Live and online music festivals in the COVID-19 era: analysis of motivational differences and value perceptions

Abstract

Purpose

This research has three objectives: to identify whether there are motivational differences between attending live and online music festivals, to know whether these motivations vary according to the sociodemographic characteristics of the attendees, and to analyse the perceived value-satisfaction-behavioural intention chain for both types of festivals.

Theoretical framework

We base our research on push and pull factor theory of motivations. We analyse push motivational factors behind participation in live and online music festivals. Push factors are psychological benefits that individuals perceive they will gain from attending events, such as entertainment, socialization and escape.

Design/methodology/approach

We performed a quantitative study with 137 Spanish people who attended at least one live music festival and one online festival in 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Findings

First, we found that the music and socialization are common motivations in both types of festivals, but escape and novelty appear only for live festivals, and excitement/entertainment only for online festivals. Second, the results confirmed that not only are there motivational differences based on demographic variables of the attendees, but there are also differences based on variables such as type of entry ticket purchased and companions. Third, this work shows that the perceived value-satisfaction relationship is stronger for online festivals than live festivals.

Practical & social implications of research

Our results permit a better understanding of online festivals, which is vital for implementing strategies to ensure their future success.

Originality/value

We analyse motivational differences between attending live and online music festivals, and we compare the perceived value-satisfaction-behavioural intention chain for both types of festivals.

Keywords:
Motivations; music festival; perceived value; satisfaction; COVID-19

Resumo

Objetivo

Esta pesquisa tem três objetivos: identificar se existem diferenças motivacionais entre participar de festivais de música ao vivo e online, saber se essas motivações variam de acordo com as características sociodemográficas dos participantes e analisar a cadeia valor percebido-satisfação-intenções comportamentais em ambos os festivais.

Referencial teórico

Baseamos nossa pesquisa na teoria dos fatores push e pull das motivações. Analisamos fatores motivacionais push para participar de festivais de música ao vivo e online. Os fatores push são benefícios psicológicos que os indivíduos percebem que vão ganhar ao participar de eventos, como entretenimento, socialização e fuga.

Metodologia

Realizamos um estudo quantitativo com 137 espanhóis que participaram de pelo menos um festival de música ao vivo e um festival online em 2020, durante a pandemia de COVID-19.

Resultados

Primeiro, descobrimos que música e socialização são motivações comuns em ambos os festivais, mas fuga e novidade aparecem apenas para festivais ao vivo, e emoção/entretenimento apenas para festivais online. Segundo, os resultados confirmaram que não só existem diferenças motivacionais com base em variáveis demográficas dos participantes, mas também existem diferenças com base em variáveis como tipo de ingresso adquirido e companhia. Terceiro, este trabalho mostra que a relação valor percebido-satisfação é mais forte em festivais online do que em festivais ao vivo.

Implicações práticas e sociais da pesquisa

Nossos resultados permitem uma melhor compreensão dos festivais online, o que é fundamental para a implementação de estratégias que garantam seu sucesso futuro.

Contribuições

Analisamos as diferenças motivacionais entre participar de festivais de música ao vivo e online. Além disso, comparamos a cadeia valor percebido-satisfação-intenções comportamentais em ambos os tipos de festival.

Palavras-chave:
Motivações; festival de música; valor percebido; satisfação; COVID-19

1 Introduction

The COVID-19 global pandemic has had major health, social and economic impacts around the world. In their attempts to control the transmission of the virus, governments have taken various measures, for example, imposing social distancing and lockdowns, and restricting access to public spaces, which has led to the cancellation or postponement of many cultural events, including music festivals. Faced with this situation, the music sector has turned to online environment, and many artists and producers have streamed their output through social media and other digital platforms (Vilalta, 2020).

Music festivals represent one of the best performing sectors of the entertainment industry. Specifically in Spain, where this study is carried out, in 2019 the live music industry had a turnover of 382.5 million euros, which consolidates the sector as a leading economic engine in the country (Vallbona, 2020). In 2018, nearly 900 music festivals took place in the country (España, 2019), but in 2020 the COVID-19 crisis forced many festivals to cancel or postpone their editions. In this context, cultural industries have tried to find alternatives for the distribution of their productions and one of them has been to hold live festivals online.

Although many studies have examined music events and festivals, few have focused on events held entirely online, a format that, while it existed prior to the onset of the pandemic, has boomed during the crisis. Given the growing importance of these online events, it is important to understand more about them. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to bridge this research gap by comparing live and online festivals through two key concepts that underlie the success of these events: motivations and the perceived value-satisfaction-behavioural intentions chain.

This study has three sequential objectives: first, to discover if participants’ motivations for attending music festivals, a widely researched topic for live festivals (Abreu-Novais & Arcodia, 2013; Li & Petrick, 2006; Maeng et al. 2016; McMorland & MacTaggart, 2007), are the same as for watching online music festivals. Second, we try to identify whether there are significant differences in attendees’ motivations based on their sociodemographic characteristics and festival-related behaviours, as has been concluded in previous studies into live events (Atkinson, 2016; Bowen & Daniels, 2005; Formica & Uysal, 1996). Finally, the third goal of this research is to analyse whether the perceived value-satisfaction-behavioural intentions chain, already demonstrated for live festivals (Cole & Chancellor, 2009; Kim et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2008; Li & Lin, 2016; Yoon et al. 2010), is relevant for online festivals.

To respond to these three research objectives, we conducted an empirical study, contextualized in Spain, based on an online survey of people who had attended at least one live music festival, and one online festival, in the previous year. A total of 137 Spanish residents participated in the study.

Thus, this research seeks to contribute to the literature on festivals by aiming to better understand the phenomenon of events held solely online. Furthermore, this study aims to contribute to the development of a framework for generalizing the common underlying motivations for festival attendance that goes beyond individual events. The present work is also intended to have commercial implications, as a better understanding of online festivals is vital to implement marketing strategies that can ensure their future success.

The paper is structured as follows. First, it reviews the relevant literature on music festivals and new technologies, how COVID-19 has affected festivals, the motivations for attending music festivals and the perceived value-satisfaction-behavioural intentions chain. The following section shows the methodology used in the research, then the paper continues with the presentation and discussion of the results obtained. Finally, the paper is completed with the conclusions, limitations of the present work and proposals for future lines of research.

2 Conceptual background

2.1 Music festivals, new technologies and COVID-19

The global cultural scene has seen, in recent years, a steady increase in the number of music festivals. Artists today see live performances as key revenue-generating opportunities, as recorded music now provides much less revenue due to the shift from physical media to downloads (Mortimer et al., 2012). The current ubiquitous access to digital content and social media has changed consumers’ relationships with music, in general, and participation in live concerts, in particular (Charron, 2017). The music industry has struggled to adapt to this new business environment created by technological and communications advances (Williamson & Cloonan, 2007), as the way cultural goods are produced, distributed and consumed is constantly evolving based on rapidly evolving technologies and changing consumer preferences (Harbi et al., 2014).

