Document Text Contents
Page 1
MILLENNIALS AND LIVE MUSIC CULTURE
An Undergraduate Research Scholars Thesis
by
CAITLIN ALEXANDRIA CURBELLO
Submitted to Honors and Undergraduate Research
Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the designation as an
UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH SCHOLAR
Approved by
Research Advisor: Dr. Billy R. McKim
May 2015
Major: Agricultural Communications and Journalism
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 2
NOMENCLATURE ..................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 4
The Millennial Generation .................................................................................... 4
Live Music Culture ............................................................................................... 5
Example of the Live Music Industry in Texas ...................................................... 8
II QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION METHODS ...................................... 9
Context and Description of Larger Study ........................................................... 13
Validity ............................................................................................................... 15
Reliability ............................................................................................................ 16
Data Analysis and Interpretation ........................................................................ 16
Framework .......................................................................................................... 17
III RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 23
Research Question 1 ........................................................................................... 25
Research Question 2 ........................................................................................... 40
Research Question 3 ........................................................................................... 52
IV CONCLUSION(S) .............................................................................................. 63
Summary of the Study ........................................................................................ 63
Summary of Findings .......................................................................................... 65
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 77
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................. 79
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................. 86
Page 74
= 4.3). Overall, the lowest scored (least important) venue feature across all generations was food
specials (V1_Q010_C) (total M = 2.8).
A MANOVA was used to compare the mean scores of independent variables (RO2.4.2), venue
features (V1_Q010_A through V1_Q010_G) across conditions and test interactions among
dependent variables, generational groups (D001_RC_D). After identifying a significant
MANOVA, subsequent ANOVAs were carried out on each of the dependent variables venue
features energy (V1_Q010_A through V1_Q010_G). A Bonferonni correction was applied to
each of the subsequent ANOVAs to protect against inflated Type I error (Field, 2009). ANOVA
results indicated significant interactions between subjects in the variable atmosphere
(V1_Q010_A) (p = .028, η2 = .045, 1 – = .666) and variable food specials (V1_Q010_C) (p =
.001, η2 = .083, 1 – = .923) for the effects of venue features on generation (D001_RC_D). Only
results for food specials (V1_Q010_C) exceeded the threshold for the power of analysis (≥.80)
therefore, significant results were not due to chance or error. Results for energy (V1_Q010_B),
sound quality (V1_Q010_D), volume (V1_Q010_E), seating (V1_Q010_F), lighting
(V1_Q010_G) did not meet the minimum requirements for power of analysis (≥.80).
The descriptive analysis for (RO2.5.1) the amount willing to pay for admission (V1_Q015)
across generations (D001_RC_D) revealed that Millennial respondents most often chose the
amount of $100-$149 for the highest amount they would be willing to pay for admission to a live
music venue or event. This range was followed by the second most often chosen admission price,
$150-$199 by Millennial respondents. Baby Boomer respondents chose the price range of $1-
$49, while Generation X respondents most often chose the $50-$99 price range for the amount
71
Page 75
willing to pay for admission to a live music venue or event. This indicates that Millennials are far
more likely to spend higher amounts on tickets for live music venues and events compared to
other generations. Meaning, Millennials are the demographic that should be targeted and
accommodated by live music venues and events.
A Kruskal-Wallis H test was used for comparison (RO2.5.2) of the dependent variables amount
willing to pay for admission (V1_Q015) and independent variable generations (D001_RC_D).
Median scores for amount willing to pay for admission (V1_Q015) were statistically
2(3) = 13.003, p = .002. This post hoc analysis revealed
statistically significant differences in amount willing to pay for admission (V1_Q015) scores
between Baby Boomers (Mdn = 3.00) and Millennials (Mdn = 3.00) (p = .019) and Baby
Boomers and Generation X (Mdn = 3.00) (p = .002) generational groups, but not between
Generation X and Millennials (Mdn = 1.000) generational groups. Visual results for 2.5.2 can be
found in Appendix --.
Research Question 3 and its objectives were meant to describe and compare the environmental
determinants that influence Millennials engagement with contemporary live music venues and
events. Mencarelli and Pulh (2006) claim that the venue is an essential catalyst for the interaction
of the audiences with all of the amenities of said venue, and affects the audience’s interaction
with the venue itself and its personnel. Based on quantitative results, a better understanding of
which environmental determinants influenced Millennials engagement was formed.
