Competitor Analysis
A competitor analysis has been used to compare the various facilities on offer at the Lee Valley Athletics Centre to those offered by its competitors. The Lee Valley Athletic Centre is a specialized facility and as such should be compared with similar centres around the region. The following centres are considered to be direct competitors of the Lee Valley Athletics Centre and are located between 30 and 60 miles from LVAC:
- Bedford International Athletics Stadium
- Chelmsford Sports and Athletics Centre
- Guilford Spectrum
(LVRPA, 2008b)
The White Hart Lane Athletics Centre is located about 5 miles from the LVAC and offers some similar facilities, but of a more limited nature and is therefore not considered a direct competitor (Hudson, 2008).
Beyond 2012 Lee Valley Athletics Centre is likely to face new and significant competition from the athletics stadium used for the Olympic Games. According to the website of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympics Games (2007), the Olympic athletics stadium will be replaced by an athletics stadium that will have a capacity of 25,000 seats. As a new entrant in the market, the Olympic stadium will add to existing capacity, and so has the potential to have a negative impact upon LVAC’s share of the market and income (Dibb et al, 1997).
The following table shows a comparison of the current competitors, it can be seen that the LVAC, Bedford and Chelmsford all offer similar facilities, but that White Hart Lane, although located near the Lee Valley Athletics Centre, has fewer facilities and so is not a direct competitor presenting a significant threat. The table also illustrates that all the athletics centres offer other products such as children’s activities and birthday parties.
(LVRPA 2008b)
Prices at all the facilities are similar although the LVAC is the most expensive of the athletics centres charging £4.00 for an adult track session. However, the difference is only £0.10 less for Bedford and £0.60 less for Chelmsford and Guildford, this difference is not considered to be significant.
In the financial year 2007 to 2008 the LVAC received a subsidy of £392,106 over and above its operational income. Total visitor numbers for the year was 61467 meaning that for every individual use of the centre there was a subsidy of £6.38 raised through the levy on council tax payers of London Hertfordshire and Essex.
(LVRPA 2008g)
Portfolio Analysis
The most popular technique used in portfolio analysis is Boston Consulting Group (BCG) (Hudson, 2008). This method is designed to demonstrate each product of a corporation in term of market growth rate and relative market share. To apply this matrix to LVAC, the key products have been compared as well as the venue as a whole. In the table below, all products are placed in the “star” box indicating that LVAC outstrips its competitors, has high market growth and high relative market share.
BCG Matrix
To justify the position of the product placement in the BCG matrix, the table below shows a comparison between LVAC and its nearest competitor in the region.
This comparison demonstrates that the LVAC offers a wider range of specific athletic facilities and can accommodate more spectators for events. By virtue of its location within Greater London, it can attract larger number of visitors compared to Bedford (LVRPA 2008b).
Other considerations undertaken to justify LVAC as a potential “star” in the market are based on total usage, customer satisfaction and accreditations.
-
Total usage – in financial year 2006/07 LVAC had 33.947 visitors. Within one year the number increased to 76.430 (figures based upon the first two quarters of 2008) (LVRPA, 2008e).
-
Customer satisfaction – showed a slight decrease from 8.9 in 2006/07 to 8.78 in 2007/08 on a 10 point scale. However, the overall performance is still very good comparing to the average 8.33 for similar venues (LVRPA, 2008b).
-
Accreditations – LVAC scored 81% in the Quest assessment (Quality Scheme for Sports and Leisure). This places the venue in 9th position within 750 similar venues in Britain (LVRPA, 2008e).
Market trends
Sports Participation
Market trends have been considered in term of consumer expenditure and participation in selected types of leisure activities and general interest in sports. According to the Mintel report on Spectator Sports in the UK (2007), total expenditure in 2006 was £924million.This figure shows increase by 12% since 2001 and places the popularity of spectator sports in the 7th position after activities like eating out, pubs, gambling, health and fitness clubs, nightclubs and cinema. The number of spectators, who paid to watch live sport within a venue increased by 4.4% with athletics attracting 0.3 % of all spectators paid to watch a live sporting event within a venue. This placed athletics in18th position of all spectator sports. In general 21.1% of all sports fans showed an interest in athletics (rank 6) while only 1% participated regularly in athletic events (rank 15). This potential demand for athletics is reflected in the rising popularity of the LVAC which opened in 2007. Within one year the interest in using the facility grew by approximately by 17%. Furthermore, the number of people visiting the venue once a week or more often has also increased reaching 39% in 2007/08 (LVRPA, 2008f).
