Description
The purpose of this paper is to develop a method for estimating new direct tourism spending
resulting from a new event in an existing destination
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Segmenting tourists by direct tourism expenditures at new festivals
L. Taylor Damonte Michael D. Collins Carol M. Megehee
Article information:
To cite this document:
L. Taylor Damonte Michael D. Collins Carol M. Megehee, (2012),"Segmenting tourists by direct tourism expenditures at new festivals",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 279 - 286
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181211250613
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:19 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 12 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1370 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
L. Taylor Damonte, Michael D. Collins, Carol M. Megehee, (2013),"Segmenting tourists by direct tourism expenditures at new festivals",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 51-57http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181311301354
Austin Uzama, (2009),"Marketing J apan's travel and tourism industry to international tourists", International J ournal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 21 Iss 3 pp. 356-365http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110910948341
Lan-Lan Chang, Kenneth F. Backman, Yu Chih Huang, (2014),"Creative tourism: a preliminary examination of creative tourists’ motivation,
experience, perceived value and revisit intention", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp.
401-419http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2014-0032
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Segmenting tourists by direct tourism
expenditures at new festivals
L. Taylor Damonte, Michael D. Collins and Carol M. Megehee
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a method for estimating newdirect tourismspending
resulting from a new event in an existing destination.
Design/methodology/approach – Intercept surveys were conducted on site at six of nine festival
locations. Of the 308 festival participants approached at random and asked to participate, 264 agreed
to participate (86 percent response rate). On further inquiry, only 47 percent of those agreeing to
participate were found to be from zip codes outside of the Horry/Georgetown County ‘‘Grand Strand’’
tourist area. These 145 festival participants were administered surveys.
Findings – Less than 30 percent of total tourist spending at the festival is attributable to new tourists –
those who speci?cally travelled to the destination primarily for the event and have historically attended
Myrtle Beach less than one time per year. Consequently, the economic impact of the festival, in terms of
new spending, was relatively small compared with the total amount of tourist spending by all tourists at
the festival.
Originality/value – The study provides an example of an event for which new tourist spending could
have been overestimated if all tourist spending had been considered to be new spending.
Keywords Coastal Uncorked, Festival, Economic impact, New tourist, Switcher, Tourist type,
Economic returns, Tourism, Consumer behaviour
Paper type Research paper
As the economy gets better, everything else gets worse. Art Buchwald (1925-2007). Citing as an
example, ‘‘The more cars that are sold, the bigger the pollution and traf?c problems you have.’’
‘‘Buchwald’s Law,’’ Time, 15 September 1993.
I
n a sense, a destination is like a large service factory where the host community inputs
tourists who bring new spending. The new spending activity throws off both positive
externalities such as jobs and tax revenues, and negative externalities such as traf?c,
noise, and sometimes even crime. Often, a community changes its collective opinion of the
value of a visitor market based on the perception of negative externalities related to the
presence of that market in the community. An example of this occurred recently in Myrtle
Beach, SC, where in 2008 the community added a number of ordinances designed to quell
the rise of motorcycle events which were perceived as bringing with them many negative
externalities during the month of May each year. At the same time, new festivals, including
one entitled Coastal Uncorked were created to replace the motorcycle-related visitation
(Brandon in Anderson, 2011). Researchers were asked to estimate the economic impact of
this new event. Consequently a means of estimating new direct spending resulting from the
presence of new tourists in the community was required.
Researchers studying the economic impact of festivals often collect data on direct spending
via surveys and use this data in economic input-output models to estimate the indirect and
induced impacts of these festivals on the regional economy. A number of common
methodological pitfalls have been identi?ed in estimating new direct tourism-related
spending (Crompton et al., 2001). Rigorous estimates of tourism-related economic impact
DOI 10.1108/17506181211250613 VOL. 6 NO. 3 2012, pp. 279-286, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 279
L. Taylor Damonte is
Professor/Director Clay
Brittain Jr Centre for Resort
Tourism, E. Craig Wall Sr
College of Business
Administration, Coastal
Carolina University,
Conway, South Carolina,
USA. Michael D. Collins is
Associate Professor, Resort
Tourism and Carol M.
Megehee is Associate
Professor, Marketing, both
at E. Craig Wall Sr College
of Business Administration,
Coastal Carolina University,
Conway, South Carolina,
USA.
Received May 2011
Revised July 2011
Accepted August 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
should be based on marginal revenue from visitors (i.e. revenue from new visitors to the
destination who would not have come had it not been for the event itself). Since the Myrtle
Beach area is a well-established tourist destination with over 100,000 transient
bedroom-equivalent units (Brittain Center for Resort Tourism, 2010) located on the US
east coast and has 73 percent rate of repeat visitation (Equations Research, 2010),
identifying purely new tourists spending could be challenging. This study provides a
research approach that addresses this challenge. The discussion includes other potential
tourism-related bene?ts of festivals.
Spending associated with non-local festival attendees is often assumed in festival impact
studies to be new tourist spending, which may or may not be the case (Crompton, 1995;
Hodur and Leistritz, 2006; Tyrrell and Johnston, 2001). In order to create an estimate of new
spending, the estimated total number of tourist-attendees must be reduced by the number
of visitors who are ‘‘casuals’’ or ‘‘time-switchers’’ (Crompton et al., 2001). Casuals
participate in the festival, in part, because they have already chosen to visit the area during
the time of the event; the event is, at most, a secondary reason for Casuals’ travel to the area.
Switchers may have chosen to visit the area at the time of the festival primarily because of the
event. However, had the festival not existed the visitor still might choose to visit the area
during another time of the same calendar year.
The socio-cultural impact of tourism is particularly relevant to this study. Cohen (1979) writes
that the social interaction between tourists and residents can lead to social change. Several
models that help explain the impact of tourists and tourism on host communities and
residents have been proposed (e.g. Doxey, 1975; Butler, 1980; Ap, 1992). Doxey’s (1975)
Index of Irritation (Irridex) represents the escalating irritation of local residents as visitors’
impact increases. In Stage 1, Euphoria, the number of visitors is small, the host community
welcomes tourism, commercial activity is limited, and visitors try to blend in with the locals. In
Stage 2, Apathy, tourist-host community relationships become more formalized and locals
take visitors for granted. In Stage 3, Irritation, the number of visitors and their impact on the
host community has grown to the point that locals and visitors compete for resources. Finally,
in Stage 4, Anatagonism, locals are openly hostile to visitors and they try to limit the negative
impact of tourism on the host community (Doxey, 1975). Several of the powers that be in the
City of Myrtle Beach had reached the Antagonismstage with the motorcycle-related festivals
when they began passing ordinances that would in effect kill the biker events and make
room for more local-friendly events.
