View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Impact of BayFest 2013 Prepared by: Christopher M. Keshock, PhD April 2014
All rights reserved. Reproduction of this work in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, including photocopying or storage in any information retrieval system is expressly forbidden without the written permission of Dr. Christopher M. Keshock and the Mobile BayFest Music Festival. Requests for permission to make copies of any part of this work should be mailed to: Dr. Christopher M. Keshock, PE Building-HPELS Department, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688 or by Email at ckeshock@southalabama.edu
Executive Summary
The BayFest Music Festival has been hosted in Mobile, Alabama for 19 years. The relative
value or economic, social, and destination marketing impacts from BayFest 2013 on the City
of Mobile, Mobile County and the State of Alabama regions were ascertained for this report.
Impact estimate values were derived from random sample on-site survey data gathered from
spectator and business traveler responses, from an evaluation of BayFest cash flow
statements, and related data sources. Specifically, yield from public subsidizations allocated
to BayFest 2013 are presented along with comparative analyses of other events for policy
development purposes. Despite inclement weather for BayFest 2013 considerable reciprocal
value to the impact region economies were found from hosting BayFest in Mobile.
• Based on survey data collected from BayFest spectators (n=1,047) 70% of respondents had a
home residence outside the City of Mobile; 57% were from outside Mobile County; and 34%
traveled to attend BayFest from another State.
• An audience audit of survey data frequency responses returned a spectator demographic fan
profile as a 37 year old married or single parent college experienced female living in a
household of over 3 people and nearly 2 children earning between $30,000-$50,000 who
enjoys listening mostly to country and rock music. In general terms single younger females,
higher wage earners, and African Americans attended BayFest 2013 in comparison to the
spectators at BayFest 2012.
• Response data from business traveler surveys revealed 82% traveled to work BayFest from an
origin outside the City of Mobile; 81% were from outside Mobile County; and 78% were from
Out-of-state.
• BayFest attendee average group size was 3 persons and they stayed roughly 3 days and 2
nights in Mobile specifically to attend BayFest.
2
• Based upon the on-site event survey response data collected at BayFest 2013 with weighted
average adjustments to lodging, intent of trip, and ticket sales purchase receipts the average
spending per person for true economic tourists living outside the City of Mobile was
$173.93, BayFest attendees with a home origin outside Mobile County spent $179.06 per
person, and those with a residence outside the State spent $169.58 while in town.
• The average group size for business travelers was 12 members staying an average of 4 days
and 3 nights in town and who spent an average of $243.97 per person while in Mobile during
the week of BayFest.
• Concert attendees, musicians, and festival workers who live outside Mobile and traveled
specifically to the area because of BayFest drew roughly 156,800 true economic tourists to
the City, 129,800 were drawn to Mobile from outside the County, and 80,300 travelled from
outside the State to take part in BayFest activities after factoring out locals, time switchers,
and casual visitors.
• The direct spending accrued by those specifically traveling to the impact region (attendees and
business travelers) for BayFest 2013 brought an estimated $10,105,476 to $11,605,762 to the
City; $8,162,342 to $9,346,094 to Mobile County: and $5,079,990 to $5,744,389 to the State
of Alabama.
• The subsequent rounds of re-spending from initial visitor purchases (multiplier effect) created
an economic impact of $17,737,132 to $20,370,434 to Mobile for hosting the BayFest Music
Festival and ancillary Road Race event.
• The subsequent rounds of re-spending from initial visitor purchases (multiplier effect) created
an economic impact of $14,326,543 to $16,404,264 to Mobile County and between
3
$8,916,399 to $10,082,552 to the State of Alabama for hosting the BayFest Music Festival
and Road Race.
• The operational output or incremental expenditures effect from BayFest organizational
purchases of local Mobile goods and services was an estimated $766,474 resulting in an
economic impact of $1,345,315 to the City.
• The incremental fiscal impact from BayFest related visitor purchases was an estimated
$985,527 to $1,132,681 in City tax revenue; $281,406 to $323,228 in Mobile County tax
revenue; and $742,444 to $847,776 in State of Alabama tax revenue.
• The fiscal impact or reciprocal value of public dollars ($243,000 city grant) granted to
BayFest 2013 garnered an estimated 306% to 366% return on investment (ROI) to Mobile via
tourism related sales tax and a 41% to 62% ROI from County sales tax generated.
• Based on tourism spending attributed to BayFest the equivalence of roughly 124 jobs were
created from BayFest activities.
• The total monetary impact from hosting BayFest in Mobile generated from economic tourists,
tax revenue, organization output, home vacationers, and sponsorships is a conservative
amount near $23,174,767 for the local economy; whereas the optimistic impact is near
$26,381,125.
• The total economic impact of BayFest 2013 to Mobile County is $20,927,803 to $24,189,051
and to the State of Alabama is $11,771,571 to $13,095,727.
• Estimates of the media and tourism marketing impact generated from BayFest are estimated at
$1.7M which promotes destination awareness and the potential for $510,000 in future tourist
spending bounce-back from BayFest publicity.
4
• Overall the total benefit after adjusting for costs for BayFest 2013 was estimated to have
decreased by 6.7% in comparison to BayFest 2012, but remains a powerful tool to attract
tourists during the offseason to Mobile and serves as a signature event in the Southeast region
of the United States.
• If this report were to adopt a 2.50 multiplier often found in other Mobile economic impact
estimates BayFest 2013 would have created roughly $37,987,388 to the local Mobile
economy; $34,570,903 to Mobile County; and $18,960,915 to the State of Alabama.
5
Table of Contents
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………….2 Purpose of Report…………………………………………………………………………………7 Contributing Considerations………………………………………………………………………9 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………13 Music Festivals and Special Events……………………………………………………...............14 BayFest Music Festival…………………………………………………………………………..16 BayFest Ticketing and Estimated Attendance…………………………………………………....20 Framework for Measuring Economic Impact…………………………………………………….23
Methodology……………………………………………………………………………...29 Resources…………………………………………………………………………………29 Instruments………………………………………………………………………………..31
Collection of Data………………………………………………………………………………...36 Findings…………………………………………………………………………………………...39 Festival Attendees………………………………………………………………………………...41 Business Travelers………………………………………………………………………………..49 Group Size………………………………………………………………………………………..55 Length of Stay……………………………………………………………………………………56 Direct Expenditures………………………………………………………………………………59 Economic Impact Visitor Spending………………………………………………………………71 Economic Impact Organizational Output Spending……………………………………………...72 BayFest Road Race……………………………………………………………………………….76 Fiscal Impact……………………………………………………………………………………...77 Mobile Resident Impact………………………………………………………………………..…80 Sponsorship Impact…………………………………………………………………………….…83 Total Economic Impact…………………………………………………………………………...83 Employment Impact………………………………………………………………………………87 Tourism Destination Impact………………………………………………………………………88 Media and Marketing Impacts…………………………………………………………………….90 Social and Cultural Impacts……………………………………………………………………….91 Cost Benefit Analysis…………………………………………………………………………......91 Festival Comparative Analysis ………………………………………………………………..….93 Community Event Comparisons
City, County, State Multiplier Adjustment………………………………………………..94 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………98 References………………………………………………………………………………………...100
6
Purpose of Report
Efforts to analyze the outcomes a district and associated stakeholders receive from hosting an
event in an area become crucial to determine societal and monetary yield. Namely, local events may
result in an increase in visitation to an area, provide opportunities to nearby residents for socialization
and cultural stimulation, generate business for companies providing goods and services to run the
event, and to promote the identity or urban image of an event location (Bowen & Daniels, 2005).
Since each community event stakeholder wants, expects, and receives potentially different
experiences and attaches potentially different outcomes to events, erudition to determine who and
how events affect a host area becomes significant (Getz, 2012). Repeatedly, erroneous event worth
projections have been propagandized in the media with little consideration given toward scientific
applications or primarily how values were decided and the type of benefits that accrue to event host
locations. Therefore, to move beyond speculative findings the main intent of this report was to
provide an analysis of BayFest 2013 utilizing primary data. Namely, on-site survey responses were
collected at BayFest 2013 to assess the amount of change in the Mobile economy resulting from
BayFest true economic tourists. In addition, other frequency response patterns from the data collected
were analyzed and compared to justify the “public good” returned from hosting BayFest on the Gulf
Coast.
Besides the economic opportunity city planners often want to improve the general quality of
life for individuals living in a town by offering different social or cultural activities through the
events they host. Or, a city may want to firmly establish itself as a travel destination since festivals
and special events are highly regarded as a cornerstone to develop businesses in a region from the
considerable tourism dollars they attract and operational spending that occurs locally by the
organizations coordinating events. Temporally speaking then area events are planned to produce
7
immediate reciprocal value to the citizens, businesses, and regions where they are hosted with the
hope of developing into a sustainable public value over time.
In order for area events to remain viable in the fullness of time it is crucial that their
performance is evaluated to ensure they correspond with intended outcomes. Evaluating these
potential impacts of community events presents a number of unique challenges which is markedly
compelling when area tax-payer revenue is used to pay for events in a host location. Subsequently,
when public funds are allocated to cover the operational costs incurred from running local events
transparency toward the various costs and benefits are necessitated (Arcodia & Whitford, 2006).
Public interest to evaluate special events and the return on investment of municipal dollars become
even more meaningful when decisions have to be made to determine which events to host and
subsidize relative to the planning goals in a region. Likewise, the business structure of the
organization hosting an event whether for profit or non-profit should also be of great concern since
commercial based entities would keep much of the proceeds generated by the event and non-profits
would reinvest dividends back into the organization to improve the quality of its events.
Quite often though efforts to measure the reciprocal value of community supported events are
incongruous and incomplete due to the many ways value is derived. Festivals, fairs, and celebratory
events each create their own benefits at varying costs, creating not only the need for a comprehensive
evaluation of all occurrences hosted in a destination, but also to assess events independent of one
another or from an event outcome based approach. Similarities and differences between events,
groups, or patterns that evolve may prove beneficial to community developers and be accomplished
through a mixed-method approach. Case study (independent event), comparative (numerous events),
and concatenation (linked series of event research projects) appraisals of community events become
8
even more essential when events reoccur every year in a local area. According to McCartney (2005)
notable features of recurring events should be examined for their value:
• To determine the possibility of event evolution and ability to adapt over a period of time to
create participant and spectator loyalty.
• To examine whether a general pattern of seasonality exists to instill the occurrence of an event
taking place at the same time each year and the potential for repeat customers.
• Potential for the host community to feel ownership of the event to boost civic pride.
• Possibility for further flow-on benefits from event visitors undertaking other tourist activities
while in town.
• And, level of sustenance either by virtue of event success and/or by public or private
initiatives.
Therefore, in review of the above mentioned critical issues, research approaches, outcome
based event planning attributes, and ongoing pursuit by communities to measure event worth the
purpose of this report was to determine the impacts that emanate from the annually occurring BayFest
Musical Festival on the City of Mobile, Mobile County, and Alabama. In addition, BayFest is
compared to other events held on the Gulf Coast and a number of sport-related or leisure activities
hosted in Mobile and the surrounding area.
Contributing Considerations
Since no one measure of value can sum up the worth of BayFest, several tangible and
intangible costs and benefits from multiple stakeholder perspectives (strategic constituencies
approach) were used to shape the content of this study:
9
• First, an economic benefit assessment was done on the amount of visitors who
travelled to Mobile to attend BayFest weekend and those who participated in BayFest
ancillary programs. In particular where these individuals were from, how long they
stayed in the area, and how much they spent on tourism related commodities while in
town. This data was derived from responses to questions gathered from on-site surveys
administered to spectators and workers during the 2013 BayFest Music Festival
weekend.
• Secondary data was also needed to complete the economic, social, and marketing
impact of BayFest 2013. BayFest administrators provided their 2013 balance sheet
listing the amount and areas of operational spending. Also, the amount of exogenous
funds funneling to Mobile by non-local organizations affiliated with BayFest activities
were also forwarded and assessed. BayFest cash flow reflections were necessary to
determine the amount of increased trade or local industrial productivity which was
then used to derive the monetary residual effect of BayFest on the City of Mobile,
Mobile County, and State of Alabama.
• BayFest impacts over a number of years through several time-series analyses or from a
longitudinal viewpoint were tabulated. The comparisons of an earlier meta-analysis
report on BayFest 2009 (Keshock, 2010) and 3 earlier BayFest case study reports; The
Impact of the 2010 BayFest Music Festival on Mobile, Alabama (Keshock, 2011), The
Impact of the 2011 BayFest Music Festival (Keshock, 2012), and the Impact and
Comparative Analysis of the 2012 BayFest Music Festival (Keshock, 2013) all
empirical in nature were also explored to adduce specific trends. A historical review
of past BayFest study results weighed against the findings of the BayFest 2013 report
10
not only promotes the corroboration of key inferences over time but builds cumulative
knowledge in the assessment of BayFest event outcomes.
• The value of event worth may be scientific or intuitive half-baked guesses. Therefore,
research methodologies used to determine the worth of BayFest in this report with the
methodologies employed by other Mobile event administrators are weighed. If one
were to only consider frequencies and values interpreted in an individual impact report
and not compare these finding to politicized notes about other community events in the
same city would be inequitable. For example, in the case of establishing event worth,
reports incorporating cavalier assumptions and use of borrowed monetary derivations
to arrive at event worth would violate basic reliability concerns. When it comes to the
fiscal impact or return on investment of government subsidizations of community
events careful attention to the source used for economic impact estimation and the
scrutiny of event impact report procedures allows interested parties to do an apples-to-
apples comparison of events hosted in the same city.
• Economic impact and its use to determine the worth of an event is often
misunderstood and inappropriately calculated. Therefore, event benefit, impact
theories, and validity concerns often associated with economic models are explained
for report readers. Unlike some other Mobile event reports boasting exaggerated
events impacts the BayFest 2013 report similar to the 2010, 2011, and 2012 BayFest
studies provides two examination points: both conservative and optimistic estimates
were created to develop an economic impact range. This way a common ground exists
to compare findings to the questionable means used in other reports to those reports
generating values based on academically accepted principles.
11
• Beyond the economic impact of an event other event information may be sought to
help host destination tourism. Visitor profiles and an audit of BayFest attendee
preferences for location attractiveness, music proclivity, and travel patterns were
generated. Socio-demographic and psychographic data were collected and interpreted
to assist BayFest planners and Mobile tourism industry professionals with future
decisions related with the image of Mobile, Alabama.
Working under the auspices of the BayFest administrators, Dr. Christopher M. Keshock
(primary researcher and report author) conducted a review of BayFest operations, cash flows, and
event logistics. Primary data was collected at BayFest 2013 originating from an empirical research
design agenda created by Dr. Keshock and other professional academicians. Secondary information
provided by BayFest officials (attendance, organizational spending, service costs, revenue, etc.) was
also used in this report, examined, and then contrasted to other similar leisure event conclusions
found in a review of the literature. Further, as previously mentioned report findings from prior
BayFest studies were also assessed to depict naturally occurring trend impacts over time. As there is
no one individual data source that can supply all of the information needed for this research report, a
variety of sources were conventionally integrated to verify the trustworthiness of qualitative and
quantitative data used in computations. The holistic use of various sources of information provides
triangulation of findings and results in improved reliability. The triangulation approach also offers
greater understanding of the key issues being researched, which in the case of this particular report
serves not only to estimate final impact figures but explain the way values are derived.
Any questions on the merits of this report and its findings should be directed to the author of
the study for clarification on the content and the use of data sets, derivation of numerical values and
averages, standard deviations, effect size and significance or confidence levels. It should be noted the
12
findings and interpretations in this report are based on available data, theoretical constructs,
professional prudence, and numerous inferences regarding event values. Since environmental
markets, buying power, and industrial conditions change; data may not warrant exact and everlasting
results. It is recommended that individuals using portions of this report give careful consideration to
local, regional, and national economic conditions in the extrapolation of findings toward business
decisions, governmental policies, and other regulatory applications.
Introduction
It is important that community goals are developed to determine appropriate strategies that
enhance economic, social, and cultural stimulation. When applied to event planning determining
which area events are more likely to meet the underlying objectives of a particular region vary.
Events may be staged to make money; celebrate holidays, seasons, or historical events; provide
cultural or educational experiences; or unite and give a feeling of pride to a particular community
(Mill & Morrison, 2012). If a city wants to differentiate itself from other destinations efforts to create
sustainability or a better quality of life for both residents and visitors now and for future generations
is at the core of event decision making. Attempts then to measure event impacts become integral to
the strategic planning efforts of government agents and most of all taxpayers in and near to event host
areas if public expenditures are allocated to fund festivals and events.
According to Crompton, Lee & Shuster (2001) there are several points in an event analysis at
which different procedures and underlying assumptions can be made that will substantially affect the
interpretation of results and conclusions. For example, sometimes a genuine lack of understanding of
economic impact analyses and the procedures used in them leads to inadvertent errors; but in other
instances, they are used mischievously or strategically to deliberately mislead and generate large
numbers. Calculations of event economic impact by modern economists vary based upon the intent
13
and use of the findings. Evidence to determine the true value of new and reoccurring community
events becomes markedly integral to the general public and even more so to the elected officials and
community planners making decisions about which events to sponsor. In concert, when efforts are
made to juxtapose different community events and appraise their value for comparative purposes
caution must be taken. Attention toward the use of well-founded applications integrating a shrewd
observance toward sound economic and social underpinnings is paramount. Inconveniently,
uncorroborated assumptions exist that shelve the importance of certain events over others in a
community. Most often this is due in part toward a lack of acceptable information available to
specifically assess whether an event: 1) Spurs economic activity and to what extent, 2) Expands the
cultural and social opportunities available to residents, and 3) Increases the visibility of an event
location as a tourist destination potentially drawing more visitors.
Therefore, based upon the above concerns concomitant with community event worth an
attempt was made to equate the overall value of BayFest to Mobile. Most importantly efforts to
illustrate the return on investment to Mobile taxpayers in the areas of economic benefits, quality of
life improvements, enhanced public image, and the recirculation of BayFest tourism dollars are
assayed and communicated in the different report sections.
Music Festivals and Special Events
A number of reasons exist to host a festival or musical event. Large outdoor music festivals can
provide an important form of economic activity for host regions since they attract significant inflows of
dollars from non-local visitors and serve as important forms of private-sector regional economic stimuli.
Financially speaking the economic benefits to hosting a music festival include attracting tourists and
their expenditures to an area, increases in the amount of taxes collected from these purchases, and
expanded employment. Similarly, socialization, promoting and preserving culture, improvement on
the quality of life for residents in a community, and gaining recognition and support from various
14
publics is espoused as other potential reasons to host a music festival. Not only do festivals and
special events serve as a powerful tool to attract tourists- an especially vital concern during non-peak
travel months- but also functions to create the awareness and build the destination identity for an area
that hosts events. For example, the short-term impact of a music event may, over a period of years, be
expanded exponentially through its continued success and improved reputation that the event brings
to an area (deLisle, 2009). And, in some instances small music festivals have evolved into a major
signature event for a community providing unique and enjoyable experiences for residents and guests
alike.
The music industry is part of a creative community that collectively exports more than $125
billion each year, fueling American jobs while energizing mp3 players and dance floors around the
world (RIAA, 2013). Overall live music concerts in North America generate billions of dollars
annually and have shown steady annual increases over the last decade. Overall ticket revenues have
jumped from $1.7 billion in 2000 to $5.1 billion last year, according to Pollstar's newly released end-
of-2013 data (Pollstar is the concert industry's trade publication of record and this exclusive data
comes from averaging more than 30,000 detailed box office sales reports). Live Nation Entertainment
a music industry company recorded a 19% increase in concert attendance in 2013 compared to 2012
(MSNBC, 2014). This support suggests the American consumer of the 2020s, 2030s, and 2040s will
want to be entertained, and will be prepared to spend more on entertainment products and services
than the median consumer in 2012, 2000, or 1980” (Lee, 2012).
