GoalChat: Enhancing the Viewing Experience of Football
Spectators Through a Smartphone Application
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER
OF SCIENCE
Jesse van Oostveen
10409750
M
ASTER
I
NFORMATION
S
TUDIES
H
UMAN-
C
ENTERED
M
ULTIMEDIA
F
ACULTY OF
S
CIENCE
U
NIVERSITY OF
A
MSTERDAM
August 16, 2016
1
stSupervisor
2
ndSupervisor
MSc. Peter Bogaards
Dr. Frank Nack
GoalChat:
Enhancing the Viewing Experience of Football Spectators
Through a Smartphone Application
Jesse van Oostveen
University of Amsterdam
+31621429018
jesse.vanoostveen@student.uva.nl
ABSTRACT
The goal of this thesis was to create an application that could enhance the viewing experience of football spectators. Taking into consideration other literature, the viewing experience was defined as the enjoyment, interaction, immersion, ease of viewing and visual comfort of football. In order to gain insight into what football viewers do on their devices while watching football, as well as what they would want in an application, twelve participants were interviewed. Results indicated a strong desire for a chat, as well as basic match statistics and a Twitter feed. After going through an iterative prototype phase, an actual application was made for Android smartphones. To research whether the application enhances the viewing experience of football spectators, a total of thirty people participated with fourteen people in a control group and sixteen people in a test group. The test group used the application during the quarter finals of the UEFA Euro 2016, while the control group viewed these games as they normally would. After the games, both groups filled the same questionnaires. Results showed that the enjoyment, ease of viewing and visual comfort were not enhanced by the application, but the interaction and immersion were. Consequently, the overall viewing experience was not enhanced with the use of the application.
Keywords
Football, viewing experience, second screen, user experience, interaction design, prototyping, mobile application.
1. INTRODUCTION
According to Stichting Kijkonderzoek, more than four million people in the Netherlands watch television every day. [1] Of these people, the average person spends around three hours watching television. A majority of these people watch sports, namely football, which can be considered the most popular televised sport in the Netherlands.
If you compare modern football viewing experiences to that of thirty years ago, not much has changed. Information on the screen is still limited to time and score. For all other information, such as team statistics, the spectator is very much dependent on the commentator or external sources. However, if you compare it to modern media viewing experiences, such as the broadcasting of eSports, there are many differences. In eSports’ broadcasts, a lot of in-game data is presented freely on screen, more so than just the time and score. Additionally, some broadcasts make use of social media integration by showing fan-reactions, such as tweets, on screen and even having commentators react to them. Furthermore, since these broadcasts are happening online, broadcasters are able to provide an experience beyond just the
screen. Broadcasters often use this to provide extra information on the teams, social media integration and linking the match to human-interest, such as interviews with the players, as well as news about them. However, the biggest difference is that these broadcasts provide the ability for spectators to interact with each other during the game. One of the most popular platforms for this is Twitch Chat1, where spectators are able to share their thoughts
and opinions while watching the game.
Currently, there is very little research about the difference of eSports and televised sports, such as football and the viewing experiences that they provide. Therefore, this thesis will focus on the viewing experience of televised football, and whether it can be enhanced through the use of similar experiences as that of broadcasted eSports. However, presenting this much information on the main screen may not be accepted by football spectators. [2] They may find it distractive and a disturbance. When compared to watching news, entertainment and commercials, people engage in relatively high amounts of media multitasking with a variety of devices while watching sports. [3] Thus, a better approach would be to make use of a second screen. The device used for this media multitasking is often the smartphone. [4, 5]
Taking this into account, the research question can be defined as:
Can the viewing experience of a football spectator be enhanced through the use of a smartphone application?
Central to this research question is the definition of viewing experience. However, there are many different definitions for the term “viewing experience,” depending on the context of the paper. This makes it difficult to define what a viewing experience is. As a result, this thesis will define its own definition of what a viewing experience is by using other academic work as its basis. Looking at other research, Nelson et al. define the viewing experience as the overall enjoyment of watching television. [6] They also found that each successive minute of watching the same thing is less enjoyable than the previous one, meaning that interruptions are actually beneficial to the overall enjoyment of a show. However, they also state that these results may not extend to existing consumer experiences. Lochrie and Coulton focus on a different aspect. [7] Rather, they define the viewing experience as an interactive process where users are able to share their thoughts through the use of social media. Their findings also show that most of the interaction is done through smartphones, which correlates with the findings of Dolbin [4] and Sezen. [5] Similarly to Lochrie and Coulton, Velt et al. also look at social media in relation to the viewing experience. [8] However, Velt et al. define the viewing experience as an immersive aspect, and look at the added value that social media provides. In their study they found that, while participants had diverse experiences, those that were content with viewing from home felt that they had an immersive
experience. Their study also found that the active use of social media interaction had a positive effect on the feeling of immersion. Lastly, Jumisko-Pyykkö et al. define the viewing experience as a combination of the enjoyment, enhanced immersion, ease of viewing and visual comfort. [9] Here, the ease of viewing refers to whether it is easy to concentrate on viewing, e.g. it does not require extra effort or learning how to view, and the visual comfort refers to whether users feel comfortable viewing the screen, e.g. there is no eye-strain.
Thus, by making use of the aforementioned papers, this thesis defines the viewing experience as the overall enjoyment, interactivity, immersion, ease of viewing and visual comfort that a spectator may experience while watching a football match.
2. RELATED WORK
Looking at related work, there are three interesting papers that have researched a similar topic. First, there is the work by Dolbin, where he looked at the effects of second screen usage during the 2015 Super Bowl. [4] In his study, Dolbin made use of an online questionnaire with a total of 453 valid responses. Dolbin tested for the frequency of second screen use, whether the usage was related or unrelated to the match that participants were watching, the consistency between using the second screen and the motivation of watching, and the effect of second screen usage on the enjoyment of the spectator. Key findings include that while general usage of a second screen is negatively related to enjoyment, the overall enjoyment increases when a second screen is used to engage the spectators with something related to the game. In the case of Dolbin, this was true for eighty-nine percent of the participants. However, Dolbin remarked that while using a second screen provides the opportunity to increase enjoyment, it also has the potential to become a distraction. Because of that, Dolbin recommends to understand the motivation of the spectators, such as their needs, and to aim for the things that are not provided by the broadcast itself.
Similarly, Sezen focuses on football fans and their second screen usage. [2] In his study, Sezen researched how, when and why football spectators seek match-related information, as well as the type of information that they seek. Additionally, Sezen tried to research what the ideal second screen experience for football spectators would look like. Data gathering was done through an online questionnaire with seventy participants, as well as an interview with twelve participants. Results showed that participants primarily used their smartphones for second screen experiences. As for when they used them, this was often during a pause or before the match started. Regarding why people searched for match-related information, Sezen found that most participants thought it enhanced their perception of matches, as well as providing them with a simulated social experience. The former is through applications that provide statistics and information about the match, while the latter is through social media commentary on the match. As for the ideal second screen experience, Sezen wrote that it should have tailored social media feeds, various statistics and combined types of match-related information.