Butler’s (1980) Tourist Area Life Cycle Model follows a similar path wherein over time positive
perceptions of tourists are replaced with negative perceptions. Stage 1, Exploration, is
marked by curiosity about a new tourism area, followed by Stage 2, Involvement, when the
host community begins to provide services for their visitors. The Development phase, Stage
3, is marked by rapid growth and noticeable economic, social, cultural, and ecological
impacts. Heavy advertising and promotion to attract tourists is balanced with local
resources. Stage 4, Consolidation, is when the rate of increase in visitors declines but the
absolute number continues to grow and eventually exceed the population of permanent
residents. In Stagnation, Stage 5, the destination is no longer fashionable and repeat visitors
tend to be more conservative. After Stagnation, whether the destination goes into Decline or
Rejuvenation depends on the host community’s ability to cope with tourism impacts. Decline
can be averted if policies can maintain the delicate balance between scarce community
resources and tourists’ demands (Butler, 1980). At some point, the negative impact of the
motorcycle-related events was seen to outweigh the positive economic impact of these
events.
Finally, Ap’s (1992) Social Exchange Theory suggests that permanent residents will enter
into exchange with visitors only if value of the bene?ts to be gained outweighs the costs of
such exchange. Tourism will be supported as long as the resulting bene?ts are valued,
exchange has a high likelihood of producing these bene?ts, and perceived costs do not
exceed perceived rewards (Ap, 1992). As in the previous explanations, the bene?ts of the
motorcycle events were not perceived to outweigh the costs of such events.
PAGE 280
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 6 NO. 3 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Method and results
The Coastal Uncorked event, which spotlighted cuisine of the Myrtle Beach area, was
produced at multiple lodging sites along the Myrtle Beach ocean front on May 14-15, 2010.
Transportation (Trolley) services to, from, and among the sites was provided as part of the
registration fee for the event. University students randomly approached event participants at
six of the hotels which served as ‘‘trolley stops’’ where food and wine was served, asking
them if they would participate in an impact study related to the event. Of the 308 event
participants approached, 264 agreed to participate. In order to determine which of the
festival attendees were tourists the students asked each festival participant if they were from
one of the local counties (Horry or Georgetown). If the participant answered ‘‘yes’’, then they
were thanked for their participation but no survey was administered. Using this method of
inquiry 47 percent were found to be tourists – a tourist being de?ned as a person whose
primary residence was not in the Myrtle Beach area (Horry or Georgetown County, SC).
Since only those individuals who were tourists were asked to complete the surveys, only 145
of the individuals who were approached were asked to complete the surveys. Based on
ticket sales festival organizers estimated that there were 3,000 participants at the event.
Based on the percentage of those individuals in the crowd who indicated that they were from
the local area, researchers estimated that 1,410 of the 3,000 event participants were
assumed to be tourists.
Based on a sample average party size of 2.8 people, 412 tourists were assumed to be
represented in the results of the 145 completed surveys. This equates to approximately 29
percent of the 1,410 tourists that attended the festival, according to festival organizers.
Survey participants were asked to estimate the spending created by their party across eight
categories including lodging, restaurants and nightclubs, groceries, theatres, shopping,
and gas/transportation. The spending of new tourists was de?ned as spending done by
visitors who were not primarily in Myrtle Beach for a reason other than to attend the festival,
the so-called ’’Casuals,’’ nor were they switching their visit to Myrtle Beach fromanother time
of the year, so-called ‘‘Switchers.’’ In order to place respondents into one of two groups
within the sample, researchers asked them to indicate to what degree the Coastal Uncorked
event in?uenced their choice of Myrtle Beach as a destination for the current trip. Those that
responded with at least 4 on a ?ve-point scale (with 1 ¼ not instrumental and 5 ¼ extremely
instrumental) were assumed to be more than casual participants. Participants were also
asked to indicate the number of times they had come to the Myrtle Beach area as well as the
number of years they had been coming (trips/years) (see Table I).
Respondents who were already coming to the area one or more times per year were
considered to be switching to traveling to the area during the Coastal Uncorked event rather
than coming here at another time during the year. Consequently, spending by these
Switchers was not considered to be new spending to the area. New Tourist spending was
estimated by including only spending by tourists who could not be classi?ed as either
Casuals or Switchers. Gross direct spending was estimated for each of three types of
tourists: Type 3 (Casuals) – those tourists who attended Coastal Uncorked events this year
but for who the events were not an instrumental reason for their choice of travel to the area
this time; Type 2 (Switchers) – those tourists who indicated that Coastal Uncorked was a
relatively instrumental part of their decision to travel to the area but who traveled to the area
one or more times per year anyway; and Type 1 (New Tourists) – tourists who have not
historically traveled to the area at least once per year and for who Coastal Uncorked was a
relatively instrumental reason for their choice of visit this time (see Table II).
Based on the number of Type 3 (Casuals) tourist parties that participated in the survey
(n ¼ 63), Type 3 tourists accounted for 43.4 percent of the 145 total tourist parties that were
surveyed. The estimated average spending in the area per Type 3 tourist party was $1,818.
Based on the proportion of Type 3 tourist parties in the sample, an average party size of three
people, and the estimated total number of tourists at the event (n ¼ 1; 410), direct spending
in the area by all Type 3 tourist parties in attendance at the festival (n ¼ 201) was estimated
to be $365,512.
VOL. 6 NO. 3 2012
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 281
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
T
a
b
l
e
I
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
o
f
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
L
o
d
g
i
n
g
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
-
n
i
g
h
t
c
l
u
b
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
g
r
o
c
e
r
i
e
s
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
a
t
r
e
s
R
e
t
a
i
l
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
g
a
s
/
t
r
a
n
s
O
t
h
e
r
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
T
o
t
a
l
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
p
a
r
t
y
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
T
y
p
e
1
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
,
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
r
a
t
e
d
C
U
.