Demography
According to the Office of National Statistics between 2003 and 2007, more than 350,000 people moved out of London, however, the outflow of people from the age group 16 to 24 was low. The population changes in the 16-19 age group increased from 4.6% to 4.9% between 2001 and 2005. By contrast, the percentage changed in the age group 20-24 remained the same between 2001 and 2005. This would suggest that the percentage of 16-24 year-olds has increased in recent years (ONS, undated).
SWOT Analysis
The SWOT analysis set out below indicates the organisational scope of the LVAC
Market Segmentation
The division of the market into various and homogeneous groups of consumers is known as market segmentation. Segmenting the market is a useful tool to prepare strategic marketing for specific targeting (Hudson, 2008). The Lee Valley Park Authority (2008) has carried out its own monitoring in order to indentify its own market segments such as elite athletes, club athletes, schools, school children, disabled people, groups and event attendees. Their analysis also looks at the age of the consumers (age segmentation), where are they from (demographic segmentation), ethnic membership and social class.
The graph below presents the participation of different age groups to the venue. It can be seen that just 21% of visitors are young people between 16 and 24 years old, with the facility mainly used by people between 25 and 35 years old and by the 36-46 age group, at 35 and 30 % respectively. This enables the identification of the 16-24 age groups as a target market segment for this marketing plan (LVRPA, 2008b).
Research carried out by the Park Authority in 2008 show the geographic segmentation of its visitors. The pie chart below divides customers according to their origin. The lowest percentage signals how just 16% of visitors live within 3 miles from the centre whereas the majority are from the South East Region with 63% and 21% come from the rest of the UK. These last 2 figures emphasize the fact that the Athletic Centre is a tourist destination which attracts domestic day-trippers to attend events and use the facilities (LVRPA, 2008b).
A further market segmentation demonstrates the ethnicity of the centre’s customers. According to the Office of National Statistics (2006), Greater London in which the Lee Valley Athletics Centre is located, is populated by 59.6% White British people and 40.4 % by those of black and minority ethnic (BME) origin. Surprisingly, research by LVRPA (2008b) indicates that 87.5% of customers of the sport centre are white British whereas just 12.5% belong to the BME groups. It is therefore clear that the diverse population of Greater London is not fully served by the Athletic Centre. This fact can be used to suggest a further marketing objective, that of increasing the percentage of visitors from BME communities.
Finally, for social class differentiation, monitoring shows also that the majority of people going to the centre belong to the social class C1 or C2 which is lower middle class and skilled workers with a percentage of 82% (LVRPA, 2008b).