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 12 March 2020, civil authorities established health strategies and measures such as social distancing, travel/mobility bans, community lockdowns, mandatory quarantine and crowd control. These measures arrested travel, tourism and leisure worldwide (Sigala, 2020); in particular, music concerts and festivals were cancelled and/or postponed. Among the international festivals in Spain cancelled or postponed in 2020 were the Medusa Festival, Arenal Sound, Sonorama Ribera and Rototom Sunsplash (Fan Music Fest, 2020), to mention some of the most important festivals in Spain by number of attendees (Wake & Listen, 2020). It has been estimated that between March and September 2020 the financial losses of the live music sector, both public and private, reached 764 million euros (APM, 2020a).

Faced with this situation, some artists and music producers decided to reinvent themselves by taking advantage of new technologies and held online festivals to stay in touch with their audiences. During these festivals, artists broadcast live concerts from their homes through their own video streaming-based social media profiles on platforms such as Instagram and YouTube. These performances, in turn, were broadcast on television and/or on the festival organisers’ official websites and social networks.

Among these festivals are The One World: Together At Home, created by the singer Lady Gaga, Global Citizen and the WHO, which brought together more than 70 international artists to raise more than USD 180 million to fight the pandemic (Global Citizen, 2020); or in Spain, Yo Me Quedo En Casa Festival (with more than 260 thousand followers on Instagram) and Cuarentena Fest were also held during March 2020 (La Vanguardia, 2020).

2.2 Live vs. mediated music

In the face of the technological advances previously discussed, it may be of interest to know whether today’s online artistic performances can provide an experience similar to live performances. Traditionally, live experiences have been associated with being in the here and now, strictly involving face-to-face relationships in the same physical space; however, as new technologies develop, they question and redefine the notions of what “live” is (Auslander, 2008). Technological innovations have distorted the boundary between live and mediated performances, as video streaming platforms and other applications now offer viewers the opportunity to “attend” “live” concerts online, blurring the lines between production and consumption, and the very concept of live attendance (Charron, 2017; Lee & Lee, 2020).

Some studies (Charron, 2017; Harper, 2015; Holt, 2010) have claimed that digitally mediated concerts do not offer the unexpected, iterative and expansive aspects of the live experience as, although they provide the temporal dimension (the now) of live performances, they lack the spatial dimension (the here). Thus, live performances retain certain unique elements that cannot be reproduced online. Moreover, Bennett (2015) argued that the growing ubiquity of digital technologies enhances the value of face-to-face, flesh-and-blood encounters. In fact, Brown and Knox (2017) concluded that the charm of live music or the desire to “be there” are key motivating factors for attending live music festivals. Similarly, Radbourne et al. (2009) noted that the live character of the experience was qualitatively different from the experience of being part of an audience watching artists transmitting online, highlighting the importance of the shared, live experience of being part of a real audience.

On the other hand, as previous works (Hudson et al., 2015; Marwick & Boyd, 2011) have proposed, participation in online communities, such as music blogs and social media, complement the consumer’s experience of live concerts. Thus, new technologies allow them to feel they are enjoying a shared experience even if they do not share the same spatial dimension as the artists; and the previously mentioned advances in social networks allow them to achieve a feeling of intimacy and offer real possibilities for user-artist interaction.

According to the information reviewed, this study understands an online festival to be that type of festival that takes place in a mediated way using new technologies and whose audience can enjoy the performances only through these new technologies such as social networks. In contrast, a live festival is one in which the audience can enjoy being physically present in the same space as the artists, since as Kjus and Danielsen (2014) point out, attending concerts implies participation in a social event in some kind of public space.

3 Research questions and hypotheses development

3.1 Motivations to attend music festivals

The study of motivation is a growing research stream in event management (Abreu-Novais & Arcodia, 2013; Li & Petrick, 2006; Maeng et al., 2016; McMorland & MacTaggart, 2007). Crompton and McKay (1997) conceptualised motivation as a dynamic process, involving internal psychological factors (needs and desires), that generates a state of tension and balance through satisfaction of these needs.

There are two well-known theories of motivation in tourist behaviour. First, Iso-Ahola’s (1982) seek-escape dichotomy theory proposes that the two main motivational forces in tourism are escape and search, that is, escape from one’s daily routine and the search for psychological rewards through new experiences. Second, push and pull factor theory (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1981) proposes that push factors are psychological benefits that tourists perceive they will gain; these include entertainment, socialisation and escape; and that attraction factors are tangible attributes specific to the destination, such as weather, facilities, food and drink. Following previous research (Faulkner et al., 1999; Formica & Uysal, 1996; Gelder & Robinson, 2009), we will use this second theory within the scope of participating in music festivals, because it takes into account a greater number of motivational factors than Iso-Ahola’s (1982) seek-escape dichotomy theory.

Although research into the motivation to attend events has expanded considerably in recent years, just a few studies have focused on music festivals. Table 1 shows some of the studies in the field.

Table 1
Music festivals – motivation-based studies

Authors	Motivations analysed	Festival
Formica and Uysal (1996)	Excitement and enthusiasm, socialisation, entertainment, novelty of the event and family togetherness	Jazz festival, Umbria, Italy
Crompton and McKay (1997)	Cultural exploration, novelty/regression, equilibrium recovery, known-group socialisation, external socialisation, gregariousness	San Antonio Fiesta, USA
Faulkner et al. (1999)	Local culture/identity, novelty/enthusiasm, partying, local attractions, socialisation, known-group socialisation, auxiliary activities	Festival of Rock Music, Storsjӧyran, Sweden
Nicholson and Pearce (2001)	Specific motivations, entertainment, escape, variety, novelty/uniqueness of the event, family and socialisation	New Zealand Gold Guitar Awards, New Zealand
Bowen and Daniels (2005)	Discovery, music, enjoyment	Fairfax Music Festival, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
McMorland and MacTaggart (2007)	Enjoyment of the entertainment, supporting Scottish music, relaxation	Traditional Scottish Musical Events, Scotland
Gelder and Robinson (2009)	Socialisation, music, novelty, general entertainment, escape from everyday life and cultural exploration	Glastonbury Festival, UK
Pegg and Patterson (2010)	Friends/family, love of country music, business/professional reasons, country music awards, I always wanted to attend, opportunity to meet stars, annual holidays, line dancing	Tamworth Country Music Festival, Tamworth, Australia
Blešić et al. (2013)	Perception and learning of the festival, exploration of the programme, atmosphere of the festival, psychophysical well-being and socialisation	Dragačevo Trumpet Festival, Serbia
Elliott and Barron (2015)	Experience events, curiosity for events, socialisation, escape and to support the band	Download Festival, Heavy Metal Festival, UK
Kruger and Saayman (2017)	Fun and dancing, novelty, emotion, group identity, entertainment, lifestyle, well-being, travel and escape	H2O South African Festival of Electronic Music, South Africa
Vinicombe and Sou Pek (2017)	Music, socialisation, escape, cultural exploration	MIMF Classic Music Festival, Macao
Perron-Brault et al. (2020)	Favourite artists, star performers, musical discoveries, socialization and entertainment, escape and tourism, family conviviality	Six popular music festivals in Quebec, Canada

• Source: Adapted from Vinicombe and Sou Pek (2017) (updated).

Studies into the motivations to attend festivals have typically focused on single events. This approach has failed to create a generalizable set of motivational elements for the music festivals subcategory, a problem aggravated by the lack of uniformity in the nomenclature of these motivational elements and the underlying dimensions revealed through factorial analysis (Vinicombe & Sou Pek, 2017).