¼
4
/
5
o
n
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
h
a
d
,
1
t
r
i
p
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
t
o
M
B
$
5
0
2
$
3
0
3
$
1
2
4
$
1
9
1
$
1
3
9
.
2
9
$
1
5
5
.
7
7
$
1
1
8
.
6
2
$
1
7
5
.
0
0
$
1
,
7
1
0
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
T
y
p
e
2
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
,
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
r
a
t
e
d
C
U
.
¼
4
/
5
o
n
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
t
y
b
u
t
h
a
d
.
¼
1
t
r
i
p
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
t
o
M
B
$
4
5
9
$
3
0
7
$
1
8
5
$
3
5
0
$
1
0
6
.
6
7
$
4
3
1
.
8
2
$
1
0
4
.
2
3
$
7
5
.
0
0
$
2
,
0
2
0
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
T
y
p
e
3
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
,
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
r
a
t
e
d
C
U
a
s
,
4
/
5
o
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
t
y
$
6
1
9
$
2
7
7
$
1
5
0
$
1
2
1
$
1
2
3
.
3
0
$
2
2
1
.
7
9
$
1
4
0
.
0
0
$
1
6
4
.
3
8
$
1
,
8
1
8
G
r
o
s
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
a
l
l
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
w
h
o
a
t
t
e
n
d
e
d
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
U
n
c
o
r
k
e
d
$
5
4
7
$
2
9
0
$
1
4
3
$
1
6
9
$
1
2
5
.
6
9
$
2
2
9
.
7
0
$
1
2
6
.
7
7
$
1
5
1
.
2
5
$
1
,
7
8
5
PAGE 282
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 6 NO. 3 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
T
a
b
l
e
I
I
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
t
y
p
e
T
o
t
a
l
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
p
a
r
t
y
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
i
n
s
a
m
p
l
e
P
a
r
t
y
s
i
z
e
T
o
t
a
l
e
v
e
n
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
s
a
m
p
l
e
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
o
f
e
a
c
h
t
y
p
e
a
t
t
e
n
d
i
n
g
e
v
e
n
t
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
s
i
z
e
o
f
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
p
(
%
)
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
o
f
e
a
c
h
t
y
p
e
a
t
t
e
n
d
i
n
g
e
v
e
n
t
T
o
t
a
l
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
e
e
v
e
n
t
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
(
%
)
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
T
y
p
e
1
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
,
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
r
a
t
e
d
C
U
.
¼
4
/
5
o
n
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
h
a
d
,
1
t
r
i
p
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
t
o
M
B
$
1
,
7
1
0
4
5
3
.
0
1
3
3
4
3
8
3
1
.
0
1
4
8
$
2
5
3
,
1
5
1
2
7
.
1
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
T
y
p
e
2
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
,
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
r
a
t
e
d
C
U
.
¼
4
/
5
o
n
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
t
y
b
u
t
h
a
d
.
¼
1
t
r
i
p
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
t
o
M
B
$
2
,
0
2
0
3
7
2
.
3
8
6
3
6
0
2
5
.
5
1
5
5
$
3
1
4
,
0
1
1
3
3
.
7
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
T
y
p
e
3
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
,
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
r
a
t
e
d
C
U
a
s
,
4
/
5
o
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
t
y
$
1
,
8
1
8
6
3
3
.
0
1
9
2
6
1
3
4
3
.
4
2
0
1
$
3
6
5
,
5
1
3
3
9
.
2
G
r
o
s
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
a
l
l
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
w
h
o
a
t
t
e
n
d
e
d
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
U
n
c
o
r
k
e
d
$
1
,
7
8
5
1
4
5
2
.
8
4
1
2
1
,
4
1
0
1
0
0
.
0
5
0
5
$
9
3
2
,
6
7
5
1
0
0
.
0
VOL. 6 NO. 3 2012
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 283
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Based on the number of Type 2 (Switchers) tourist parties that participated in the survey
(n ¼ 37), Type 2 tourists accounted for 25.5 percent of the 145 total tourist parties that were
surveyed. The estimated average spending in the area per Type 2 tourist party was $2,020.
Based on the proportion of Type 2 tourist parties in the sample, an average party size of 2.3
people, and the estimated total number of tourists at the event, direct spending in the area
by all Type 2 tourist parties in attendance at the festival (n ¼ 155) was estimated to be
$314,011.
Finally, based on the number of Type 1 (New Tourist) parties that participated in the survey
(n ¼ 45), Type 1 tourists accounted for 31.8 percent of the 145 total tourist parties that were
surveyed. The estimated average spending in the area per Type 1 tourist party was $1,710.
Based on the proportion of Type 1 tourist parties in the sample, an average party size of three
people, and the estimated total number of tourists at the event, direct spending in the area
by all Type 1 tourist parties in attendance at the festival (n ¼ 148) was estimated to be
$253,150. Total direct spending in the area by all three types of tourists combined was
estimated to be $932,634.
Discussion
The creation of festivals to generate travel into a destination is a common practice for many
communities, particularly communities that thrive on a tourism-based economy. Such festivals
are typically created to increase demand during shoulder or off-season time periods when
demand is relatively weaker than during peak periods. Demand reaches its peak in the Myrtle
Beach area during the summer months of June through August. In 2008, the City of Myrtle
Beach passed several ordinances to discourage motorcycle-related festivals – primarily in
reaction to the perceived negative social impacts of increased crime, traf?c, and noise
associated with the biker events. Consequently, community organizers collaborated to create
a new food and wine festival as an alternate tourist event during mid-May.
Community organizers were interested in understanding the economic impact of the event
and to con?rm that their investment in time and resources to promote and execute the
festival was justi?ed by the incremental revenue generated as a result of the event. While
some research has estimated the impact of an event based on the total spending of all
participants, the present study illustrates a more appropriate method in that it describes new
spending separately fromspending that might have occurred at other times during the same
year. This method, therefore, creates a more appropriate benchmark for Coastal Uncorked
organizers to use in evaluating the impact of future events. (This is not to say that the
spending of so-called Switchers or Casuals is of little value – it is just not incremental
spending.)
Revenue generated by Switchers, which accounted for approximately 34 percent of the
estimated total direct spending by all tourists attending the event was revenue which could
have potentially been created during a higher demand period. However, as a result of this
shift in travel dates, additional capacity may have been made available in the market during
these higher demand dates, allowing additional travelers to visit the destination during the
higher demand period. This is a strategy that is frequently employed by hotels when they
attempt to lure group business into lower demand time periods with reduced room rates and
other incentives in an effort to protect prime dates for more lucrative business. This strategy
may prove equally effective for a destination as a whole.