To follow up his previous work, Sezen wrote another paper that was a summary of doctoral research thus far, and built upon his previous research. [5] Similarly to this thesis, the aim of his doctoral research is to enhance the user experience through second screens of those watching football matches on the television. In addition of using the results that Sezen gathered in his previous study, he held a half-day workshop in which six people participated. The workshop was held in three sessions, the
first two being ideation phases and the final one being a prototyping phase. Participants were divided into groups and were given a persona, and a setting where their phase would take place, e.g. alone at home. The purpose of this workshop was to gain ideas for prototyping and design, but Sezen had not included any results within his paper. Consequently, Sezen wanted to evaluate a low-fidelity prototype and a high-fidelity prototype, however at the time of publishing this was still a work in process.
3. METHODOLOGY
In order to gain some background information, a small literature review was conducted regarding the topics of viewing experience and spectating sports while using second screens. This helped with laying the groundwork for the research question and the methodology of this thesis.
Following the recommendations by Dolbin, as well as the methods of the study performed by Sezen, twelve participants were interviewed in order to gain insight into what football spectators would want to see on their smartphone while watching a match. Participants were selected on the basis of watching football, as well as owning a smartphone. Six of them were approached and interviewed inside a café, whereas the other six were interviewed inside their homes. All participants were male that ranged in age, with four of them being between sixteen and nineteen years old, two between twenty and thirty years old, one between thirty and forty years old, two between fifty and sixty years old, and three between sixty and seventy years old.
The interviews were semi-structured, which allowed for more flexibility to respond to the perspectives and topics of the participant. [10] Consequently, this may have led to insight and information that may otherwise have been uncovered. [10] They were conducted in April 2016 and have been recorded with the permission of the participants. Because all of the participants were Dutch, the interviews were conducted in Dutch as well. The interview script can be found in appendix A.
The interview structure was divided into four sections. The first section consisted of a brief introduction after which some introductory questions were asked. The goal of these questions was to get to know the participants, as well as their football preferences, such as their favourite team. Following that, the next section was to uncover what kind of spectator the participant is, and how they preferred to use their second screens during matches. For example, participants were asked why they watched football, but also when and for what they used their second screens. In the third section, participants were asked what they wanted in their second screen experience. Taking Sezen’s results into consideration, participants were asked whether they would like to see match-related statistics and social feeds. However, participants were also asked if they would be interested in human-interest, such as player interviews or news, and more statistical analysis. The last and final section consisted of cool-down questions, as well as the closure of the interview.
However, because there can be a discrepancy between what people say and what people do, [11] three observations were also performed. These observations lasted for the duration of a whole football game. Two of them took place inside of a café, and one inside the house of a participant. The focal points of these observations were when people would use their smartphone, and how they would react.
In order to extract data from the interviews, a thematic coding analysis was used. Using the phases as recommended by Robson
[11], the first step was familiarizing with the data by transcribing the interviews. These transcriptions are also in Dutch, and can be found in appendix B. Following that, initial codes were generated after which themes among them were identified. Lastly, a thematic map was constructed and the data was interpreted to gather information, such as user requirements. The thematic coding analysis was done in English, and can be found in appendix C. A low-fi prototype was then created based on the requirements gathered, as well as popular football applications. These football applications were chosen based on the criteria of having a statistical aspect, a live aspect and/or a social aspect. Having a low-fi prototype allowed for quick testing [10], which resulted in immediate feedback. This could then be used to tweak and refine the prototype, making it an iterative process. Both potential users, as well as previous interview participants were asked for feedback.
Following that, a hi-fi prototype was made. This prototype was then given to four participants, who held it next to them while watching football. By studying them, as well as asking them questions about the design, feedback was gathered and the design was tweaked for the final time. This method of letting users use it in a live environment was chosen because it could provide thoughts or feedback that may not have been apparent if, for example, users were not watching football. [12] Using the finished prototype design, the actual application, named GoalChat was then made for Android smartphones using Phonegap Build2,
HTML, CSS and Javascript. The reason for it being Android only was due to the inability to acquire an IOS developer key. This application was also tested with helpful participants during the first quarter final game, Poland – Portugal, for some final testing. In order to find if there was a difference between not using and using the GoalChat application, two groups needed to be made, a control group and a test group. [11] Both groups consisted of people who watched an entire match at their homes. However, the control group watched as they would normally, whereas the test group made use of the GoalChat application for the entirety of the match. The tests were conducted during the quarter finals of the UEFA Euro 2016, with Wales – Belgium, Germany – Italy and France – Iceland on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of July respectively.
A total of thirty people participated, divided into fourteen participants in the control group and sixteen participants in the test group. Participants were approached using social media such as Facebook and online communities such as Reddit3, on the basis
that they were watching any of the three aforementioned games. Additionally, those that wanted to participate in the test group were required to have an Android smartphone as well.
Similarly to the studies by Sezen and by Dolbin, participants were asked to fill in an online questionnaire after the match. Online questionnaires were chosen because they allow for collecting high amounts of data in a short time span. [11] Each participant could only participate once, and thus only fill in the questionnaire once. The questionnaire was divided into seven sections, the first and last of which were introductory and concluding sections. The other five sections consisted of each part of the viewing experience as defined in this thesis; enjoyment, interaction, immersion, ease of viewing and visual comfort. In the introduction section, general questions were asked, such as the age of the spectator, which team the spectator supported and whether they watched with or without the GoalChat application. In the concluding section, participants were asked for final remarks. As for section two through six, each section consisted of
questions that could measure their respective subject. For example, in the enjoyment section questions such as “I had a lot of fun watching” and “Watching this game gave me satisfaction” were used because they can measure enjoyment. [13] For each of the questions in sections two through six, a Likert Scale was used. The scale ranges from one through five, with one being strongly disagree, and five being strongly agree. The Likert Scale was chosen because it is relatively easy to develop, as well as being approachable for almost anybody. [11] The questionnaire and its responses can be found in appendix D and E respectively. Lastly, because the groups were unpaired, the questionnaire responses consisted of ordinal data, and the data was not normally distributed, a Mann-Whitney test was used to calculate the results. [11] This was done for each question separately, for each section by using the median of each question in a section, and for all sections together by taking the median of all questions. Additionally, due to the relatively small sample size, the two tailed exact significance was used, rather than the asymptotic significance.