As Nicholson and Pearce (2001) noted, the study of motivations is one of the most complex areas of leisure research. The research has many challenges, such as the intangible nature of the phenomenon, measurement and interpretation issues, and multiple motivational questions since, as several authors have suggested, attendees can have different motivations for attending different events (Crompton & McKay, 1997; Li & Petrick, 2006; Nicholson & Pearce, 2001); thus, it is reasonable to think that live and online festivals might have different attendance motivations.

In an attempt to shed light on the subject, Abreu-Novais and Arcodia (2013) reviewed 29 studies and concluded that there are seven general dimensions of the principal motivations for attending music festivals: socialisation, family togetherness, escape/relaxation, excitement/entertainment, novelty of the event, cultural exploration, and some very specific motivators depending on the type of event, such as sports in sporting events or music in musical events.

According to Crompton and McKay (1997), socialisation is the desire to meet new people and spend time with friends; family togetherness relates to spending time with family at the festival; escape and relaxation is the desire to remove oneself from the routine activities of everyday life and their associated stresses; excitement and entertainment includes general entertainment, the atmosphere of the event and the excitement experienced by attendees; novelty is the desire to undergo new experiences and satisfy one’s curiosity; and cultural exploration is the specific wish to experience different realities, customs and cultures, and to increase one’s knowledge. As for the specific motivators, Vinicombe and Sou Pek (2017) concluded that in music festivals, the musical genre, artists and other factors specific to the art form are more important to attendees than is the case with other arts festivals.

Given the importance of motivations for the success of music festivals, and that these motivations have been shown to differ not only between different types of event, but also for similar events, it is necessary to further explore the differences and similarities between the motivations of attendees at live and online music festivals. This examination will help address the main objective of the present study, which is to further explore the concept of these new online festivals by comparing them to live festivals. Thus, the following two research questions are posed:

RQ1. Are there differences between individuals’ motivations to attend live vs online music festivals?

RQ2. What are the most important motivations in each case?

3.2 Motivations and characteristics of attendees

Many studies into individuals’ motivations to go to music festivals have found statistically significant differences between the characteristics of various groups of attendees. For example, Formica and Uysal (1996) segmented and compared visitors to the Umbria Jazz Festival based on whether or not they lived in the Umbria region. They found that the local residents who attended were mostly women over the age of 40 for whom socialisation was the most important motivation, while visitors from outside the region were generally younger and placed greater emphasis on the entertainment.

Henderson and Wood (2009) analysed the attendees at the UK Wireless Festival, and concluded that there were two significant groups of festival-goers: “fans”, for whom the music really matters, and “socialites” looking for an experience beyond the music being played on stage. Similarly, in an analysis of individuals’ motivations to attend music festivals, Bowen and Daniels (2005) identified four distinct groups, namely, “only to socialise”, “to be enriched by the music”, “the music matters” and “I love everything”; and they showed that these groups differed in race, marital status and family income. Finally, in a study on two Camden Festivals, Atkinson (2016) identified a clear gender-based difference in the primary motivation for attendance: men attended the festival to experience something new and different, while women attended because they liked the artists featured. To sum up, the present study aims to answer the following questions to identify whether attendees’ motivations vary based on their characteristics:

RQ3. Do attendees’ motivations vary based on their sociodemographic characteristics?

RQ4. Do attendees’ motivations vary based on their festival-related behavioural habits?

3.3 Perceived value, satisfaction and behavioural intentions

Despite the importance of motivations in marketing, merely understanding them is insufficient to ensure the satisfaction and loyalty of the festival attendee. This is why we have chosen to also address other concepts that will help us to better understand the possible differences between an online and a live music festival. This will also help us to better understand the new phenomenon of online festivals. The concepts chosen are perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioural intentions because there are previous studies (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Lee et al., 2019) that have used the relationship between these three factors to contribute to a more complete understanding of the festival phenomenon.

Perceived value has received increasing attention from marketing managers and researchers as it has been shown to be one of the most important predictors of satisfaction and loyalty (Cronin et al., 2000; Parasuraman & Grewal, 2000). Perceived value has been defined as “the overall assessment of the consumer of the usefulness of a product based on his/her perceptions of what (s)he received and what (s)he gave” (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 14); that is, a cost-benefit analysis, where benefits have a positive influence, and costs have a negative influence, on perceived value.

The various conceptualizations of perceived value that appear in the academic literature (Boksberger & Melsen, 2011) allow us to find the following points of consensus: it is a (i) subjective and (ii) dynamic perception of the buyer that (iii) implies a comparison between what the customer receives and what he/she has to deliver in order to enjoy the product or service (in our case, a music festival). This total sacrifice or perceived cost includes monetary payments but also non-monetary sacrifices, such as the time spent, the energy consumed and the stress experienced by the consumer (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). The literature also accepts that perceived value is a multidimensional construct with at least a functional and an emotional dimension (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001).

Oliver (1999) proposed that satisfaction was related to the consumer’s overall judgment of a product or service. Anderson et al. (1994, p. 54) defined it as “an overall assessment based on the total experience of buying and consuming a good or service over time”. Although the expectation disconfirmation theoretical framework (Oliver, 1999) has been widely used for the study of consumer satisfaction, previous literature suggests that a more complete explanation of its causes and consequences can be derived if the cognitive and affective processes of satisfaction are taken into account globally (Cronin et al., 2000).

Finally, the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1979) indicates that the most important determinant of the subject’s behaviour is the behavioural intention. Yang et al. (2011, p. 26) described future behavioural intentions in the context of festivals as “a declaration that one will probably return to the festival, commenting on the festival positively and recommending the festival to family, friends and others”. This is a very similar notion to consumer loyalty to the festival, since loyalty to the festival is manifested through the intention to return and recommend it to family and friends (Chaney & Martin, 2017).

Most studies have concluded that there is a perceived value-satisfaction-behavioural intentions chain: perceived value has been shown to have a direct, positive impact on satisfaction and behaviour, and satisfaction, in turn, positively affects behaviour. First, the perceived value reflects the perception of net utility received by the participant in a festival, so it is reasonable to propose that if this perception of value increases, the subject feels predisposed to improve their behavioural intentions regarding that festival (McDougall & Levesque, 2000). Second, previous literature considers perceived value to be a direct antecedent of consumer satisfaction. It is expected that participants who perceive that they have received a greater value proposal in the live/online festival will experience a greater degree of satisfaction (Gallarza & Gil, 2006). Third, it is logical to think that the most satisfied participants are more motivated, attitudinally and behaviourally, to continue the relationship with the festival over time. In the literature on consumer behaviour there are many studies that show that satisfaction positively influences the behavioural intentions of customers (Anderson & Srinivasan, 2003; Rodgers et al., 2005).

The relationships between these three constructs have been amply demonstrated for live festivals (Cole & Chancellor, 2009; Kim et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2008; Li & Lin, 2016; Yoon et al., 2010). However, due to their novelty, these causal relationships have not been explored in the context of online festivals. To more profoundly understand the online festival phenomenon, our study compares the causal relationships of these three concepts (Figure 1) in live and online festivals; thus, the following hypotheses are posited:

Figure 1
Proposed theoretical model.