Further, Casuals’ tourist participation, though not representing new direct spending, could
also be bene?cial to the long-term growth of a community’s social capital (Arcodia and
Whitford, 2006). While Coastal Uncorked may have only been a secondary reason for 43.4
percent of tourists at the event, the average favorability rating of Myrtle Beach and Coastal
Uncorked by these tourists was 4.2 and 4.1, respectively (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being
extremely favorable). As noted previously, this was the ?rst year of the Coastal Uncorked
food and wine festival. The high favorability ratings suggest potential for growth in
attendance at the festival in the coming years and potential for positive long-termimpacts on
the local tourism phenomenon.
PAGE 284
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 6 NO. 3 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Finally, the method provided internship opportunities for students at the local university.
Implementation of Coastal Uncorked brought together faculty research expertise with
opportunities for resort tourism management students to work with faculty and the lodging
properties that sponsored the Coastal Uncorked event. The acquisition of meaningful and
accurate data relative to a festival or event of this nature is often challenging for event
organizers to obtain. Organizers sometimes lack performance measurement expertise and
are often fully consumed with promoting and orchestrating the event. As a result, obtaining
data related to the economic impact of the event is often an afterthought and a challenge that
event organizers simply do not have the time, ability, or motivations to address. For
hospitality- or tourism-related academic programs, such an event provides an opportunity
for students and faculty to provide a valuable service to the industry. These programs may
bene?t by promoting their ability to administer meaningful, reliable, and relatively unbiased
economic impact studies as part of a menu of services that they offer to the hospitality
industry and their host community.
References
Anderson, L. (2011), Brandon, Scott in ‘‘IRS rules Coastal Uncorked tax exempt’’, The Sun News, April
21, p. A1.
Ap, J. (1992), ‘‘Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 665-90.
Arcodia, C. and Whitford, M. (2006), ‘‘Festival attendance and the development of social capital’’,
Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Brittain Center for Resort Tourism (2010), Tourism Economy Study: a Proprietary Research Report of the
Clay Brittain Jr Center for Resort Tourism, Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC.
Butler, R.W. (1980), ‘‘The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of
resources’’, Canadian Geographer, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-12.
Cohen, E. (1979), ‘‘Rethinking the sociology of tourism’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 18-35.
Crompton, J.L. (1995), ‘‘Economic impact analysis of sports facilities and events: eleven sources of
misapplication’’, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 14-35.
Crompton, J.L., Lee, S. and Shuster, T.J. (2001), ‘‘A guide for undertaking economic impact studies:
the Springfest example’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 79-88.
Doxey, G.V. (1975), ‘‘A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: methodology and research
inferences in the impact of tourism’’, Sixth Annual Conference, Proceedings of the Travel Research
Association, San Diego, CA, September, pp. 195-8.
Equations Research (2010), ‘‘A proprietary research report in the 2011 Myrtle Beach Area Destination
Marketing Plan’’, available at: www.myrtlebeachareamarketing.com/docs/preso/CityCouncil_Feb2011.
pdf
Hodur, N.M. and Leistritz, F.L. (2006), ‘‘Estimating the economic impact of event tourism: a review of
issues and methods’’, Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 63-80.
Tyrrell, T.J. and Johnston, R.J. (2001), ‘‘A framework for assessing direct economic impacts of tourist
events: distinguishing origins, destinations, and causes of expenditures’’, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 94-100.
About the authors
L. Taylor Damonte is a Professor and Director of the Clay Brittain Jr Center for Resort Tourism
in the E. Craig Wall Sr College of Business Administration at Coastal Carolina University. Dr
Damonte received a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of New Orleans and
went on to manage hotels and restaurants in the Mississippi Gulf Coast area. He later
received a Master of Science degree from the University of Southern Mississippi and a PhD
from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Dr Damonte teaches a seminar in
resort planning and is the principal investigator on the Tourism Economy Study, a weekly
analysis of lodging business performance in the Myrtle Beach area of South Carolina.
VOL. 6 NO. 3 2012
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 285
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Current reports based on that research can be found at www.coastal.edu/business/resort Dr
Damonte has delivered hospitality and tourism seminars in Ecuador, Panama, Slovakia,
Germany, and China. L. Taylor Damonte is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: [email protected]
Michael D. Collins is an Associate Professor, Resort Tourism Management, in the E. Craig
Wall, Sr College of Business Administration at Coastal Carolina University where he teaches
in the areas of resort operations management, quality management, and quantitative
methods; he also serves as Assistant Dean, Leadership Development and Corporate
Outreach. Prior to earning a PhD from The Ohio State University in Hospitality Management
(2007), he served the hospitality industry for 25 years, including service as General Manager
of Hotel and Resort Operations in Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, Myrtle Beach, Palm
Springs, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco for Wyndham International, Doubletree and Hyatt
Hotels Corporation. He also holds a Master of Science in Strategic Leadership from
Mountain State University (2002) and a Bachelor of Arts in Humanities from Michigan State
University (1982).
Carol M. Megehee, Associate Professor of Marketing in the Wall College of Business at
Coastal Carolina University, earned her PhDin Marketing fromthe University of Texas-Austin.
She teaches undergraduate Marketing Research and Buyer Behavior and graduate
Services Marketing Management. She recently published in the areas of consumption
experiences, cognitive processing, consumer culture, and marketing education in the
Journal of Business Research, Psychology & Marketing, Marketing Education Review,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Journal of Services Research, and International
Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research among other scholarly outlets. She is
on the editorial boards of the Journal of Business Research, International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, and the Advances
in Culture, Tourism and Hospitality book series. She is an Academy Founding Member of the
International Academy of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research.
