June 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

« Treasure hunt | Main | Big government »

Jan 30, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Andrew Brod

The Spokane news release that Roch dug up refers to the 1.75 multiplier it used as "modest." I'd say a better description is "typical." That's about where one generally finds multipliers for local hotel and retail spending. I've calculated similar numbers in studies that included a retail/hotel/dining component. But in others I've obtained smaller multipliers. I wouldn't go so far as to say that 1.75 is on the high side, but I doubt it's on the low side.

As written, the mention of the 1.75 multiplier has a why-don't-we-just-go-with-1.75? feel. The attachment that Roch provides via Scribd is consistent with that hunch. The same multiplier is used for a number of different industries, which is not generally how economic impact works. In a given year, multipliers vary by industry and region, so a particular multiplier could be either bigger or smaller in Greensboro than it was last year in Spokane. It's reasonable to wonder what a full analysis would have implied for spending in hotels, dining, general retail, etc.

But 1.75 isn't a crazy number, and so to a first approximation, $26 million probably reflects what happened in Spokane. Maybe it's a good number for Greensboro as well. But without a study, who can say?

glenwoodobserver

Can't debate the numbers, but after one week of the championships, it sure didn't feel like a $26 million impact. I hope it was, but I'm doubtful.

Mick

Spokane had the luxury of being pre-Olympics event too. Probably a big difference. They may have had some Olympic trial type events which would seemingly led to higher attendance.

Didnt feel like 26 million to me either but it is all voodoo to me anyway. Regardless it was a very good thing. But when N&R and Promoter through out 25-30 million repeatedly and it is in reality 10-15 million (just numbers... I know nothing) it sets up later events for undue scrutiny and gives opponants and naysayers legitimate arguments. Personally I think 10-15 million is pretty cool.

John Robonson says they plan some follow ups. We shall see.

Roch101

So now I'm wondering if the event really drew "100,000 people to Greensboro" as WFMY was reporting this morning. I don't know where they would have stayed, but I'm sure WFMY wouldn't just make something link that up.

Ed Cone

Only a fraction of 100K would need to stay here overnight -- lots of people in driving radius. Of course day-trippers reduce the economic impact of hotel visits, meals, shopping, etc.

Might be more accurate to say it drew 100K to the Coliseum -- is that a reasonable # for cumulative butts in seats?

Andrew Brod

And the 100K might not be unique visitors, i.e. someone going on Saturday and Sunday might be counted twice. Perhaps that's what your reference to "cumulative butts" means.

The other thing about day-trippers is that if they live within the impact region (however it's defined--Guilford County?, the Triad?), their spending generally should not be counted in an economic-impact study. That's because their spending on this event is most likely just shifted from spending on some other event in the region. Hence counting it ignores the reduced economic impact elsewhere.

Roch101

Both of you make reasonable assumptions which, if considered, render "drew 100,000 people to Greensboro" pretty absurd. "Attendance totaled 100,000" maybe, but "drew 100,000 people to Greensboro"? Uh, no.

Mick

Had a friend in town from Va Beach. She and her daughter stayed fri sat and sunday nights. Just came for championship days/rounds. I am curious to do some exit polling with them. See how they liked The G, CVM, etc. They have seen A LOT of high caliber ice skating should be interesting to see what they thunk of us.

Andrew Brod

Roch, here's another way to look at that 100,000 figure: Last fall's High Point furniture market had slightly more than 70,000 visitors, and this spring's market might attract 80,000-90,000 (spring markets are generally better attended, and the economy is slowly getting better). And those are unique visitors: buyers, designers, exhibitors, journalists, etc. So think about how the furniture market affects the entire Triad, in particular the hotels and restaurants. Did we notice anything like that last week? If not, then my guess is that the 100,000 figure represents the total number of tickets sold rather than 100,000 people.

Ed Cone

Let's see the final attendance numbers for the week -- 100K sounds like a reasonable guess. One sellout, one big day, and several thinly-attended days.

My guess: no way on "drew 100K to GSO," maybe sort of on "drew 100K to the Coliseum," yes on "filled 100K seats over the week."

The comments to this entry are closed.