Historically, festivals and events have been a compelling tourist attraction for community
hosts (Mill & Morrison, 2012) and are among the fastest growing segments of tourism in the world
(Getz, 2012). To a large extent public events have been and continue to be important drivers of
tourism activity in a growing number of communities across the country. Few Americans realize that
15
travel is a major economic driver despite attempts made by city planners constantly pursuing other
investments to bolster the local economy for their communities. In 2013, travel had a strong
economic impact on the nation’s economy generating $2.0 trillion in economic output, contributed
more than $128.8 billion in tax revenue, and supported 14.6 million American jobs. Influence of
event related tourism activity may also be illustrated at the state level. Visitors to the state of
Alabama spent $8.2 billion and generated $906.7 million in tax receipts and for every $1 million
spent in Alabama by travelers 9 jobs are created which equates to 76,700 jobs (United States Travel
Association, 2013).
BayFest Music Festival
BayFest, a nonprofit 501C3 corporation established 19 years ago, is run by one paid employee
serving as the executive director and a volunteer board of directors comprised of community leaders
who give freely of their time and expertise to guide the festival to success each year. Having grown
substantially from a debut crowd of 50,000 in 1995, expected crowds well over 200,000 concert-
goers annually attend the event over BayFest weekend to witness the more than 125 different musical
acts. Each year musical genres consisting of country, classic rock, alternative, pop, jazz, R&B, rap,
gospel, modern rock and more are scheduled to perform on BayFest main stages. In addition to its
music legends BayFest also promotes up and coming artists. One of the festival’s stages, the
Launching Pad, is specifically designed to spotlight local and regional talent and showcase acts who
aspire for musical greatness.
BayFest has become known for its vast array of renowned musical talent that appeals to a
wide variety of audiences and is suitable for the entire family. Past performers at BayFest include:
Luke Bryan, Kid Rock, Duran Duran, Kenny Chesney, Mary J. Blige, Motley Crue, B.B. King, Stone
Temple Pilots, Lady Antebellum, Reba, Nelly, Bush, Blake Shelton, Al Green, Alan Jackson and
16
many, many more (About BayFest, 2013). In 2012, BayFest was named the Top Festival/Event of
the Year in the Southeast by Southeastern Tourism Society! Also in 2012, BayFest was recognized as
one of the Top 20 October Events throughout the southeast, receiving extensive exposure in print,
television and radio in the U.S. and Canada. BayFest was also honored with the same award in 1996,
2000, 2002, 2003, 2009, 2010 & 2011. BayFest was awarded The American Bus Association's Top
100 Event designation in 2012 and named "Alabama Event of the Year" for 2009 by the Alabama
Bureau of Tourism and Travel. In addition, the Alabama Bureau of Tourism and Travel recognized
BayFest for its economic contributions in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2009. Locally, the event has received
numerous awards from the Lagniappe, the Mobile Bay Monthly and The Mobile Press-Register.
BayFest has generated in excess of $325 million for the Mobile economy since it began in 1995
(www.BayFest.com).
Numerous other attractions are held and services provided during BayFest weekend from a
VIP kick-off reception to multiple meet-and-greet the musician promotions. The event also includes a
Family and Children’s Zone during Saturday and Sunday featuring games and activities for visiting
youth attendees and an on-site hospitality area for corporate sponsors, civil servants, and those
individuals and groups responsible for the organization of BayFest. In addition to the events held
during the festival weekend BayFest also conducts other functions to promote its altruistic values by
giving back to the Gulf Coast community with thousands of dollars in student scholarships and
educational programs.
Two weeks before BayFest weekend on September 21, 2013 music industry entertainers and
executives engaged teenagers in a one-day workshop at the Mobile Civic Center Theater. BayFest’s
“Music Industry Education Program” allow high school students to learn about the music business
through various workshop sessions on copyright law, contract negotiations, stage management, and
17
other music production issues. Mobile and Baldwin County public and private high school students
were eligible to apply for BayFest scholarships, with the opportunity to be awarded one of the twenty
$1,000 awards for their music related education interests and endeavors. Scholarship winners also
benefit from a continued mentoring program formed by the BayFest Music Scholarship Program
Committee members and committee volunteers and music professionals are available to the students
throughout the year as a resource.
To date, BayFest has granted close to $70,000 in scholarship funds to students who show
promise in the field of music. The monetary value of the BayFest Music Industry Education Program
made possible by funds raised from the annual 5K Road Race and Fun Run conducted in downtown
Mobile are substantial community augmentations; valuable enough to be a part of this report and
addressed in later sections.
BayFest 2013 was held Friday-Sunday October 4-6, 2013. Festival hours were 6:30 p.m. to
12:30 a.m. Friday, 2 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. Saturday and 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday. Top acts included
Godsmack, R. Kelly, T.I., Aaron Lewis, the Zac Brown Band, Little Big Town, Gary Allan, Hunter
Hayes, Daughtry, Three Days Grace, the Isley Brothers, Anthony Hamilton, Kellie Pickler and
Sevendust.
In order to meet the needs of its fans in providing a multi-music weekend-long music
extravaganza the space required to host BayFest in downtown Mobile covers a 13 block plot of open-
air expanse (See Figure 1 BayFest 2013 Site Plan). During BayFest weekend the festival is enclosed
by an erected chain-link fence with 3 main control access gates and a smaller entrance positioned at
various locations around the perimeter of the site. Three main stages for marquee entertainers border
the furthermost north, east, and southwest periphery of the cordoned downtown area and 6
18
strategically placed minor stages in thoroughfares of the festival streets are used as platforms for
more local musical talent.
Figure 1- BayFest 2012 Site Plan
Similar to all leisure based outdoor events the BayFest Musice Festival is reliant on
cooperative weather during the week leading up to the event, on BayFest weekend, and after the
events for stage and fence breakdown. BayFest 2013 encountered severe weather conditions from
19
Tropical Storm Karen where the three main stages (Coca-Cola Stage, the AT&T/Southern Ford
Dealers Stage and the Miller Lite/Wind Creek Casino Stages) operated as usual for headliner bands
and the local and regional lineups on four of the smaller stages (Cafe Stage, the Gospel Stage, the
Radio Avalon Jazz Tent and the Launching Pad) being cancelled as a precautionary measure as
advised by public safety agencies and the National Weather Service. In all a little over 50 acts did not
perform at BayFest 2013 since the smaller stages would be more vulnerable to the potential wind
damage by Tropical Storm Karen. Despite anticipated severe weather predictions BayFest 2013 only
encountered some heavy rainfall on Saturday and Sunday afternoon which may have affected
spectator attendance and did affect some of the musical group participation on BayFest weekend.
BayFest Ticketing and Estimated Attendance
Price is one of the most volatile variables of the marketing mix that affects a consumer’s
decision to purchase a product or service. Decisions to spend money on leisure activities become
even more price sensitive since discretionary income purchases are highly subjective to demand
supply opportunities. The music industry like many other industries in the United States is still in a
pattern of recovery from the latest recession, however the demand to attend music performances and
supply of concerts across the country have remained constant. This may explain why the average cost
to attend a single music concert in 2011 was $66.90 (Pikas, Pikas, Burnmeyer, 2012) with a slight
increase for a single ticket in 2012 at $68.80 and $69.52 for 2013 (Knopper, 2014).
One attractive component offered by BayFest is the opportunity for spectators to experience
multiple musical performances for such a low relative cost. Weekend passes for BayFest 2012 were
$45 and single day passes were listed at $30. For BayFest 2013 weekend passes were sold for $60
and single day entrance $40. Much of the increase from 2012 to 2013 was due to the larger contract
fees charged by musicians and passed along to consumers in the form of higher entrance fees. Despite
20
the necessary price increase from BayFest 2012 to BayFest 2013 ($60.00) the Music Festival with its
multiple acts over the course of 3 days still remains below the average cost of an average single
music performance in the United States ($69.52) and almost half the cost for a single day entrance fee
of $40. This reduced cover charge coincides with BayFest’s structure as a non-profit entity and
mission over the last 19 years, which is to offer an inexpensive form of leisure so people with a
limited budget could have a weekend worth of entertainment for a reasonable cost. In contrast, most
music concerts are driven by profit motives which results in charging a higher cost per-person for
admission and with no age related price discrimination opportunities offered (discounts or free
admission to senior citizens or children).
When numerous artists perform and a concert becomes a festival the cost of admission
typically goes up. An example of the increased cost to attend a music festival with multiple
performers is illustrated in a music festivals held along the Gulf Coast Region. Variable ticket pricing
is offered to attend the Hangout Music Festival in Gulf Shores Beach Alabama which has roughly 20-
30 performers with general admission priced at $229, VIP tickets at $999 and Super VIP $1,599
charged for the event in 2014. The weekend passes at the Hangout Festival are almost 4 times more
expensive then the weekend passes charged at BayFest 2013.
Rather than charging admission similar to the going rate of other music concerts in the region
(competition-oriented pricing) which averages over $120 for a single artist performance along the
Gulf Coast or based on the cost of providing a service and profit targeted for event promoters (cost-
plus pricing); BayFest exercises a backward pricing admission fee format for admission (setting ticket
price to what is affordable to consumers rather than from a profit based motive). BayFest’s price
strategy has conventionally attempted to accommodate the needs of patron purchases or affordability
instead of charging an admission price to turn a profit for event promoters.
21
In an attempt to measure attendance one method often used at events with gated entrances is
to use ticket sales figures from one year to the next and make incremental or decremental adjustments
to estimate the amount of people who were in attendance. The estimated weekend attendance range
for BayFest 2011 was 229,000 (229,347) to 271,000 (270,848) with a 2% decline for BayFest 2012
or 225,000 (224,760) to 265,000 (265,431) based on the amount of tickets sold which included
advanced weekend passes, group, single day, and those used by sponsors, Mobile city and county
workers, and the media (Keshock, 2013). Paid attendance and related ticket revenue information
provided by BayFest administrators for 2012 and 2013 were used to estimate attendance for BayFest
2013. As previously mentioned there were increases in the cost of admission charged for 2013.
Specifically, pre-paid passes went from $45 to $60 and group tickets and single tickets increased $10.
An examination of ticket sales records itemized in BayFest 2012 and 2013 balance sheets revealed an
overall 15.26% decline in total tickets sold from one year to the next. Using last year’s attendance
range for paid spectators 225,000 to 265,000 and adjusting for a 15.26 % decline in ticket sales
results in an estimated attendance range of 191,000 to 225,000 which was used for BayFest 2013
report purposes. One contributing factor for reduced attendance at BayFest 2013 may be attributed to
the weather conditions caused from Tropical Storm Karen during BayFest weekend.
This attendance range does not fully explicate all BayFest attendees. In addition to pre-paid
and walk-up ticket sales other people attended BayFest that are not reflected. Typically when
estimating event attendance figures those who did not pay for entrance to an event must also be
considered as a contributing attendance factor. For example in the case of BayFest the tradition of
allowing children free admission with a ticketed adult and the volunteers working BayFest go
uncounted for. Subsequently, since the 2013 attendance range values (191,000 to 225,000) are not
22
complete values other non-paid spectator attendance variables are addressed in later sections of this
report.
Framework for Measuring Economic Impact
Economic impact can be defined as the net change in an economy resulting from hosting an event.
The change is caused by activity involving the acquisition, operation, development, and use of
facilities and services. Attempts have been made in this report to use information appropriate for a
weekend festival related event economic impact purposes. Data was primarily provided from the
responses to questions contained in two separate surveys; one administered to festival fans and one
administered to business visitors which were then applied toward the compilation of the final results.
Also, economic impact study variable biases often found in economic valuation procedures were also
considered and controlled to shape the report findings.
Efforts are made in the following sections to define and determine the quantitative economic
impact of BayFest based on the following economic modeling components:
• Direct Effects: the increases in local economic activity in the sector where money is spent.
This includes local based purchases of goods and services such as lodging, meals,
transportation, and retail goods by those attending BayFest. Also, included in the direct effects
is the money spent through BayFest purchases such as catering, supplies maintenance and
repair, event production, printing, etc. since this money would not be added to the local
economy if BayFest ceased to operate in Mobile, Alabama.
• Indirect Effects: impacts on the local economy generated by businesses or vendors who
directly sell goods and services to BayFest and its visitors who then purchase more raw
materials from other sectors/suppliers to meet the demand created by BayFest.
23
• Induced Effect: local spending by workers employed at local supplier companies and
businesses providing goods and services to BayFest and its visitors.
Economic Impact Visitor Spending
A large part of determining the direct spending purchases by those coming to an area for an
event is a function of defining who and what type of participants and spectators will be attending. In
some cases, local residents may constitute a large portion of the "visitors" to an area, event or its
facility. Their spending would not normally be included as "new dollars" to the region for economic
analysis. Individual facilities, parks, and programs will include a certain percentage of local visitors
that ideally should be separated out in assessing area economic impacts.
BayFest Visitors Spending
This section of the report explains the direct and indirect business volume generated because
of BayFest. Economic impact generally measures new money brought into the economy by out-of-
area visitors. Spending by local (City of Mobile) residents is not included in this section of the
estimate. Local spending merely represents a redistribution of existing money in the community and
as such is not considered new money. Spending by locals attending BayFest who may travel out-of-
town to attend a musical concert in another city if BayFest were not held is an opportunity cost
consideration and should only be used in this context when considering other value impacts.
Impact Region
Visitors to BayFest include spectators, musicians, band members, stage-hands, sponsors,
industry specialists, media, and volunteers. Attempts to decide whether someone is considered a
visitor to an area are of a contentious nature. Discernable approaches exist based upon the distance
individuals travel 10 miles or 50 miles from their residence; or the number of nights stayed 1 night, 2
nights, or 1 week at a location away from their usual home or workplace environment. Since no
24
universal agreement on the distance and length of stay exists and economic impact involves those
individuals not residing or working in the impact region being assessed, visitors in this report are
defined as those who travel to Mobile from outside its geographical limits. On a larger continuum the
impact areas of Mobile County and the State of Alabama are also adopted to enhance discussion
relating to BayFest outcomes.
Misapplications
Time-switchers (concert attendees who already made plans to visit Mobile but switched the
dates of visitation to attend the event) and Casuals Visitors (travelers already in Mobile who received
notice BayFest was being held during the duration of their trip and attended) would not be considered
incremental visitors or those specifically visiting Mobile to attend BayFest. To eradicate any potential
misuse of concert attendees in the calculation of event economic impact the study research design
included asking certain questions as part of the survey administered to the sample subjects.
Specifically, subjects were asked whether their main reason for being in Mobile was to attend
BayFest and whether they switched a pre-planned trip to Mobile to attend the concert; both of which
were used to filter out non-incremental visitors.
Multipliers
While economic impact analyses can get quite complicated, the basic procedure is quite
simple. One must first estimate the change in the number and types of visitors associated with the
policy or action being evaluated, or in this case the spending attributable to BayFest. Visits are
translated into economic terms by estimating the amount of visitors and the spending by these visitors
in the area where an event is held. One method is to estimate daily spending averages multiplied by
the number of external visitors multiplied by the number of days they are in the area to determine
economic benefit:
25
Economic Benefit = Number of Visitors x Average Spending Per Day x Days in Area
Or, if available evaluations could be made on a per trip basis which provides an estimate of spending
in one lump sum the subsequent equation would be:
Economic Benefit = Number of Visitors x Amount Spent Total While in Area
Either method derives the total accumulation of dollars accruing to a location to determine the
initial round of spending by tourists on such areas as lodging, food and beverage, transportation, and
miscellaneous retails. This new influx of money will subsequently stir up further rounds of spending
of these initial dollars among industry sectors since visitor spending into an area does not stop as soon
as the dollar has been spent. The spending can then be applied to a model of the region's economy to
estimate the effects in terms of sales, income and jobs.
In order to move from direct spending to indirect spending a multiplier is used. Depending
upon the purposes of a particular study, it is possible to chart additional rounds of spending resulting
from the new dollars originally injected into the local economy creating a larger stimulus. A portion
of the initial dollar re-circulates through the local economy before slowly leaking out. The portion of
re-spending that stays in the community is the “multiplier effect” and the portion lost to re-spending
outside the original impact area is known as “leakages”. Basically the use of a multiplier helps trace
the flows of re-spending from the money initially coming into an area until it completely leaks out.
This ripple effect captures the secondary effects resulting from the initial monetary injection.
The transaction of a multiplier adjustment can be explained in the following way. Direct
spending by event tourists will generate secondary effects as new revenues from businesses
immediately impacted find their way to expenditures elsewhere in the local economy. The indirect
26
spending results when these businesses make purchases from other local businesses based upon
visitors’ direct purchases. Induced effects go a step further as a function of increases in household
spending resulting from wages paid to the workers by businesses serving event visitors. Regional
economic multipliers are used to estimate the secondary effects of visitor spending. Formally,
Economic Impact = Number of Visitors x Average Spending Per Visitor x Multiplier
Another format to measures economic impact is conducted on a group impact basis. This is
accomplished when the type and number of groups are known to event organizers-such as those
working an event. It would be inaccurate to capture only the expenditures of individual respondents
because companies hired to work at an event may be paying for the travel related expenses of
employees. Also, due to the nature of work related duties access to individuals or a random sample of
workers may be difficult to accomplish. Therefore, capturing the expenditures of all group members
through estimates provided by the group’s travel manager paying for tourism and business related
expenses for the duration of the trip may be calculated using the following equation:
Economic Impact = Number of groups x Average Trip Spending Per-Group x Multiplier
Adjustments to Economic Impact
While some economic impact results are conservative in nature and only include direct
expenditures, others attempt to describe the impact upon additional thresholds in a community by
incorporating re-spending or recycling of dollars into calculations. Organizations conducting an
economic impact study must use discretion in determining whether or not additional rounds of
spending are justified; and if so, certain multipliers must be included in analysis procedures. These
27
multipliers must be consistent with the geographical area in which they are used and in accordance
with the industries specific to a location or impact region.
Another step when conducting an economic impact study is defining the impact region.
Declaring economic impact boundaries would in turn determine what spending and economic activity
to include in an analysis. The region of interest may be a local area, a multi-county region, one or
more states, or an entire country region. When assessing local economic impacts, researchers
generally define the local region around leisure/tourism sites to be an area within a given radius of the
event location, usually a 20 to 30-mile radius. The area of impact chosen often depends on the area
from which the funding for hosting the event is provided. When designating an impact region for
economic assessments and categorizing incremental visitors a common approach is to use the area
germane with the source of public funding (e.g., the City) initiated to subsidize event costs. Since
BayFest receives annual monies from the local government ($243,000 in 2013) both the impact
region and locals are defined by the geographic boundary of Mobile, Alabama resulting in those
residing outside the city of Mobile as external visitors. In addition to the impacts created to the city of
Mobile the impact of BayFest to Mobile County is provided herein since county dollars ($200,000)
were allocated to BayFest in 2013. For further insight economic impact to the State of Alabama is
included as well even though no government subsidization was provided to BayFest in 2013.
Economic Impact and Economic Benefit
As a matter of course any study seeking economic impact information, especially as financial
support is being provided, it is important to note the differences between economic impact and
economic benefit information. As pointed out by Agha (2005), most studies fail to make the
distinction between the two. Economic benefit is only the economic gain in a predefined local
economy. Economic impact is the total economic loss or gain after event costs have been accounted
28
for. To distinguish between economic benefit and economic impact a number of additional criteria are
required. Whereas economic benefit is comprised of the direct spending by visitors and organizations
and subsequent rounds of re-spending of initial dollars through a multiplier effect; economic impact
would take the economic benefit result a step further by subtracting the public dollars invested toward
an event. By subtracting public capital used to subsidize an event illustrates the return on investment
to tax payers in the city where an event is held or “true economic impact”. In this regard and on its
most elementary level the amount of tax revenue accumulated from the spending by event visitors in
an area is compared to the amount of tax payer money given to an event; any additional money after
this is considered economic impact.
Methodology
Resources
The major methodological approach adopted in most event impact studies, particularly ex-
post studies has been to collect information by survey (Burgan and Mules, 2000). Survey information
would be used to depict the type of visitor to an event (local vs. out-of-town), intent of trip, number
of days in the area, amount spent while in the area, and the amount spent on items while in town or at
the event. Surveying represents a primary data source which often is more valid and reliable in
comparison to studies based solely on secondary sources of information. For example, aggregate
estimates calculated by tourism governing bodies on the amount travelers spend in an area or hotel
industry spokespersons claiming marginal increases in bed occupancies during the time a community
event takes place to approximate event attendance. Another generalization is commonplace when
event data is not collected in the form of visitor spending by event travelers. Numerous Mobile,
Alabama events approach the estimation of economic impact amounts where an ambiguous $280
figure is used for the amount spent by travelers per day to any event held in the area and applying a
29
2.5 multiple coefficient (Mobile Business View, 2012) to established turnover or secondary
redistribution of initial dollars supposedly spent in the economy. For this reason a triangulation of
primary (on-site surveying) and secondary sources were used herein to provide more adequate
evaluations based on more concrete evidence.
