering members who did not renew their memberships, we examined data from 2009-2012. Of the non-renewals during that time, 42% reported not being able to participate in as many events as they wanted to. Furthermore, of these, the two most commonly cited reasons were the travel distance and travel costs.

A2: Additionally, a full 23% of members who did not renew from 2009-2012 citied “There weren’t as many events as I expected/wanted” as a primary or secondary reason for not renewing their membership.


Cyclo-cross Participant Characteristics USA Cycling members who stated that they were active competitors and indicated that Cyclo-cross was their primary discipline, were compare to the remainder of the membership using an analysis of variance procedure (ANOVA). The comparison model included the following variables:

x Demographics: Age, Gender, Education, Income x Participation History: Age began serious riding, age began racing, rides per

week, annual events, membership tenure, average distance traveled, maximum distance traveled to race, participant experience rating, and officials experience rating.

x Event Preferences: Ratings of importance of a variety of event attributes (14) x Member Benefit Preferences: Ratings indicating what they want more/less of.(12) x Psychometrics: Measures of overall competitiveness, process orientation, and

outcome orientation.

The statistically significant differences between Cyclo-cross and other members are summarized below and means and significance levels are show in the tables. If an item is not mentioned in the summary, there is no apparent difference between Cyclo-cross members and the membership at large (on average). Demographics

x In terms of demographic characteristics, Cyclo-cross members were similar to the overall membership with the exeption of Education level. They reported a slightly higher level of education than non Cyclo-cross members.

Event Preferences

Member Benefit Preferences

Participation History

Competitiveness

Demographics

Cyclo-cross v. Other


Event Participation

x When considering event participation and experiences, there were several significant differences between Cyclo-cross members and Other members.

o Cyclo-cross members participate in more total events annually o Cyclo-cross members have been USA Cycling members for 1.3 years

longer on average o Cyclo-cross members do not travel nearly as far as other members to

participate in events either on average (69 mi v. 91 mi) or in range (247mi v. 279mi). This is likely due to the geographic concentration of events in the Northeast U.S. and the ability to host events in urban sites.

o Cyclo-cross members reported similar experiences with participants and officials

Participation/Experiences Group N Mean Significance

(p-value) RideWeek (days) Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 6209 4.73 .5529

Cyclo-cross 643 4.76 StartRaceAGE Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5796 27.40 .7927

Cyclo-cross 635 27.27 AgeStarted Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5844 24.63 .6321

Cyclo-cross 611 24.43 TENURE w/USAC Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5917 6.448 .0001

Cyclo-cross 619 7.702 TOTAL Events last year Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 4795 18.91 .0001

Cyclo-cross 572 22.38 Average distance traveled to race Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 4420 91.03 .0000

Cyclo-cross 555 68.70 Max distance traveled to race Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 2994 279.07 .0144

Cyclo-cross 427 246.74 Experience w/Participants (higher is better)

Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 4082 9.60 .6386

Cyclo-cross 450 9.38 Experience w/Officials (higher is better)

Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 4042 13.51 .8353

Cyclo-cross 448 13.62

Demographics Group N Mean Significance (p-value)

AGE Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 6173 38.86 .1165 Cyclo-cross 637 39.72

GENDER (%Male) Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 6183 .86 .0245 Cyclo-cross 635 .83

INCOME CATEGORY (Median level $75,000-$100,000)

Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5594 6.12 .8345 Cyclo-cross 571 6.09

Education Level (1 lowest --> 7 highest)



Event Preferences x Cyclo-cross members rated the following LOWER in importance compared to

Other members: o ‘Categories offered’ o ‘Course safety’ o ‘Ranking points’ o ‘State or National Championships’ o ‘Prizes’

x Cyclo-cross members rated the following HIGHER in importance compared to Other members:

o ‘Race start times’ o ‘The Promoter’ o ‘Friends or family participation’

Event Preferences (5-Most Important, 1-Not important)