H1ab. The perceived value for an attendee at a (a) live or (b) online festival will have a positive effect on his/her future behavioural intentions towards the event.

H2ab. The perceived value for an attendee at a (a) live or (b) online festival will have a positive effect on his/her overall satisfaction with the event.

H3ab. The overall satisfaction of an attendee at a (a) live or (b) online festival will have a positive effect on his/her future behavioural intentions towards the event.

4 Methodology

The empirical study takes a quantitative approach. Our RQs 1-4 require us to measure the motivations to attend an online and a live music festival, to subsequently weigh and compare them. Likewise, the hypotheses that underlie the proposed model to estimate the perceived value-satisfaction-behavioural intentions chain will be estimated through structural modelling, so we need quantitative indicators that measure the constructs involved. An online survey based on a structured questionnaire was answered by Spanish residents who had attended at least one live music festival and one online festival in the previous year. Given the nature of this universe, and the difficulty in identifying sample units, the authors combined a non-probabilistic convenience sampling procedure and a snowballing procedure. The questionnaire was uploaded onto Google Forms and disseminated online through social media platforms (i.e., Facebook and WhatsApp), and the participants were asked to share the survey with their acquaintances to reach a wider sample. A total of 137 valid responses were collected.

Unlike previous studies which have focused on one single event (i.e., a festival), the questionnaire asked the participants to respond based on the festivals (live and online) that they had enjoyed in the previous year. This avoided any bias that might have arisen due to a focus on one single event, and was aimed at improving the generalisability of the results.

We measured the participants’ motivations for attending festivals using a 17-item scale based on Elliott and Barron (2015), Bowen and Daniels (2005) and Kruger and Saayman (2017). Perceived value was measured on a three-item scale developed by Petrick and Backman (2002). This addresses the different dimensions of perceived value, such as the quality and reputation of the event, and the emotional experience of the participant. Satisfaction was measured through a single general satisfaction item adapted from Oliver (1999), and behavioural intentions through two items which assessed the likelihood of the participant recommending and returning to the event, adapted from items used in service marketing literature (Cronin et al., 2000). ^{Appendix 1} shows the measurement scales used in the study.

5 Analysis and discussion of the results

RQ1 and RQ2 seek to identify differences between individuals’ motivations to attend live vs online music festivals and to know which of these motivations are most relevant for each type of music festival. As we do not have a single solid theoretical framework that dimensionalizes the motivations to participate in both types of festivals, an exploratory factor analysis was undertaken to delineate the underlying dimensions of the participants’ motivations, using an orthogonal varimax rotation to make the factorial structure more interpretable. We used exploratory factor analysis because it is the statistical technique par excellence that is used to explore the set of latent variables or common factors that explain the responses to the items (Gorsuch, 1997). Once the underlying motivations to participate in each type of festival had been identified (RQ1), we calculated the global relevance of each motivation as the average of the items that compose it (RQ2).

To address RQ3 and RQ4, ANOVA tests were used to identify the relationships between the different motivational dimensions, sociodemographic variables and other festival-related variables. Finally, SEM analysis was performed using the PLS algorithm (Smart PLS 3.0) to estimate the theoretical model and test the three proposed hypotheses, and a multigroup analysis was undertaken to compare the perceived value-satisfaction-behavioural intentions chains of the two festival types. One of the advantages of the PLS algorithm is that this technique allows us to estimate models with small sample sizes, and it is not necessary to assume a normal distribution of the data (Hair et al., 2014); therefore we decided to use this algorithm in our research.

5.1 Participants’ sociodemographic profiles and festival-related habits

The sociodemographic profiles of the attendees are summarised in Table 2. The majority of the respondents were women (55.1%); 34.6% were between 30 and 34 years old; the majority (73%) were single; more than half (51.5%) had university degrees and most worked full-time (57.4%).

Table 2
Sociodemographic profile of participants

Variable		Number	%
Gender	Men	61	44.9
	Women	75	55.1
Age	19-24	25	18.4
	25-29	30	22.1
	30-34	47	34.6
	>34	34	25
Civil/marital status	Single	100	73.5
	Married	24	17.6
	Other	12	8.8
Education	Less than high / secondary school	18	13.2
	High / secondary school diploma / professional training	48	35.3
	University	70	51.5
Occupation	Full-time worker	78	57.4
	Student	26	19.1
	Retired	17	12.5
	Part-time worker	15	11

The data on festival attendance are summarised in Tables 3 and 4. Half of the respondents attended one or two live festivals during 2019 and 2020 and, notably, 24.3% attended five or more; this contrasts with online festivals, where only 1.5% attended more than three. In addition, for 88% of the respondents this represented the first time they had attended an online festival, while 88% had previously attended live festivals. The festivals which attracted the most responses were, first, Medusa, followed by Arenal Sound and Viña Rock, which is reasonable as, according to data from the APM (Asociación de Promotores Musicales, 2020b), these festivals attract the highest number of attendees. Most (54%) participants attended live festivals with friends, and online festivals were more often enjoyed alone (44.9%), which is understandable, as during the COVID-19 period contact with other people has been lower.

Table 3
Live music festivals – attendance habits

Variable		Number	%
Quantity of festivals	1	27	19.9
	2	41	30.1
	3	23	16.9
	4 or more	45	33.1
Which festivals	Medusa	19	14
	Arenal Sound	19	14
	Viña Rock	21	15.4
	Les Arts	17	12.5
	Others	60	44.1
First time	Yes	48	35.3
	No	88	64.7
Who did you go with?	Friends	74	54.4
	Partner	15	11
	Friends and partner	30	22.1
	Others	17	12.5
Ticket type	Day	24	17.6
	Several days	50	36.8
	Several days camping	52	38.2
	VIP	10	7.4

Table 4
Online music festivals – attendance habits

Variable		Number	%
Festivals	1	89	65.4
	2	33	24.3
	3	14	10.3
Which festival	I’m Staying At Home (Yo Me Quedo En Casa) Festival	42	30.9
	Quarantine Fest	27	19.9
	Tomorrowland/Around the World	10	7.4
	Others	57	41.9
First time	Yes	120	88.2
	No	16	11.8
Who did you go with?	Family	16	11.8
	Friends	17	12.5
	Partner	42	30.9
	Alone	61	44.9
Did you watch everything?	Yes	9	6.6
	No, only some	115	84.6
	No, only one artist	12	8.8

5.2 Motivational factors

An exploratory factor analysis was performed to examine the participants’ underlying motivations to attend live festivals. A value of 1.0 was used for the factor extraction criterion, and items had to have loads of at least 0.40 to be included in any one factor. The Bartlett’s sphericity test value, 777.628 (p <0.001), and the KMO statistic, 0.669, indicated that the data were appropriate for identifying the factors. The analysis showed that five factors (Table 5) accounted for 62.9% of the variance. The internal reliability of all constructs was greater than 0.50, except for the last factor, which was therefore eliminated from the study. The remaining four dimensions were music, socialisation, escape and novelty.