When using primary data (survey responses gathered from subjects) information recorded
from a random sample of people or in this case a portion of event visitors is typically factored up to
the population. A random sample is a smaller number of subjects chosen from a larger population in
such a way that all relevant characteristics of the population are represented in the sample
(Langenbach, Vaughn, & Aagaard, 1994). The sample data provides a representation of the whole
population which can then be used to estimate how much all visitors typically spend when visiting a
host site location.
In order to factor up sample information an accurate estimate of the population or event
attendance is required. As previously mentioned one approach for gated events incorporates the use
of box office or ticketing purchases to determine the amount of people in attendance. However, both
practical and empirical questions abound when efforts are made to evaluate the economic
contributions of an event on a host site location when attendance is based on ticketing. Specifically,
some event patrons are repeat attendees when an event covers more than one day and some attendees
are provided complimentary tickets; moreover free admission for young children can skew the per
head daily spend on event purchases. Distorted practices would also include gathering data from the
same subject(s) or a subject completing more than one survey over the course of a multiple day event.
Since overall ticket purchases is a common practice used to equate attendance it was adopted for this
study. However, efforts were made in this report to consider sampling frame biases mentioned above
and in turn account for these biases where appropriate in subsequent portions of this report. Namely,
30
subjects were asked whether they previously completed an on-site event survey earlier, and if so were
not allowed to fill out a second survey. Likewise, since BayFest encourages child participation in
their children’s activity area and kids 12 and under are admitted free to BayFest measures to account
for this in ticket purchases and group size composition were instituted.
Instruments
Three instruments were utilized for this report with two administered on-site during BayFest
weekend and one given during the BayFest 5K/FunRun in 2012 since data for the 2013 road race was
not collected. For BayFest music festival attendees a 31-item questionnaire was developed and for
business travelers a separate 18-item questionnaire was created by the researcher and other academic
professionals. The BayFest 5K/Fun Run questionnaire was composed of a 25 item test. In addition,
for further substance numerous leisure event economic impact, fan audit, and event attitudinal survey
examples were evaluated to address validity concerns in the creation of the survey queries. All
questionnaires were given to a panel of six academicians in the leisure studies (2), economics (2), and
travel & tourism (2) academic areas. Also, the surveys were pilot tested with graduate students
enrolled in a leisure studies program at a nearby institution. Based on a 98% agreement among those
given the attendee questionnaire for suggestions all items originally listed were retained in the final
edition used with the study with some minor rewording for closed end response questions. An 95%
agreement rate was returned for the business traveler survey and a 96% agreement rate for the road
race survey leading to rewording of the questions considered inappropriate.
Efforts to gauge a visitor profile through demographic questions and how much spectators
spent were the two main thrusts of the research agenda for Festival and Road Race attendees. In
comparison efforts to determine direct spending and economic value of the business traveler was the
main purpose of the second instrument with worker group type also carrying weight as a core factor.
31
Typically, in the case of event economic impact studies, the surveys administered to fans or sport
event participants generally ask for demographic information (zip code place of residence), visit
intent (whether in town to attend an event), spending related questions and number of people in
immediate group which are used to determine the units of analysis for the results. The unit of analysis
can vary based on the definition of the spending unit and time period covered. It is integral to the
legitimacy of the impact results that both visits and spending be converted to a common unit before
they can be combined to return total visitor spending. Party size and length of stay information are the
most common variables for converting spending data per person, per party, per trip, or per day/night
basis. The BayFest music festival attendees and working travelers are addressed first in the following
pages. The BayFest 5K/Fun Run research design follows afterward since adjustments to the type of
questions used were different.
Two lines of questioning were addressed in the creation of the survey to provide appropriate
estimates of economic benefits resulting from BayFest 2013. The first involves an approximation of
the number of people that came to BayFest (intent of trip was directly related to attending event) and
where they came from (origin of home residence for spectators or workplace location for business
travelers). Both interrogatories provide the basis for estimating tourism revenue as a result of
BayFest. As previously mentioned the number of people that came to BayFest or population was
derived from the ticket sales purchases recorded and provided by the BayFest office. Sample base
information obtained from the surveys administered to subjects attending BayFest was then factored
up to the amount of event tickets purchased.
Attendee Survey
The attendee survey questions 1 through 10 asked subjects for their zip code; gender; age;
marital status; ethnicity; education level; household size; household income; and the type of music
32
most often listened to. Questions 11 through 18 were queries relating to attendance at BayFest.
Specifically, number of people in travel party; number of children in travel party 12 and under; years
attended BayFest; whether BayFest was the main reason they were in Mobile; whether they would
have visited Mobile even if BayFest were not being held; if they would have attended another music
concert in another town if BayFest were not in Mobile; number of days and nights they were in town
to attend BayFest; and where they stayed. Questions 19 through 30 asked for spending amounts on
tourism related purchases in: admission, food & beverage, entertainment/bars/sightseeing,
retail/souvenirs, private auto/gas, local transportation/parking, transportation to mobile, lodging, and
other spending not classified in the above categories. Question 31 asked subjects their level of interest
in returning to Mobile for a visit and the last question asked for subject contact information used for a
lucky prize drawing winner from those participating in the study.
The zip code related question was used to determine locals from those considered incremental
visitors or subjects having a resident zip code outside Mobile, the County, and State. Other
demographic related questions (2-10) were used to form an audience audit to segment BayFest
visitors according to personal characteristics. Questions 14-16 were adopted to determine legitimate
BayFest visitors from casual visitors or those that were in town and serendipitously happened to take
in BayFest while here. In other words individuals marking “yes” to question 14 had intent to travel to
Mobile; which was to attend the music festival. Revenue resulting from “yes” responses to question
14 would be money channeling to Mobile as a result of hosting the event. Question 15 depicts time-
switchers or individuals that would have come to Mobile but changed their travel plans to coincide
with the festival. This is an important distinction since these visitors would have come to Mobile
anyway and would not be considered incremental visitors due to the hosting of BayFest.
33
Question 16 of the survey attempted to estimate the number of “Stay-cationers” or those that
would have travelled to another city to watch a musical concert. While locals are generally not
included in determining economic impact on a host region since their dollars are considered displaced
spending, it does merit notice since it determines the amount of money that could potentially leave
the area when Mobilians experience music leisure activities in another city. Simply subject were
asked to select “yes” or “no” responses when asked, “If BayFest were not held in Mobile would you
visit another city to attend a concert this year?”
The second key line of questioning in economic impact studies should provide an accurate
estimate of how much the event attendee’s purchase during their visit, leading to estimates of what
they spent in a town because of attending a local event. Spending information collected from surveys
should be measured from when the visitor enters the region to when they leave. Subjects provide
more accurate and complete estimates of spending if spending is itemized within major categories.
Also, well defined spending categories identify the kinds of products and services being purchased,
and in turn the types of businesses receiving these sales (Stynes, 2004). Spending categories generally
include: lodging (hotel, motel, condominiums, bed and breakfast establishments); food and beverage
(restaurants meals and groceries); transportation (air, rail, taxi, rental vehicles, gas, repairs, parts);
recreation and entertainment (tours, bars, clubs, shows, golf); and souvenirs, or other retail purchases
(drug stores, antiques, clothing).
Usually 6-12 spending categories are generally included in economic impact studies to reduce
recall and telescoping errors. Too many spending categories can lead to double reporting for
overlapping categories and too few categories may cause the subject to omit spending on items that
are not listed. Also, when obtaining spending information it is generally acceptable and more
favorable to ask for expenses from an entire party rather than ask for expenses from one individual. In
34
most leisure event related cases, usually one person from the party pays for the majority of expenses
on a trip and is knowledgeable about the purchases made. In total nine spending categories were used
for this report.
Also, as previously mentioned party size and length of stay information are the most common
variables for converting spending data per person, per party, per trip, or per day/night basis.
Therefore, question 17 asked for the number of total days and nights, subjects were in Mobile to
attend BayFest 2012. Question 11 asked respondents to write the number of people for whom they
typically pay for that were in their travel party and question 12 asked how many children under 12
years of age were a part of their group.
To verify lodging for out-of-town visitors (question 18) participants were asked to mark
where they stayed while in Mobile by selecting from one of the following: family & friends,
hotel/motel, bed & breakfast, camping, commuting from home, or “other”. The second last question
on the survey was asked to gauge the relative likelihood of a repeat visit to Mobile as a result of
knowledge gained by being in Mobile for BayFest. On a scale of 1-3 where “1” means no interest to
return; “2” undecided and “3” strong interest to return; subjects were asked to select one of the
Likert-scale responses.
Business Traveler Survey
Another instrument similar to the BayFest Attendee Survey was created to assess the spending
patterns and frequencies of BayFest business travelers. The BayFest Business Traveler survey went
through the same instrumentation process as the Attendee Survey for both face and content validation
and 2 questions were subsequently reworded. Home zip code; number of days/nights, travel party
size, amount spent on travel related areas, and place stayed while in Mobile were part of this survey.
35
Additionally, business traveler subjects were asked which type of group representation best
described the purpose of their trip and were instructed to select one of the following responses
(musical group, vendor, sponsor, media, work crew, volunteer, or other. Other questions asked on the
Business Traveler survey that were different from the Attendee Survey were the number of years
subjects had been to Mobile for BayFest and to rate their future interest in returning to Mobile to
work at BayFest again. Survey participants were instructed to mark one of the following responses
(definitely no, probably no, uncertain, probably yes, definitely yes) to determine repeat visits due to
the music festival.
BayFest 5K/Fun Run Survey
The BayFest 5K/Fun Run 2012 survey underwent the same content and face validity tests
taken for the Music Festival surveys. Demographic based queries (1-10) and race visit travel spending
questions (11-21) were used to determine the type of people participating in the road race and the
amount of money they spent while in Mobile for this one day event. Again, it is important to note
surveys were not administered for the 2013 race and therefore data responses collected from the 2012
race were used for this year’s report.
Collection of Data
Once survey questions were finalized individuals conducting the survey (4 college professors
and 11 leisure studies students from a nearby university) were briefed in the area of survey
administration in order to delimit the potential for personal biases or survey misapplications which
could have led to inaccurate assessments. On the day surveys were given (Friday-four hour shift,
Saturday- afternoon and evening 4 hour shifts, Sunday- afternoon and evening 4 hour shifts) 2
surveyors were placed at each of the main street gate entrances to the festival and randomly
approached every third person passing by that was a ticket-holder and over the age of 18 years old.
36
An introductory approach script was read which included a greeting; offer to participate in the study;
the basis of the study; asking for the age of the subject; whether they were responsible for their group
purchases; and whether they had already participated in the study by previously completing the
survey at an earlier time.
A systematic random sample was instituted and pre-screening questions asked to help insure
more varied representation among subjects; especially those who paid for their travel party expenses.
Individuals refusing to participate in the study and those who previously filled-out a survey were
thanked and a score was marked by the survey administrator to track those approached and that
declined participation. Individuals who completed a survey at an earlier time at BayFest were not
allowed to participate a second time to avoid double-counting. For those accepting the offer to
participate a survey script was read to each potential respondent agreeing to take the survey which
explained the purpose of the questionnaire, areas to be completed, and a testament of confidentiality
and discontinuation. Once subjects were finished answering the predetermined questions, survey
debriefing procedures (administrator making sure all items were completed in full) were conducted.
An incentive was used to attract participants whereby subject contact information listed at the end of
survey was used to randomly select a lucky prize winner who received an official autographed guitar
signed by BayFest performers.
As previously mentioned in addition to the BayFest Visitor Survey another survey was
administered to the musical artists, vendors, and workers during Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of
BayFest weekend. Two university professors and two undergraduate students were assigned to patrol
the nine stage areas to approach musical groups for participation in the Business Traveler survey. Due
to access constraints, where some artists had as part of their contractual agreement with BayFest to
clear all backstage areas and deny entrance to those not immediately associated with their travel
37
party, some artists were not a part of the survey sample. As a result a convenience sample was
conducted whereby all other artists were approached to complete the survey over the three day period.
The introductory survey script included asking for the person in the music party who typically paid
the groups bills, the purpose of the study, and a confidentiality disclaimer. If subjects accepted the
offer they were handed a survey, completed the questions, and the survey administrator checked for
completeness when surveys were handed back.
Other individuals working the festival were also approached to participate in the study. Each
of the BayFest sponsor and vendor booth areas, operational stage locations, and worker tents were
accessed by survey administrators. The person responsible for paying group expenses at these
locations was given an opportunity to complete the Business Traveler Survey with refusals noted by
the survey administrator. Another group asked to participate in the survey was the media covering the
event. Every other media group types located at the stage areas wearing media passes were
approached and asked to participate with refusals noted. The same pre and post script procedures
conducted with musical groups, sponsors, vendors, stage hands, and workers was also carried out
with media related personnel.
Data collection for the 2012 BayFest road race was conducted on the morning of the race.
Three undergraduate students were placed at the race registration table and as race participants
checked-in they were asked to complete the survey. Survey confidentiality and purposes statements
were read to subjects and acceptance to participate or rejection to participate were counted.
Completed surveys and the data collected were then used to determine the amount of economic
benefit resulting from hosting the race in Mobile, Alabama.
38
Findings
Attendee Sample
There were 1,205 potential BayFest attendees approached to participate in the BayFest Visitor
Survey and 136 refused to participate leaving 1,069 subjects accepting the offer to answer the
attendee survey questions which returned an 89% (88.7) response rate. Of the 1,069 surveys collected
22 were thrown out due to incomplete information leaving 1,047 usable surveys for the study. All
responses to survey questions were coded and entered into a SPSS statistical software package.
Business Traveler Sample
Of the business related travelers in town for BayFest (musical groups, vendors, sponsors,
media, work crews, volunteers) 329 subjects were approached to participate in the study. Of the
individuals responsible for group spending that were approached 34 refused to participate (90%
response rate) and 6 surveys were incomplete and thrown out leaving 289 usable surveys for
assessment. All responses to survey questions were coded and entered into a SPSS statistical software
package.
Road Race Sample
The number of subjects who completed the 2012 road race survey at registration was 122 of
the roughly 800+ runners. Five surveys were incomplete leaving a total of 117 usable surveys. All
responses to survey questions were coded and entered into a SPSS statistical software package.
In consideration of the above three samples (music event attendees, business-related travelers,
road race participants) the general relationship between sample size and its level of accuracy toward
being representative of the population is raised. According to Crompton (1999) an event attracting 1,
000 visitors the number to be sampled with an error range of 5% should be 286 and an event with
500,000 the sample size should be at least 400 subjects in the sample. Given these event sample size
39
guidelines both the attendee and business traveler samples are within the 5 percent error limit and
considered representative of their respective population. The sample size represents a statistical
significance of +/-5% margin at the 95% confidence interval which means that the results reflect the
answers between 90% and 100% of the total population. This confidence level is considered
significant for making sound business decisions.
Population
Accounting for the reduction in paid tickets from 2012 to 2013 BayFest, poor weather due to
Tropical Storm Karen during BayFest weekend, and holding other variables constant (ceteris paribus)
the estimated attendance range used for this report was 191,000 (190,665) – 225,000 (224,561) after
rounding to the nearest one hundredth. Not all visitors are from out of town and therefore have to be
factored out when determining economic assessments. Mobile residents attending BayFest would not
bring new money to the area since they are already in the event impact region. Moreover, of the 128
musical acts coordinated for BayFest 2013, local musical groups based in Mobile and laborers
working the music festival would not marginally add to the economy since they already complete
business in the city even if BayFest were not held. Additionally, and specific to BayFest 2013 as a
result of Tropical Storm Karen most all of the small stage acts were cancelled therefore reducing the
population of BayFest business related travelers. Typically, business related stakeholders comprised
of the musicians; sponsors, vendors, media, volunteer workers, stage hands, and security make up
over 4,500 individuals for the business traveler population. The road race population annually
services 800-900 runners for the event.
40
Festival Attendees
Audience Profile
Population demographics and individual purchasing power are major factors in the design and
planning of events. A person or collection of people who enjoy attending music events can be
associated with a particular lifestyle, attitude, educational level, buying behavior, or a number of
other categorical characteristics. Efforts then to determine like variables amongst event attendees to
improve event strategies can be accomplished through an audit assessment. Efforts were made to
determine the profile of BayFest event spectators. Table 1 below illustrates the frequency response
rates returned from subjects for questions 2-10 on the attendee questionnaire administered at BayFest
2011, 2012, 2013 events.
Table 1-Percentages of BayFest Attendee Demographics 2011, 2012, 2013
Category 2011 2012 2013
Gender
Male 41% 39% 35%
Female 59% 61% 65%
Age
19-24 years 21% 15% 22%
25-34 years 22% 18% 25%
35-44 years 23% 26% 23%
55-64 years 8% 12% 8%
65+ years 1% 1% 1%
Marital Status
Single 43% 37% 40%
Married 40% 46% 41%
Divorced 10% 11% 11%
Live with Partner 4% 4% 5%
Other 3% 2% 3%
41
Race
African American 23% 19% 27%
White 72% 72% 67%
Asian/Pacif Islander 1% 4% 2%
Hispanic 2% 2% 3%
Native American 2% 3% 1%
Education Level
Some HS 7% 6% 7%
HS Graduate 20% 25% 25%
Voc/Technical School 5% 5% 5%
Some College 28% 28% 28%
College Graduate 28% 25% 24%
Some Graduate School 2% 3% 2%
Master’s Degree 8% 6% 7%
Doctoral Degree 2% 2% 2%
Household Income
Under $10,000 9% 10% 10%
$10,001-$30,000 18% 23% 22%
$30,001-$50,000 27% 20% 24%
$50,001-$70,000 19% 19% 17%
$70,001-$90,000 8% 9% 10%
$90,001-$110,000 9% 9% 7%
$110,001-$130,000 2% 3% 3%
$130,001-$150,000 8% 7% 7%
Musical Preference
Country 28% 26% 38%
Alternative 10% 5% 5%
Pop 6% 8% 7%
Rock 22% 34% 23%
Jazz 8% 6% 3%
R & B 10% 11% 14%
Rap 3% 4% 6%
Gospel 2% 4% 3%
Classical 1% 1% 1%
42
Other 10% 1% 0%
2011 N=1,102 2012 N=1,084 2013 N=1,047
The average age recorded for BayFest 2013 attendees was 37 years old (M=36.97, SD=12.70)
in comparison to last year’s mean age of attendees or 40 years old (M=40.48, SD=12.57) and
relatively the same for 2011 data at 37 years old (M=37.40, SD=12.61). The 2013 report returned
subjects as having a little over 3 person for household size (M=3.15, SD=1.78) consisting of 2
children per household (M=1.97, SD=1.61) which mirrored the household structure of 2012 survey
respondents (M=3.00, SD=1.63) household with 2 children per household (M=1.83, SD=1.32). Based
on the most frequent response for each characteristic listed in Table 1 the typical tapestry picture of
BayFest attendees over the last 3 years include:
2011
37 year old, college educated, married, white, female living in a household of three with one child
having a household income of $30,000-$50,000 who prefer country music.
2012
40 year old married, white, female with some college education living in a household with two
children having an annual household income of $10,000-$30,000 and prefer to listen to rock music.
2013
37 year old female, college experienced with almost an equal amount of single (40%) and married
(41%) individuals living in a household of 3 with 2 children earning between $30,000-$50,000 which
listens mostly to country music and secondly rock music.
In general terms single younger patrons, females, higher wage earners, and African Americans
attended BayFest 2013 in comparison to the spectators at BayFest 2012. Efforts to further describe
43
BayFest 2013 attendees according to music listening preference were conducted and listed below in
Table 2. Efforts to determine the profile of attendees based on music preference provides information
helpful for future programming of musicians and sponsorship target market matching activation.