Marketing Goals and Objectives
This report has identified key aims and objectives of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority to make the park:
- an accessible resource for all by connecting to a diverse regional community
- a destination for sporting excellence
- a place to develop winners and champions of the future
Lee Valley Athletics Centre is a star product offering better facilities that its competitors, it is already used by many Olympic athletes. However, young people and users from ethnic minorities are under-represented in the visitor figures. To produce champions of the future, perhaps in time for the 2012 London Olympic Games, and to address the ethnic inballance of visitors, the following marketing objectives are suggested:
- to increase the number of visits made by 16-24 year-olds to 16,365 for the year – an increase of 25% on 2007 when 16-24 year-olds made almost 13,100 visits to the centre
- To increase the percentage of Black and Minority Ethnic visitors to 20% of the total – up from 12.5% in 2007
References
-
BBC (2008) Timeline: Global Credit Crunch 3rd November Available Internet: Accessed: [8th November 2008]
-
British Olympic Association (2008) Team GB Beijing 2008 Available Internet: Accessed: [8th November 2008]
-
DCMS (2008) Children & Young People Available Internet: Accessed: [8th November 2008]
-
Dibb S, Simkin L and Bradley J (1997) The Marketing Planning Workbook London: Thomson
-
Enfield Council (2008) Our Enfield, made in Enfield, still winning the world over Available Internet: Accessed: [8th November 2008]
-
HM Government (1966) Lee Valley Regional Park Act 1966 London: HM Government Available internet Accessed: [16th October 2008]
-
Hudson, S (2008) Tourism and hospitality marketing London: Sage publication
-
Lee Valley Park (2002) Sport and Leisure for the next 10 years Lee Valley Regional Park Authority Sport and Leisure Department
-
Lee Valley Park (undated) About the Authority Available Internet: Accessed: [16th October 2008]
-
London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games (2007) New era of stadium design unveiled. 7 November 2007 [online] Available from Accessed: [24th October 2008]
-
LVRPA (2007a) A vision for 2017 Enfield: LVRPA
-
LVRPA (2007b) Authority Performance Report 2006/2007 Enfield: LVRPA
-
LVRPA (2008a) Lee Valley Athletic Centre Available Internet: Accessed: [30th October 2008]
-
LVRPA (2008b) Marketing and Communications Plan April 2008 to March 2009 Lee Valley Athletics Centre
-
LVRPA (2008c) How it Began Accessed: [16th October 2008]
-
LVRPA (2008d) Athletics Centre budget 2008/09 Enfield: LVRPA
-
LVRPA (2008e) LVAC period report April – September 2008 Enfield: LVRPA
-
LVRPA (2008f) LVAC Annual Report 2008 Enfield: LVRPA
-
LVRPA (undated) About the Authority Available Internet: Accessed: [16 October 2008]
-
Mintel (2007) Spectator Sports Mintel
-
Mintel (2007) Sports participation-UK Mintel
-
ONS (2006) Focus on Ethnicity and Religion 2006 Available internet: Accessed: [30th October 2008]
-
ONS (2008) Inflation Available Internet: Accessed: [16th October 2008]
-
ONS (2008) Unemployment Available Internet: Accessed: [16th October 2008]
-
ONS (undated) Population Available Internet Accessed: [7th November 2008]
-
Page, S.J. and Connell, J. (2006) Tourism: a modern synthesis 2nd Ed Thomson: London
-
Torkildsen (2005) Leisure and Recreation Management 5th Ed. London: Routledge
-
Tribe, J. (1997) Corporate Strategy for Tourism Thomson: London
Appendices
Minutes of Group Meeting
Module Title: Tourism Marketing
Date and Time of Meeting: 13 October 2008 11.00 am – 12.00 am
Attended by: Alena, Christine, Florence, Mag, Serena, Seulki
Apologies: none ___________________________________________________________________________
Main Points Discussed:
- Choosing ‘Lee Valley Athletic Centre’ as the attraction for group project (as agreed by all members)
- Discussing the questions ‘Where are we now?’ and ‘Where do we want to be?’
- Dividing work for next meeting
Work Below To Be Completed By Friday 17 October:
- Finding out the mission and vision – Christine
- PEST analysis – Alena, Serena
- SWOT analysis – Seulki, Florence
- Internal factors – Christine
- Competitor analysis – Florence
- Portfolio, Market position – Mag
- Market trends – all
- Who the customer is – Christine
Date and Time of Next Meeting: Tuesday 14 October 12.30 pm Cafe
Minutes of Group Meeting
Module Title: Tourism Marketing
Date and Time of Meeting: 17 October 2008 12 – 2pm
Attended by: Alena, Christine, Florence, Mag, Serena,
Apologies: Seulki due to work ___________________________________________________________________________
Main Points Discussed:
- Reviewing work to date and discussion of project requirements
The following actions agreed
-
ALENA to collate work done so far into one draft document
-
ALL to send work completed so far to Alena AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
-
Date of next meeting - Lunchtime, Tuesday 21st Oct
-
CHRISTINE to prepare agenda for this meeting (to follow)
-
CHRISTINE to get further information for Mag from LVRPA
-
ALL work on Market Trends
Date and Time of Next Meeting: Tuesday 21 October lunchtime, venue to be confirmed.