PAGE 286
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 6 NO. 3 2012
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Young Hoon Kim, Jen Duncan, Byung Woong Chung. 2015. Involvement, Satisfaction, Perceived Value, and Revisit Intention:
A Case Study of a Food Festival. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology 13, 133-158. [CrossRef]
2. Young Hoon Kim, Jen L. Duncan, Tun-Min (Catherine) Jai. 2014. A case study of a southern food festival: using a cluster
analysis approach. Anatolia 25, 457-473. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_247809270.pdf
The purpose of this paper is to develop a method for estimating new direct tourism spending
resulting from a new event in an existing destination
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Segmenting tourists by direct tourism expenditures at new festivals
L. Taylor Damonte Michael D. Collins Carol M. Megehee
Article information:
To cite this document:
L. Taylor Damonte Michael D. Collins Carol M. Megehee, (2012),"Segmenting tourists by direct tourism expenditures at new festivals",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 279 - 286
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181211250613
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:19 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 12 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1370 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
L. Taylor Damonte, Michael D. Collins, Carol M. Megehee, (2013),"Segmenting tourists by direct tourism expenditures at new festivals",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 51-57http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181311301354
Austin Uzama, (2009),"Marketing J apan's travel and tourism industry to international tourists", International J ournal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 21 Iss 3 pp. 356-365http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110910948341
Lan-Lan Chang, Kenneth F. Backman, Yu Chih Huang, (2014),"Creative tourism: a preliminary examination of creative tourists’ motivation,
experience, perceived value and revisit intention", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp.
401-419http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2014-0032
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Segmenting tourists by direct tourism
expenditures at new festivals
L. Taylor Damonte, Michael D. Collins and Carol M. Megehee
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a method for estimating newdirect tourismspending
resulting from a new event in an existing destination.
Design/methodology/approach – Intercept surveys were conducted on site at six of nine festival
locations. Of the 308 festival participants approached at random and asked to participate, 264 agreed
to participate (86 percent response rate). On further inquiry, only 47 percent of those agreeing to
participate were found to be from zip codes outside of the Horry/Georgetown County ‘‘Grand Strand’’
tourist area. These 145 festival participants were administered surveys.
Findings – Less than 30 percent of total tourist spending at the festival is attributable to new tourists –
those who speci?cally travelled to the destination primarily for the event and have historically attended
Myrtle Beach less than one time per year. Consequently, the economic impact of the festival, in terms of
new spending, was relatively small compared with the total amount of tourist spending by all tourists at
the festival.
Originality/value – The study provides an example of an event for which new tourist spending could
have been overestimated if all tourist spending had been considered to be new spending.
Keywords Coastal Uncorked, Festival, Economic impact, New tourist, Switcher, Tourist type,
Economic returns, Tourism, Consumer behaviour
Paper type Research paper
As the economy gets better, everything else gets worse. Art Buchwald (1925-2007). Citing as an
example, ‘‘The more cars that are sold, the bigger the pollution and traf?c problems you have.’’
‘‘Buchwald’s Law,’’ Time, 15 September 1993.
I
n a sense, a destination is like a large service factory where the host community inputs
tourists who bring new spending. The new spending activity throws off both positive
externalities such as jobs and tax revenues, and negative externalities such as traf?c,
noise, and sometimes even crime. Often, a community changes its collective opinion of the
value of a visitor market based on the perception of negative externalities related to the
presence of that market in the community. An example of this occurred recently in Myrtle
Beach, SC, where in 2008 the community added a number of ordinances designed to quell
the rise of motorcycle events which were perceived as bringing with them many negative
externalities during the month of May each year. At the same time, new festivals, including
one entitled Coastal Uncorked were created to replace the motorcycle-related visitation
(Brandon in Anderson, 2011). Researchers were asked to estimate the economic impact of
this new event. Consequently a means of estimating new direct spending resulting from the
presence of new tourists in the community was required.
Researchers studying the economic impact of festivals often collect data on direct spending
via surveys and use this data in economic input-output models to estimate the indirect and
induced impacts of these festivals on the regional economy. A number of common
methodological pitfalls have been identi?ed in estimating new direct tourism-related
spending (Crompton et al., 2001). Rigorous estimates of tourism-related economic impact
DOI 10.1108/17506181211250613 VOL. 6 NO. 3 2012, pp. 279-286, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 279
L. Taylor Damonte is
Professor/Director Clay
Brittain Jr Centre for Resort
Tourism, E. Craig Wall Sr
College of Business
Administration, Coastal
Carolina University,
Conway, South Carolina,
USA. Michael D. Collins is
Associate Professor, Resort
Tourism and Carol M.
Megehee is Associate
Professor, Marketing, both
at E. Craig Wall Sr College
of Business Administration,
Coastal Carolina University,
Conway, South Carolina,
USA.
Received May 2011
Revised July 2011
Accepted August 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
should be based on marginal revenue from visitors (i.e. revenue from new visitors to the
destination who would not have come had it not been for the event itself). Since the Myrtle
Beach area is a well-established tourist destination with over 100,000 transient
bedroom-equivalent units (Brittain Center for Resort Tourism, 2010) located on the US
east coast and has 73 percent rate of repeat visitation (Equations Research, 2010),
identifying purely new tourists spending could be challenging. This study provides a
research approach that addresses this challenge. The discussion includes other potential
tourism-related bene?ts of festivals.
Spending associated with non-local festival attendees is often assumed in festival impact
studies to be new tourist spending, which may or may not be the case (Crompton, 1995;
Hodur and Leistritz, 2006; Tyrrell and Johnston, 2001). In order to create an estimate of new
spending, the estimated total number of tourist-attendees must be reduced by the number
of visitors who are ‘‘casuals’’ or ‘‘time-switchers’’ (Crompton et al., 2001). Casuals
participate in the festival, in part, because they have already chosen to visit the area during
the time of the event; the event is, at most, a secondary reason for Casuals’ travel to the area.
Switchers may have chosen to visit the area at the time of the festival primarily because of the
event. However, had the festival not existed the visitor still might choose to visit the area
during another time of the same calendar year.
The socio-cultural impact of tourism is particularly relevant to this study. Cohen (1979) writes
that the social interaction between tourists and residents can lead to social change. Several
models that help explain the impact of tourists and tourism on host communities and
residents have been proposed (e.g. Doxey, 1975; Butler, 1980; Ap, 1992). Doxey’s (1975)
Index of Irritation (Irridex) represents the escalating irritation of local residents as visitors’
impact increases. In Stage 1, Euphoria, the number of visitors is small, the host community
welcomes tourism, commercial activity is limited, and visitors try to blend in with the locals. In
Stage 2, Apathy, tourist-host community relationships become more formalized and locals
take visitors for granted. In Stage 3, Irritation, the number of visitors and their impact on the
host community has grown to the point that locals and visitors compete for resources. Finally,
in Stage 4, Anatagonism, locals are openly hostile to visitors and they try to limit the negative
impact of tourism on the host community (Doxey, 1975). Several of the powers that be in the
City of Myrtle Beach had reached the Antagonismstage with the motorcycle-related festivals
when they began passing ordinances that would in effect kill the biker events and make
room for more local-friendly events.