Table 2- Cross-tabulations According to Music Preference BayFest 2013 Attendees
Gender * Music Preference Cross-tabulation
Music Preference
Country Alternative Pop Rock Jazz R&B Rap Gospel Classical
Gender Male
% of Total 11.1% 1.7% 2.3% 10.7% 1.3% 2.5% 2.5% .4% .0%
Female
% of Total 27.0% 3.1% 5.0% 12.4% 1.7% 11.3% 3.8% 3.1% .2%
Total
% of Total 38.0% 4.8% 7.3% 23.1% 3.1% 13.8% 6.3% 3.4% .2%
Marital * Music Preference Cross-tabulation
Music Preference
Country Alternative Pop Rock Jazz R&B Rap Gospel Classical
Marital Single
% of Total 13.6% 1.9% 3.6% 8.4% 1.1% 6.1% 3.8% 1.3% .0%
Married
% of Total 16.8% 2.1% 2.9% 9.0% 1.5% 5.4% 1.7% 1.3% .0%
Divorced
% of Total 4.8% .6% .8% 2.5% .0% 1.3% .4% .6% .0%
Live Partner
% of Total 1.9% .2% .0% 2.5% .2% .4% .2% .2% .0%
Other
% of Total 1.0% .0% .0% .8% .2% .6% .2% .0% .2%
Total
% of Total 38.0% 4.8% 7.3% 23.1% 3.1% 13.8% 6.3% 3.4% .2%
44
Ethnicity * Music Preference Cross-tabulation
Music Preference
Country Alternative Pop Rock Jazz R&B Rap Gospel Classical
Ethnicity Afric Amer
% of Total 1.3% 1.0% 1.3% 1.3% 1.9% 13.0% 4.4% 2.9% .2%
White
% of Total 33.9% 2.9% 5.2% 20.0% 1.0% .2% 1.3% .6% .0%
Asian/Pacif
% of Total .8% .0% .0% .6% .2% .0% .2% .0% .0%
Hispanic
% of Total .4% .4% .0% .8% .0% .2% .0% .0% .0%
Native Amer
% of Total 1.5% .6% .4% .4% .0% .2% .4% .0% .0%
Other
% of Total .2% .0% .4% .0% .0% .2% .0% .0% .0%
Total
% of Total 38.1% 4.8% 7.3% 23.1% 3.1% 13.8% 6.3% 3.4% .2%
Education Level * Music Preference Cross-tabulation
Music Preference
Country Alternative Pop Rock Jazz R&B Rap Gospel Classical
Educ Lvl Some HS
% of Total 3.6% .6% .2% 2.3% .0% .0% .4% .2% .0%
HS Grad
% of Total 9.2% 1.0% 1.9% 5.9% .8% 2.7% 2.7% .6% .0%
Voc/Tech
% of Total 3.3% .4% .2% .8% .2% .6% .0% .0% .0%
Some College
% of Total 10.6% .8% 1.9% 6.5% 1.1% 4.0% 1.5% 1.3% .0%
College Deg
% of Total 8.4% 1.5% 1.9% 5.7% .6% 4.4% .8% .8% .2%
Some Grad
% of Total .6% .0% .2% .0% .0% .8% .6% .0% .0%
Master
% of Total 2.1% .6% .6% 1.5% .4% 1.3% .2% .6% .0%
Doc
45
% of Total .2% .0% .4% .4% .0% .0% .2% .0% .0%
Total
% of Total 38.0% 4.8% 7.3% 23.2% 3.1% 13.8% 6.3% 3.4% .2%
HH Income * Music Preference Cross-tabulation
Music Preference
Country Alternative Pop Rock Jazz R&B Rap Gospel Classical
HH Income Under 10,000
% of
Total
3.6% .8% .4% 2.1% .2% 1.5% 1.3% .4% .0%
10,001-30,000
% of
Total
7.1% .6% 1.5% 6.7% .6% 3.4% 1.1% .8% .0%
30,001-50,000
% of
Total
9.0% 1.1% 1.3% 5.2% .5% 4.0% 1.7% .8% .2%
50,001-70,000
% of
Total
6.7% .6% 1.1% 3.6% 1.2% 2.5% .8% .4% .0%
70,001-90,000
% of
Total
4.6% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% .4% 1.5% .2% .6% .0%
90,001-110,000
% of
Total
3.3% .6% 1.0% 1.3% .0% .2% .2% .0% .0%
110,001-130,000
% of
Total
1.3% .0% .4% .8% .0% .4% .4% .4% .0%
130,001-150,000
% of
Total
2.5% .2% .6% 2.5% .2% .2% .6% .2% .0%
Total
% of
Total
38.0% 4.8% 7.3% 23.1% 3.1% 13.8% 6.3% 3.4% .2%
N= 1,047
46
Place of Residence
Based upon the recorded zip codes of BayFest attendee survey subjects 12 states were
represented in the sample with the farthest visitors coming from Nevada. Table 3 below illustrates the
frequency distributions and relative percentages of survey responses to the zip code question
administered to respondents from 2011-2013 BayFest events. Roughly 66% (65.90%) of respondents
were from the state of Alabama leaving 34% of the sample traveling interstate to attend BayFest with
Florida (17.2%), Mississippi (9.2%), Louisiana (3.4%), and Georgia (1.3%) residents being the next
largest response frequencies. Other state response zip codes recorded from subjects were less than
one percent of the sample population. In 2010-38%, 2011-36%, and 2012-42% of the sample
surveyed traveled to BayFest from outside the state of Alabama.
Table 3- Percentages of BayFest Attendees 2011, 2012, 2013
State 2011 % 2012 % 2013%
Alabama 64.1 57.7 65.9
Mississippi 13.4 13.4 9.2
Florida 12.5 21.7 17.2
Louisiana 3.1 3.9 3.4
Georgia 1.8 1.0 1.3
Tennessee 1.6 X X
(Less than 1% of responses)
3.5
TX, MD, VA, OH,
MI, MN, SD, IL,
CO, UT
2.26
TX, TN, NC,
OH, SC,
WI, KY, IN,
MO, OK
3.0
NC, TN, SC,
KY, OH, TX
NV
Total 100% 100% 100%
47
Stratum of the sample frequencies from 2011-2013 survey respondent zip codes in Alabama
are depicted in Table 4 below. Of the 1,047 surveys returned in 2013 there were 318 or 30% (30.38)
had a resident zip code matching the city of Mobile and 456 or 43% (43.45) recorded a zip code in
Mobile County. Identifying Mobile as the impact region 30% of the sample lived in this area and
70% were therefore considered incremental visitors (those living outside of Mobile that traveled to
the city to specifically attend BayFest).
Table 4- Percentages of Alabama BayFest Attendees 2011, 2012, 2013
Zip Code 2011 Percent of
Sample Population
2012 Percent of
Sample Population
2013 Percent of
Sample Population
Mobile City 31% 24% 30%
Mobile County 42% 35% 43%
Other AL Counties 22% 23% 33%
Alabama 64% 58% 66%
2012 N= 1,084
Out-of-Town Festival Attendees
Integrating the above frequency estimates and rounding, 729 subjects or 70% in the study
sample were considered incremental visitors that live outside of the city of Mobile. Also, utilizing the
percent responses from Table 4 revealed 591 subjects (57%) live outside Mobile County and 357
(34%) residing outside the state lines of Alabama if the impact region were extended to these
vicinities. In comparison to the 2011 and 2012 BayFest reports, BayFest study subjects in 2013
showed a greater representation of individuals similar to those recorded in 2011 as coming from
48
outside the City of Mobile, Mobile County, and State of Alabama. This longitudinal analysis and
differences/similarities according to annual data responses may be due to a number of issues relating
to the types of musicians who performed each year, weather, or economic conditions at the time
BayFest concerts were held.
Business Travelers
According to the Business Traveler Survey information (N=289) the number of surveyed
business travelers or “other visitors” from out-of-town who were in Mobile for BayFest was close to
237 (82%) and a resulting 52 (18%) of subjects revealed a local zip code classifying them as Mobil-
based organizations. The frequency distribution of business travelers from Mobile County and the
State of Alabama was 19% and 22% respectively resulting in 81% of the BayFest business traveler
sample residing outside the bounds of Mobile County and 78% of those surveyed who were from out
of state. The large frequency of out-of-town business travelers can be explained by the high amount
of music industry specific workers, namely performers having a home base outside the impact region.
The main purpose of sampling business travelers was to obtain direct spending averages
while in Mobile. The city or place where worker groups are based geographically are recorded by
BayFest in the payment of accounts for goods and services and is considered a more accurate estimate
of business traveler origin than sampling probability. Therefore, to distinguish the amount of business
personnel traveling to Mobile the BayFest balance sheet was used to generate a list of the businesses
and payment disbursement locations were used in lieu of zip code responses from the Business
Traveler Survey findings.
Incremental Visitors
Not all visitors residing outside an impact area that come to a city and attend a special event
are incremental. Visitors to BayFest include spectators, musicians, band members, stage-hands,
49
sponsors, industry specialists, media, and volunteers. As previously stated attempts to decide whether
someone is considered a visitor to an area are of a contentious nature. Since no universal agreement
on the distance and length of stay exists and economic impact involves those individuals not residing
or working in the impact region being assessed, visitors in this report are defined as those who travel
to Mobile from outside its geographical limits. Impacts for Mobile County and the State of Alabama
were also used as impact regions in this report to illustrate the effects of BayFest beyond the
immediate place of the City of Mobile.
In addition to excluding locals certain other visitors should not be included in the
measurement of economic impact. Specifically, only those individuals where the visitor’s attendance
at the event is their primary purpose for traveling to an area should be examined. Likewise, an
individual who already planned a trip to a destination but changed the date of the trip to coincide with
an event should not be a part of incremental visitors in an impact analysis. Time-switchers (concert
attendees who already made plans to visit Mobile but switched the dates of visitation to attend the
event) and Casuals visitors (travelers already in Mobile who received notice BayFest was being held
during the duration of their trip and surreptitiously attended) were accounted for in this report. The
Attendee Survey contained a question where subjects were to respond with a “yes” or “no” answer to
whether BayFest was the main reason they were in Mobile (Question 14). This question was to filter
out those who were time-switchers and casuals and the frequency responses to these questions
determine true incremental visitors for calculations of impact.
Of the 729 sample subjects with zip codes outside the City of Mobile 97% survey subjects
returned a “yes” response to the question of BayFest being the main reason they were in Mobile
meaning that they would not have come to Mobile if it were not for BayFest 2013. This produces 712
subjects in the survey sample considered to be true incremental visitors or 68% (=1,047/712) of the
50
total sample size. Therefore, efforts to determine the spending amounts and other economic impact
calculations in this report a 68% value is used when factoring the survey sample results up to the
population of BayFest visitors. BayFest 2012 survey data returned 72% of the spectators with a
residence outside of Mobile. In the case of Business Travelers no adjustments for time switchers and
casuals are made for those listing a place of business zip code outside of Mobile since the purpose of
their travel to Mobile was specific to working at BayFest rather than other leisure related activities.
Going by the total attendance estimates provided by BayFest 2013 and applying the 68%
incremental visitor sample value to the population returns an optimistic estimate of 153,000
(=225,000 x .68) for the weekend and a conservative estimate of 129,880 (=191,000 x .68). Both
estimates account for the necessary deduction of locals attending, time switchers, and casuals and
depict “true economic tourists” since they bring new money to the area because BayFest is held in
Mobile. Previous year BayFest 2012 data recorded true economic tourist counts as 162,000 to
190,800.
For economic tourists with the impact region being Mobile County and accounting for time
switchers and casuals (1.7% of visitors with zip codes outside Mobile County, n=591) 56%
(=1,047/581) is the value used for external visitors. Applying the 56% value of true economic tourists
(spectators living outside of Mobile County) to the population of BayFest attendees results in an
optimistic estimate of 126,000 (=225,000 x 56%) and a conservative estimate of 106,960 (=191,000 x
56%) for economic tourists living outside Mobile County. An Alabama state impact region returns a
34% economic visitor value from the sample N=1,047 since 98.8% or 353 of the 1,047 surveyed
residing outside the state of Alabama were not time-switchers or casual visitors. Applying the 34%
value to the population of BayFest attendees results in an optimistic estimate of 76,400 (=225,000 x
51
34%) and a conservative estimate of 64,940 (=191,000 x 34%) for economic tourists residing outside
the state.
In comparison to BayFest 2010-2012 the amount of true incremental visitors (after accounting
for place of residence and time-switchers and casual visitors), BayFest 2013 sample survey results
returned a lower proportion of true economic tourist in comparison to 2010 and 2012. Table 5 below
depicts the percent of incremental tourist from 2010-2013.
Table 5- Percentages BayFest Incremental Tourists 2010-2013
Residence BayFest
2010
BayFest
2011
BayFest
2012
BayFest
2013
% Living
Outside City
69% 68% 72% 68%
% Living
Outside County
57% 53% 62% 56%
% Living
Outside State
36% 34% 41% 34%
Incremental Visitor Business Travelers
Beyond concert attendees “Business Travelers” must be factored in since these visitors bring
new dollars to the Mobile economy also. This includes the long list of entertainers performing at
BayFest, other visitors who were in town as a result of work responsibilities (including volunteers)
and those who engage in business to business relationships with BayFest. Business travel remains a
52
driving force in the U.S. economy and an integral part of the U.S. economic recovery. In 2012, U.S.
companies are projected to spend $225 billion on business travel and generate $524 billion in
spending. Although business travel is the subject of much debate, new research shows that during the
economic downturn in 2008, a positive correlation exists between investing in business travel and
positive return on your investment. In fact, companies that maintained business travel during the
Great Recession realized a nearly 10:1 return on their investment and nearly tripled their profits
(http://www.ustravel.org/research/domestic-research).
Table 6 lists the type and number of people for each category of business related
travelers/entertainers or “other visitors” for BayFest 2013 exclusive of those attending the concerts as
a spectator. Estimates for the number of people for certain areas were drawn from the Business
Traveler Survey results or provided by the BayFest headquarters; and, where values could not be
derived from these two sources the number of other estimates was extrapolated from the results
concluded in the BayFest 2011 and 2012 reports. For example based upon the survey sample the
average size of a musical group performing at BayFest 2012 was roughly 12 (M=11.63, SD=5.36)
people; with the stage crews numbering 13 per act (M=12.7, SD=2.80); the average amount of
workers at a vendor’s tent returned exactly 14 (M=13.7, SD=12.81) workers; and each BayFest
sponsors traveled with an average of 6 (M=5.7, SD= 2.36) individuals. In comparison BayFest 2013
returned 13 (M=12.75, SD=6.77) people for a musical group; with the stage crews numbering 14 per
act (M=14.1, SD=2.80); the average amount of workers at a vendor’s tent returned exactly 15
(M=14.51, SD=11.72) workers; and each BayFest sponsors traveled with an average of 6 (M=5.7,
SD= 2.36) individuals
As previously mentioned Tropical Storm Karen occurred during BayFest 2013 weekend
creating much concern for the safety of those involved with the event. As a result of anticipated high
53
wind and precipitation forecasts BayFest officials cancelled all small stage acts (53) and some of the
Children’s Area performances on Sunday. In total 70 bands performed at BayFest 2013.
Table 6 - BayFest Business Travelers/Other Visitors BayFest 2012 & 2013
Type Quantity Non-Local
Entertainers 2012 2013
2012 (125 Acts - 30 Local Performing) 95
2013 (128 Acts – 58 Acts Cancelled & Local) 70
Band Members/Support Staff
2012 (95 Acts @ 12 average members per group) 1,140
2013 (70 Acts @ 13 average members per group) 910
Stage Crews
(95 Acts @ 13 members per group) 1,235
(70 Acts @ 14 members per group) 980
Music Industry Professionals 160 160
Sponsors (150)
(6 members per group) 900 900
Vendors (50 Booths total, 8 local vendors)
(42 Vendors @ 14 per booth) 588
(42 Vendors @ 15 per booth) 630
Media (240 Total Media Representatives, 80% local) 48 48
Volunteers/Eco Team (1,000, 90% locals) 100 100
*Total 4,266 3,798
*No adjustments for time switchers and casuals are made for the above other visitors since the purpose of their travel to Mobile was specific to BayFest. ** Survey sample consisted of 292 subjects for 2012 and 289 subjects for 2013.
54
Total Economic Tourists
Combining the total weekend attendee estimates with the “other visitors” (3,798) an optimistic
rounded estimate of 156,798 [153,000 (=225,000 x .68) + 3,798] and a conservative estimate of
133,678 [129,880 (=191,000 x .68) + 3,798] result. These two polar values are referred to in this
report as the range of visitors or “true economic tourists” since these people traveled to Mobile
because of BayFest and brought new money to the area creating a change in the Mobile economy.
True economic tourists for the impact regions of Mobile County and State of Alabama were an
estimated (110,758-129,798) and (68,738-80,298) respectively.
Group Size
One essential factor needed to compute economic impact estimates via event survey
methodology is the average number of people in one’s travel party recorded by the person taking the
survey. Since, total visitor spending is usually estimated by multiplying the average spending per
visitor times the number of visitors a few critical questions must be addressed and retrieved through
the answers given by the leaders of groups attending an event; for instance group size and length of
stay information. Based upon the attendee surveys the largest sized group was 11 people and the
smallest was a one-person group. The overall average group size for economic tourists attending
BayFest 2013 was 2.74 (SD=1.52) for those living outside the City of Mobile. Since children under
twelve are included as part of the group size estimates, but not included in attendance figures since
admitted free to BayFest they were extracted from the overall group size average. Subtracting the
average number of children 12 years old and under per group (.15) as recorded on the frequency
counts from the strata of sample subjects residing outside the City of Mobile results in an average
group size of 2.6 (2.59=2.74-.15). Similarly, accounting for children under twelve for the sample
55
subjects living outside Mobile County and State returned an overall group size of 2.7 (2.65) and 2.8
(2.78) respectfully.
Average groups size for business travelers coming to work BayFest were 12 (M=12.25,
SD=7.12) for those outside the City; 13 (M=12.63, SD=7.29) for those outside Mobile County, and
13 (M=12.74, SD=6.16) for those outside the state of Alabama.
Length of Stay
Not all of the entire non-local concert attendees stay overnight, however due to the nature of
the event lasting into the late evenings fosters the chances for overnight travel. This is especially
suitable if a visitor’s place of residence is over a half a day’s drive or beyond 300 miles to Mobile.
According to the Alabama Bureau of Tourism and Travel the average number nights of stay for
leisure visitors is 3.8. According to Table 7 the average number of days out-of-town BayFest 2013
attendees spent in Mobile was close to 3 (M=2.68, SD=.98) and the number of nights was 2 (M=2.26,
SD=.76). Mean and standard deviation for Mobile County and State of Alabama impact regions are
also in Table 7 along with 2011 and 2012 length of stay information.
Table 7- Number of Days and Nights Incremental Visitors 2011-2013
Residence Average # of Days Average # of Nights
Outside City 2013 M=2.68, SD=.98 M=2.26, SD=.76
2012
2011
M=2.73, SD=.83
M=2.84, SD=.96
M=2.33,SD=.71
M=2.10, SD=1.23
Outside County 2013 M=2.88, SD=.94 M=2.26, SD=.77
2012
2011
M=2.80, SD=.86
M=2.88, SD=.99
M=2.34, SD=.72
M=2.09, SD=1.25
56
Outside State 2013 M=2.95, SD=1.10 M=2.27, SD=.79
2012
2011
M=2.97, SD=.90
M=2.91, SD=.94
M=2.35, SD=.69
M=2.08, SD=1.20
2013 N= 712 Outside City, N= 581 Outside County, N= 353 Outside State
As expected those traveling farther distances from out-of-state were more likely to stay in the
host city longer rather than those who commute due to trip distance. Overall total sample frequency
responses for a three-day attendance returned roughly 68% as the days BayFest sample subjects were
in Mobile to attend the event (see Figure 2 next page). The 3-day attendance response supports the
supposition that BayFest fans are more likely to attend all scheduled dates of the musical festival in
comparison to attending 1 or 2 days only. In comparison to other years and in consideration of
Tropical Storm Karen, BayFest 2013 visitor days overall remained relatively unaffected by the bad
weather.
57
Figure 2- Percentages of Spectator Days Attended
Of the business travelers at BayFest the combined mean average time in Mobile for all
business travelers was near 4 days (M=3.55, SD=1.31) days and 3 nights (M=2.55, SD=1.31). The
musicians averaged a lower amount of time in Mobile at 1.89 days (SD=.96) and 1.0 nights (SD=48)
and the work crews were in town the longest 5.65 days (SD=3.31) and 4.02 nights (SD=3.41). When
business travelers were queried about the number of years they have been at BayFest the media group
has the highest mean of 17 years followed by sponsors 8 years, work crews 7 years, vendors 5 years,
the musicians 3 years and volunteers 2 years.