4. DESIGN
4.1 User Requirements
Looking at the results of the interviews, six of the twelve participants said that they only watched one or two games a week. Of the other six, five participants said that they watched three to four games a week, while one participant said that he watched more than five games a week. Thus, the participants could be considered as more casual spectators. When asked about this, all but one said that they considered themselves as casual viewers. The other participant considered himself more of an analytical viewer.
Regarding fandom, ten participants said that they had a team preference. Consequently, these participants watched most, if not all, games of their favourite team. When asked whether they watched different teams as well, two participants said they only watched their preferred team, while four participants said that they sometimes watched a different team. Only two participants answered that they watched a lot of different teams play.
On the topic of device usage, the majority of the participants admitted to using their devices frequently or even often. Only three participants said they rarely used their devices. When asked why not, the most common reason was because they wanted to focus on watching the game. Similarly to the results of Sezen and Dolbin, the device most used by participants was the smartphone, followed by the tablet. As for what they actually do on their devices during a match, the majority said it was completely unrelated to football, e.g. reading news articles. Consequently, only a few participants said they also looked at content related to football. For example, two participants looked at football-related content, such a football news, and four participants looked at team-related content, such as how the team had performed thus far. Surprisingly, only two participants said that they looked at match statistics. Although most participants considered themselves only casual viewers, the small amount of participants looking at content related to football was still surprising.
Of the twelve participants, only five said that they looked at social media feeds. Consequently, those same five participants also said they socialized through social media. Additionally, seven participants said that they socialized during the game through messaging applications, such as WhatsApp4 and text messaging.
events in the games. Other topics include player actions and decisions made by the referee. When asked whether this socialization made the game better for them, six participants agreed that it did, whereas two participants said that it did not. One of the participants that agreed said that “it is much more fun to talk with others about the game, or to check the tweets.” Regarding what users actually want to see inside an application, results are quite similar to what participants said they were doing already. For both basic match statistics and a social media feed, four participants indicated wanting to see such a thing. These results however are not quite in trend with the results of Sezen, who found that the majority of his participants preferred to see basic match statistics and a social media feed. A possible explanation for this discrepancy could be because Sezen specifically looked for participants who were interested in such a thing, or because of demographic differences such as age and nationality. Unsurprisingly, almost no participants were interested in deeper match statistics, basic background information and replays. Only one participant showed interest in replays, whereas for both deeper match statistics and basic background information only two participants showed interest.
However, it was surprising that nine out of twelve participants showed interest in having a chat. Although six participants considered socialization as an enhancement of their match, the interest in a chat was still surprising. When asked about their interest, one participant said that it could be really fun, and that he was surprised it did not exist yet. Other participants had similar positive reactions. Additionally, participants that were interested in a chat were asked whether they preferred to have a chatroom with fans of both teams, or if they preferred separate chatrooms. All but one preferred to have a single chatroom. The participant that did not, however, admitted that it would seem less fun if chatrooms were divided, and thus said he preferred both separate chatrooms and a united chatroom.
Thus taking these results into account, the most important requirement is to have a chat inside the application. This chat should be a single chatroom, where fans of both playing teams could partake. Other requirements are to have basic match statistics and a Twitter timeline feed, although these can be considered less important. Furthermore, because most participants indicated having a team preference, some sort of team selection is necessary.
4.2 Application
Following the user requirements, the final GoalChat application has three main views, a home view, a Twitter view and a chat view. Additionally, opening the application provides the user with an initial view where the user has to select their name and team. The design is based upon the user requirements, as well as other popular football applications. These applications consist of Forza5, FotMob6 and 365Scores7 for basic match statistics, and
Onefootball8, CrowdScores9 and Squawka10 for social media
integration, as well as socialization. Additionally, all of them had live aspects.
The final application was made for Android phones, using Phonegap Build. This allows developers to simply make the application using HTML, CSS and Javascript, and to let the actual compiling for Android to be done by Phonegap itself. Each view will now be discussed.
4.2.1 Select view
As seen in figure 1, this is where users choose their chat name, as well as their preferred team. Users only come across this screen once, which is after opening the application. If they want to change their preferred team or chat name, they will have to restart the application. If the user has no team preference, a team will be selected at random.
Figure 1. Select view
4.2.2 Home view
The home view is where users can see the team line-ups. Originally, users were also able to see real-time basic match statistics, such as ball possession, passes and shots on goal. Sadly, no reasonable data feeds were available, and those that were, did not work for its intended purpose. After that, dummy data was implemented and updated to simulate real-time dynamic statistical data. However, when testing the application during the first quarter final, which was used for testing purposes, it was found to be buggy and slow to update by other users. Thus, real-time statistical data was removed from the application.
Figure 2. Home view
As seen in figure 2, users are able to see the line-ups of both playing teams. These line-ups are real-time and updated through a Google spreadsheet that is connected to the application through an Ajax request. Additionally, the flag of the preferred team is displayed in the top left corner, and the users will always see the line-up of their preferred team first.
Lastly, the original design and hi-fi prototype included a timeline of match events that is similar to applications such as Forza and FotMob. However, during the testing of the hi-fi prototype while watching football, users actually found it to be redundant, as the game was right in front of them. Due to this redundancy, this feature was removed.
4.2.3 Twitter view
The Twitter view is where users can see the tweets that are getting posted during the game. Alternatively, users can click on the Tweet button to make their own tweets. For the timeline, the embedded tweet timeline function11 that is provided by Twitter
was used. Tweets were selected based upon the Euro2016 hashtag, as well as hashtags that were for the match being played, e.g. ‘#BELWAL’, ‘#WALBEL’, ‘#BEL’ and ‘#WAL’ for the Belgium – Wales game. Additionally, the option to only present top tweets was used, so that all potential junk got filtered out by the Twitter algorithm.
Figure 3. Twitter view
Because the embedded tweet timeline that is provided by Twitter was used, the timeline is updated in real-time. This means that when something happening in the game, for example a goal, Twitter would update as well. This provided a real-time commentary of other people during the match. For example in figure 3, the reactions of when Germany scored against Italy can be seen.
4.2.4 Chat view
The final view is the chat view, where users are able to talk with each other and send emoticons. The chat view was made using PubNub12, a platform that provides real-time messaging. Once
integrated, all the server work was done through PubNub, including sending and receiving messages. The top left of the screen shows the amount of viewers that are watching. PubNub provides the ability to detect the presence of connected users, meaning this number updates in real-time.
As seen in figure 4, the middle is where the usernames and messages are displayed. Messages can consist of both text and emoticons. As for the username, each user is assigned a different colour username that they keep until they close the application. Additionally, the preferred team of each user was displayed in front of the username. The purpose of this was so users could show off their preferred team, as well as have discussions, or rivalries among each other.