Butler’s (1980) Tourist Area Life Cycle Model follows a similar path wherein over time positive
perceptions of tourists are replaced with negative perceptions. Stage 1, Exploration, is
marked by curiosity about a new tourism area, followed by Stage 2, Involvement, when the
host community begins to provide services for their visitors. The Development phase, Stage
3, is marked by rapid growth and noticeable economic, social, cultural, and ecological
impacts. Heavy advertising and promotion to attract tourists is balanced with local
resources. Stage 4, Consolidation, is when the rate of increase in visitors declines but the
absolute number continues to grow and eventually exceed the population of permanent
residents. In Stagnation, Stage 5, the destination is no longer fashionable and repeat visitors
tend to be more conservative. After Stagnation, whether the destination goes into Decline or
Rejuvenation depends on the host community’s ability to cope with tourism impacts. Decline
can be averted if policies can maintain the delicate balance between scarce community
resources and tourists’ demands (Butler, 1980). At some point, the negative impact of the
motorcycle-related events was seen to outweigh the positive economic impact of these
events.
Finally, Ap’s (1992) Social Exchange Theory suggests that permanent residents will enter
into exchange with visitors only if value of the bene?ts to be gained outweighs the costs of
such exchange. Tourism will be supported as long as the resulting bene?ts are valued,
exchange has a high likelihood of producing these bene?ts, and perceived costs do not
exceed perceived rewards (Ap, 1992). As in the previous explanations, the bene?ts of the
motorcycle events were not perceived to outweigh the costs of such events.
PAGE 280
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 6 NO. 3 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Method and results
The Coastal Uncorked event, which spotlighted cuisine of the Myrtle Beach area, was
produced at multiple lodging sites along the Myrtle Beach ocean front on May 14-15, 2010.
Transportation (Trolley) services to, from, and among the sites was provided as part of the
registration fee for the event. University students randomly approached event participants at
six of the hotels which served as ‘‘trolley stops’’ where food and wine was served, asking
them if they would participate in an impact study related to the event. Of the 308 event
participants approached, 264 agreed to participate. In order to determine which of the
festival attendees were tourists the students asked each festival participant if they were from
one of the local counties (Horry or Georgetown). If the participant answered ‘‘yes’’, then they
were thanked for their participation but no survey was administered. Using this method of
inquiry 47 percent were found to be tourists – a tourist being de?ned as a person whose
primary residence was not in the Myrtle Beach area (Horry or Georgetown County, SC).
Since only those individuals who were tourists were asked to complete the surveys, only 145
of the individuals who were approached were asked to complete the surveys. Based on
ticket sales festival organizers estimated that there were 3,000 participants at the event.
Based on the percentage of those individuals in the crowd who indicated that they were from
the local area, researchers estimated that 1,410 of the 3,000 event participants were
assumed to be tourists.
Based on a sample average party size of 2.8 people, 412 tourists were assumed to be
represented in the results of the 145 completed surveys. This equates to approximately 29
percent of the 1,410 tourists that attended the festival, according to festival organizers.
Survey participants were asked to estimate the spending created by their party across eight
categories including lodging, restaurants and nightclubs, groceries, theatres, shopping,
and gas/transportation. The spending of new tourists was de?ned as spending done by
visitors who were not primarily in Myrtle Beach for a reason other than to attend the festival,
the so-called ’’Casuals,’’ nor were they switching their visit to Myrtle Beach fromanother time
of the year, so-called ‘‘Switchers.’’ In order to place respondents into one of two groups
within the sample, researchers asked them to indicate to what degree the Coastal Uncorked
event in?uenced their choice of Myrtle Beach as a destination for the current trip. Those that
responded with at least 4 on a ?ve-point scale (with 1 ¼ not instrumental and 5 ¼ extremely
instrumental) were assumed to be more than casual participants. Participants were also
asked to indicate the number of times they had come to the Myrtle Beach area as well as the
number of years they had been coming (trips/years) (see Table I).
Respondents who were already coming to the area one or more times per year were
considered to be switching to traveling to the area during the Coastal Uncorked event rather
than coming here at another time during the year. Consequently, spending by these
Switchers was not considered to be new spending to the area. New Tourist spending was
estimated by including only spending by tourists who could not be classi?ed as either
Casuals or Switchers. Gross direct spending was estimated for each of three types of
tourists: Type 3 (Casuals) – those tourists who attended Coastal Uncorked events this year
but for who the events were not an instrumental reason for their choice of travel to the area
this time; Type 2 (Switchers) – those tourists who indicated that Coastal Uncorked was a
relatively instrumental part of their decision to travel to the area but who traveled to the area
one or more times per year anyway; and Type 1 (New Tourists) – tourists who have not
historically traveled to the area at least once per year and for who Coastal Uncorked was a
relatively instrumental reason for their choice of visit this time (see Table II).
Based on the number of Type 3 (Casuals) tourist parties that participated in the survey
(n ¼ 63), Type 3 tourists accounted for 43.4 percent of the 145 total tourist parties that were
surveyed. The estimated average spending in the area per Type 3 tourist party was $1,818.
Based on the proportion of Type 3 tourist parties in the sample, an average party size of three
people, and the estimated total number of tourists at the event (n ¼ 1; 410), direct spending
in the area by all Type 3 tourist parties in attendance at the festival (n ¼ 201) was estimated
to be $365,512.
VOL. 6 NO. 3 2012
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 281
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
T
a
b
l
e
I
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
o
f
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
L
o
d
g
i
n
g
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
-
n
i
g
h
t
c
l
u
b
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
g
r
o
c
e
r
i
e
s
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
a
t
r
e
s
R
e
t
a
i
l
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
g
a
s
/
t
r
a
n
s
O
t
h
e
r
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
T
o
t
a
l
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
p
a
r
t
y
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
T
y
p
e
1
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
,
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
r
a
t
e
d
C
U
.
