Tour of Missouri impact statement: bigger crowds spent more
Officials with the Tour of Missouri wasted little time releasing the economic impact statement from this year’s race. The bottom line is that more people attended and spent more money.
Some relatively firm numbers:
- The official website, www.tourofmissouri.com, received hits from visitors in 153 countries and territories.
- An estimated audience of 5.6 million people watched nightly highlight shows on the Versus television network.
- An estimated 1.4 million people watched highlight shows on Fox Sports Midwest and Fox Sports Kansas City.
Surveys conducted during the race indicated that the average out-of-state visitor spent more than $220 per day and spent more than four days in the state. 83 percent of non-Missourians said the Tour of Missouri was the reason they came to spend time in Missouri.
The report did not indicate what percent of the crowd was out-of-state visitors.
The attendance figures also show an increase, though you have to take ask a few questions about them:
500,000 spectators were estimated to have watched the race at one of the 11 host cities or somewhere along the 600 mile route. The estimate in 2008 was 434,000.
I was at each start and each finish, so I could have been counted as 11 people. Anyone who watched from more than one spot probably was counted as more than one person, so the number of distinct individuals is smaller.
The total economic impact by spectators during the seven-day event was $38.1 million, up from $29.8 million in 2008 and $26.2 million in 2007.
You have to ask yourself how much of that money is subject to a displacement effect. In other words, did people spend money at the race that they would have spent on some other tourism or sporting event? If so, it’s not necessarily “new” spending; sort of like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The study also doesn’t indicate how much of the $38.1 million stays in the local communities or in Missouri. If the tourists stayed at a Holiday Inn, for example, some of the hotel rate goes to the corporation out of state.
The reports in 2008 and 2009 were compiled by IFM Sports, a sports marketing and research company based in Germany with its U.S. office in St. Louis that performs research for Major League Baseball and the NBA.
I’m not criticizing tourism officials or IFM, and I’m not accusing them of fabrication because they used standard methods to compile and release the economic impact statement. I’m just trying to exercise my meager critical thinking skills.
And the bottom line: given that similar methods have been used the past three years, the race was better attended this year, despite the economic downturn.
I think it’s great to have this event and fine that it’s promoted I just don’t want my taxes increased to support something I don’t plan on attending. That those that attend should pay an admittance fee or some other fee to support it. If the revenue comes in it shows it’s a viable long term venue. It’s like all the corporate sports franchises like the Cardinals and RAMS. I shouldn’t have to watch as my labor is taxed in order to give to these For Profit sports corporations. Let the Cardinals and RAMS be self-supporting for a change instead of publicly subsidized. If they can’t make it then they should either improve the product or go out of business.
I’ve heard a lot of debate on tax payer money supporting the race. I think a lot of people are missing the point. Missouri Tourism has a budget to publicize and promote the state. Records indicate a budget of more than $17MM. That money is discretionary to bring publicity and shine to our fair state. It can be done in various ways. An average print ad, for example, by Missouri Tourism in a trade publication might yield a 2 to 1 ratio return on investment. Tour of Missouri data, at least as presented above yields a 23 to 1 spend. I’d say that’s a pretty healthy ROI. And, though this event is not Cards baseball or Rams football, certainly not in the United States, it most likely is much bigger internationally than anything St. Louis or the state for that matter touts to the world. Though I’m a sports fan, not necessarily a bike race fan, I’d say the Tour of Missouri does some very unique things for the state by publicizing big and small cities while showing images around the world. After all, the world knows California and New York and Florida, but that can’t always be said about middle America (ie see American TV shows and where their fictitiously located.) Therefore, I think this event is nothing but positive for the state. Plus, where else can you see a world-class sporting event for free nowadays. I can’t take my kids to a Rams game without a mortgage.
There are three big bike races in the United States, though the Tour de Georgia apparently took this year off as they seek sponsors to foot the bill for 2010. This leaves the Tour of Missouri and the Tour of California with 2009 races. And here we are in prime time in the world’s eyes, and the state of Missouri looks like a bunch of chumps as we bumble around not knowing if the race will be back next year. This hurts potential future sponsorships, this hurts television coverage (why bother if it is going to be canceled next year?), and it hurts Missouri tourism which is the primary sponsor of this race.