Minutes of Group Meeting
Module Title: Tourism Marketing
Date and Time of Meeting: 21st October 2008, 12.30 – 2pm
Attended by: Alena, Christine, Florence, Mag, Serena, Seulki ___________________________________________________________________________
Main Points Discussed:
- Reviewing a draft document and discussing extra requirements
The following actions agreed
-
Florence to edit competitor analysis
-
Alena and Serena to complete PEST analysis
-
Mag to complete BCG matrix analysis
-
Florence, Alena, Serena and Mag to send work completed so far to Christine AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
-
Christine to re-organise and to edit draft document
-
Seulki and Christine to get some more information that may be relevant to BCG matrix, competitor and PEST analysis and send it to Florence, Alena, Mag and Serena.
Date and Time of Next Meeting: Thursday 30 October, 1pm, in the Cafe.
Minutes of Group Meeting
Module Title: Tourism Marketing
Date and Time of Meeting: 30 October 2008, 1pm – 4pm
Attended by: Alena, Christine, Mag, Seulki
Apology: Florence and Serena due to work ___________________________________________________________________________
Main Points Discussed:
- Reviewing final draft document and discussing 1 year objectives and target.
The following actions agreed
-
Mag to edit BCG matrix analysis and to send it to Christine
- Alena to put text box about product mix into table
-
Florenece and Serena work on PowerPoint for presentation
-
Christine to edit and to make some notes on final draft for PowerPoint slides and send it to Florence and Serena
- Seulki to get statistics of demographics and market segmentation for accuracy
Date and Time of Next Meeting: Friday 31 October, 1pm, in the Cafe.
Minutes of Group Meeting
Module Title: Tourism Marketing
Date and Time of Meeting: 31 October 2008, 11 am- 3pm
Attended by: Florence and Serena
Apology: Mag, Christine, Alena, Seulki due to work ___________________________________________________________________________
Main Points Discussed: revision of yesterday’s work and creation of the PowerPoint file.
The following actions agreed
-
Florence to edit the design of the presentation for Saturday 1st November;
- Serena, Alena, Seulki, Mag and Christine to check the PowerPoint file for any changes.
- Call each other to decide how to divide the work.
Date and Time of Next Meeting: Monday 3rd November, 10 am, in the Cafe.
Minutes of Group Meeting
Module Title: Tourism Marketing
Date and Time of Meeting: 4th November 2008 2pm
Attended by: Alena, Christine, Florence, Mag, Serena, Seulki
Apologies: None ___________________________________________________________________________
Main Points Discussed:
Review of the draft report – what do we need to add? All agreed that the graphs from the power point presentation needed to be inserted into the report.
Alena reminded group of the 3 points made by Clare and Meiko following our presentation; to make clearer the links between market segmentation and objectives, to ensure that the age/usage graph totals 100% and to give more information on prices and how the athletic centre is funded.
It was agreed that a new section on trends would be useful. It was also agreed that our group minutes should be included in the appendix and that we should submit the report at lunchtime on Monday 10th November.
- After discussion the following actions agreed
-
ALL GROUP MEMBERS To be responsible for the sections they worked on previously.
-
ALENA to be responsible for compiling the working draft of the report, including the appendices. ALL group members to submit their work to Alena.
-
FLORENCE To assemble the reference page. ALL Group members to submit their references to Florence.
-
SERENA, MAG, SEULKI, FLORENCE take tables and graphs from PP presentation and insert into your section of the report. Where necessary add explanatory text so that the report flows from section to section.
-
SERENA amend age group/usage graph to include over 46 year-olds in order that it adds up to 100%. Make the link between market segments and marketing objectives
-
SEULKI re-write methodology section
-
For new trends section, MAG write short section based on MINTEL information about sports participation, SEULKI write short section on demography ie the numbers of 16-24 year olds in region
-
CHRISTINE to write section on how the centre is funded and level of subsidy
-
CHRISTINE will proof read the final report, ideally on Thursday evening, so ALL send your work to Alena asap so that it can be put into the latest draft.
Date of next meeting: Lunchtime Monday 10th November to collectively submit our report.