¼
4
/
5
o
n
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
h
a
d
,
1
t
r
i
p
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
t
o
M
B
$
5
0
2
$
3
0
3
$
1
2
4
$
1
9
1
$
1
3
9
.
2
9
$
1
5
5
.
7
7
$
1
1
8
.
6
2
$
1
7
5
.
0
0
$
1
,
7
1
0
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
T
y
p
e
2
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
,
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
r
a
t
e
d
C
U
.
¼
4
/
5
o
n
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
t
y
b
u
t
h
a
d
.
¼
1
t
r
i
p
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
t
o
M
B
$
4
5
9
$
3
0
7
$
1
8
5
$
3
5
0
$
1
0
6
.
6
7
$
4
3
1
.
8
2
$
1
0
4
.
2
3
$
7
5
.
0
0
$
2
,
0
2
0
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
T
y
p
e
3
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
,
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
r
a
t
e
d
C
U
a
s
,
4
/
5
o
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
t
y
$
6
1
9
$
2
7
7
$
1
5
0
$
1
2
1
$
1
2
3
.
3
0
$
2
2
1
.
7
9
$
1
4
0
.
0
0
$
1
6
4
.
3
8
$
1
,
8
1
8
G
r
o
s
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
a
l
l
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
w
h
o
a
t
t
e
n
d
e
d
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
U
n
c
o
r
k
e
d
$
5
4
7
$
2
9
0
$
1
4
3
$
1
6
9
$
1
2
5
.
6
9
$
2
2
9
.
7
0
$
1
2
6
.
7
7
$
1
5
1
.
2
5
$
1
,
7
8
5
PAGE 282
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 6 NO. 3 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
T
a
b
l
e
I
I
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
t
y
p
e
T
o
t
a
l
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
p
a
r
t
y
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
i
n
s
a
m
p
l
e
P
a
r
t
y
s
i
z
e
T
o
t
a
l
e
v
e
n
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
s
a
m
p
l
e
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
o
f
e
a
c
h
t
y
p
e
a
t
t
e
n
d
i
n
g
e
v
e
n
t
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
s
i
z
e
o
f
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
p
(
%
)
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
o
f
e
a
c
h
t
y
p
e
a
t
t
e
n
d
i
n
g
e
v
e
n
t
T
o
t
a
l
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
e
e
v
e
n
t
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
(
%
)
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
T
y
p
e
1
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
,
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
r
a
t
e
d
C
U
.
¼
4
/
5
o
n
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
h
a
d
,
1
t
r
i
p
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
t
o
M
B
$
1
,
7
1
0
4
5
3
.
0
1
3
3
4
3
8
3
1
.
0
1
4
8
$
2
5
3
,
1
5
1
2
7
.
1
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
T
y
p
e
2
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
,
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
r
a
t
e
d
C
U
.
¼
4
/
5
o
n
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
t
y
b
u
t
h
a
d
.
¼
1
t
r
i
p
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
t
o
M
B
$
2
,
0
2
0
3
7
2
.
3
8
6
3
6
0
2
5
.
5
1
5
5
$
3
1
4
,
0
1
1
3
3
.
7
S
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
T
y
p
e
3
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
,
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
r
a
t
e
d
C
U
a
s
,
4
/
5
o
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
t
y
$
1
,
8
1
8
6
3
3
.
0
1
9
2
6
1
3
4
3
.
4
2
0
1
$
3
6
5
,
5
1
3
3
9
.
2
G
r
o
s
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
a
l
l
t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s
w
h
o
a
t
t
e
n
d
e
d
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
U
n
c
o
r
k
e
d
$
1
,
7
8
5
1
4
5
2
.
8
4
1
2
1
,
4
1
0
1
0
0
.
0
5
0
5
$
9
3
2
,
6
7
5
1
0
0
.
0
VOL. 6 NO. 3 2012
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 283
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Based on the number of Type 2 (Switchers) tourist parties that participated in the survey
(n ¼ 37), Type 2 tourists accounted for 25.5 percent of the 145 total tourist parties that were
surveyed. The estimated average spending in the area per Type 2 tourist party was $2,020.
Based on the proportion of Type 2 tourist parties in the sample, an average party size of 2.3
people, and the estimated total number of tourists at the event, direct spending in the area
by all Type 2 tourist parties in attendance at the festival (n ¼ 155) was estimated to be
$314,011.
Finally, based on the number of Type 1 (New Tourist) parties that participated in the survey
(n ¼ 45), Type 1 tourists accounted for 31.8 percent of the 145 total tourist parties that were
surveyed. The estimated average spending in the area per Type 1 tourist party was $1,710.
Based on the proportion of Type 1 tourist parties in the sample, an average party size of three
people, and the estimated total number of tourists at the event, direct spending in the area
by all Type 1 tourist parties in attendance at the festival (n ¼ 148) was estimated to be
$253,150. Total direct spending in the area by all three types of tourists combined was
estimated to be $932,634.
Discussion
The creation of festivals to generate travel into a destination is a common practice for many
communities, particularly communities that thrive on a tourism-based economy. Such festivals
are typically created to increase demand during shoulder or off-season time periods when
demand is relatively weaker than during peak periods. Demand reaches its peak in the Myrtle
Beach area during the summer months of June through August. In 2008, the City of Myrtle
Beach passed several ordinances to discourage motorcycle-related festivals – primarily in
reaction to the perceived negative social impacts of increased crime, traf?c, and noise
associated with the biker events. Consequently, community organizers collaborated to create
a new food and wine festival as an alternate tourist event during mid-May.
Community organizers were interested in understanding the economic impact of the event
and to con?rm that their investment in time and resources to promote and execute the
festival was justi?ed by the incremental revenue generated as a result of the event. While
some research has estimated the impact of an event based on the total spending of all
participants, the present study illustrates a more appropriate method in that it describes new
spending separately fromspending that might have occurred at other times during the same
year. This method, therefore, creates a more appropriate benchmark for Coastal Uncorked
organizers to use in evaluating the impact of future events. (This is not to say that the
spending of so-called Switchers or Casuals is of little value – it is just not incremental
spending.)
Revenue generated by Switchers, which accounted for approximately 34 percent of the
estimated total direct spending by all tourists attending the event was revenue which could
have potentially been created during a higher demand period. However, as a result of this
shift in travel dates, additional capacity may have been made available in the market during
these higher demand dates, allowing additional travelers to visit the destination during the
higher demand period. This is a strategy that is frequently employed by hotels when they
attempt to lure group business into lower demand time periods with reduced room rates and
other incentives in an effort to protect prime dates for more lucrative business. This strategy
may prove equally effective for a destination as a whole.