72
Page 148
Results for Kruskal-H Wallis Test continued
145
Page 149
Results for Kruskal-H Wallis Test continued
146
MILLENNIALS AND LIVE MUSIC CULTURE
An Undergraduate Research Scholars Thesis
by
CAITLIN ALEXANDRIA CURBELLO
Submitted to Honors and Undergraduate Research
Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the designation as an
UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH SCHOLAR
Approved by
Research Advisor: Dr. Billy R. McKim
May 2015
Major: Agricultural Communications and Journalism
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 2
NOMENCLATURE ..................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 4
The Millennial Generation .................................................................................... 4
Live Music Culture ............................................................................................... 5
Example of the Live Music Industry in Texas ...................................................... 8
II QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION METHODS ...................................... 9
Context and Description of Larger Study ........................................................... 13
Validity ............................................................................................................... 15
Reliability ............................................................................................................ 16
Data Analysis and Interpretation ........................................................................ 16
Framework .......................................................................................................... 17
III RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 23
Research Question 1 ........................................................................................... 25
Research Question 2 ........................................................................................... 40
Research Question 3 ........................................................................................... 52
IV CONCLUSION(S) .............................................................................................. 63
Summary of the Study ........................................................................................ 63
Summary of Findings .......................................................................................... 65
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 77
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................. 79
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................. 86
Page 74
= 4.3). Overall, the lowest scored (least important) venue feature across all generations was food
specials (V1_Q010_C) (total M = 2.8).
A MANOVA was used to compare the mean scores of independent variables (RO2.4.2), venue
features (V1_Q010_A through V1_Q010_G) across conditions and test interactions among
dependent variables, generational groups (D001_RC_D). After identifying a significant
MANOVA, subsequent ANOVAs were carried out on each of the dependent variables venue
features energy (V1_Q010_A through V1_Q010_G). A Bonferonni correction was applied to
each of the subsequent ANOVAs to protect against inflated Type I error (Field, 2009). ANOVA
results indicated significant interactions between subjects in the variable atmosphere
(V1_Q010_A) (p = .028, η2 = .045, 1 – = .666) and variable food specials (V1_Q010_C) (p =
.001, η2 = .083, 1 – = .923) for the effects of venue features on generation (D001_RC_D). Only
results for food specials (V1_Q010_C) exceeded the threshold for the power of analysis (≥.80)
therefore, significant results were not due to chance or error. Results for energy (V1_Q010_B),
sound quality (V1_Q010_D), volume (V1_Q010_E), seating (V1_Q010_F), lighting
(V1_Q010_G) did not meet the minimum requirements for power of analysis (≥.80).
The descriptive analysis for (RO2.5.1) the amount willing to pay for admission (V1_Q015)
across generations (D001_RC_D) revealed that Millennial respondents most often chose the
amount of $100-$149 for the highest amount they would be willing to pay for admission to a live
music venue or event. This range was followed by the second most often chosen admission price,
$150-$199 by Millennial respondents. Baby Boomer respondents chose the price range of $1-
$49, while Generation X respondents most often chose the $50-$99 price range for the amount
71
Page 75
willing to pay for admission to a live music venue or event. This indicates that Millennials are far
more likely to spend higher amounts on tickets for live music venues and events compared to
other generations. Meaning, Millennials are the demographic that should be targeted and
accommodated by live music venues and events.
A Kruskal-Wallis H test was used for comparison (RO2.5.2) of the dependent variables amount
willing to pay for admission (V1_Q015) and independent variable generations (D001_RC_D).
Median scores for amount willing to pay for admission (V1_Q015) were statistically
2(3) = 13.003, p = .002. This post hoc analysis revealed
statistically significant differences in amount willing to pay for admission (V1_Q015) scores
between Baby Boomers (Mdn = 3.00) and Millennials (Mdn = 3.00) (p = .019) and Baby
Boomers and Generation X (Mdn = 3.00) (p = .002) generational groups, but not between
Generation X and Millennials (Mdn = 1.000) generational groups. Visual results for 2.5.2 can be
found in Appendix --.
Research Question 3 and its objectives were meant to describe and compare the environmental
determinants that influence Millennials engagement with contemporary live music venues and
events. Mencarelli and Pulh (2006) claim that the venue is an essential catalyst for the interaction
of the audiences with all of the amenities of said venue, and affects the audience’s interaction
with the venue itself and its personnel. Based on quantitative results, a better understanding of
which environmental determinants influenced Millennials engagement was formed.
72
Page 148
Results for Kruskal-H Wallis Test continued
145
Page 149
Results for Kruskal-H Wallis Test continued
146