Group N Mean Significance (p-value)

Entry Fees Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5977 3.26 .0913 Cyclo-cross 618 3.34

Attractiveness of Event Location Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5963 3.64 .8364 Cyclo-cross 623 3.65

Travel Distance/Travel Time to the Event


Categories Offered Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5956 3.77 .0063 Cyclo-cross 623 3.65

Race Start Times Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5958 3.04 .0037 Cyclo-cross 621 3.18

Course/Race Difficulty Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5971 3.39 .2832 Cyclo-cross 622 3.35

Course Safety Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5959 3.82 .0003 Cyclo-cross 622 3.65

Ranking Points Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5949 2.64 .0028 Cyclo-cross 623 2.48

State or National Championships awarded


Prizes Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5969 2.59 .0000 Cyclo-cross 623 2.29

The Promoter Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5937 2.62 .0002 Cyclo-cross 622 2.80

Friends or Family Participation Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5957 3.04 .0008 Cyclo-cross 624 3.21

Personal Goals/Achievements Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5933 4.15 .2923 Cyclo-cross 617 4.11

Other Important Factor Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 2195 2.85 .1940 Cyclo-cross 217 2.71


Benefit Preferences x Cyclo-cross members indicated a preference for MORE of the following

categories of benefits compared to Other members: o Airline discounts o Lodging discounts o Car rental discounts o Insurance program benefits o Industry publication discounts o Casual apparel discounts o Cycling apparel discounts o Prescription discounts o Access to coaching/instruction

Benefit Preferences (1-More, 2-Same, 3-Less)

Group N Mean Significance (p-value)

Airline Discounts Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 4588 2.02 .0000

Cyclo-cross 505 1.85 Lodging Discounts Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 4628 2.31 .0000

Cyclo-cross 506 2.11 Car Rental Discounts Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 4511 1.90 .0001

Cyclo-cross 499 1.76 Insurance Program Benefits Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 4549 1.92 .0000

Cyclo-cross 507 1.70 Industry Publication Discounts Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 4494 1.79 .0003

Cyclo-cross 507 1.67 Casual Apparel Discounts Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 4515 1.71 .0000

Cyclo-cross 507 1.54 Cycling Apparel Discounts Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 4621 2.15 .0000

Cyclo-cross 506 1.94 Prescription Discounts Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 4491 1.57 .0000

Cyclo-cross 498 1.41 Access to Coaching Instruction Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 4566 2.13 .0189


Enewsletters Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 4476 1.87 .1299


Results and Rankings Program Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 4561 2.28 .7436


Other Member Benefit Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 1024 2.03 .5383

Cyclo-cross 98 2.08


Competitiveness x Cyclo-cross members were on average significantly LESS competitive than other

members in general and through the process and outcome measures.

Psychometrics (Scales) Group N Mean Significance (p-value)

Overall Competitiveness Scale Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5862 10.55 .0000

Cyclo-cross 621 9.62 Win oriented (EGO) Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5856 8.48 .0000


Process oriented (TASK) Other (Road, MTB, Track, BMX) 5852 13.39 .0013


Source of New Cyclo-Cross Members Despite the growth of the proportion of members identifying themselves as primarily Cyclo-Cross, much of this movement has come from within the overall membership as members have seemed to move out of the Road group, and into MTB and/or Cyclo-Cross, i.e. the percentage of NEW Cyclo-Cross members (2%) is far below the overall representation (9.4%).

(Note that members reporting ‘Triathlon’ as their primary discipline are included in the ‘Road’ category.)


ABOUT THE RESEARCHER

Daniel J. Larson, PhD Dr. Larson currently serves as Lecturer in the Department of Health and Exercise Science at the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Larson’s research focuses on sport economics and specifically the economic issues in the sport of cycling. Dr. Larson functions as the coordinator for the project/report.

Date post:	18-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

USA Cycling 2010 Membership Analysis - Amazon S3 · In order to fully characterize the membership...

Documents