58
Direct Expenditures
It is important to consider and mete out total visitor expenditure into its component parts of
spectator expenditures and those falling under the category of “other visitor” expenditures. BayFest
draws various groups of people to its host community as categorized in previous sections of this
report which allows one to determine what each group of visitors spends and subsequently adds to the
local economy. While these expenditure accounts are not inclusive of all the travellers in town for the
event and its activities leading up to the music festival- such as the Music Education Workshop-
attempts were made to include as many visitor expenditure estimates via the event surveys and
through the cash flow information supplied by BayFest administrators.
When attendee survey subjects were asks to estimate the amount of money they spent on their
group in Mobile for each of the expenditure categories other items, lodging, and food & beverage
were the highest tourism related purchases. Table 8 (see next page) provides the average amounts
spent in each of the expenditure categories for 2011, 2012, and 2013.
In order to estimate the total amount of direct spending for visitors living outside the city of
Mobile each area is divided by the average party size (2.59) to determine the mean spending per
person. Once the per-person spending average is calculated it is extrapolated to the total amount of
economic tourists or incremental visitors coming from out-of-town per day (excluding business
travellers) to attend BayFest using the optimistic estimate (57,089) and conservative estimate
(48,463).
59
Table 8-Average Per Group and Per Person Spending, Total Direct Spending Living Outside Mobile
2013
Expenditures Mean Party Size Per Person Optimistic Conservative
Spend Estimate Estimate
Lodging $ 127.02 2.59 $ 49.04 $ 2,799,785.63 $ 2,376,745.27 Food & Beverage $ 56.92 2.59 $ 21.98 $ 1,254,635.47 $ 1,065,063.31 Entertainment $ 38.51 2.59 $ 14.87 $ 848,840.69 $ 720,583.06 Retail $ 35.80 2.59 $ 13.82 $ 789,106.64 $ 669,874.67 Auto/Gas $ 32.53 2.59 $ 12.56 $ 717,029.02 $ 608,687.80 Parking $ 12.22 2.59 $ 4.72 $ 269,354.28 $ 228,655.54 Local Transport $ 12.73 2.59 $ 4.92 $ 280,595.74 $ 238,198.45 Other $ 129.28 2.59 $ 49.92 $ 2,849,600.74 $ 2,419,033.45 Total $ 445.01 2.59 $ 171.82 $ 9,808,948.22 $ 8,326,841.56
2012
Expenditures Mean Party Size Per Person Optimistic Conservative
Spend Estimate Estimate
Lodging $ 124.59 2.5 $ 49.84 $ 3,240,436.39 $ 2,762,010.79 Food & Beverage $ 58.38 2.5 $ 23.35 $ 1,518,393.74 $ 1,294,214.54 Entertainment $ 55.96 2.5 $ 22.38 $ 1,455,452.45 $ 1,240,566.05 Retail $ 52.95 2.5 $ 21.18 $ 1,377,165.96 $ 1,173,837.96 Auto/Gas $ 33.02 2.5 $ 13.21 $ 858,810.58 $ 732,013.78 Parking $ 14.62 2.5 $ 5.85 $ 380,248.66 $ 324,107.86 Local Transport $ 39.01 2.5 $ 15.60 $ 1,014,603.29 $ 864,804.89 Other $ 86.33 2.5 $ 34.53 $ 2,245,339.70 $ 1,913,832.50 Total $ 464.86 2.5 $ 185.94 $ 12,090,450.77 $ 10,305,388.37
2011
Expenditures Mean Party Size Per Person Optimistic Conservative
Spend Estimate Estimate
Lodging $ 97.94 2.84 $ 34.49 $ 2,237,687.60 $ 1,816,580.08 Food & Beverage $ 63.54 2.84 $ 22.37 $ 1,451,732.39 $ 1,178,532.76 Entertainment $ 46.47 2.84 $ 16.36 $ 1,061,724.96 $ 861,920.32 Retail $ 38.94 2.84 $ 13.71 $ 889,683.02 $ 722,254.73 Auto/Gas $ 42.28 2.84 $ 14.89 $ 965,993.79 $ 784,204.68 Parking $ 9.82 2.84 $ 3.46 $ 224,362.80 $ 182,140.25 Local Transport $ 43.77 2.84 $ 15.41 $ 1,000,036.62 $ 811,841.03 Other $ 72.73 2.84 $ 25.61 $ 1,661,701.24 $ 1,348,987.85 Total $ 415.49 2.84 $ 146.30 $ 9,492,922.40 $ 7,706,461.70
2012 N=712
60
Adjustments to Direct Spending
Ticket/admission is not included in the above expenditures since adjustments have to be made
to account for non-paying attendees such as complimentary tickets provided to various sponsors and
local groups and whether fans purchased weekend passes for $60 or at the reduced pre-purchase or
group rate of $50. The mean spending for each group recorded from the survey was $138.78. When
applied to the average group size or 2.59 per party those residing outside of Mobile spent $53.58 (=
$138.78 mean/2.59 party size) each to attend BayFest. The difference in amount paid per spectator
($53.58) attending BayFest in comparison to the face value of a BayFest ticket ($60) is attributable to
the reduced advance ticket cost ($50) offered to those pre-purchasing before the event or purchasing
for a group, children under 12 admitted free of charge, and the possibility of fans using
complimentary tickets. The difference in ticket revenue using the mean averages from sample
subjects and the actual paid ticket revenue recorded from the BayFest 2013 budget ($1,102,779)
results from the different ways fans gain entrance to attend BayFest (paid versus non-paid and early-
bird or group purchases). Therefore, since the amount recorded from the BayFest budget for overall
ticket revenue is the more accurate approach it is used to determine ticket spending. Subsequently,
when applying the ticket revenue proceeds from BayFest’s 2013 budget and accounting for true
economic tourists (68%) or those attending BayFest who live outside the city, the ticket/admission
direct spending amount used for this report is $749,890 (=$1,102,779 x 68%) for economic
assessment. The largest difference in ticket revenue from BayFest 2012 to BayFest 2013 was seen in
the area of single-day tickets where a 59% drop in revenue occurred. BayFest 2012 recorded single-
day ticket sales at $213,000 and BayFest 2013 generated $133,280 for those gaining entrance on the
day of the event. Again, the inclement weather may have had a direct effect on attendance and
subsequently walk-up ticket purchases.
61
Another incremental spending adjustment is necessary to accurately assess lodging revenue.
Since it is more likely 2 visitors stayed per room an adjustment to the average amount paid by
economic tourists is made. Half of the mean amount $24.52 (= $49.04/2 persons per room) results
for lodging. However, an additional calculation is made for those visitors staying one per room or that
returned a travel party size of one or 8% (20 of the 250 sample who stayed in a hotel) which spent a
higher amount per day for lodging $155.40. In order to capture a more realistic value for those
staying one per room a weighted average was used to more adequately depict the dispersion of
values. By using a weighted-average instead of a simple average reduces the tendency to over-
emphasize or under-emphasize the average amount visitors paid for lodging. Applying the formula:
=[(Variable(n1)xValue(N1))+(Variable(n2)xValue(N2)…]/(Variable(n1)+Variable(n2)…
returns:
=[(20 one traveler x $155.40 average cost per room) +(126 two person party x $111.55)… 20 one traveler party size + 126 two person party…
= $132.48 spent per group on travel accommodations
Adjusting for 2.59 group size= $51.15 ($132.48/2.59) per person spent lodging
When applied to the optimistic estimate for economic tourists $2,920,102.30 (= $51.15 x 57,089) and
for the conservative estimate $2,478,882.40 (=51.15 x 48,463) result based upon a per group average
spending of $132.48 on lodging. Table 9 (see next page) provides the direct spending amounts with
adjustments made to tickets and lodging for economic tourists that brought incremental revenue to the
city of Mobile based on data collected at BayFest in 2011, 2012, and 2013.
62
Table 9- Total Direct Spending Economic Tourists 2011, 2012, 2013
2013
Expenditures Optimistic Conservative
Estimate Estimate
Tickets $ 749,890.00 $ 749,890.00 Lodging $ 2,920,102.30 $ 2,478,882.40 Food & Beverage $ 1,254,635.47 $ 1,065,063.31 Entertainment $ 848,840.69 $ 720,583.06 Retail $ 789,106.64 $ 669,874.67 Auto/Gas $ 717,029.02 $ 608,687.80 Parking $ 269,354.28 $ 228,655.54 Local Transport $ 280,595.74 $ 238,198.45 Other $ 2,849,600.74 $ 2,419,033.45 Total $ 10,679,154.88 $ 9,178,868.68
2012
Expenditures Optimistic Conservative
Estimate Estimate
Tickets $ 959,735.00 $ 959,735.00 Lodging $ 3,341,480.50 $ 2,848,135.50 Food & Beverage $ 1,518,393.74 $ 1,294,214.54 Entertainment $ 1,455,452.45 $ 1,240,566.05 Retail $ 1,377,165.96 $ 1,173,837.96 Auto/Gas $ 858,810.58 $ 732,013.78 Parking $ 380,248.66 $ 324,107.86 Local Transport $ 1,014,603.29 $ 864,804.89 Other $ 2,245,339.70 $ 1,913,832.50 Total $ 13,151,229.88 $ 11,351,248.08
2011
Expenditures Optimistic Conservative
Estimate Estimate
Tickets $ 840,820.00 $ 840,820.00 Lodging $ 2,300,893.00 $ 1,867,890.90 Food & Beverage $ 1,451,732.39 $ 1,178,532.76 Entertainment $ 1,061,724.96 $ 861,920.32 Retail $ 889,683.02 $ 722,254.73 Auto/Gas $ 965,993.79 $ 784,204.68 Parking $ 224,362.80 $ 182,140.25 Local Transport $ 1,000,036.62 $ 811,841.03 Other $ 1,661,701.24 $ 1,348,987.85 Total $ 10,396,947.82 $ 8,598,592.52
2013 N=712
63
BayFest attendees or true economic tourists living outside the city of Mobile spent an average
of $173.93 per person at BayFest 2013 after adjusting for lodging purchases (weighted mean) and
overall ticket revenue as depicted in Table 10.
Table 10- Per Person and Total Direct Spending Adjusted for Lodging & Ticket Purchases
2013
Expenditures Mean Party Size Per Person Optimistic Conservative
Spend Estimate Estimate
Tickets
$ 749,890.00 $ 749,890.00 Lodging
$ 51.15 $ 2,920,102.30 $ 2,478,882.40
Food & Beverage $ 56.92 2.59 $ 21.98 $ 1,254,635.47 $ 1,065,063.31 Entertainment $ 38.51 2.59 $ 14.87 $ 848,840.69 $ 720,583.06 Retail $ 35.80 2.59 $ 13.82 $ 789,106.64 $ 669,874.67 Auto/Gas $ 32.53 2.59 $ 12.56 $ 717,029.02 $ 608,687.80 Parking $ 12.22 2.59 $ 4.72 $ 269,354.28 $ 228,655.54 Local Transport $ 12.73 2.59 $ 4.92 $ 280,595.74 $ 238,198.45 Other $ 129.28 2.59 $ 49.92 $ 2,849,600.74 $ 2,419,033.45 Total $ 317.99
$ 173.93 $ 10,679,154.89 $ 9,178,868.68
*Tickets- 68% of total tickets sales *Lodging- 2 person per room and weighted mean average
2013 N=712
If the impact region were Mobile County or the State of Alabama different spending amounts
result. Based upon the same assumptions used for the direct spending of those traveling to Mobile
from outside the city (time switchers, casuals, ticketing, lodging weighted average) the following
tables provide the direct spending amounts or economic benefit of economic tourists residing outside
of Mobile County (Table 11) and those living outside Alabama state boundaries (Table 12).
Table 11- Total Direct Spending Economic Tourist Living Outside Mobile County 2011-2013
2013
Expenditures Mean Party Size Per Person Optimistic Conservative
Spend Estimate Estimate
Tickets
$ 617,556.24 $ 617,556.24 Lodging
$ 49.99 $ 2,187,062.50 $ 1,856,578.60
Food & Beverage $ 59.15 2.65 $ 22.32 $ 976,533.02 $ 828,970.51 Entertainment $ 41.13 2.65 $ 15.52 $ 679,033.02 $ 576,425.31
64
Retail $ 36.02 2.65 $ 13.59 $ 594,669.81 $ 504,810.11 Auto/Gas $ 35.12 2.65 $ 13.25 $ 579,811.32 $ 492,196.86 Parking $ 17.40 2.65 $ 6.57 $ 287,264.15 $ 243,856.08 Local Transport $ 12.87 2.65 $ 4.86 $ 212,476.42 $ 180,369.41 Other $ 140.34 2.65 $ 52.96 $ 2,316,933.96 $ 1,966,825.38 Total $ 342.03
$ 179.06 $ 8,451,340.44 $ 7,267,588.49
*Tickets- 56% of total tickets sales *Lodging- 2 person per room and weighted mean average
2012 Expenditures Mean Party Size Per Person Optimistic Conservative
Spend Estimate Estimate
Tickets
$ 826,438.30 $ 826,438.30 Lodging
$ 44.78 $ 2,522,412.62 $ 2,145,947.16
Food & Beverage $ 57.15 2.81 $ 20.34 $ 1,145,623.61 $ 974,641.39 Entertainment $ 56.50 2.81 $ 20.11 $ 1,132,593.77 $ 963,556.23 Retail $ 54.52 2.81 $ 19.40 $ 1,092,902.88 $ 929,789.12 Auto/Gas $ 34.48 2.81 $ 12.27 $ 691,182.89 $ 588,025.11 Parking $ 14.31 2.81 $ 5.09 $ 286,856.94 $ 244,044.06 Local Transport $ 39.29 2.81 $ 13.98 $ 787,603.70 $ 670,055.30 Other $ 87.17 2.81 $ 31.02 $ 1,747,401.75 $ 1,486,605.25 Total $ 343.42
$ 166.99 $ 10,233,016.46 $ 8,829,101.92
*Tickets- 62% of total tickets sales *Lodging- 2 person per room and weighted mean average
2011 Expenditures Mean Party Size Per Person Optimistic Conservative
Spend Estimate Estimate
Tickets
$ 655,345.00 $ 655,345.00 Lodging
$ 36.44 $ 1,842,916.56 $ 1,496,080.64
Food & Beverage $ 66.80 2.87 $ 23.28 $ 1,177,123.07 $ 955,589.13 Entertainment $ 48.15 2.87 $ 16.78 $ 848,480.17 $ 688,796.66 Retail $ 42.57 2.87 $ 14.83 $ 750,151.63 $ 608,973.49 Auto/Gas $ 45.66 2.87 $ 15.91 $ 804,602.38 $ 653,176.64 Parking $ 10.03 2.87 $ 3.49 $ 176,744.68 $ 143,481.42 Local Transport $ 49.02 2.87 $ 17.08 $ 863,810.97 $ 701,242.20 Other $ 53.77 2.87 $ 18.74 $ 947,513.58 $ 769,192.03 Total $ 316.00
$ 146.54 $ 8,066,688.04 $ 6,671,877.21
*Tickets- 57% of total tickets sales *Lodging- 2 person per room and weighted mean average
2013 N=581
65
Table 12- Total Direct Spending Economic Tourists Living Outside Alabama 2011-2013
2013
Expenditures Mean Party Size Per Person Optimistic Conservative
Spend Estimate Estimate
Tickets
$ 374,944.86 $ 374,944.86 Lodging
$ 47.63 $ 1,235,141.16 $ 1,048,526.82
Food & Beverage $ 57.97 2.78 $ 20.85 $ 540,747.50 $ 459,047.33 Entertainment $ 39.43 2.78 $ 14.18 $ 367,805.31 $ 312,234.54 Retail $ 39.13 2.78 $ 14.08 $ 365,006.89 $ 309,858.93 Auto/Gas $ 34.99 2.78 $ 12.59 $ 326,388.73 $ 277,075.49 Parking $ 12.19 2.78 $ 4.38 $ 113,709.02 $ 96,529.01 Local Transport $ 9.53 2.78 $ 3.43 $ 88,896.39 $ 75,465.26 Other $ 145.77 2.78 $ 52.44 $ 1,359,750.95 $ 1,154,309.63 Total $ 339.01 2.78 $ 169.58 $ 4,772,390.81 $ 4,107,991.87 *Tickets- 34% of total ticket sales
*Lodging- 2 person per room and weighted mean average
2012 Expenditures Mean Party Size Per Person Optimistic Conservative
Spend Estimate Estimate
Tickets
$ 546,515.50 $ 546,515.50 Lodging
$ 44.29 $ 1,666,987.02 $ 1,424,897.88
Food & Beverage $ 57.84 2.87 $ 20.15 $ 758,530.29 $ 648,372.29 Entertainment $ 57.74 2.87 $ 20.12 $ 757,218.86 $ 647,251.32 Retail $ 54.06 2.87 $ 18.84 $ 708,958.29 $ 605,999.41 Auto/Gas $ 37.74 2.87 $ 13.15 $ 494,933.14 $ 423,056.20 Parking $ 14.50 2.87 $ 5.05 $ 190,157.14 $ 162,541.46 Local Transport $ 40.91 2.87 $ 14.25 $ 536,505.43 $ 458,591.12 Other $ 95.46 2.87 $ 33.26 $ 1,251,889.71 $ 1,070,083.32 Total $ 358.25 2.87 $ 169.12 $ 6,911,695.38 $ 5,987,308.50 *Tickets- 41% of total ticket sales
*Lodging- 2 person per room and weighted mean average
2011 Expenditures Mean Party Size Per Person Optimistic Conservative
Spend Estimate Estimate
Tickets
$ 420,410.00 $ 420,410.00 Lodging
$ 49.82 $ 1,616,360.08 $ 1,311,760.60
Food & Beverage $ 71.55 2.88 $ 24.84 $ 806,030.63 $ 654,135.94 Entertainment $ 53.40 2.88 $ 18.54 $ 601,565.83 $ 488,202.08 Retail $ 45.24 2.88 $ 15.71 $ 509,641.17 $ 413,600.42 Auto/Gas $ 47.60 2.88 $ 16.53 $ 536,227.22 $ 435,176.39
66
Parking $ 9.26 2.88 $ 3.22 $ 104,316.47 $ 84,658.26 Local Transport $ 62.95 2.88 $ 21.86 $ 709,149.24 $ 575,511.63 Other $ 69.27 2.88 $ 24.05 $ 780,345.79 $ 633,291.35 Total $ 359.27 2.88 $ 174.57 $ 6,084,046.43 $ 5,016,746.68 *Tickets- 32% of total ticket sales
*Lodging- 2 person per room and weighted mean average
2013 N=353
Based upon the on-site event survey response data collected at BayFest 2013 and weighted average
adjustments to lodging, intent of trip, and ticket sales purchase receipts the average spending per
person for true economic tourists living outside the City of Mobile was $173.93, for BayFest
attendees traveling from outside Mobile County $179.06, and those with a residence outside the State
spent $169.58 while in town.
Direct Expenditures Business Travelers
Also included in the amount of revenue accruals to the city of Mobile is the amount spent by
visitors who were in town to work or those doing business related activities aligned with BayFest.
Based upon entertainers performing at BayFest, individuals who were in town to work, and those who
engage in business to business relationships with BayFest- as previously listed in Table 6 of this
report- there were roughly 3,798 non-local business travelers to Mobile. When factoring up the
sample results taken from business related travelers (N=289) to this population, 3,114 business
individuals came from outside the City of Mobile, 3,076 came from outside Mobile County, and
2,962 held a zip code outside the state of Alabama; all of which considered to be true economic
tourists since they were in Mobile specifically to work and traveling from distances outside the
impact zones.