Further, Casuals’ tourist participation, though not representing new direct spending, could
also be bene?cial to the long-term growth of a community’s social capital (Arcodia and
Whitford, 2006). While Coastal Uncorked may have only been a secondary reason for 43.4
percent of tourists at the event, the average favorability rating of Myrtle Beach and Coastal
Uncorked by these tourists was 4.2 and 4.1, respectively (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being
extremely favorable). As noted previously, this was the ?rst year of the Coastal Uncorked
food and wine festival. The high favorability ratings suggest potential for growth in
attendance at the festival in the coming years and potential for positive long-termimpacts on
the local tourism phenomenon.
PAGE 284
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 6 NO. 3 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Finally, the method provided internship opportunities for students at the local university.
Implementation of Coastal Uncorked brought together faculty research expertise with
opportunities for resort tourism management students to work with faculty and the lodging
properties that sponsored the Coastal Uncorked event. The acquisition of meaningful and
accurate data relative to a festival or event of this nature is often challenging for event
organizers to obtain. Organizers sometimes lack performance measurement expertise and
are often fully consumed with promoting and orchestrating the event. As a result, obtaining
data related to the economic impact of the event is often an afterthought and a challenge that
event organizers simply do not have the time, ability, or motivations to address. For
hospitality- or tourism-related academic programs, such an event provides an opportunity
for students and faculty to provide a valuable service to the industry. These programs may
bene?t by promoting their ability to administer meaningful, reliable, and relatively unbiased
economic impact studies as part of a menu of services that they offer to the hospitality
industry and their host community.
References
Anderson, L. (2011), Brandon, Scott in ‘‘IRS rules Coastal Uncorked tax exempt’’, The Sun News, April
21, p. A1.
Ap, J. (1992), ‘‘Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 665-90.
Arcodia, C. and Whitford, M. (2006), ‘‘Festival attendance and the development of social capital’’,
Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Brittain Center for Resort Tourism (2010), Tourism Economy Study: a Proprietary Research Report of the
Clay Brittain Jr Center for Resort Tourism, Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC.
Butler, R.W. (1980), ‘‘The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of
resources’’, Canadian Geographer, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-12.
Cohen, E. (1979), ‘‘Rethinking the sociology of tourism’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 18-35.
Crompton, J.L. (1995), ‘‘Economic impact analysis of sports facilities and events: eleven sources of
misapplication’’, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 14-35.
Crompton, J.L., Lee, S. and Shuster, T.J. (2001), ‘‘A guide for undertaking economic impact studies:
the Springfest example’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 79-88.
Doxey, G.V. (1975), ‘‘A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: methodology and research
inferences in the impact of tourism’’, Sixth Annual Conference, Proceedings of the Travel Research
Association, San Diego, CA, September, pp. 195-8.
Equations Research (2010), ‘‘A proprietary research report in the 2011 Myrtle Beach Area Destination
Marketing Plan’’, available at: www.myrtlebeachareamarketing.com/docs/preso/CityCouncil_Feb2011.
Hodur, N.M. and Leistritz, F.L. (2006), ‘‘Estimating the economic impact of event tourism: a review of
issues and methods’’, Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 63-80.
Tyrrell, T.J. and Johnston, R.J. (2001), ‘‘A framework for assessing direct economic impacts of tourist
events: distinguishing origins, destinations, and causes of expenditures’’, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 94-100.
About the authors
L. Taylor Damonte is a Professor and Director of the Clay Brittain Jr Center for Resort Tourism
in the E. Craig Wall Sr College of Business Administration at Coastal Carolina University. Dr
Damonte received a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of New Orleans and
went on to manage hotels and restaurants in the Mississippi Gulf Coast area. He later
received a Master of Science degree from the University of Southern Mississippi and a PhD
from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Dr Damonte teaches a seminar in
resort planning and is the principal investigator on the Tourism Economy Study, a weekly
analysis of lodging business performance in the Myrtle Beach area of South Carolina.
VOL. 6 NO. 3 2012
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 285
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Current reports based on that research can be found at www.coastal.edu/business/resort Dr
Damonte has delivered hospitality and tourism seminars in Ecuador, Panama, Slovakia,
Germany, and China. L. Taylor Damonte is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: [email protected]
Michael D. Collins is an Associate Professor, Resort Tourism Management, in the E. Craig
Wall, Sr College of Business Administration at Coastal Carolina University where he teaches
in the areas of resort operations management, quality management, and quantitative
methods; he also serves as Assistant Dean, Leadership Development and Corporate
Outreach. Prior to earning a PhD from The Ohio State University in Hospitality Management
(2007), he served the hospitality industry for 25 years, including service as General Manager
of Hotel and Resort Operations in Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, Myrtle Beach, Palm
Springs, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco for Wyndham International, Doubletree and Hyatt
Hotels Corporation. He also holds a Master of Science in Strategic Leadership from
Mountain State University (2002) and a Bachelor of Arts in Humanities from Michigan State
University (1982).
Carol M. Megehee, Associate Professor of Marketing in the Wall College of Business at
Coastal Carolina University, earned her PhDin Marketing fromthe University of Texas-Austin.
She teaches undergraduate Marketing Research and Buyer Behavior and graduate
Services Marketing Management. She recently published in the areas of consumption
experiences, cognitive processing, consumer culture, and marketing education in the
Journal of Business Research, Psychology & Marketing, Marketing Education Review,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Journal of Services Research, and International
Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research among other scholarly outlets. She is
on the editorial boards of the Journal of Business Research, International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, and the Advances
in Culture, Tourism and Hospitality book series. She is an Academy Founding Member of the
International Academy of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research.
PAGE 286
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 6 NO. 3 2012
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Young Hoon Kim, Jen Duncan, Byung Woong Chung. 2015. Involvement, Satisfaction, Perceived Value, and Revisit Intention:
A Case Study of a Food Festival. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology 13, 133-158. [CrossRef]
2. Young Hoon Kim, Jen L. Duncan, Tun-Min (Catherine) Jai. 2014. A case study of a southern food festival: using a cluster
analysis approach. Anatolia 25, 457-473. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
9
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_247809270.pdf