Figure 4. Chat view
The text bar, as well as the emoticon and send message button are on the bottom. Selecting an emoticon turns it into text through the use of regular expressions. This text is then sent through the PubNub server, after which the application turns it into an image again. Because of that, message package sizes stay small, so that users can send longer messages without filling up the space with images. The available emoticons are based upon a couple of factors. During the prototyping phase, it was made clear by users that they wanted the basic emotions, e.g. the smiley face. Additionally from the interviews, it became clear that when people chat during a game, whether this is through social media or a messaging application, that they talk about events in the game, the players or the referee. Because of that, emoticons that could reflect this were added, e.g. a “GOAL” emoticon or a referee holding a red card. Lastly, some users expressed wanting emoticons of the 2016 Eurocup internet jokes, such as the “Will Griggs is on fire” joke. Thus, these were added so users could have an enjoyable experience.
5. RESULTS
The thirty participants were divided over three games. There were eleven participants on the first night, five in the control group and six in the test group, nine participants on the second night, five in the control group and four in the test group, and ten participants on the third night, with four in the control group and six in the test group. Most of the participants that participated came from the Netherlands, however three participants were from the United Kingdom, one from Denmark, one from Brazil, one from Serbia, one from India and one from Indonesia. Additionally, of the thirty participants, two were female; one in the control group and one in the test group. Two participants were aged between twelve and sixteen, two between seventeen and nineteen, twenty between twenty and twenty-nine, two between thirty and thirty-nine, and four above fifty.
Table 1. Mean Rank of the Enjoyment Section
With or Without
GoalChat Mean Rank I had a lot of fun watching this
game
With Without
15,97 14,96 Watching this game made me feel
good
With Without
16,19 14,71
Watching the game gave me satisfaction With Without 15,63 15,36 I lost track of time while I was
watching the game
With Without
16,63 14,21 Overall, I enjoyed watching this
game
With Without
16,81 14,00
Enjoyment Section With
Without
16,25 14,64
Using the Mann-Whitney test, the first results are the mean ranks of the enjoyment section, which can be seen in table 1. Although the mean ranks are relatively close, the group that used the GoalChat application has a higher mean rank for every question, as well as the overall section. This means that overall participants with the GoalChat application rated their enjoyment higher than those that did not use the application.
Table 2. Enjoyment Section Results
Mann-Whitney U Z p I had a lot of fun
watching this game
104,500 -,338 ,782 Watching this game
made me feel good
101,000 -,484 ,612 Watching the game
gave me satisfaction
110,000 -,086 ,982 I lost track of time
while I was watching the game
100,000 -,516 ,644
Overall, I enjoyed watching this game
94,000 -,803 ,456 Enjoyment Section 91,000 -,960 ,407
However, despite having a higher mean rank, with a = 0.05, none of the results are significant. Moreover, looking at table 2, none of the questions nor the overall enjoyment section come even close to rejecting the null hypothesis. This means that there is no difference of the enjoyment experience between those using the application and those not using the application.
Table 3. Mean Rank of the Interaction Section
With or Without
GoalChat Mean Rank It felt like I interacted with others
(who were not physically there) during the game
With Without
18,19 12,43 During the game, I felt like I was
able to share my thoughts with others (who were not physically there)
With Without
18,88 11,64
During this game, I felt like I interacted more with others (who were not physically there) than I usually do
With Without
20,28 10,04
Overall, it felt like I had a lot of interaction while watching the game
With Without
19,97 10,39 Interaction Section With
Without
19,88 10,50
Similar to the enjoyment section, the group that used the application has a higher mean rank than those that did not. However if you look at table 3, you can see that there is a larger discrepancy between the two groups, especially for the third question, where the mean rank is twice as high for the group that used the application. Therefore, it can be said that those that used the application rated their interaction much higher than those that did not use it.
Table 4. Interaction Section Results Mann-Whitney U Z p It felt like I interacted
with others (who were not physically there) during the game
69,000 -1,882 ,059
During the game, I felt like I was able to share my thoughts with others (who were not physically there)
58,000 -2,363 ,016
During this game, I felt like I interacted more with others (who were not physically there) than I usually do
35,500 -3,259 ,001
Overall, it felt like I had a lot of interaction while watching the game
40,500 -3,114 ,002
Interaction Section 42,000 -2,960 ,002
Surprisingly, table 4 shows that although the first question got close, it did not reject the null hypothesis. Although there was a large discrepancy between the mean ranks of both groups, the difference of feeling like they interacted with others, was not significant between both groups. However, all the other questions as well as the overall section of the interaction section did reject their null hypothesis. Consequently, it means that there is a difference between the experiences of interaction of the two groups. Taking into account the mean ranks and their discrepancy, it can thus be interpreted as those that used the application had an enhanced interaction experience.
Table 5. Mean Rank of the Immersion Section
With or Without
GoalChat Mean Rank I felt like I got sucked into the
match
With Without
15,59 15,39 It felt like I was watching the
game with other people (who were not physically there)
With Without
18,44 12,14
During the game, it felt like I was part of a bigger experience
With Without
17,56 13,14 Overall, I felt very immersed
while watching it the game
With Without
18,28 12,32
Immersion Section With
Without
18,50 12,07
Looking at the immersion section, it can be seen in table 5 that there are quite large differences between the mean ranks of all questions but the first one. Moreover, the mean ranks of the first question are remarkably close, meaning that although the group that used the application scored higher, it was not by much. Regarding the other questions and the overall section, there are again quite large differences between those that used the application and those that did not, albeit lower than the interaction section. Thus, it can once again be interpreted as those that used the application rated their immersion much higher than those that did not use it.
Table 6. Immersion Section Results
Mann-Whitney U Z p I felt like I got sucked
into the match
110,500 -,066 ,976 It felt like I was
watching the game with other people (who were not physically there)
65,000 -2,023 ,041
During the game, it felt like I was part of a bigger experience
79,000 -1,418 ,163
Overall, I felt very immersed while watching it the game.
67,500 -1,940 ,052
Immersion Section 64,000 -2,045 ,040
Considering the results of table 5, it is not surprising that the first question did not reject the null hypothesis. Looking at table 6, it came nowhere close to being significant. It was surprising however that question two and four did not reject the null hypothesis either. Despite that, the overall section did reject the null hypothesis. Thus, the results indicate that there is a significant difference between the experiences of immersion of both groups. Taking into account the mean ranks of table 5, it can be concluded that those that used the application had an enhanced immersion experience.
Table 7. Mean Rank of the Ease of Viewing Section
With or Without
GoalChat Mean Rank It was easy for me to look at the
screens
With Without
14,84 16,25 It was easy for me to keep track
of what happened on all screens
With Without
14,97 16,11 During the game I had to turn my
head a lot
With Without
15,66 15,32 Overall, it felt easy to watch the With 15,84
television and/or my phone during the game
Without 15,11 Ease of Viewing Section With
Without
15,53 15,46
As can be seen in table 7, the mean ranks of both groups were much closer in the ease of viewing section. In particular, the mean ranks of the overall section were very close. More importantly, the group that did not use the application had a higher score on the first and second question. This means that those that did not use the application thought it was easier to look at the screens and to keep track of what happened on the screens.