Average expenditures returned from the business traveler surveys for business visitors with a
home base outside the city are shown in Table 13. BayFest business traveler per-person spending for
67
each tourism expense and adjusted for average group size (12) returns lodging ($63.90) as the highest
amount spent followed by transportation ($56.73) and food and beverage ($39.66). When applied to
the total amount of incremental business visitors to Mobile over $ 926,608 dollars in direct spending
occurs from the musical groups, vendors, workers, sponsors and other business workers who travelled
to Mobile and spent money on tourism related goods and services. Extending the impact region to
Mobile County (N=235, 12.63 group size) and state of Alabama (N=224, 12.87 group size) where
survey response frequencies indicated an 81% and 78% of business visitor zip codes; the direct
spending amounts of $894,753.98 resulted for business travelers coming from outside the County and
$971,998.53 for those located outside of Alabama.
Table 13- Direct Expenditures of Business Travelers to Mobile City 2011, 2012, 2013
2013 Expenditures Average Per Average Per Number Total Direct
Group Size Person Visitors Spend
Tickets $ 174.33 12 $ 14.53 3,798 $ 55,175.45 Lodging $ 766.83 12 $ 63.90 3,798 $ 242,701.70 Food & Beverage $ 475.95 12 $ 39.66 3,798 $ 150,638.18 Entertainment $ 189.78 12 $ 15.82 3,798 $ 60,065.37 Retail $ 147.98 12 $ 12.33 3,798 $ 46,835.67 Auto/Gas $ 205.39 12 $ 17.12 3,798 $ 65,005.94 Local Transportation $ 123.37 12 $ 10.28 3,798 $ 39,046.61 Transportation $ 680.71 12 $ 56.73 3,798 $ 215,444.72
Other $ 163.33 12 $ 13.61 3,798 $ 51,693.95 Total $ 2,927.67
$ 243.97
$ 926,607.56
2012 Expenditures Average Per Average Per Number Total Direct
Group Size Person Visitors Spend
Tickets $ 120.54 12 $ 10.05 4,266 $ 42,851.97 Lodging $ 832.86 12 $ 69.41 4,266 $ 296,081.73 Food & Beverage $ 355.13 12 $ 29.59 4,266 $ 126,248.72 Entertainment $ 159.31 12 $ 13.28 4,266 $ 56,634.71 Retail $ 147.20 12 $ 12.27 4,266 $ 52,329.60 Auto/Gas $ 293.38 12 $ 24.45 4,266 $ 104,296.59 Local Transportation $ 45.81 12 $ 3.82 4,266 $ 16,285.46
68
Transportation $ 1,068.42 12 $ 89.04 4,266 $ 379,823.31
Other $ 121.10 12 $ 10.09 4,266 $ 43,051.05 Total $ 3,143.75
$ 261.98
$ 1,117,603.13
2011 Expenditures Average Per Average Per Number Total Direct
Group Size Person Visitors Spend
Tickets $ 277.60 14 $ 19.83 4,170 $ 82,685.14 Lodging $ 811.90 14 $ 57.99 4,170 $ 241,830.21 Food & Beverage $ 313.33 14 $ 22.38 4,170 $ 93,327.58 Entertainment $ 82.22 14 $ 5.87 4,170 $ 24,489.81 Retail $ 143.33 14 $ 10.24 4,170 $ 42,691.86 Auto/Gas $ 205.83 14 $ 14.70 4,170 $ 61,307.94 Local Transportation $ 16.67 14 $ 1.19 4,170 $ 4,965.28 Transportation $ 1,127.78 14 $ 80.56 4,170 $ 335,917.33
Other $ 57.22 14 $ 4.09 4,170 $ 17,043.39 Total $ 3,035.88
$ 216.85
$ 904,258.54
2013 N=237
Since BayFest spectators and business related travelers create a change to the local Mobile
economy as a result of their spending while in the area both are used to determine the direct spending
of incremental visitor expenditures. Table 14 was the combined amount of these two sources and
returns an optimistic estimate of $11,605,762 and a conservative estimate of $10,105,476.
Table 14- Total Direct Spending of BayFest Incremental Visitors
2013
Expenditures Spectators Spectators Business Combined Combined
Optimistic Conservative Travelers Optimistic Conservative
Tickets $ 749,890.00 $ 749,890.00 $ 55,175.45 $ 805,065.45 $ 805,065.45
Lodging $ 2,920,102.30 $ 2,478,882.40 $ 242,701.70 $ 3,162,804.00 $ 2,721,584.10
Food & Bev $ 1,254,635.47 $ 1,065,063.31 $ 150,638.18 $ 1,405,273.65 $ 1,215,701.49
Entertainment $ 848,840.69 $ 720,583.06 $ 60,065.37 $ 908,906.06 $ 780,648.43
Retail $ 789,106.64 $ 669,874.67 $ 46,835.67 $ 835,942.31 $ 716,710.34
Auto/Gas $ 717,029.02 $ 608,687.80 $ 65,005.94 $ 782,034.96 $ 673,693.74
Local Transport $ 269,354.28 $ 228,655.54 $ 39,046.61 $ 308,400.89 $ 267,702.15
Transportation $ 280,595.74 $ 238,198.45 $ 215,444.72 $ 496,040.46 $ 453,643.17
Other $ 2,849,600.74 $ 2,419,033.45 $ 51,693.95 $ 2,901,294.69 $ 2,470,727.40
Total $ 10,679,154.89 $ 9,178,868.68 $ 926,607.56 $ 11,605,762.45 $ 10,105,476.24
69
2012
Expenditures Spectators Spectators Business Combined Combined
Optimistic Conservative Travelers Optimistic Conservative
Tickets $ 959,735 $ 959,735 $ 42,852 $ 1,002,587 $ 1,002,587
Lodging $ 3,341,481 $ 2,848,136 $ 296,082 $ 3,637,562 $ 3,144,217
Food & Bev $ 1,518,394 $ 1,294,215 $ 126,249 $ 1,644,642 $ 1,420,463
Entertainment $ 1,455,452 $ 1,240,566 $ 56,635 $ 1,512,087 $ 1,297,201
Retail $ 1,377,166 $ 1,173,838 $ 52,330 $ 1,429,496 $ 1,226,168
Auto/Gas $ 858,811 $ 732,014 $ 104,297 $ 963,107 $ 836,310
Local Transport $ 380,249 $ 324,108 $ 16,285 $ 396,534 $ 340,393
Transportation $ 1,014,603 $ 864,805 $ 379,823 $ 1,394,427 $ 1,244,628
Other $ 2,245,340 $ 1,913,833 $ 43,051 $ 2,288,391 $ 1,956,884
Total $ 13,151,230 $ 11,351,248 $ 1,117,603 $ 14,268,833 $ 12,468,851
2011
Expenditures Spectators Spectators Business Combined Combined
Optimistic Conservative Travelers Optimistic Conservative
Tickets $ 840,820 $ 840,820 $ 82,685 $ 923,505 $ 923,505
Lodging $ 2,300,893 $ 1,867,891 $ 241,830 $ 2,542,723 $ 2,109,721
Food & Bev $ 1,451,732 $ 1,178,533 $ 3,328 $ 1,545,060 $ 1,271,860
Entertainment $ 1,061,725 $ 861,920 $ 24,490 $ 1,086,215 $ 886,410
Retail $ 889,683 $ 722,255 $ 42,692 $ 932,375 $ 764,947
Auto/Gas $ 965,994 $ 784,205 $ 61,308 $ 1,027,302 $ 845,513
Local Transport $ 224,363 $ 182,140 $ 4,965 $ 229,328 $ 187,106
Transportation $ 1,000,037 $ 811,841 $ 335,917 $ 1,335,954 $ 1,147,758
Other $ 1,661,701 $ 1,348,988 $ 17,043 $ 1,678,745 $ 1,366,031
Total $ 10,396,948 $ 8,598,593 $ 904,259 $ 11,301,206 $ 9,502,851 ____________________________________________________________________________
The total direct spending of incremental visitors living outside Mobile County was $9,346,094
for an optimistic estimate and $8,162,342 for a conservative estimate. The total direct spending of
incremental visitors living outside the state was $ 5,744,389 (optimistic) and $ 5,079,990
(conservative). For the total direct spending categories parking was considered part of the local
transportation area.
70
Economic Impact Visitor Spending
Indirect Impact
In reaction to the several shortcomings and abuses common to economic impact studies,
discretion must be used when it comes to arriving at a numerical estimate of the influence of an event
on a host community. As outlined in the previous sections the direct spending impact was basically a
function of the number of out-of-town visitors, average amounts these visitors spent, and the number
of day’s visitors were in-town specifically to partake in BayFest activities. Moving forward from total
visitor spending then, the use of regional multipliers was applied to determine further rounds of re-
spending circulating in the Mobile community and contiguous areas as a result of accruals from
BayFest economic tourists.
Multipliers
Once direct spending or the initial visitor expenditures injected into an economy has been
calculated it is multiplied by a regional multiplier to calculate the total economic impact. According
to Humphrey (1994) the most natural use of multiplier applications reports the multiplier = (indirect
benefits + direct benefits) ÷ direct benefits and since it is the most widespread amongst economic
impact estimations. In an attempt to remedy some of the problems associated with selecting
appropriate multipliers this study inured statistical software multipliers along with those cited in other
Mobile event economic impact reports. Multiplier values and inferences from other music festivals
reports were not used since it would be inappropriate to use multipliers from events located in
different geographical regions.
The multiplier (1.7552) used in Table 15 is the RIMS II average output multiplier for Mobile
developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau or Economic Analysis in hotels (1.7381),
eating and drinking (1.7715), and retail (1.7559)... Thus, the total direct impact estimation taken from
71
Table 14 and applying the RIMS II multiplier to create indirect impacts and total economic impacts
for the expenditure categories are optimistically near $20 million and $18 million conservatively.
Table 15- City of Mobile Total Economic Impact from Incremental Visitors 2013
Expenditure Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact
Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Conservative Conservative Conservative
Tickets $ 805,065 $ 607,985 $ 1,413,051 $ 805,065 $ 607,985 $ 1,413,051
Lodging $ 3,162,804 $ 2,388,550 $ 5,551,354 $ 2,721,584 $ 2,055,340 $ 4,776,924 Food & Bev $ 1,405,274 $ 1,061,263 $ 2,466,536 $ 1,215,701 $ 918,098 $ 2,133,799
Entertain $ 908,906 $ 686,406 $ 1,595,312 $ 780,648 $ 589,546 $ 1,370,194
Retail $ 835,942 $ 631,304 $ 1,467,246 $ 716,710 $ 541,260 $ 1,257,970
Auto/Gas $ 782,035 $ 590,593 $ 1,372,628 $ 673,694 $ 508,774 $ 1,182,467
Local Trans $ 308,401 $ 232,904 $ 541,305 $ 267,702 $ 202,169 $ 469,871
Transport $ 496,040 $ 374,610 $ 870,650 $ 453,643 $ 342,591 $ 796,234
Other $ 2,901,295 $ 2,191,058 $ 5,092,352 $ 2,470,727 $ 1,865,893 $ 4,336,621
Total $ 11,605,762 $ 8,764,672 $ 20,370,434 $ 10,105,476 $ 7,631,656 $ 17,737,132
_______________________________________________________________________________ RIMS II Multiplier of 1.7552
Applying the multiplier effect to the traveler direct spending amounts recorded from the attendee and
business traveler surveys returns a visitor economic impact of $14,326,543 to $16,404,264 to Mobile
County and $8,916,399 to $10,082,552 to the state of Alabama.
Economic Impact Organizational Output Spending
Economic benefits of visitor spending were tabulated in the previous sections or how much
people spend during their stay in Mobile to attend BayFest. Another component illustrating how
much is spent by event organizers and stakeholders along with the source of this funding is also
appurtenant in the weighing of economic change effects to an area hosting an event. When an
organization hosts an event it spends money in the local community to pay for items associated with
running the operations of its entities, thus adding to the economic flow of dollars. Mobile
establishments providing these goods and services benefit from BayFest’s local purchases every year.
72
A direct economic impact attributable to BayFest might include revenues from a Rental
Company providing stage equipment for the event. Indirect effects include increases in sales, and
ultimately elevating income or jobs in Mobile’s industry sectors that support the immediate
beneficiaries of BayFest purchases. For example, an indirect impact resulting from BayFest renting
stage equipment might include the increased revenue of an electronics wholesaler that supplies
equipment to the rental company. Induced effects are the household spending of individuals who
experienced increased earnings as a result of BayFest. Groceries or retail goods purchased by rental
company employees with the earnings from BayFest’s annual rental arrangements are representative
of monetary ripples that occur locally with the consideration of leakages during subsequent rounds of
re-spending.
The below categorical spending areas in Table 16 were taken from the 2012-2013 BayFest
budget and subsequently analyzed toward BayFest 2013 purchases of goods and services. All of the
categories were individually examined for expenditures made to local businesses or those situated in
Mobile. Any portion of spending paid to an establishment outside of Mobile was extracted from the
individual category amount listed in the budget since this would be considered a leakage or payments
made to companies not in the local impact area. Certain 2012-2013 budget expenditure categories for
goods and services made outside of Mobile were not shown and excluded because they are not
considered incremental income to local businesses and areas where only partial payment from
BayFest were made to local businesses appear in Table 16.
For example a great majority of the operational spending to run BayFest is paid to the
entertainers residing outside the Mobile area with a portion paid to local musicians. Since the small
stage acts were cancelled for BayFest 2013 due to poor weather, money paid to local musicians were
different in comparison to last year’s payment ($20,000) to local musicians performing at BayFest
73
2013 ($8,770). Other expenses were paid to companies located outside the City of Mobile that are
located in Mobile County, in Alabama, and beyond since there were not enough businesses in town to
meet the demand or provide the goods services required for BayFest weekend. These expenses were
also accounted for in the direct organizational spending assessments for Mobile County and Alabama
computations.
Table 16- Total Economic Impact Organizational Spending BayFest 2013
Operational Direct Indirect Total Expense Impact Impact Impact
ARTIST/STAFF LODGING $ 36,559.00 $ 27,609.36 $ 64,168.36 BACKSTAGE CATERING $ 62,100.00 $ 46,897.92 $ 108,997.92 DRESSING ROOMS $ 16,247.00 $ 12,269.73 $ 28,516.73 GENERATORS $ 11,135.00 $ 8,409.15 $ 19,544.15 STAGE EQUIPMENT $ 35,920.00 $ 27,126.78 $ 63,046.78 STAGE LABOR $ 84,183.00 $ 63,575.00 $ 147,758.00 TRANSPORTATION $ 6,923.00 $ 5,228.25 $ 12,151.25 LOCAL TALENT $ 8,770.00 $ 6,623.10 $ 15,393.10 BUILDING MATERIALS $ 2,926.00 $ 2,209.72 $ 5,135.72 COMMUNICATIONS $ 2,800.00 $ 2,114.56 $ 4,914.56 ELECTRICAL $ 443.00 $ 334.55 $ 777.55 HEADQUARTERS $ 1,529.00 $ 1,154.70 $ 2,683.70 PARKING LOTS $ 51,800.00 $ 39,119.36 $ 90,919.36 PORTOLETS $ 8,643.00 $ 6,527.19 $ 15,170.19 SECURITY $ 27,000.00 $ 20,390.40 $ 47,390.40 SIGNAGE $ 9,279.00 $ 7,007.50 $ 16,286.50 SITE TRANSPORTATION $ 627.00 $ 473.51 $ 1,100.51 SOUVENIRS $ 42,983.00 $ 32,460.76 $ 75,443.76 SUPPLIES $ 1,525.00 $ 1,151.68 $ 2,676.68 TICKET SELLERS $ 750.00 $ 566.40 $ 1,316.40 TICKET COORDINATOR $ 8,289.00 $ 6,259.85 $ 14,548.85 VENDOR COORDINATOR $ 1,000.00 $ 755.20 $ 1,755.20 VIP AREA $ 56,631.00 $ 42,767.73 $ 99,398.73 BMI/ASCAP $ - $ - $ - INSURANCE $ 37,167.00 $ 28,068.52 $ 65,235.52 LICENSE $ 5,918.00 $ 4,469.27 $ 10,387.27 MARKETING FEE $ 9,990.00 $ 7,544.45 $ 17,534.45 MARKETING EXPENSES $ 116,672.00 $ 88,110.69 $ 204,782.69 PLANNING EXPENSES $ 2,637.00 $ 1,991.46 $ 4,628.46 SPONSOR RECEPTION $ 1,678.00 $ 1,267.23 $ 2,945.23
74
TICKETS/PASSES $ 8,808.00 $ 6,651.80 $ 15,459.80 VOLUNTEERS $ 5,093.00 $ 3,846.23 $ 8,939.23 BANK SERVICE CHARGES $ 19,628.00 $ 14,823.07 $ 34,451.07 POSTAGE $ 9,051.00 $ 6,835.32 $ 15,886.32 GIFTS & FLOWERS $ 6,194.00 $ 4,677.71 $ 10,871.71 Office Supplies, Printing, Phone $ 16,222.00 $ 12,250.85 $ 28,472.85 BANK OPERATIONS $ 5,500.00 $ 4,153.60 $ 9,653.60 PHOTOGRAPHY $ 14,375.00 $ 10,856.00 $ 25,231.00 SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM $ 22,839.00 $ 17,248.01 $ 40,087.01
5K Run $ 6,640.00 $ 5,014.53 $ 11,654.53 TOTAL $ 766,474.00 $ 578,841.16 $ 1,345,315.16
2013 City $ 766,474 $ 578,841 $ 1,345,315
2013 County $ 774,139 $ 584,630 $ 1,358,769
2013 State $ 797,133 $ 601,995 $ 1,399,128
In further review of BayFest organizational spending certain cash payments to locals in 2013
via the music scholarships awarded to area students and exercise or health benefits in the form of the
BayFest Road Races creates influences beyond economic benefits by improving the general quality of
life in Mobile. Monetarily though the scholarship monies paid to locals and the preparation of the
music workshop ($22,839) is included in the 2013 report as part of organizational spend and the
economic impact of the BayFest Road Race should also be included to this report.
Despite the unavoidable payments to external entities outside the Mobile area, BayFest 2013
directly spent $766,474 dollars locally as incremental income to Mobile which has an economic
impact of $1,345,315. After applying the spending multiplier (1.7552). The total direct impact of
BayFest organizational spending for Mobile County was $774,139 resulting in an economic impact of
$1,358,769 and for the State returned $797,133 direct spending and $1,399,128 of economic impact.
75
Other monetary benefits resulting from BayFest organizational related expenditures such as city,
county, and state tax generated from direct spending are discussed in the next section of this report
along with other fiscal considerations.
BayFest Road Race
BayFest road race survey data was not collected for 2013 due to time constraints, therefore
on-site survey data from the 2012 race was dissected for economic benefit values. Since the road race
is a part of Bayfest operations and adds to the local economy survey data was collected, entered into a
SPSS statistical software program where participant spending categories were itemized, and the same
extraction of locals, time switchers, and casuals to determine true economic tourists competing in the
road race was conducted. All previous and relevant issues mentioned in earlier sections of this report
germane with calculations of event economic impact were employed to the BayFest Road Race data.
Therefore, in consideration of the Road Race event survey data (N=117) 32% of participants returned
a zip code outside the City of Mobile and considered true economic tourists, 15% were from outside
Mobile County, and 5% competed in the race after traveling to Mobile from outside the state of
Alabama. The economic impact to the City of Mobile from the BayFest Road Race was $57,502, to
Mobile County $33,057, and the State of Alabama $10,650. All three impacts are considered to
change the economic activity in Mobile City, Mobile County, and State of Alabama as a result of
hosting the race in Mobile and included in the total economic impact of the BayFest organization
operation in 2013. Integrating the 2012 data is considered a conservative approach since the road race
in 2013 had more participants in comparison to 2012 and would have brought more incremental
dollars to the impact regions. Adding the direct purchases by BayFest Road Race Participants with
the direct spending estimates of BayFest Music Festival spectators and workers who were in Mobile
for these two events results in and economic impact (multiplier effect) of $17,794,634 to $20,427,936
76
for the City, $14,359,601 to $16,437,322 for Mobile County, and $8,927,049 to $10,093,202
channeling to the State of Alabama.
Fiscal Impact
As a matter of course any study seeking economic impact information it is important to note
the differences between economic impact and economic benefit information. Whereas economic
benefit is comprised of the direct spending by visitors and organizations and subsequent rounds of re-
spending of initial dollars through a multiplier effect; economic impact would take the economic
benefit result a step further by subtracting the public dollars invested toward an event. In this regard
and on its most elementary level incremental tax is compared to the amount of tax payer money given
to an event (Mobile City $243,000 and Mobile County $200,000); any additional money after this is
considered economic impact.