Table 5
Motivational factors for attending live festivals

Items	F1	F2	F3	F4	F5
To listen to and support my favourite artists	.852
I was attracted by the advertising poster	.839
To listen to live music	.785
To know more about my favourite artists	.659
To meet people		.825
I like to mix with people with similar interests		.769
I enjoy the crowds at festivals		.563
Attending music events is part of my life		.517
It’s stimulating and exciting			.770
Fun and entertainment			.693
To escape from the pressures of everyday life			.667
To have a change from my daily routine			.648
Curiosity				.778
To be part of a unique event				.600
To experience new, different things				.505
To spend time with friends and family					.749
I enjoy watching and doing a variety of things					.573

Regarding online festivals, again the Bartlett’s sphericity test value, 597.670 (p <0.001), and the KMO statistic, 0.658, indicated that the data were appropriate for identifying factors. The analysis showed that four factors (Table 6) explained 59% of the variance: emotion/entertainment, socialisation, the music and escape. The Cronbach’s alphas were above 0.60, except for the last factor (0.40), which was therefore eliminated from the study.

Table 6
Motivational factors for attending online festivals

Items	F1	F2	F3	F4
Attending music events like these is part of my life	.769
I enjoy watching and doing a variety of things	.715
It’s stimulating and exciting	.653
Partying and fun	.587
To experience new, different things	.579
I like to connect with people with similar interests		.806
To be part of a unique event		.726
To meet people		.640
I enjoy the crowds at festivals		.531
To listen to and support my favourite artists			.865
I was attracted by the advertising poster			.836
To listen to live music			.655
To know more about my favourite artists			.509
To have a change from my daily routine				.702
To escape from the pressures of everyday life				.662

The factor scores were calculated as the average of all the items that contributed to each factor. For the live festivals, escape obtained the highest average value (5.63), followed by the music (5.32), socialisation (4.73) and, finally, novelty (3.9); in online festivals the most important factor was the music (5.21), followed by excitement/entertainment (3.79) and, finally, socialisation (2.6). The music was one of the most important factors for both festivals, while socialisation was much more important for live than for online festivals.

5.3 Motivational differences based on sociodemographic variables and habits

ANOVA tests were used to determine whether there were significant differences in the participants’ motivations based on sociodemographic variables and other music festival-related variables. The results showed that there were significant gender-based differences for the music factor for both festival types: live: F(1,135) = 5.63, p < 0.05; and online: F(1,135) = 10.31, p < 0.01; the music was more important for women in both cases. There were age-based differences in socialisation for the two types of festivals: live: F(3,135) = 3.98, p < 0.01, with the respondents between 25 and 29 attaching more importance to socialisation than those between 30 and 34; and online: F(3,135) = 7.49, p < 0.01, with those between 19 and 24 attaching more importance to it than those over 30. These results lead us to conclude that socialisation is more important for the younger participants.

There were differences in the novelty factor for live festivals based on level of studies (F(2,135) = 4.62, p < 0.05); novelty was seen as more important by those with high/secondary school diplomas/professional training than by those with lower educational levels. There were also differences for online festivals for the music (F(2,135) = 6.03, p < 0.01); thus, the music was less important for those with high/secondary school diplomas/professional training (4.46) than for university graduates (5.45). As for occupation, the socialisation associated with online festivals (F(3,135) = 7.36, p < 0.01) was more important for students than for the other groups analysed.

As for the festival experience, there were differences in novelty based on how many live festivals the participants had attended in recent times (F(3,135) = 6.72, p < 0.01); novelty was more important for those who had attended only one festival than for the others. Music (F(1,135) = 4.14, p < 0.05) and socialisation (F(1,135) = 5.54, p < 0.05) were more important for those attending their first events than for those attending their second, third, fourth, etc., events. The type of entry ticket purchased also had an influence for live festivals; those who had bought multi-day tickets attached more importance to novelty (F(3,135) = 3.05, p < 0.05) than those who purchased multi-day/camping tickets, and they attached more importance to escape (F(3,135) = 3.16, p < 0.05) than those who bought day tickets.

Companion type influenced the importance given to novelty in live festivals (F(3,135) = 4.84, p < 0.01); novelty was less important for those who went with friends and partners than for those who went with their partner, or alone. Finally, for online festivals, whether or not the participant had watched the entire event varied the importance of emotion/entertainment (F(2,135) = 5.35, p < 0.01); emotion/entertainment was more important for respondents who had watched the whole event. Socialisation (F(2,135) = 5.03, p <.01) mattered more to those who had viewed only one event than for those who had viewed multiple events.

5.4 Perceived value-satisfaction-behavioural intentions chain

The model in Figure 1 was estimated using partial least squares (PLS) with SmartPLS 3.0. Having checked the psychometric properties of the measurement scales (i.e., reliability, convergent and discriminant validity), we evaluated the structural model via the variance of the dependent latent variables explained by the predicting constructs (R2), predictive relevance (Q2) and the significances of the structural relations (Tables 7 and 8).

Table 7
Tests of the hypotheses (live events)

Hypothesis	Standardised Beta	t-value (bootstrapping)	Result
H1a: Perceived value → Behavioural intentions	.36*	5.35	Supported
H2b: Perceived value → Satisfaction	.62*	11.01	Supported
H3c: Satisfaction → Behavioural intentions	.46*	0.72	Supported

• R² (Behavioural intentions) = .25; R² (Satisfaction) = .25; Q² (Behavioural intentions) = .47; Q² (Satisfaction) = .37. *p < .01.

Table 8
Tests of the hypotheses (online events)

Hypothesis	Standardised Beta	t-value (bootstrapping)	Result
H1a: Perceived value → Behavioural intentions	.51*	6.12	Supported
H2b: Perceived value → Satisfaction	.82*	29.01	Supported
H3c: Satisfaction → Behavioural intentions	.34*	3.58	Supported

• R² (Behavioural intentions) = .66; R² (Satisfaction) = .67; Q² (Behavioural intentions) = .59; Q² (Satisfaction) = .66. *p < .01.

To identify if the differences between the two festival types were significant, a multigroup analysis was performed; the results are shown in Table 9. The only significant difference was for H2: perceived value affected satisfaction more strongly for online festivals than for live festivals.

Table 9
Multigroup analysis – significant differences between festival types

Hypothesis	Dif. Standardised Beta (live-online)	t-value (bootstrapping)
H1ab: Perceived value → Behavioural intentions	-.15	1.42
H2ab: Perceived value → Satisfaction	-.20	3.26*
H3ab: Satisfaction → Behavioural intentions	.12	1.04

• ^*
  p < .01.

6 Conclusions, implications, limitations and future research lines

6.1 Main conclusions

This research makes the following findings. First, it was confirmed that the same individuals can have different motivations for attending different events (Crompton & McKay, 1997; Li & Petrick, 2006; Nicholson & Pearce, 2001), and that different events can meet the same needs, albeit to varying degrees (Lee et al., 2004). We show that participants have different motivations for attending live festivals and online festivals: socialisation and the music were found to be motivational factors for both festival types, but escape and novelty were only found for live festivals, and excitement/entertainment only for online festivals.

