includes an economic impact estimate for the Coliseum Complex (including the swimming hole)
that puts a multiplier on 68K hotel room-nights said to be filled by Coliseum events thus far in the fiscal year
and comes out to $116 million.
Their numbers are VERY inflated, by possibly as much as 100%.
Part of hosting an event includes securing "special" rates for housing.
These folks are not staying at the O'Henry.
$114 for Day Trippers?
I doubt the numbers are inflated...
...The $114/$228 figures might seem high,
but they're broadly consistent with other estimates I've seen in various sources.
...My only criticism of the $114/$228 numbers is that GACVB hasn't adjusted them in forever.
1 kid in a room for a three day swim meet.
Fri, Sat & Sun.
$228 per day x 3 = $684 total spent per child.
$120 room per day / 4 = $30 x 3 = $90 total spent for room per child.
Lunch at Swim meet = $10 x 3 = $30 total.
$20 for dinner x 3 = $60 total.
$180 + entrance fee? = $50
Mall spending = $50
$280 for the three days per kid.
684 - 280 = 404
What does the kid spend the other $404 on?
Is a day tripper someone who lives in Greensboro?
Where are the numbers?
Why do they count kids and adults the same way, $228 per day?
Especially if 4 kids usually occupy a room,
while 2 adults do.
When we went for softball tournaments
local spending was pretty stricktly food and room.
Always had a hotel that served breakfast and coffee.
Exausted by the end of each day.
finish and hit the highway.
Not a whole lot of impact from buying gas to get home.
if someone spends $60 on gas, all GACVB is measuring is that $60.
Henri Fourier isn't claiming anything about the impact of that $60.
Your comment would be relevant if someone had done a comprehensive economic-impact analysis,
in which the analyst assigns multipliers to each type of spending.
Some kinds of spending have less local impact, and for them the multipliers are lower.
The analysis (if done appropriately) takes your concern into account.
It occurs to me that maybe GACVB intends for the $114/$228 figures
to capture direct effects and multipliers.
Mathematically, there's nothing wrong with that.
But if that's the case, then GACVB is using a particularly opaque methodology.
Economic-impact analysis is already kind of a "black box" from the public's perspective.
This would be even blacker.
In any case, the real problem is that those numbers haven't changed in forever.
I used them in a study some years ago and stopped when I realized they weren't changing.
In my National Science Center study that George tried to impugn on another thread,
I used other data.
What other data?
"someone spends $60 on gas, all GACVB is measuring is that $60."
How can they count $60, if most of the money leaves Greensboro?
The Gas station probably keeps a couple of dollars, no?
The four in my family went to Rock Hill, SC for three days.
$228 x 4 = $912 per day
912 x 3 days = $2,736
Didn't even come close to what happened.
$450 for the room.
$50 for the tournament.
$300 for food max. (we took a cooler full of drinks, snaks etc...)
Total spent less than $1,000.
Are you saying the numbers are too low?
The city brings in about $3,400,000 per year off a 6% tax.
If each room costs $150, that's $9 in taxes per room.
$3,400,000 / $9 per room = about 377,778 rooms sold for the year.
...$3,400,000 / $6 per room = about 566,667 rooms sold for the year.
They're not tracking where the money goes.
They're not tracking the economic impact of that money.
They're just adding up how much is spent locally, based on their $114/$228 spending estimates...
"They're not tracking the economic impact of that money."
Says "economic impact"
"They're just adding up how much is spent locally,
based on their $114/$228 spending estimates."
Then why does it say "economic impact"?
"based on their $114/$228 spending estimates."
Where is the math and explanation behing the estimates?
Says "economic impact" six times on the one page memo.
How can it not be about "economic impact"?
Go ask them.
"The $114/$228 figures might seem high,
but they're broadly consistent with other estimates I've seen
in various sources."
"My only criticism of the $114/$228 numbers
is that GACVB hasn't adjusted them in forever."
"I did this kind of work at UNCG"
"...those numbers haven't changed in forever.
I used them in a study some years ago
and stopped when I realized they weren't changing."
"Go ask them."
what people are missing is that the durham dpac was paid with hotel and motel tax money,
which for greensboro is not going to happen
if matt and his fiefdom is taking all the money...