Incremental tax impact is the impact from taxes collected as a result of an event’s operations
and non-local visitors incremental spending. Typically, purchases made for certain goods and
services carry additional tax creating more revenue added on to the sale of goods and services. For
example in Mobile hotel accommodations levy a 7% city, 4% state, and 3% county bed tax which is
higher than the 2013 public sales tax on retail purchases (5% city, 4% state, 1% county). The tax on
gasoline purchases and alcohol sales made in Mobile is also higher in comparison to general retail
purchases. In the collection of survey data at the Music Festival and Road Race for this report,
amounts BayFest economic tourist spent on gasoline purchases and adult beverage sales were not
specifically itemized as a separate spending response category, but part of more comprehensive Local
Transportation and Food & Beverage cluster. Therefore, efforts to account for and apply varying tax
values of event related expenditures herein were subsequently based on the type of tourism spending
categories created in the questionnaires as shown in Table 17.
77
Table 17- Bayfest Visitor and Organizational Spending Generated Tax 2013
Expenditure Optimistic Conservative Tickets Registration $ 1,420,691.70 $ 1,420,691.70 City 5% $ 71,034.59 $ 71,034.59 County 1% $ 14,206.92 $ 14,206.92 State 4% $ 56,827.67 $ 56,827.67
Lodging $ 5,564,225.05 $ 4,789,795.88 City 7% $ 389,495.75 $ 335,285.71 County 3% $ 166,926.75 $ 143,693.88 State 4% $ 222,569.00 $ 191,591.84
Food & Bev $ 2,476,453.78 $ 2,143,716.72 City 5% $ 123,822.69 $ 107,185.84 County 1% $ 24,764.54 $ 21,437.17 State 4% $ 99,058.15 $ 85,748.67
Entertainment $ 1,599,131.52 $ 1,374,013.73 City 5% $ 79,956.58 $ 68,700.69 County 1% $ 15,991.32 $ 13,740.14 State 4% $ 63,965.26 $ 54,960.55
Retail $ 1,474,910.90 $ 1,265,634.95 City 5% $ 73,745.55 $ 63,281.75 County 1% $ 14,749.11 $ 12,656.35 State 4% $ 58,996.44 $ 50,625.40
Auto & Gas $ 1,381,994.97 $ 1,191,834.46 City 5% $ 69,099.75 $ 59,591.72 County 1% $ 13,819.95 $ 11,918.34 State 4% $ 55,279.80 $ 47,673.38
Local Transport $ 545,272.87 $ 473,838.44 City 5% $ 27,263.64 $ 23,691.92 County 1% $ 5,452.73 $ 4,738.38 State 4% $ 21,810.91 $ 18,953.54
Transportation $ 871,293.79 $ 796,878.07 City 5% $ 43,564.69 $ 39,843.90 County 1% $ 8,712.94 $ 7,968.78 State 4% $ 34,851.75 $ 31,875.12
Other $ 5,093,961.37 $ 4,338,229.67 City 5% $ 254,698.07 $ 216,911.48 County 1% $ 50,939.61 $ 43,382.30 State 4% $ 203,758.45 $ 173,529.19 Organization Spend
BayFest County Tax $ 7,664.74 $ 7,664.74 BayFest State Tax $ 30,658.96 $ 30,658.96
Total City Tax $ 1,132,681.30 $ 985,527.60
78
Total County Tax $ 323,228.60 $ 281,406.99 State Tax Impact $ 847,776.40 $ 742,444.30
Total Direct Impact $ 2,303,686.30 $ 2,009,378.90
City-Lodging Tax 7%, Retail Tax 4%; County- Lodging Tax 3%, Retail Tax 1%, State- Lodging Tax 4%, Retail Tax 4%.
Tax Multiplier
A traditional government multiplier (balanced-budget multipliers equals 1) is used when
government expenditures are financed by resident tax dollars. Yet when applied to BayFest pecuniary
proceeds in the form of tax revenues are paid by non-local tourists, fully subjecting goods and service
spending to the multiplier effect. A government multiplier of 1.5 is used for assessment based on a
weighted multiplier of the spending categories subject to government expenditures having a higher
level of leaking out during secondary rounds of spending as a result of purchases being spread
throughout the state.
Since the City of Mobile allocated $243,000 and Mobile County $200,000 of taxpayer money
to subsidize BayFest these amounts are subtracted from the tax revenue generated from the monetary
impact analyses. Therefore, the tax generated from the purchase of goods and services and applying
the multiplier effect, government dollars received are subtracted to arrive at the true economic impact
of BayFest tax generation. Table 18 provides the true tax impact of the BayFest in 2013.
Table 18- True Economic Tax Impact of Bayfest 2013
Tax Category Optimistic Conservative ROI
Optimistic ROI
Conservative
Total City Tax $1,132,681.00 $985,527.00 366% 306% Multiplier $1,699,021.50 $1,478,290.50
(-)City Subsidization $243,000.00 $243,000.00 City Tax Impact $1,456,021.50 $1,235,290.50
79
Total County Tax $323,228.60 $281,406.99 62% 41% Multiplier $484,842.90 $422,110.49
(-)County Subsidization $200,000.00 $200,000.00 County Tax Impact $284,842.90 $222,110.49
Total State Tax $847,776.40 $742,444.30 Multiplier $1,271,664.60 $1,113,666.46 State Tax Impact $1,271,664.60 $1,113,666.46
Total Tax Impact $3,012,529.00 $2,571,067.45
__________________________________________________________________________ 1.5 Tax Multiplier City Tax, County Tax, Grant Subsidizations
The total city tax impact results in $985,527 to $1,132,681 and the reciprocal value from
public city funds allocated to BayFest results in a 366% [= ($243,000.00 city subsidization-
$1,132,681 city tax generated) /$243,000 city subsidization] Return on Investment (ROI) to Mobile
city taxpayers (optimistic) and a 306% return on investment from a conservative viewpoint. This
would be the yield resulting in BayFest direct spending sales tax in comparison to the initial outlay of
public funds allocated to BayFest. Conservative and optimistic estimates for total tax impacts at the
other geographic levels and accounting for appropriations returns between $281,406 (41% ROI) to
$323,228 (62% ROI) for the County and $742,444 to $847,776 for the State since the State did not
subsidize BayFest in 2013.
Mobile Resident Impact
As previously mention in the earlier sections of this report economic impact is the result of
outside tourists dollars flowing to an area and locals should be excluded from the assessment since
they are dollars that would have already been spent in the area. In other words money spent on
attending a movie could easily be spent on going to a sporting event and is simply a substitution of
80
leisure dollars spent by locals or “switched spending”. However, when resident leisure dollars are to
leave an area and a local event retains the individuals, their dollars that otherwise would be spent
elsewhere, ceteris paribus, impacts the local economic flow of money. These local citizens or “stay-
cationers” would be vacationing at home which is a missing source of economic impact when
assessing community events.
Cobb and Olberding (2007) in examining the vacationing at home concept with a city hosted
marathon reported a large number of local runners used their home-city marathon as a substitute for
participating in a race out of town. Results showed a 20% higher total event economic impact when
accounting for these citizens. In the case of local citizens that attended the 2013 BayFest music
festival or 30% of the sample population, the question of whether hosting BayFest in Mobile kept
local citizens and their discretionary money at home is presented. In order to answer this question one
has to determine the propensity of Mobilians to travel elsewhere to attend a music concert at another
location in the same year. Based upon the Mobile resident stratum from the Attendee Survey when
these subjects were asked, “If BayFest were not held would you visit another town to attend a concert
this year?”; Seventy percent responded with a “Yes” answer as shown in Table 19. Of the estimated
30% locals who attended BayFest or 67,368 (optimistic) and 57,199 (conservative) and applying the
69.3% “yes” response frequency results in 46,686 (optimistic) and 39,638 (conservative) Mobilians
who would have left the city at some point to travel and attend another concert elsewhere.
Table 19 – City of Mobile Resident Propensity to Attend Concert Elsewhere
Sample Frequency
Sample Percent
Population Conservative
Population Optimistic
Valid Yes 220 69.3 39,638 46,686 No 98 30.7 17,561 20,682 Total 318 100.0 57,199 67,368
N= 1,047, Local Visitors n=318
81
Based on the group tourism expenditures of admissions ($52.80), lodging ($11.84), food and
beverage ($41.49), entertainment ($48.90), retail ($61.98), auto/gas ($20.04), local transportation
($11.60), transportation ($20.89), and other items ($129.00) accounting for party size (2.75) returns a
per person spend of $85.42 for Mobile residents that attended BayFest. Certainly, the per-person
spend amounts would be higher and predicated upon the distance traveled to attend a replacement
concert in another city, however only the tangible evidence (Mobile resident spend) collected at
BayFest 2013 may be used to determine travel dollar imports. Thus, one may offer an optimistic
estimate of $1,329,277 that remains in the local economy instead of being spent someplace else if
Mobilians were to leave and attend a concert in another city (opportunity cost). An additional indirect
impact of $1,003,870 (1.7552 multiplier) creates a total resident impact of $2,333,148 from locals
who stayed and attended BayFest rather than leaving the area to attend a concert. Using a
conservative approach returns $1,128,545 staying local and an indirect amount of $852,277 creating a
total resident impact of $1,980,822.
Applying the same set of assumptions for home vacationers in Mobile County (n=456) and
based upon the 70% frequency response of “yes” (n=318) when survey respondents were asked
whether they would have attended a concert in another town if BayFest were not held, $2,399,509 to
$3,038,065 in direct spending results based upon a $136.79 per person spend. Applying the 1.7552
multiplier returns $4,211,619 to $5,332,412 in economic impact. Since Alabama resident survey
respondents may have attended another concert in a town within the State such as Birmingham the
‘home vacationer” impact would not fully apply. Some Alabama residents could possible go outside
the State to attend a concert if BayFest were not held and therefore would be considered a part of
economic effect.
82
Sponsorship Impact
Another benefit BayFest provides is an opportunity for businesses to market their company
through the event to reach consumers, increase sales, and build community relations at a cost
effective price. Not only do event administrators spend money on local goods but event sponsors
inject incremental money into a region as well from their sponsorship payments which help pay for
various costs to run events. Therefore, organizational spending along with the money received from
event sponsors who pay for marketing rights to an event are both considered incremental revenue.
Similar to BayFest paying for local goods and services from its operating budget, sponsorship
revenue is use to defray the costs associated with various organizational functions. For example
different companies pay for the rights to be named a stage sponsor and the dollars are used to pay for
certain operational costs such as tent rental or catering services. In total $3,238,859 cash and in-kind
was received to defray the costs associated with the BayFest activities. To equate the economic
repercussions of sponsorship money entering the impact regions used in this report sponsorship
revenue originating from a company or government entity located in the impact zone must be filtered
out. Therefore, in consideration of the itemization of all BayFest sponsorship agreements and
subsequent revenues that flowed to the Mobile economy $328,000 would be considered as new
money and economic benefit spending.
Total Economic Impact
Table 20 below includes the True Economic Visitor Spending, BayFest Organizational
Spending, Tax Revenue created from the purchases of goods and services, Home-Vacationer leakage,
and Sponsorship economic impact for the City of Mobile from BayFest 2011 to 2013.
83
Table 20- BayFest Total Economic Impact City of Mobile 2011, 2012, 2013
2013 Impact Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact
Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Conservative Conservative Conservative
Visitors $11,638,523 $8,789,413 $20,427,936 $10,138,237 $7,656,397 $17,794,634
BF $766,474 $578,841 $1,345,315 $766,474 $578,841 $1,345,315
Tax $1,132,681 $566,341 $1,699,022 $985,527 $492,764 $1,478,291
Residents $1,329,277 $1,003,870 $2,333,147 $1,128,545 $852,277 $1,980,822
Sponsors $328,000 $247,706 $575,706 $328,000 $247,706 $575,706 Total $15,194,955 $11,186,170 $26,381,125 $13,346,783 $9,827,984 $23,174,767
2012 Impact Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact
Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Conservative Conservative Conservative
Visitors $14,301,594 $10,800,564 $25,102,157 $12,501,612 $9,441,217 $21,942,829
BF $732,825 $553,429 $1,286,254 $732,825 $553,429 $1,286,254
Tax $681,411 $340,705 $1,022,116 $594,611 $297,305 $891,916
Residents $1,241,234 $553,429 $2,178,614 $1,053,878 $553,429 $1,849,767
Sponsors $338,000 $255,258 $593,258 $338,000 $255,258 $593,258 Total $17,295,063 $12,503,385 $30,182,399 $15,220,926 $11,100,639 $26,564,025
2011 Impact Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact
Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Conservative Conservative Conservative
Visitors $11,301,206 $8,534,671 $19,835,877 $9,502,851 $7,176,553 $16,679,404
BF $678,727 $512,575 $1,191,302 $678,727 $512,575 $1,191,302
Tax $528,330 $264,165 $792,495 $443,406 $221,703 $665,109
Residents $2,321,872 $1,753,478 $4,075,350 $1,886,554 $1,424,726 $3,311,280 Sponsors $386,000 $291,507 $677,507 $386,000 $291,507 $677,507 Total $15,216,135 $11,356,396 $26,572,531 $12,897,538 $9,627,063 $22,524,601
______________________________________________________________________ RIMS II Multiplier 1.7552, *1.5 Tax Multiplier
84
Table 21 provides the total economic impact for Mobile County and Table 22 State of Alabama from
2011-2013.
Table 21- BayFest Economic Impact to Mobile County 2011, 2012, 2013
County 2012
Impact Type Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact
Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Conservative Conservative Conservative
Visitors $9,364,928 $7,072,394 $16,437,322 $8,181,176 $6,178,424 $14,359,600
BayFest $774,139 $584,630 $1,358,769 $774,139 $584,630 $1,358,769
Tax $323,229 $161,615 $484,844 $281,407 $140,704 $422,111
Resident $3,038,065 $2,294,347 $5,332,412 $2,399,509 $1,812,109 $4,211,618
Sponsors $328,000 $247,706 $575,706 $328,000 $247,706 $575,706
Total $13,828,361 $10,360,690 $24,189,051 $11,964,231 $8,963,572 $20,927,803
County 2012
Impact Type Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact
Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Conservative Conservative Conservative
Visitors $9,203,125 $6,950,200 $16,153,325 $7,808,314 $5,896,839 $13,705,153
BayFest $776,794 $586,635 $1,363,429 $776,794 $586,635 $1,363,429
Tax $223,152 $111,576 $334,728 $195,285 $97,643 $292,928
Resident $3,184,587 $2,405,000 $5,589,587 $2,703,895 $2,041,982 $4,745,877
Sponsors $338,000 $255,258 $593,258 $338,000 $255,258 $593,258
Total $13,725,658 $10,308,668 $24,034,326 $11,822,288 $8,878,355 $20,700,643
County 2011
Impact Type Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact
Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Conservative Conservative Conservative
Visitors $9,002,419 $6,798,627 $15,801,046 $7,607,608 $5,745,266 $13,352,874
85
BayFest $726,237 $548,454 $1,274,691 $726,237 $548,454 $1,274,691
Tax $175,233 $87,616 $262,849 $148,589 $74,294 $222,883
Resident $3,868,744 $2,921,675 $6,790,419 $3,140,712 $2,371,866 $5,512,578
Sponsors $366,000 $276,403 $642,403 $366,000 $276,403 $642,403
Total $14,138,633 $10,632,776 $24,771,408 $11,989,146 $9,016,283 $21,005,429
RIMS II Multiplier 1.7552, *1.5 Tax Multiplier
Table 22- BayFest Economic Impact to Alabama 2011, 2012, 2013
State 2013
Impact Type Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact
Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Conservative Conservative Conservative
Visitors $5,750,457 $4,342,745 $10,093,202 $5,086,058 $3,840,991 $8,927,049
BayFest $797,133 $601,995 $1,399,128 $797,133 $601,995 $1,399,128
Tax $847,776 $423,888 $1,271,664 $742,441 $371,221 $1,113,662
Resident n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Sponsors $189,000 $142,733 $331,733 $189,000 $142,733 $331,733
Total $7,584,366 $5,511,361 $13,095,727 $6,814,632 $4,956,939 $11,771,571
State 2012
Impact Type Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact
Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Conservative Conservative Conservative
Visitors $8,035,366 $6,068,308 $14,103,674 $7,110,979 $5,370,211 $12,481,190
BayFest $791,451 $597,704 $1,389,155 $791,451 $597,704 $1,389,155
Tax $601,016 $300,508 $901,524 $529,017 $264,509 $793,526
Resident n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Sponsors $189,000 $142,733 $331,733 $189,000 $142,733 $331,733
Total $9,616,833 $7,109,253 $16,726,086 $8,620,447 $6,375,156 $14,995,603
86
State 2011
Impact Type Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact
Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Conservative Conservative Conservative
Visitors $7,121,501 $5,378,158 $12,499,659 $6,054,201 $4,572,133 $10,626,334
BayFest $739,812 $558,706 $1,298,518 $739,812 $558,706 $1,298,518
Tax $484,293 $242,147 $726,440 $412,359 $206,180 $618,539
Resident $292,866 $221,172 $514,038 $237,752 $179,550 $417,302
Sponsors $189,000 $142,733 $331,733 $189,000 $142,733 $331,733
Total $8,827,472 $6,542,915 $15,370,388 $7,633,124 $5,659,301 $13,292,425
RIMS II Multiplier 1.7552, *1.5 Tax Multiplier
Employment Impact
According to the Economic Impact Alabama Travel Industry Report 2013 produced by the
Alabama Bureau of Tourism and Travel for every $99,643 of travel-related expenditures it creates the
equivalent of one direct job. For every two direct jobs created, the Alabama economy indirectly
creates one additional job. According to this report when combining the total direct spending of
BayFest economic tourists $11,638,523 and BayFest local operational expenditures $766,474 close to
124 jobs are created from the $12,404,997 from BayFest related activities and tourism dollars. When
considering the 2013 average annual wage for a MSA worker in Mobile $40,230 (United States
Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics) $4,988,520 (=$40,230 average mobile salary x 124
jobs) in earnings impact results.
Although the estimated jobs created by BayFest are noteworthy, debate surfaces as to whether
or not the extent these impacts should be included in appraising BayFest economic value.
Oppositional perspectives contest the inclusion of earnings impact since Mobile businesses are
unlikely to hire new full-time workers in response to the additional demands created by the festival
87
and are more likely to give existing employees additional hours or hire short-term employees to meet
temporary peak demands, whereas, other economic impact constituents purport the use of induced
impacts along with the direct and indirect applications. Economic input-output figures when it comes
to assessing the employment impact does not distinguish a full-time employee from a part-time
employee therefore the employment impact in this report adopts the same characteristics. Of
additional note BayFest does have one full-time worker paid $65,547 from its operating budget
(2013) with other individuals serving in a voluntary role for the non-profit organization and disbursed
roughly $8,000 for local talent performing at BayFest. Typically, BayFest spends roughly $20,000
for all local artists, but since some stage acts were cancelled due to Tropical Storm Karen a smaller
amount of wages were paid to area performers in 2013.
Tourism Destination Impact
Market research is necessary to focus on such things as market segmentation, the forecasting
of tourism demand, visitor satisfaction ratings, the effectiveness of advertising, and the development
of new products and services. Research suggests that the popularity of a local festival as a tourism
promotional tool include: 1) festivals increase the demand for local tourism; 2) events help create the
image of a place or contribute to the exposure of a location trying to get on and stay on the tourism
map; 3) the strategic placement of a festival in the local tourism calendar can help extend the tourism
season (Felsenstein & Fletcher, 2003). In the case of extending the tourism season BayFest clearly
meets this element since the event is held outside the months of Mobile’s main tourism season. Since
its inception 19 years ago BayFest has developed into a powerful tool to attract over 200,000 tourists
annually during the regions off season and creates an image and awareness for the Mobile and
Alabama Gulf Coast area.