Vinicombe and Sou Pek (2017) concluded that in the specific case of music festivals, the musical genre, artists and other factors specific to the art form are more important to attendees than in the case of festivals more generally. That music was an important factor for both festival types is largely consistent with previous research (Bowen & Daniels, 2005; Gelder & Robinson, 2009). Socialisation has been the most common dimension cited in the majority of previous studies into participants’ motivations for attending events (Formica & Uysal, 1996; Gelder & Robinson, 2009; Kruger & Saayman, 2012). The results allow us to conclude that, despite the difficulties for social relations that online festivals imply, the participants of this type of festival also seek to improve their socialization.

Novelty has been proposed as one of the most important dimensions by several studies (Crompton & McKay, 1997; Formica & Uysal, 1996) and is commonly related to elements such as adventure and the uniqueness of the event; perhaps it does not have as much relevance for online festivals because these elements are less associated with online events. The identification of escape as a motivating factor for attendance at live festivals supports the results of other works (Mohr et al., 1993; Uysal et al., 1993); naturally, the escape concept is likely to be less relevant for online events than it is for live festivals, as home-based viewers are less able to forget their daily responsibilities. These findings could support the claims of Holt (2010), Charron (2017) and Harper (2015) that digitally mediated events do not offer the unexpected and expansive experiences provided by live events, although more studies should be conducted to understand why these dimensions are not evident for online festivals.

The results of the study also confirmed that, as for live events, there are statistically significant differences in the motivations of online event attendees, so attendee segmentation might be used as a successful strategy for online festivals. For example, we conclude that, for both types of festivals, the music motivation was more important for women than for men and socialisation was more important for younger participants. Only for online festivals, we conclude that novelty was more relevant for those with a higher educational level than for those with lower educational levels, and socialisation was more important for students than for the other groups analysed.

Moreover, the study confirmed that not only are there motivational differences based on demographic variables, as found by other studies (Atkinson, 2016; Bowen & Daniels, 2005; Formica & Uysal, 1996), but there are also differences based on variables such as type of entry ticket purchased and companions. For example, we show that novelty was more important for those who had attended only one festival, and the music and socialisation were more important for people attending their first event. Also, those who bought multi-day tickets gave more importance to escape than those who bought single-day tickets.

Finally, this work confirms, in the context of online festivals, the positive relationship that previous studies have proposed between perceived value, satisfaction and future behavioural intentions in live festival experiences (Cole & Chancellor, 2009; Kim et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2008). An interesting finding of the study is that perceived value affected satisfaction more in online festivals than in live festivals, perhaps because the participants’ expectations about the value of online festival experiences were lower, so the same level of value translated into greater satisfaction with online festivals.

This research makes a contribution to the festival literature by trying to understand the phenomenon of events held only online. In addition, this study can contribute to the development of a framework to generalise the underlying motivations common to attendance at all events, as proposed by Nicholson and Pearce (2001). These authors argued that a more systematic approach is needed to study the motivations of festival attendees, one that goes beyond individual events, explores more general issues and begins to examine broader characteristics of event tourism.

6.2 Implications

Given that music festivals are one of the fastest growing global tourism segments, the study’s findings have important business implications. For example, the low score given to the socialization dimension for online festivals suggests that managers and artists should encourage greater attendee participation through chats, taking advantage of the interaction possibilities offered by new technologies. Also, the importance given by the participants to the excitement/entertainment afforded by online events suggests that musicians and organisers should provide a variety of complementary activities to ensure their attendees enjoy an exciting experience.

The unprecedented nature, circumstances and impact of COVID-19 will have profound and long-term structural and transformative implications for tourism as a socioeconomic activity and industry (Sigala, 2020); thus, a better understanding of online festivals is vital for implementing strategies that can ensure their future success (Bremser et al., 2018). It is known that live performances are now one of the largest sources of income for artists (Harbi et al., 2014), but there are certain negative aspects associated with face-to-face performances that foster interest in promoting other, remote types of event. These negative aspects include, for the organisers, rising costs such as fuel, artists’ fees and logistic and energy expenses; and, for the attendees, factors related to location, accessibility and cost (Kerr & May, 2011). Online festivals could be an alternative to live festivals as they lack many of these negative aspects.

6.3 Limitations and future research lines

This work has several limitations. First, the sample used is small and non-probabilistic, so the results should be interpreted with caution since the sample does not represent the entire population and the results cannot be used for generalizations. Second, by focusing on overall festival experiences, the study does not take into account variations that may arise between different types of festivals based on music genre and/or event size; however, our results provide a starting point for future research. Thus, this work should be considered as a first exploration of a changing environment and new ways of understanding the music industry.

Future research should replicate the analysis of the motivations underlying participation in online festivals with larger and more representative samples, with an international focus. As online festivals become more widespread, it will be easier to identify individuals who have lived the experience of a festival remotely, facilitating data collection. This would permit the replicability of the study in other national contexts. Also, future studies into motivations for attendance at online festivals should use qualitative methods to delve deeper into the field. They should also go further by examining the relationships among perceived value, satisfaction, behavioural intentions, and the individual’s motivations for attending online festivals; these relationships have been established in studies on live events (Faulkner et al., 1999; Savinovic et al., 2012).

APPENDIX 1 Measurement scales used in the study

Motivational factors	Scale
To listen to and support my favourite artists	7-point Likert scale
I was attracted by the advertising poster
To listen to live music
To know more about my favourite artists
To meet people
I like to mix with people with similar interests
I enjoy the crowds at festivals
Attending music events is part of my life
It’s stimulating and exciting
Fun and entertainment
To escape from the pressures of everyday life
To have a change from my daily routine
Curiosity
To be part of a unique event
To experience new, different things
To spend time with friends and family
I enjoy watching and doing a variety of things
Perceived value	7-point Likert scale
The quality of the event was outstanding
The event has a good reputation
The event made me feel good
Satisfaction
What is your general degree of satisfaction with the festival?	7-point semantic differential scale
Behavioural intentions	7-point semantic differential scale
What is the probability that you will attend that festival again?
What is the probability that you would recommend that festival?

• Evaluation process:Double Blind Review
  This article is open data
• How to cite: Perez-Monteagudo, A., & Curras-Perez, R. (2022). Live and online music festivals in the COVID-19 era: analysis of motivational differences and value perceptions. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 24(3), p. 420-438. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v24i3.4196

• Financial support:

  There are no funding agencies to report.
• Open science: Perez-Monteagudo, Ainara; Curras-Perez, Rafael, 2022, "Supplementary Data - Live and online music festivals in the COVID-19 era: analysis of motivational differences and value perceptions", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/FJFXHG, Harvard Dataverse, V1.
• Plagiarism analysis: RBGN performs plagiarism analysis on all its articles at the time of submission and after approval of the manuscript using the iThenticate tool.

