We conduct the first study to estimate the dollar value of a sports tradition. Using a contingent valuation survey, we estimate the net benefits of ringing cowbells at Mississippi State University football games to be about $1 million per home game. The per-person benefits of the tradition are $25 for non-students and $9 for students who favor the tradition, and the costs are $8 for non-students and $6 for students who oppose the tradition. Alumni and fans who bring cowbells to games have significantly higher values for the tradition. The tradition is continually under threat of being prohibited by the Southeastern Conference (SEC) and the University incurs fines when fans violate the cowbell-ringing rules. Our estimates can be used by the University to compare costs and benefits of preserving the tradition or in current marketing efforts to encourage fans to ring responsibly.
AtkinsonG., Morse-JonesS., MouratoS., & ProvinsA. (2008). Are we willing to pay enough to ‘Back the Bid'? Valuing the intangible impacts of London's bid to host the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. Urban Studies, 45, 419–444.
3.
AtkinsonG., Morse-JonesS., MouratoS., & ProvinsA. (2012). When to take "no" for an answer? Using entreaties to reduce protests in contingent valuation studies. Environmental and Resource Economics, 51, 497–523.
4.
BergstromT. C. (2006). Benefit-cost in a benevolent society. American Economic Review, 96, 339–351.
5.
CarsonR. T., & GrovesT. (2007). Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37, 181–210.
6.
CarsonR. T., & GrovesT. (2010). Incentive and information properties of preference questions: Commentary and extensions. In BennedJ. (Ed.), The international handbook on non-market environmental valuation (pp. 300–321). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
7.
CastellanosP., GarciaJ., & SanchezJ. M. (2011). The willingness to pay to keep a football club in a city: How important are the methodological issues?Journal of Sports Economics, 12, 464–486.
8.
ChampP. A., BoyleK. J., BrownT. G, & PetersonL. G (2003). A primer on nonmarket valuation.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
9.
FloresN. E. (2002). Non-paternalistic altruism and welfare economics. Journal of Public Economics, 83, 293–305.
HarterJ. F. (2015). Is the wigwam worth it? A contingent valuation method estimate for a small-city sports arena. Contemporary Economic Policy, 33, 279–284.
14.
HeinzeG., & SchemperM. (2002). A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 2409–2419.
15.
HerrigesJ., KlingC, LiuC, & TobiasJ. (2010). What are the consequences of consequential -ity?Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59, 67–81.
16.
HorowitzJ. K., & McConnellK. E. (2002). A review of WTA/WTP studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 426–447.
17.
HumphreysB. R., JohnsonB. K., MasonD. S., & WhiteheadJ. C. (2016). Estimating the value of medal success in the Olympic Games. Journal of Sports Economics. doi: 10.1177/1527002515626221.
18.
JohnsonB., & WhiteheadJ. (2000). Value of public goods from sports stadiums: The CVM approach. Contemporary Economic Policy, 18, 48–58.
19.
JohnsonB. K., MondelloM. J., & WhiteheadJ. C. (2007). The value of public goods generated by a National Football League team. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 123–136.
20.
JohnsonB. K., WhiteheadJ. C, MasonD. S., & WalkerG. J. (2012). Willingness to pay for downtown public goods generated by large, sports-anchored development projects: The CVM approach. City, Culture and Society, 3, 201–208.
21.
JorgensenB., SymeG, BishopB., & NancarrowB. (1999). Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 14, 131–150.
22.
KnetschJ. (2010). Values of gains and losses: Reference states and choice of measure. Environmental and Resource Economics, 46, 179–188.
OwenJ. (2006). The intangible benefits of sports teams. Public Finance and Management, 6, 321–345.
25.
PedersenL. B., KiilA., & KjaerT. (2011). Soccer attendees’ preferences for facilities at the Fionia Park Stadium: An application of the discrete choice experiment. Journal of Sports Economics, 12, 179–199.
26.
PoeG., GiraudK., & LoomisJ. (2005). Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87, 353–365.
27.
VekemanA., MeuldersM., PraetA., ColpaertJ., & Van PuyenbroeckT. (2015). Contingent valuation of a classic cycling race. Journal of Sports Economics, 16, 268–294.
28.
VosslerC. A., & WatsonS. B. (2013). Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 86, 137–147.
29.
WalkerM., & MondelloM. (2007). Moving beyond economic impact: A closer look at the contingent valuation method. International Journal of Sport Finance, 2, 149–160.
30.
WaltonH., LongoA., & DawsonP. (2008). A contingent valuation of the 2012 London Olympic Games: A regional perspective. Journal of Sports Economics, 9, 304–317.
31.
WhiteheadJ., JohnsonB., MasonD., & WalkerG. (2013). Consumption benefits of National Hockey League game trips estimated from revealed and stated preference demand data. Economic Inquiry, 51, 1012–1025.
32.
WickerP., HallmannK., BreuerC., & FeilerS. (2012). The value of Olympic success and the intangible effects of sport events—A contingent valuation approach in Germany. European Sport Management Quarterly, 12, 337–355.
33.
WickerP., PrinzJ., & Von HanauT. (2012). Estimating the value of national sporting success. Sport Management Review, 15, 200–210.