Table 8. Ease of Viewing Section Results
Mann-Whitney U Z p It was easy for me to
look at the screens
101,500 -,488 ,672 It was easy for me to
keep track of what happened on all screens
103,500 -,371 ,726
During the game I had to turn my head a lot
109,500 -,109 ,930 Overall, it felt easy to
watch the television and/or my phone during the game
106,500 -,243 ,830
Ease of Viewing Section
111,500 -,021 ,997
Looking at table 8, none of the questions nor the overall ease of viewing section rejected the null hypothesis. Thus, it can be concluded that there is no difference in the ease of viewing experience between those that did and those that did not use the application. Additionally, none of the p values got close to being significant.
Table 9. Mean Rank of the Visual Comfort Section
With or Without
GoalChat Mean Rank Watching the game felt easy and
comfortable
With Without
13,56 17,71 During the game I felt that my
eyes got tired or worn out.
With Without
15,47 15,54 Overall, I felt comfortable
looking at my television and/or phone during the game
With Without
13,94 17,29 Visual Comfort Section With
Without
13,91 17,32
Unlike any other section, the mean ranks of the group without the application were higher for every question, as well as the whole section. Furthermore, looking at table 9, it can be seen that the mean ranks were not that close for all but question 2. Thus, these results can be interpreted as the group without the application rating their visual comfort much higher than those that used the application.
Table 10. Visual Comfort Section Results
Mann-Whitney U Z p Watching the game felt
easy and comfortable
81,000 -1,425 ,176 During the game I felt
that my eyes got tired or worn out.
111,500 -,022 ,999
Overall, I felt comfortable looking at my television and/or phone during the game
87,000 -1,181 ,333
Visual Comfort Section 86,500 -1,218 ,245
Following table 10, none of the questions nor the visual comfort section reject their null hypothesis. Thus, it can be concluded that there is no difference in the visual comfort experience between the two groups. Additionally, none of the results were close to being significant.
Table 11. Mean Rank of the Viewing Experience
With or Without
GoalChat Mean Rank
Viewing Experience With
Without
17,53 13,18
Looking at the overall viewing experience, table 11 shows that those that used the application had a much higher mean rank than those that did not. Therefore, the group that used the application had a much higher rating among all questions than the group that did not use the application.
Table 12. Viewing Experience Results
Mann-Whitney U Z p Viewing Experience 79,500 -1,415 ,154
Finally, table 12 shows that the null hypothesis of the viewing experience was not rejected. Despite the group with the application having a higher mean rank, the p value was not significant. Thus, it can be concluded that there is no difference between the viewing experience of those that used the application and those that did not.
6. DISCUSSION
Following the results, it is clear that the enjoyment, ease of viewing and visual comfort of spectators were not enhanced by the application. The results were not significant and thus, there was no difference in experience of enjoyment, ease of viewing and visual comfort between the groups. However, the results of interaction and immersion were significant. Moreover, the mean ranks were much higher for the group that used the application than they were for the group without. Therefore, it can be concluded that the application did enhance the interaction and immersion experience. Overall, the application did not enhance the viewing experience of its users. Although the group that used it had a higher mean rank, the result was not significant. Thus, there was no difference between the two groups, and the application failed to enhance the viewing experience of its users.
As for why there was no difference, there could be quite a few reasons. For example, enjoyment can be a highly subjective thing that can be influenced by many factors. One of the things that may have negatively affected the viewing experience is the preferred team of the spectator losing. [14] Consequently, most of the participants that supported the teams that lost had an overall lower enjoyment and immersion score than the other participants. It should be noted however that these participants were spread evenly among the groups, with four in the test group and four in the control group.
Another factor that may have influenced the viewing experience was the amount of things happening, or rather, the lack of things happening in the matches. During the interviews, it became clear that the biggest reason for participants to watch a match is because it is exciting or enjoyable. Aside from the fact that this is also very subjective, there were times where nothing exciting would happen in a match. This certainly affected those that used the application. An example of this was the first and second half of the Germany – Italy game. The first half was rather unexciting, which resulted in a quiet chat, whereas the second half was more exciting and participants were much more talkative. However, participants were the most talkative during the penalties, something that could be considered the most exciting event of the Germany – Italy game.
Lastly, another big factor is that most likely none of the participants would consider themselves fans of the teams that played. Interviews indicated that most participants had a team preference, as well as that most participants would follow the games of their favourite team. Although Gantz et al. found that fans of sports have the most involved and engaged viewing experience [3], in a different study Gantz and Wenner found that there is a difference between fans and non-fans of sport teams. [15] They found that fans of sport teams are not only more invested in the viewing experience than non-fans, they are also more responsive and involved. Dolbin had similar findings that also indicated that fans had a stronger correlation with enjoyment than non-fans. [4]
This can also be considered a limitation of this research. Originally, the application was meant to be tested with matches that involved popular Dutch teams because all interview participants were Dutch, and almost all of them had a Dutch preferred team. However because of the UEFA Euro 2016, there were no matches involving Dutch teams. As a result, the UEFA Euro 2016 matches were used. Additionally, of all the participants that participated, not a single national team played in the UEFA Euro 2016. Consequently, this may have meant that most, if not none, of the people that participated would consider themselves fans of the teams that played. Perhaps that, taking into account the findings by Gantz and Wenner [15] and Dolbin [4], results would have been more positive if the Dutch national team had played. However, this could have been accounted for by adding a question in the questionnaire to check whether the participant was actually a fan of the team. Similarly, there should have been a question to check whether the participant was watching alone or with others, as this may have unconsciously affected their viewing experience as well. Another problem with the questionnaire was the amount of questions per section. For example, the enjoyment section had five questions, while the visual comfort only had three questions. Thus, in the measurement of the overall viewing experience, the enjoyment was weighted more heavily than the visual comfort. While it could be argued that enjoyment has a
stronger effect on the viewing experience, there is no literature to support that. Consequently, it would have been much better to give each section the same amount of questions, thus giving them the same weight.
Another limitation was the lack of participants, both overall and in the test group. Of course, a larger sample size would make the findings statistically stronger [11], but it is also likely that more participants would have had a positive effect on the viewing experience of those in the test group. For example, during the interviews, one participant remarked that in order for an application with a chat like GoalChat to be fun, a large amount of people would have to participate. During the actual tests, some participants had similar remarks.