Referências

• Abreu-Novais, M., & Arcodia, C. (2013). Music festival motivators for attendance. Developing an agenda for research. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 8(1), 34-48.
• Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 53-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800304
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800304
• Anderson, R., & Srinivasan, S. (2003). E-Satisfaction and E-Loyalty: A contingency framework. Psychology and Marketing, 20(2), 123-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.10063
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.10063
• Asociación de Promotores Musicales. (2020a). Informe del impacto del sector de la música en vivo por la crisis del Coronavirus de Esmúsica APM. Retrieved from https://www.apmusicales.com/informe-del-impacto-del-sector-de-la-musica-en-vivo-por-la-crisis-del-coronavirus-de-esmusica/
  » https://www.apmusicales.com/informe-del-impacto-del-sector-de-la-musica-en-vivo-por-la-crisis-del-coronavirus-de-esmusica/
• Asociación de Promotores Musicales. (2020b). El ranking de los festivales de 2019 APM APM. Retrieved from https://www.apmusicales.com/el-ranking-de-los-festivales-de-2019
  » https://www.apmusicales.com/el-ranking-de-los-festivales-de-2019
• Atkinson, J. (2016). What motivates stakeholders’ engagement with music festivals? Cardiff Metropolitan University.
• Auslander, P. (2008). Liveness: Performance in a mediatized culture Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203938133
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203938133
• Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785-804. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00108-5
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00108-5
• Bennett, R. (2015). Live concerts and fan identity in the age of the Internet. In A. Cresswell, & R. J. Bennett (Eds.), The digital evolution of live music (pp. 3-15). Chandos Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100067-0.00001-4
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100067-0.00001-4
• Blešić, I., Pivac, T., Stamenković, I., & Besermenji, S. (2013). Motives of visits to ethno music festivals with regard to gender and age structure of visitors. Event Management, 17(2), 145-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/152599513X13668224082387
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/152599513X13668224082387
• Boksberger, P. E., & Melsen, L. (2011). Perceived value: A critical examination of definitions, concepts and measures for the service industry. Journal of Services Marketing, 25(3), 229-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041111129209
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041111129209
• Bowen, H., & Daniels, M. (2005). Does the music matter? Motivations for attending a music festival. Event Management, 9(3), 155-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/152599505774791149
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/152599505774791149
• Bremser, K., Alonso-Almeida, M. M., & Llach, J. (2018). Strategic alternatives for tourism companies to overcome times of crisis. Service Business, 12(2), 229-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11628-017-0344-7
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11628-017-0344-7
• Brown, S. C., & Knox, D. (2017). Why go to pop concerts? The motivations behind live music attendance. Musicae Scientiae, 21(3), 233-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1029864916650719
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1029864916650719
• Chaney, D., & Martin, D. (2017). The role of shared values in understanding loyalty over time: A longitudinal study on music festivals. Journal of Travel Research, 56(4), 507-520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287516643411
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287516643411
• Charron, J.-P. (2017). Music audiences 3.0: Concert-Goers’ psychological motivations at the dawn of virtual reality. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 800. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00800 PMid:28588528.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00800
• Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255
• Cole, S. T., & Chancellor, H. C. (2009). Examining the festival attributes that impact visitor experience, satisfaction and re-visit intention. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 15(4), 323-333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1356766709335831
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1356766709335831
• Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 408-424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(79)90004-5
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(79)90004-5
• Crompton, J. L., & McKay, S. L. (1997). Motives of visitors attending festival events. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 425-439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)80010-2
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)80010-2
• Cronin, Jr., J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00028-2
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00028-2
• Dann, G. (1981). Tourism motivations an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2), 189-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(81)90082-7
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(81)90082-7
• Elliott, C., & Barron, P. (2015). Escape to Mayhem? Toward an understanding of attendees’ motivations at a heavy metal festival. In: T. M. Karalainen, & K. Karki (Eds.), Modern heavy metal: Markets, practices and cultures (pp. 38-45). Aalto University School of Business.
• España. Ministerio de Cultura y Deporte. (2019). Anuario de estadísticas culturales del Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (No. 343). Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes. Retrieved from https://www.culturaydeporte.gob.es/dam/jcr:3bdcb17c-050c-4807-b4f4-61e3714cbc15/anuario
  » https://www.culturaydeporte.gob.es/dam/jcr:3bdcb17c-050c-4807-b4f4-61e3714cbc15/anuario
• Fan Music Fest. (2020). Coronavirus: lista actualizada de festivales cancelados o aplazados 2020 Fan Music Fest. Retrieved from https://fanmusicfest.com/content/coronavirus-lista-de-festivales-cancelados-o-aplazados-2020
  » https://fanmusicfest.com/content/coronavirus-lista-de-festivales-cancelados-o-aplazados-2020
• Faulkner, B., Fredline, E., Larson, M., & Tomljenovic, R. (1999). A marketing analysis of Sweden’s Storsjoyran music festival. Tourism Analysis, 4, 157-171.
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1979). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
• Formica, S., & Uysal, M. (1996). A market segmentation of festival visitors: Umbria jazz festival in Italy. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 3(4), 175-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/106527095792232523
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/106527095792232523
• Gallarza, M. G., & Gil, I. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation of university students’ travel behaviour. Tourism Management, 27(3), 437-452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.12.002
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.12.002
• Gelder, G., & Robinson, P. (2009). A critical comparative study of visitor motivations for attending music festivals: A case study of Glastonbury and V festival. Event Management, 13(3), 181-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/152599509790029792
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/152599509790029792
• Global Citizen. (2020). One World: Together At Home' recaudó casi $128 millones en respuesta a la crisis del COVID-19 Global Citizen. Retrieved from https://www.globalcitizen.org/es/content/one-world-together-at-home-impact/
  » https://www.globalcitizen.org/es/content/one-world-together-at-home-impact/
• Gorsuch, R. L. (1997). Exploratory factor analysis: Its role in item analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68(3), 532-560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6803_5 PMid:16372866.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6803_5
• Hair, Jr., J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & G. Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
• Harbi, S. E., Grolleau, G., & Bekir, I. (2014). Substituting piracy with a pay-what-you-want option: Does it make sense? European Journal of Law and Economics, 37(2), 277-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10657-011-9287-y
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10657-011-9287-y
• Harper, T. (2015). Aura, iteration, and action: digital technology and the jouissance of live music. In A. Cresswell-Jones, & R. J. Bennett (Eds.), The digital evolution of live music (pp. 17-27). Chandos Publishing.
• Henderson, S., & Wood, E. (2009). Dance to the music: Fans and socialites in the festival audience Centre of Events Management, Leeds Metropolitan University.
• Holt, F. (2010). The economy of live music in the digital age. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(2), 243-261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367549409352277
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367549409352277
• Hudson, S., Roth, M., Madden, T., & Hudson, R. (2015). The effects of social media on emotions, brand relationship quality, and word of mouth: An empirical study of music festival attendees. Tourism Management, 47, 68-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.001
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.001
• Iso-Ahola, E. (1982). Towards a social psychology theory of tourism motivation: A rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(2), 256-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(82)90049-4
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(82)90049-4
• Kerr, A., & May, D. (2011). An exploratory study looking at the relationship marketing techniques used in the music festival industry. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, 9(5), 451-464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/rlp.2011.8
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/rlp.2011.8
• Kim, Y. H., Kim, M., Ruetzler, T., & Taylor, J. (2010). An examination of festival attendees’ behavior using SEM. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 1(1), 86-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17852951011029324