88
Efforts to determine the increased local demand for tourism to Mobile as a result of BayFest is
more intricate, but can be gauged through a number of assessments. One formidable way is to
determine whether the specific purpose of a trip to Mobile by a tourist is to attend a special event. As
previously mentioned in the calculations of true economic tourists 70% of the survey sample returned
a “yes” response to the question of BayFest being the main reason they were in Mobile. If factoring
up to the BayFest attendance population, results in an optimistic estimate of 157,500 and a
conservative estimate of 133,700 people who visited Mobile specifically to attend BayFest. This
evidence suggests BayFest is as a driving tourism mechanism to the City of Mobile. Of this attendee
sample strata who were specifically in Mobile to attend BayFest 85% responded with a “strong
interest” to return to Mobile because of being at the music festival and 12.5% were “undecided” when
asked about their repeat trip propensity. A similar response frequency was found for BayFest
musicians. When musicians were asked on the Business Traveler Survey their future interest to
perform again at Bayfest 80% (79.3%) responded with a “definitely yes” choice and 13% recorded
“probably yes”.
A second question to ask pertaining to the potential for BayFest to drive tourism in Mobile is
the number of BayFest events attended. Repeat attendance at BayFest stretched across multiple years
would allow one to rationalize BayFest is a legitimate force annually, drawing incremental tourists to
Mobile every year. The average number of years BayFest spectators have attended the music festival
was 4 (M=4.06) years with 66% being repeat customers. Based on the number of responses from the
Business Travel Survey the average number of years business travelers have attended BayFest was 3
years (M=3.35) and roughly 56% of musicians, vendors, sponsors, and other workers have returned to
the City of Mobile and worked at BayFest more than one time. If 56% of the BayFest business
travelers were to return for the event again in the future equates to over a half a million dollars in
89
repeat tourism $518,900 (= $926,607 direct spending x 56%) annually generated from business
oriented travelers who come back to Mobile to be at BayFest. The potential revenue generation based
on repeat trip survey response frequencies for BayFest attendees amounts to over $7 million
(=10,679,155 direct spend x 66%) in future travel revenue to the City if BayFest continues to be held
in Mobile. A third proponent used to determine or estimate the potential tourism repercussions of
BayFest is to evaluate its media impact and marketing cost equivalency explained in the next section.
Media and Marketing Impacts
Adding to the tourism spectrum are the media communication equivalencies and public
relation messages Mobile receives for the different mediums used to promote the event. The value of
BayFest media coverage on television, radio, print, and internet throughout the Southeast is valued at
an estimated $1.7 million (BayFest, 2013). Previous research from United States Convention &
Visitors Bureau data often list a 30% bounce back from the marketing media channels used to
showcase a destination. If applied to the BayFest media cost equivalencies close to $510,000 results
in additional spending by economic tourists who view promotional information about BayFest and as
result travel to Mobile in the future for a visit. It should be noted that event marketing exposure and
its potential to draw future tourists was not part of this report. Efforts to coordinate with local tourism
and travel organizations to collect data from those visiting the City of Mobile and the source
(BayFest) initiating the interest to visit the Port City should be considered.
As previously mentioned BayFest utilizes various marketing strategies such as sponsorships to
override its operational costs for the event. Corporate sponsorship provides companies an opportunity
to target market match its business customers with those associated with the event and extend and
enhance its brand image to boost sales. This form of sponsorship promotion serves as a cost effective
means for companies to market their organization or business rather than pay to market their products
90
and services through traditional forms of direct marketing techniques such as advertising. BayFest
sponsors may also provide in-kind sponsorships to override expenses for artist and staff hotel lodging,
food, dressing rooms, marketing expenses, and a number of other professional services.
Constructively, Mobile companies with limited marketing dollars are still able to partake in
sponsorship opportunities with BayFest via in-kind service when marketing budgets are limited.
Social and Cultural Impacts
Efforts to measure the social and cultural impacts of an event on a local community involve
certain arbitrariness. Community residents have varied quality of life standards, which complicates
estimating the value of an events social and cultural attributes. Nonetheless, efforts should be made to
recognize BayFest for its social and cultural impacts such as: increases or renewed feelings of civic
pride from successfully staging an event; strengthening existing bonds and building new ones within
a community by promoting awareness and understanding of cultural diversity; urban transformation
and renewal; and increases in community participation. When compared to other community events
that are based on a specific theme- such as a sporting events- from a merely social perspective,
BayFest with its various musical artists has the potential to stretch across a wide spectrum of musical
genre and has more latitude to meet the individual leisure/entertainment needs of Mobile residents.
Cost Benefit Analysis
Many community events incur a financial loss to organizers, but produce net benefits to a
community. Efforts made by local governments and the degree of support warranted varies according
to the perceived benefits and costs associated with the event (Dwyer, Mellor, Mistilis, & Mules,
2000). One way to judge whether an event is worthwhile in overall terms is to conduct a cost benefit
analysis. The basis of an event cost benefit analysis is to express, as far as possible, all the benefits
resulting to an impact region and compare them to all the costs in hosting an event in a community.
91
This approach provides government officials an uncomplicated way to distinguish which policy
decisions generate the highest net benefit to their communities both monetary and non-monetary
values.
In many instances, promoting a local festival means conflicting effects across different areas:
a festival may generate economic benefits, enhance local quality of life, and create community social
solidarity while simultaneously encasing environmental damages, increase traffic congestion, and
perhaps adding to law enforcement costs (Felsenstein & Fliescher, 2003). Therefore, efforts to
estimate public income change and public costs attributable to a festival are warranted especially
when events are subsidized by public funds from local or regional governments. People want to
know how their tax revenues or government monies are allocated and what the returns on those
allocation of funds are (Hara, 2009).
One vantage point to assess the benefits and costs associated with Bayfest is to review the tax
implications. Subsidies can, in general, be justified either on efficiency or distributive grounds. For
example, a subsidy could be justified if the unsubsidized market would supply too little of the good.
The subsidy would induce greater provision resulting in economic, social/cultural, and environment
benefits with the hope of becoming sustainable (Coates & Humphreys, 2008). Alternatively, subsidies
could be justified as a means of redistribution. For example, public education is paid for out of taxes,
with wealthier individuals paying more in taxes than the cost of the services they receive and poorer
individuals paying less than the full cost of the education. In the context of community event planning
when events are left to the free market some community residents may not be able to participate
because of high admission cost. Therefore, city planners have a responsibility toward social equity for
all residents in a community and may have to financial back other event options offering low-cost
tickets so needy residents may attend. Ostensibly, for-profit events backed by government monies
92
may not be able to provide public good for all so it is often argued not-for-profit events deserve
financial assistance as long as it can be demonstrated.
The BayFest Music Festival, a non-profit organization typically relies on government
subsidization to cover expenses. In 2013 the City of Mobile provided BayFest with $243,000 and the
Mobile County Commission allocated $200,000 to the music festival. Attempts to determine the
positive externalities as a result of grant appropriations to an event like BayFest in comparison to
other local events perpetuate opportunity cost discussions. In particular, distribution of public grant
monies to one organized event over another begets and analysis of what benefits emerge to the area as
a result of providing funds to the grant recipient. Also, if a government supported event provides
public worth over time only further justifies this allocation of tax payer funds.
BayFest Festival Comparative Analyses
Attempts to illustrate the monetary benefits associated with BayFest in comparison to the
dollars provided (government subsidies) becomes an important issue when weighing the overall value
of the festival. Taken a step further a yearly comparisons or longitudinal assessments of community
events provide evidence of economic stability or depreciation of an event and a way to review event
policies and programs. Table 23 compares the impact estimates of the findings from a meta-analysis
conducted on the 2009 BayFest event (Keshock, 2010) and the empirical results of the 2010 BayFest
Music Festival (Keshock, 2011), 2011 Impact of the Bayfest Music Festival (Keshock, 2012), and
BayFest Impact Report (Keshock,2013) to the outcomes of this report completed in the Spring of
2014.
93
Table 23- Comparative Analysis of BayFest 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013
Public Cost 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 City Tax $243,000.00 $243,000.00 $243,000.00 $243,000.00 $243,000 County Tax $250,000.00 $212,500.00 $212,500.00 $200,000.00 $200,000 Total Subsidization $493,000.00 $455,500.00 $455,500.00 $443,000.00 $443,000
Public Benefit Visitor Spend Impact $20,567,191.00 $23,875,765.30 $19,835,877.40 $25,102,157.39 $20,427,936
BayFest Spend Impact $853,839.00 $1,220,889.04 $1,191,301.63 $1,286,254.44 $1,345,315 Tax Impact
City $832,734.00 $1,108,986.06 $792,494.93 $1,022,115.93 $1,699,021 County $192,046.00 $311,556.09 $262,848.78 $334,727.00 $484,843 State $703,068.00 $891,142.47 $726,439.88 $901,525.00 $1,271,664
Resident Impact $2,132,216.00 $2,271,706.00 $3,742,465.52 $2,178,613.92 $2,333,147 Media Impact $1,423,682.00 $1,423,682.00 $1,002,945.00 $879,870.00 $1,700,000 In-Kind Impact $2,830,140.00 $3,236,929.00 $3,320,733.00 $3,181,649.00 $3,238,859 Sponsorship Impact $236,750.00 $296,500.00 $415,543.60 $593,257.60 $575,706 Total Benefit $29,771,666.00 $34,637,155.96 $31,290,649.74 $35,480,170.27 $33,076,491.00
True Economic Tourists
220,800 188,450 195,066 156,798 Spend Per Person
$143.37 $137.13 $187.49 $173.93
__________________________________________________________________________
City, County, State Total Economic Impact with Multiplier Adjustment
Also, as previously mentioned in the purpose section of this report, if one were to only
consider frequencies and values interpreted in a single impact report and not compare these finding to
other published impact estimates conducted on other community events in the same city would be
inequitable. For example, reports incorporating different impact multipliers and the recirculation of
direct spend- would violate basic reliability concerns since economic input-output modeling should
be specific to the area of impact. An examination of other local event report estimate derivations
increases the confidence of report conclusions or lack thereof and also allows interested parties to do
an apples-to-apples comparison of event impact between similar events in a host city.
94
Since home Convention and Visitor Bureaus, Area Satellite Tourism Organizations, Regional
Tourism Bodies, and For-Profit Research Companies often use an inflated tourism impact multiplier
(2.0-3.0) to arrive at the economic impact of certain local events, a second analysis of the 2013
BayFest economic impact total was calculated for comparative purposes and opportunity cost
considerations in Table 24. Other less rigorous or omitted steps in the calculation of event economic
impact exist and should be scrutinized for their validity, especially when on-site data is not collected
from event visitors to determine tourism spend amounts. For example, The Destination Marketing
Association International (DMAI), uses a formula with the number of participants and estimated
visitors to arrive at the number of room nights per visitor. The number of room nights is then
multiplied by spending per day. Per DMAI, the average expenditure is based on accommodations,
food, retail, fuel and miscellaneous totaling $250 per day. Locally the Mobile Bay Convention and
Visitors Bureau then uses a standard of 2.5 as the number of dollar turns in the economy (indirect
impact) to arrive at estimates of total economic impact. While this approach may add to the
discussion of event worth to a city destination it should be taken with caution. According to
Crompton (1999) survey data is a prerequisite of economic impact assessments to determine the
actual direct spending amounts made by event patrons, how long visitors were in the area, group size
and to depict true economic tourists from time-switchers, casuals, and locals exhibiting displaced
spending.
In an attempt to mitigate disparities of public record concerning the liberal and inappropriate
use and acceptance of reports using a higher economic impact multiplier coefficient Table 25 adopts a
2.50 multiplier albeit tenuous, rather than the 1.7552 RIMS II multiplier used earlier in this report.
Under these assumptions the 2013 BayFest Musical Festival would equate to a total economic impact
95
of roughly $33,366,958 to $37,987,388 to the City of Mobile; $29,910,578 to $34,570,903 to Mobile
County; and $17,036,580 to $18,960,915 to the State of Alabama.
Table 25-Total Economic Impact of BayFest 2013 Using Community 2.5 Event Multiplier
2013 City Impact Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact
Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Conservative Conservative Conservative
Visitors $11,638,523 $17,457,785 $29,096,308 $10,138,237 $15,207,356 $25,345,593
BF $766,474 $1,149,711 $1,916,185 $766,474 $1,149,711 $1,916,185
Tax $1,132,681 $1,699,022 $2,831,703 $985,527 $1,478,291 $2,463,818
Residents $1,329,277 $1,993,916 $3,323,193 $1,128,545 $1,692,818 $2,821,363
Sponsors $328,000 $492,000 $820,000 $328,000 $492,000 $820,000 Total $15,194,955 $22,792,433 $37,987,388 $13,346,783 $20,020,175 $33,366,958
2013 County Impact Type Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact
Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Conservative Conservative Conservative
Visitors $9,364,928 $14,047,392 $23,412,320 $8,181,176 $12,271,764 $20,452,940
BayFest $774,139 $1,161,209 $1,935,348 $774,139 $1,161,209 $1,935,348
Tax $323,229 $484,844 $808,073 $281,407 $422,111 $703,518
Resident $3,038,065 $4,557,098 $7,595,163 $2,399,509 $3,599,264 $5,998,773
Sponsors $328,000 $492,000 $820,000 $328,000 $492,000 $820,000 Total $13,828,361 $20,742,542 $34,570,903 $11,964,231 $17,946,347 $29,910,578
2013 State Impact Type Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact
Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Conservative Conservative Conservative
Visitors $5,750,457 $8,625,686 $14,376,143 $5,086,058 $7,629,087 $12,715,145
BayFest $797,133 $1,195,700 $1,992,833 $797,133 $1,195,700 $1,992,833
96
Tax $847,776 $1,271,664 $2,119,440 $742,441 $1,113,662 $1,856,103
Resident n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Sponsors $189,000 $283,500 $472,500 $189,000 $283,500 $472,500 Total $7,584,366 $11,376,549 $18,960,915 $6,814,632 $10,221,948 $17,036,580
2.5 Multiplier
The value of event worth may be scientific or intuitive half-baked guesses applying cavalier
assumptions and the use of borrowed monetary derivations to arrive at event worth. When it comes to
the fiscal impact or return on investment of government subsidizations of community events careful
attention to the sources used for economic impact estimation. Scrutiny of event impact report
procedures and the use of ill-advised denominators across the board to all events allows interested
parties to do an apples-to-apples comparison of events hosted in an impact region so that subsidies are
granted judiciously.
While it is not the intention of this report author to impugn event organizer’s event impact
estimates, the general public does have a right to know how and to what extent economic impact
figures were calculated and the level of credibility that should be given toward the results. For
example, one Mobile sport event study claimed $60 million worth of economic impact to the region
based upon 26,000 sport participants playing in various tournaments. Another Gulf Coast region
leisure event estimated $35 million in economic impact from roughly 30,000 attendees. To support
these estimates evidence of on-site hard data collection administered to event visitors is imperative to
peg the true economic tourists, determine actual per person spend on tourism trade goods, number of
days and nights visitors were in the impact region, and an assortment of other related variables is
necessary; otherwise, questions of authenticity abound.
97
Conclusion
No single model or report can provide all the attributes realized from a community event, but
merely postulate information about the likely outcomes an event will have on its host community.
Festivals are organized for a variety of reasons to include: enhancing or preserving local culture and
history, providing local entertainment and leisure opportunities, and enhancing the local tourism
industry (Long & Perdue, 1990). Typically, impacts of music events on society fall into three
principal areas: the “social/cultural”, the “economic” and the “environmental” otherwise known as
the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach. The focus of music festival research is often times directed
to the economic impact of the event since festivals are a means of attracting nonresidents to the host
community in the hope that their spending will make a significant contribution to the local economy
(Goeldner & Ritchie, 2009).
Economic benefits tell only part of the story of the total impact of the BayFest Music Festival,
The Impact of BayFest 2013 report findings should not be used in isolation as a sole basis for policy
decision making, but rather to put in perspective the return on investment BayFest provides to Mobile
citizens and various groups within the impact area and concomitant stakeholders. It would be
presumptuous, and beyond the scope of this research, to attempt to measure the holistic impact of
BayFest to Mobile, since the topic of music from a cultural perspective is often deeply rooted within
the fabric of society. However, when government subsidizations are allocated to BayFest, city tax
appropriations earmarked to this annually occurring event can be justified solely on a financial basis
as evidenced in this report by the 366% ROI. Furthermore, despite the effects of Tropical Storm
Karen during BayFest 2013 weekend, where attendance dropped from the previous year- thus
reducing the amount of visitor direct spending in Mobile- it is the report author’s perception that the
BayFest Music Festival is a signature event. Not only has BayFest continued to provide a wide
98
variety of music opportunities to attendees at an affordable cost; but has evolved to adapt over a
period of time to create participant and spectator loyalty; and has created a pattern of seasonality to
instill the occurrence of an event taking place at the same time each year and the potential for repeat
customers to the region.
99
References
About BayFest (2013). Retrieved October 20, 2013 from: http:www.bayfest.com.
Acordia, C. A., & Whitford, M. (2006). Festival development and the development of social capital.
Journal of Convention and Event Management, 8(2), 1-18.
Bowen, H. E., & Daniles, M. J. (2005). Does the music matter? Motivations for attending a music
festival. Event Management, 9, 155-164.
Burgan, B. & Mules, T. (2000). Events beyond 2000: setting the agenda: proceedings of conference
on event evaluation, research and education, Sydney, July 2000.
Coates, D., & Humphreys, B. R. (2008). Do economists reach a conclusion on subsidies for sports
franchises, stadiums, and mega-events? North American Association of Sports Economists,
Working Paper Series No. 08-18.
Cobb,S., & Olberding, D. (2007). The importance of import substitution in marathon impact analysis.
Journal of Sport Finance, 2.
Crompton, J. L. (1999). Measuring the economic impact of visitors to sports tournaments and special
events. Sburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.
Crompton, J. L., Lee, s., & Shuster, T. J. (2001). A guide to undertaking economic impact studies:
The springfest example. Journal of Travel Research, (40), 79-87.
Dwyer, L., Mellor,R., Mistilis, N., & Mules, T. (2000). A framework for evaluating and forecasting
the impacts of special events. Proceedings of the Conference on Event, Research, and
Education- Sydney Australia, pp. 31-45.
deLisle, L. J. (2009). Creating special events. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.
Felsenstein, D., & Fletcher, A. (2003). Local festivals and tourism promotion: The role of public
assistance and visitor expenditure. Journal of Travel Research, 41, 385-392.
100
Getz, D. (2012). Event studies: Theory, research and policy for planned events (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Goldblatt, J. (2011). Special events: A new generation and the next frontier (6th ed.). Hoboken
NJ:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Goeldner, C. R., & Ritchie, J. R. (2009). Tourism: principles, practices, philosophies. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
Keshock, C. M. (2013) Impact and Comparative Analysis of the 2012 BayFest Music Festival.
Unpublished Report.
Keshock, C. M. (2012). The Impact of the 2011 BayFest Music Festival. Unpublished Report.
Keshock, C. M. (2011). The Impact of the 2010 BayFest Music Festival on Mobile,
Alabama. Unpublished report.
Keshock, C. M. (May 2010). The Impact of the 2009 BayFest Music Festival on Mobile, Alabama.
Unpublished report.
Knopper, S. (2014). Taylor swift leads rebounding concert business. Rolling Stone, February 14,
2014.
Lagenbach, M., Vaughn, C., & Aagaard, L. (1994). An introduction to educational research. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Lee, T. B. (2012). Why we shouldn't worry about the (alleged) decline of the music industry.
Forbes.com retrieved January 6, 2013 at http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/01/30.
Mayfield, T. L., & Crompton, J. (1995). Development of an instrument for indentifying community
reasons for staging a festival. Journal of Travel Research, 33, 37-44.
McCartney, G. J. (2005). Hosting a recurring mega-event: visitor raison d’etre. Journal of Sport
Tourism, 10(2), 113-128.
101
Mill, R. C., & Morrison, A. M. (2012). The tourism system. Dubuque, IA: Kendal Hunt.
Mobile Business View (July, 2012). A big hit: How sports impact Mobile’s economy. pp 15-18.
Pikas, B., Pikas, A., & Lymburner, C. (2011). The future of the music industry. Journal of Marketing
Development and Competitiveness vol. 5(3), 139-149.
Pollstar (2013). Average ticket prices. Retrieved January 6, 2013 from:
http://www.pollstar.com/atpDetail.aspx?
RIAA (2013). Economic contribution of music. Retrieved November 2013 from:
http://www.riaa.com/keystatistics.php?content_selector=research-industry-research-reports-
policy.
United States Travel Association (2013). The economic impact of travel. Retrieved January 8, 2014
from http://www.ustravel.org
102
Recommended