Regarding the participants, not a single participant above the age of forty showed any interest in participating in the test group. Even interview participants over forty that said they were interested did not want to participate. This could be because those aged over forty are not interested in chatting with strangers, whereas those under forty are more willing to, due to their high usage of social media. Similarly, it could be because those over forty are not as interested in doing anything other than watching the match. While this would not be in trend with the findings of the interviews, these findings are partially supported by Voorveld & van der Goot who found that those aged over fifty do not use their phone as much when they are watching television. [16] Lastly, the lack of real-time statistics in the application was a limitation as well. Although interview participants did not seem as interested in basic match statistics, a couple participants indicated wanting to see real-time data, both in the questionnaire and during the quarter final games. The lack of interest by the interview participants could be because they misunderstood, or because there is a difference between what participants say they want and what they actually want. However, this does confirm the results of Sezen in that football spectators are most interested in basic match statistics as well as socialization. [2]
Thus, future work could build upon these findings. Including real-time basic match statistics, as well as having a bigger test group will most likely enhance the viewing experience of football spectators. Additionally, the questionnaire should be designed more carefully than the questionnaire of this research, as it has some flaws that could weaken the conclusions. Alternatively, it might be recommended to use focus-interviews rather than questionnaires. Some of the sections, such as enjoyment and immersion, can be very subjective and cannot be measured very well through questionnaires. Thus, using a qualitative method rather than a quantitative one might lead to better measurements for such subjective concepts. [11]
Furthermore, considering the findings of Gantz and Wenner as well as Dolbin, future research could focus more on the distinction between a fan and a spectator. For example, findings suggest that fans of teams have completely different requirements for their viewing experience than non-fans. [4, 15] In their research, Gantz and Wenner also suggest that there is a need to maintain the distinction between a fan and a spectator for viewing experiences. [15] They also emphasize that this distinction is even more important at home, where most of the viewing takes place. [15] Thus, future research could look not only into enhancing the viewing experience for eithers fans or spectators, it could also look into the differences between the enhancement of viewing experiences of fans and spectators.
Lastly, future research should look into the effect that enjoyment, interaction, immersion, ease of viewing and visual comfort have on the viewing experience. It could be that the enjoyment of a match has a stronger effect on the overall viewing experience than the ease of viewing does. By researching their effect and how strong their effect is overall, the viewing experience could be measured much more accurately, which could in turn help other similar research and projects.
7. CONCLUSION
The purpose of this research was to create an application that could enhance the viewing experience, defined as the enjoyment, interaction, immersion, ease of viewing and visual comfort, of football spectators. In conclusion, the enjoyment, ease of viewing and visual comfort showed no significant difference between the groups. However, participants that used the application had an enhanced interaction and immersion experience. Finally, there was no significant difference between the group that used the application and the group that did not. However, the group that used the application had an overall higher rating on their experience than the group that did not. Improving the application with features, such as real-time data, will most likely enhance the overall viewing experience, meaning those that watch football will have a more enjoyable time.
8. REFERENCES
[1] SKO (2016). Jaarrapport 2015. Amsterdam: Stichting Kijkonderzoek
[2] Sezen, E. (2014, June). Analysis of match-related information seeking behaviour during the act of watching football matches on TV. In TVX 2014 ACM
International Conference on Interactive Experiences for Television and Online Video.
[3] Gantz, W., Wang, Z., Paul, B., & Potter, R. F. (2006). Sports versus all comers: Comparing TV sports fans with fans of other programming genres.Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(1), 95-118.
[4] Dolbin, J. (2015). The Effects of Second Screen Use on
the Enjoyment of the Super Bowl (Doctoral dissertation,
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA).
[5] Sezen, E. (2015). Enhancing watching experience of football matches on TV via modes of interaction and types of visualisation of match-related information on second screen.
[6] Nelson, L. D., Meyvis, T., & Galak, J. (2009).
Enhancing the television-viewing experience through commercial interruptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 160-172.
[7] Lochrie, M., & Coulton, P. (2012, July). Sharing the viewing experience through second screens. In
Proceedings of the 10th European conference on Interactive tv and video (pp. 199-202). ACM.
[8] Velt, R., Benford, S., Reeves, S., Evans, M., Glancy, M., & Stenton, P. (2015, June). Towards an extended festival viewing experience. In Proceedings of the ACM
International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video (pp. 53-62). ACM.
[9] Jumisko-Pyykkö, S., Strohmeier, D., Utriainen, T., & Kunze, K. (2010, October). Descriptive quality of experience for mobile 3D video. In Proceedings of the
6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries (pp. 266-275).
ACM.
[10] Hall, E. (2013). Just enough research. A Book Apart. [11] Robson, C. (2011). Real World Research: A resource
for Users of Social Research Methods in applied settings 3rd Edition.
[12] Unger, R., & Chandler, C. (2012). A Project Guide to
UX Design: For user experience designers in the field or in the making. New Riders.
9. ENDNOTES
1 Twitch. Twitch. Retrieved 16 August 2016, from
https://www.twitch.tv/
2 Adobe PhoneGap Build. Build.phonegap.com.
Retrieved 16 August 2016, from https://build.phonegap.com/
3 reddit: the front page of the internet. Reddit.com.
Retrieved 16 August 2016, from https://www.reddit.com/
4 WhatsApp Inc. (2016). WhatsApp Messenger (Version
2.16.224) [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from https://www.whatsapp.com
5 FootballAddicts. (2016). Forza Football (Version
3.7.1b) [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from http://www.footballaddicts.com/
6 NorApps AS. (2016). Soccer Scores – Fotmob (Version
41.1.1144) [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from http://www.fotmob.com/
[13] Lin, A., Gregor, S., & Ewing, M. (2008). Developing a scale to measure the enjoyment of web experiences. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22(4), 40-57.
[14] Wann, D. L. (2006). The causes and consequences of sport team identification.Handbook of sports and
media, 331-352.
[15] Gantz, W., & Wenner, L. A. (1995). Fanship and the television sports viewing experience. Sociology of Sport
Journal, 12, 56-56.
[16] Voorveld, H. A., & van der Goot, M. (2013). Age differences in media multitasking: A diary study.Journal of broadcasting & electronic media, 57(3), 392-408.
7 365Scores. (2016). 365Scores (Version 4.0.0) [Mobile
application software]. Retrieved from http://www.365scores.com/
8 Onefootball GmbH. (2016). Onefootball – Soccer
scores (Version 8.5.0) [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from https://www.onefootball.com
9 CrowdScores Ltd. (2016). CrowdScores Live Scores
(Version 2.1) [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from http://crowdscores.com/
10 Squawka. (2016). Squawka Football App (Version 1.6)
[Mobile application software]. Retrieved from http://www.squawka.com/home/
11 Embedded Timelines | Twitter Developers. Dev.twitter.com. Retrieved 16 August 2016, from
https://dev.twitter.com/web/embedded-timelines
12 Build Realtime Apps on the Only Global Data Stream Network | PubNub. PubNub. Retrieved 16 August 2016,
10. APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: Interview script
Inleiding
Uitleg waar het interview voor is en wat er met de antwoorden gebeurd. Toestemming vragen om het interview op te nemen. Structuur van het interview toelichten.