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17852951011029324
• Kjus, Y., & Danielsen, A. (2014). Live islands in the sea of recordings: The music experience of visitors at the Øya festival. Popular Music and Society, 37(5), 660-679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03007766.2014.929322
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03007766.2014.929322
• Kruger, M., & Saayman, M. (2012). Show me the band and I will show you the market. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 13(4), 250-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15470148.2012.728973
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15470148.2012.728973
• Kruger, M., & Saayman, M. (2017). Segmenting beyond behavioural intentions: Fine tuning music festival visitors’ music appreciation. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 8(2), 204-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEFM-09-2016-0064
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEFM-09-2016-0064
• La Vanguardia. (2020). Nacen los festivales de música no presenciales: el ‘Cuarentena Fest’ y el ‘Yo me quedo en casa’ La Vanguardia. Retrieved from https://www.lavanguardia.com/cultura/20200313/474107411182/festivales-musica-cuarentena-fest-yo-me-quedo-en-casa-coronavirus-covid-19.html
  » https://www.lavanguardia.com/cultura/20200313/474107411182/festivales-musica-cuarentena-fest-yo-me-quedo-en-casa-coronavirus-covid-19.html
• Lee, C.-K., Lee, Y.-K., & Wicks, B. E. (2004). Segmentation of festival motivation by nationality and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 25(1), 61-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00060-8
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00060-8
• Lee, H., Hwang, H., & Shim, C. (2019). Experiential festival attributes, perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intention for Korean festivalgoers. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 19(2), 199-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1467358417738308
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1467358417738308
• Lee, S. M., & Lee, D. (2020). “Untact”: A new customer service strategy in the digital age. Service Business, 14, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-019-00408-2.
• Lee, Y. K., Lee, C. K., Lee, S. K., & Babin, B. J. (2008). Festivalscapes and patrons’ emotions, satisfaction, and loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 61(1), 56-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.05.009
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.05.009
• Li, C., & Lin, S. (2016). The service satisfaction of jazz festivals in structural equation modeling under conditions of value and loyalty. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 17(4), 266-293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15470148.2015.1133360
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15470148.2015.1133360
• Li, X., & Petrick, J. F. (2006). A review of festival and event motivations. Event Management, 9(4), 239-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/152599506776771526
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/152599506776771526
• Maeng, H. Y., Jang, H. Y., & Li, J. M. (2016). A critical review of the motivational factors for festival attendance based on meta-analysis. Tourism Management Perspectives, 17, 16-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.10.003
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.10.003
• Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313
• McDougall, G. H., & Levesque, T. (2000). Customer satisfaction with services: Putting perceived value into the equation. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(5), 392-410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876040010340937
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876040010340937
• McMorland, L., & MacTaggart, D. (2007). Traditional Scottish music events: Native Scots attendance motivations. Event Management, 11(1), 57-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/152599508783943246
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/152599508783943246
• Mohr, K., Backman, K., Gahan, L., & Backman, S. (1993). An investigation of festival motivations and event satisfaction by visitor type. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 1(3), 89-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/106527093792337619
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/106527093792337619
• Mortimer, J. H., Nosko, C., & Sorensen, A. (2012). Supply responses to digital distribution: Recorded music and live performances. Information Economics and Policy, 24(1), 3-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2012.01.007
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2012.01.007
• Nicholson, R. E., & Pearce, D. G. (2001). Why do people attend events: A comparative analysis of visitor motivations at four South Island events. Journal of Travel Research, 39(4), 449-460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004728750103900412
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004728750103900412
• Oliver, R. (1999). Value as excellence in the consumption experience. In Holbrook, M.B. (Ed.), Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research Routledge, (pp. 46-62). http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203010679.ch2
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203010679.ch2
• Parasuraman, A., & Grewal, D. (2000). The impact of technology on the quality-value-loyalty chain: A research agenda. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 28(1), 168-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281015
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281015
• Pegg, S., & Patterson, I. (2010). Rethinking music festivals as a staged event: Gaining insights from understanding visitor motivations and the experiences they seek. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 11(2), 85-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15470141003758035
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15470141003758035
• Perron-Brault, A., de Grandpré, F., Legoux, R., & Dantas, D. C. (2020). Popular music festivals: An examination of the relationship between festival programs and attendee motivations. Tourism Management Perspectives, 34, 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100670
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100670
• Petrick, J. R., & Backman, S. J. (2002). An examination of golf travelers’ satisfaction, perceived value, loyalty, and intentions to revisit. Tourism Analysis, 6, 223-237.
• Radbourne, J., Johanson, K., Glow, H., & White, T. R. (2009). The audience experience. Measuring quality in the performing arts. International Journal of Arts Management, 11(3), 16-29.
• Rodgers, W., Negash, S., & Suk, K. (2005). The moderating effect of on-line experience on the antecedents and consequences of on-line satisfaction. Psychology and Marketing, 22(4), 313-331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20061
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20061
• Savinovic, A., Kim, S., & Long, P. (2012). Audience members’ motivation, satisfaction, and intention to re-visit an ethnic minority cultural festival. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29(7), 682-694. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2012.720154
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2012.720154
• Sigala, M. (2020). Tourism and COVID-19: Impacts and implications for advancing and resetting industry and research. Journal of Business Research, 117, 312-321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.015 PMid:32546875.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.015
• Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0
• Uysal, M., Gahan, L., & Martin, B. (1993). An examination of event motivations: A case study. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 1(1), 5-10.
• Vallbona, T. (2020). Festivales. Anuario de la música en vivo 2020 – Especial XX Aniversario 190-204 APM. Retrieved from https://www.proexa.es/anuario-musica-en-vivo-2020-el-anno-del-coronavirus/
  » https://www.proexa.es/anuario-musica-en-vivo-2020-el-anno-del-coronavirus/
• Vilalta, A. (2020). Los festivales online que han surgido a raíz del coronavirus Europa FM. Retrieved from https://www.europafm.com/noticias/musica/festivales-online-que-han-surgido-raiz-coronavirus_202005295ed0c4e3d84fea00015584d3.html
  » https://www.europafm.com/noticias/musica/festivales-online-que-han-surgido-raiz-coronavirus_202005295ed0c4e3d84fea00015584d3.html
• Vinicombe, T., & Sou Pek, U. J. (2017). Socialization or genre appreciation: The motives of music festival participants. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 8(3), 274-291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEFM-05-2016-0034
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEFM-05-2016-0034
• Wake and Listen. (2020). Los 25 festivales españoles con más asistentes de 2019 Wake and Listen. Retrieved from https://www.wakeandlisten.com/festivales-espanoles-mas-asistencia-2019/
  » https://www.wakeandlisten.com/festivales-espanoles-mas-asistencia-2019/
• Williamson, J., & Cloonan, M. (2007). Rethinking the music industry. Popular Music, 26(2), 305-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261143007001262
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261143007001262
• Yang, J., Gu, Y., & Cen, J. (2011). Festival tourists’ emotion, perceived value, and behavioral intentions: A test of the moderating effect of festivalscape. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 12(1), 25-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15470148.2010.551292
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15470148.2010.551292
• Yoon, Y. S., Lee, J. S., & Lee, C. K. (2010). Measuring festival quality and value affecting visitors’ satisfaction and loyalty using a structural approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(2), 335-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.10.002
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.10.002
• Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200302
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200302

Responsible editor:

Prof. Francisco José Liébana

Edited by

Reviewers:

Alejandro Alvarado; Álvaro Rojas-Lamorena

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  10 Oct 2022
• Date of issue
  Jul-Sep 2022

History

• Received
  26 Nov 2021
• Accepted
  18 Aug 2022