Inleidende vragen
Wat is uw leeftijd
Wat voor een soort telefoon heeft u?
Hoeveel wedstrijden kijkt u gemiddeld per week? Bent u een grote fan van voetbal/teams
Gebruikers profielen
U heeft aangegeven ... aantal wedstrijden per week voetbal te kijken. Wat is de reden voor u om voetbal te kijken? o Kijkt u speciaal voor het voetbal?
o Volgt u teams?
o Volgt u alleen bijzondere wedstrijden?
Maakt u gebruik van uw telefoon, laptop of tablet tijdens het kijken van voetbal? o Wanneer gebruikt u het tijdens de wedstrijd?
o Veel gebruik?
o Waar gebruikt u het voor?
Informatie over de wedstrijd? Informatie over de teams? Andere toepassingen?
Gebruikt u het ook voor social media of andere vormen van interactie (Whatsapp, chatrooms)? o Waar maakt u dan gebruik van?
o Wat doet u dan tijdens gebruik? Bespreekt u de wedstrijd? Bespreekt u de spelers?
o Vind u dat het gebruik van sociaal media het kijken van de wedstrijd leuker maakt? Wat voor een soort voetbal kijker bent u naar uw idee?
o Meer een plezier kijker of een analist?
o Bent u fan van een club of fan van al het voetbal? o Kijkt u graag met vrienden, of liever alleen?
Wat wil men zien
U heeft eerder aangegeven wel/niet gebruik te maken van uw telefoon/laptop/tablet tijdens het kijken van voetbal: Wel
Zou u het fijner vinden als alle informatie die u zoekt in een applicatie zit?
Bent u dan geinteresseerd in informatie die u gemist heeft tijdens de wedstrijd (replays, wie heeft er gescoord etc) of bent u juist geinteresseerd in informatie die niet tijdens de wedstrijd benoemd wordt, of in allebei?
o Wat zou dan de informatie zijn die u vooral zou willen zien in deze applicatie? Met informatie over het team en de spelers, bent u dan geinteresseerd in:
o Achtergrond informatie over het team en de spelers, denk hierbij aan interviews en nieuws
o “Leuke ” statistieken rondom de spelers en het team, denk hierbij aan hoeveel teams tegen elkaar gescoord hebben, maar ook hoeveel een speler rent tijdens de wedstrijd.
Heeft u misschien nog een voorkeur voor statistieken die u specifiek wilt zien?
o Informatie buiten de teams en spelers om, denk hierbij aan de locatie, het weer en wie zijn de scheidsrechters U heeft ook aangegeven wel/niet gebruik te maken van social media:
o Wel:
Zou u ook een vorm van social media integratie willen in een dergelijke applicatie? Bijvoorbeeld alle Twitter berichten van andere fans van een team tijdens de wedstrijd
Zou u interesse hebben in een chat waarin iedereen die de applicatie gebruikt tijdens de wedstrijd met elkaar kan communiceren?
Team supporters in gescheiden chat of allemaal bij elkaar Zowel chat als social media integratie?
Niet
Waarom niet?
En als er een applicatie was voor (soort voetbal kijker die de geinterviewde is), zou u daar dan gebruik van maken? En een applicatie die social media/chat integreerd met andere mensen die dezelfde wedstrijd kijken zou zijn, zou u daar
geinteresseerd in zijn?
Cool down vragen
Zou ik u in mei of juni opnieuw kunnen benaderen om de applicatie uit te testen? o Naar welk team kijkt u vaak?
Heeft u zelf nog op of aanmerkingen omtrent voetbal en uw kijkgedrag?
Misschien suggesties omtrent wat u graag op uw telefoon zou doen tijdens het kijken van voetbal?
Afsluiting
APPENDIX B: Interview transcripts
Interviews were performed in Dutch, and were thus transcribed in Dutch.
Sentences in bold are by the interviewer, while the non-bolded sections are by the participant.
Interview 1 – 10 minutes
Ok dan. Allereerst bedankt voor uw deelname aan dit interview.
Geen probleem
Allereerst zal ik wat inleidende vragen stellen. Hierna wat vragen over hoe u voetbal kijkt en over mogelijkheden in een applicatie. Tot slot zal ik nog wat afsluitende vragen hebben. Verder zou ik graag nog willen vermelden dat dit interview opgenomen wordt. Heb ik daar uw toestemming voor?
Ja
Ok. Allereerst, hoe oud bent u?
Ik ben 62 jaar.
En wat voor een soort telefoon heeft u?
Ik heb een iPhone 6.
Naar hoeveel wedstrijden kijkt u gemiddeld per week?
Gemiddeld? Een of twee denk ik.
En bent u dan meer een fan van het voetbal zelf, of echt van een team?
Meer een fan van het voetbal zelf, maar ik ben een fan van ADO.
En de wedstrijden die u kijkt zijn die van ADO?
Ja dat klopt, en soms een andere wedstrijd.
Kijkt u dan specifiek om het team te volgen, of echt om het voetbal te zien?
Allebei wel denk ik. Ik wil graag zien of ADO het goed doet, maar ook hoe ze voetballen.
Kijkt u ook naar andere wedstrijden?
Nee, eigenlijk niet echt. Heel soms als ik bij m’n zus op bezoek ga, haar man kijkt vaak voetbal.
En maakt u gebruik van uw telefoon, laptop of tablet tijdens het kijken van voetbal?
Ja, ik zit vaak met mijn tablet er naast.
En wat doet u dan op uw tablet?
Van alles en nog wat. Vaak lees ik wat artikelen op de Telegraaf website.
Leest of doet u ook dingen die gerelateerd zijn aan de wedstrijd die u kijkt?
Soms kijk ik naar hoe we het de afgelopen wedstrijden hebben gedaan, telt dat ook?
Ja zeker. Kijkt u ook nog naar andere dingen, speler statistieken of dergelijke?
Nee, niet echt.
En maakt u ook gebruik van uw telefoon tijdens de wedstrijd, om een berichtje te sturen over de wedstrijd, of om iets over de wedstrijd op social media te plaatsen?
Nee ook niet echt. Ik heb dat wel, social media, maar heb dat eigenlijk nog nooit voor voetbal gebruikt.
Vind u uwzelf een plezier kijker, of meer een analist?
Een analist?
Dus iemand die actief speler statistieken bijhoudt, wedstrijd strategieen bespreekt, dat soort dingen. Snapt u wat ik bedoel?
Ja nee, ik begrijp wat je bedoelt. Nee ik kijk echt voor mijn plezier.
En kijkt u graag met vrienden, of liever alleen?
Nou ik kijk wel vaak alleen voetbal, maar als het kan kijk ik liever met vrienden. Soms komt mijn oudste zoon langs, en dan kijken we vaak wel een wedstrijd samen.
Ja het altijd gezelliger met meer mensen.
Precies.
Ok dan. U gaf eerder aan gebruik te maken van uw tablet. Wat zou u van een applicatie vinden voor uw telefoon waarin u informatie over de wedstrijd krijgt?
Wat voor informatie?
Dat ligt eraan wat u graag zou willen zien. Bent u meer geinteresseerd in de informatie die u gemist heeft tijdens de wedstrijd, bijvoorbeeld replays van doelpunten, of juist in informatie die niet in de wedstrijd benoemt wordt, zoals bijvoorbeeld hoeveel de spelers gerend hebben? Of juist allebei?
Ik denk eerder de replays.
Dus de informatie die u gemist heeft?
Ja. Dat andere dat is wel leuk om een keertje te zien, maar ik heb er niet zo’n behoefte aan.
Zijn er misschien dingen die u specifiek zou willen zien in deze applicatie?
Nou, misschien hoeveel keer er geschoten is op het goal, hoeveel corners er genomen zijn, dat soort dingen.
Dus echt hoe de wedstrijd verloopt als het ware?
Ja inderdaad.
U gaf ook aan gebruik te maken van social media, alleen niet voor voetbal. Wat zou u vinden van social media integratie in de applicatie? Dus bijvoorbeeld dat u Twitter berichten van andere fans over de wedstrijd kunt zien?
Oh dat is op zich wel leuk ja. Dus ik zie dan berichten tijdens de wedstrijd?
Dat is het idee ja.
Dat lijkt me wel leuk ja.
En een chat functie? Dus een chatroom waarin iedereen tijdens de wedstrijd met elkaar over de wedstrijd kan praten, lijkt u dat wat?
Nee, dat lijkt me dan weer niet zo leuk.
Kunt u misschien vertellen waarom u dat minder lijkt?
Nou, ik denk dat bij een chat echt mee zou moeten praten, en daar zou ik niet echt zin in hebben. Snap je wat ik bedoel?
Ja, u denkt dat een chat meer gedwongen participatie vereist, als het ware.
Ja precies.
Ok ik begrijp het. Dan heb ik tot slot nog een paar kleine vragen. Zou ik u in mei of juni nogmaals kunnen benaderen om de applicatie uit te testen?
Ja hoor.
Ok dat is heel fijn. En u kijkt naar ADO wedstrijden toch?
Ja dat klopt.
Mooi, dan noteer ik dat. Dan is mijn volgende vraag, heeft u zelf nog op of aanmerkingen over uw voetbal kijkgedrag?
Nee, ik denk het niet.
Ok, heeft u misschien nog suggesties of ideeen over wat u graag op uw telefoon doet tijdens het kijken van voetbal?
Nou, nee, eigenlijk ook niet.
Dan zou ik u heel erg willen bedanken voor uw deelname aan dit interview.
Interview 2 – 13 minutes
Ok we kunnen beginnen. Allereerst heel erg bedankt voor uw deelname aan dit interview meneer.
Geeft niet hoor.
In dit interview zal ik eerst wat vragen stellen over hoe u voetbal, sorry nee, ik zal eerst wat inleidende vragen stellen, waarna ik wat vragen zal stellen over hoe u voetbal kijkt. Daarna zal ik vragen stellen over een mobiele applicatie, en tot slot nog wat korte vragen om het interview af te sluiten. Verder zal ik dit interview ook opnemen, daarom zou ik graag willen vragen of ik hier uw toestemming voor heb.
Ja die heb je.
Mooi. Dan, allereerst, wat is uw leeftijd?
Ik ben 58 jaar jong.
Ok, en wat voor een soort telefoon heeft u?
Een Samsung denk ik?
Ja dat is inderdaad een Samsung telefoon. Ok dan, en hoeveel wedstrijden kijkt u gemiddeld per week?
Voetbalwedstrijden?
Ja, voetbal inderdaad, sorry.
Ik denk dat ik per week wel vijf wedstrijden kijk.
Bent u een grote fan van een voetbalclub, of meer van het voetbal zelf?
Ik ben fan van al het voetbal, maar ik ben natuurlijk ook fan van ADO.
Wat is voor u de reden om voetbal te kijken?
De reden? Ik kijk voetbal omdat ik het leuk vind, verder heb ik geen reden nodig vind ik.
Daar heeft u natuurlijk gelijk in. U kijkt naar elke wedstrijd van ADO?
Ja, elke wedstrijd.
U volgt ook wedstrijden buiten ADO om neem ik aan, waar kijkt u zo naar?
Van alles en nog wat. Eredivisie, Champions League, de Premier League, ik volg het allemaal wel zo’n beetje.
En volgt deze wedstrijden omdat u het leuk vind ja?
Ja
Hoe weet u of een wedstrijd leuk zou worden?
Uhm, geen idee. Dat weet ik eigenlijk niet, ik kijk gewoon naar een wedstrijd die ik zien wil. Als die niet leuk is kan ik altijd nog ergens anders naar kijken toch.
Nee dat klopt. En kijkt u dan naar de wedstrijden echt voor de teams, of voor het voetbal?
Hoe bedoel je? Ik kijk natuurlijk om het voetbal te zien.
Sorry, wat ik bedoel is, als u bijvoorbeeld kijkt naar Manchester United tegen, sorry, even nadenken hoor, Liverpool?
Dat is inderdaad een team ja.
Als u dus kijkt naar een wedstrijd Manchester United tegen Liverpool, kijkt u dan specifiek voor Manchester United of Liverpool, of gewoon om het voetbal te zien.
Ik snap nog steeds niet helemaal wat je bedoelt, maar ik kijk omdat ik graag de wedstrijd wil zien.
Ok. En tijdens het kijken van voetbal, maakt u dan gebruik van uw telefoon, laptop of tablet?
Nee niet echt. Als ik voetbal kijk dan ben ik niet met m’n computer bezig. Misschien af en toe m’n mobiel als ik even snel iets wil doen, maar vaak kijk ik gewoon naar de wedstrijd. Mijn vrouw niet, die zit alleen maar met haar tablet.
Die is zeker niet zo’n fan van voetbal?
Nee totaal niet.
En u heeft ook nooit uw telefoon erbij, ook niet om even een berichtje over de wedstrijd te sturen?
Nee, dat doe ik nou eigenlijk nooit.
