August 2012 TNS 212 229202 Houston Visitor Profile Calendar Year 2011.

August 2012TNS 212 229202

Houston Visitor ProfileCalendar Year 2011

©TNS 2012

Contents

1

Growth Summary 3

2Houston Visitor and Brief Abstract 5

3Executive Summary/Implications 8

4Appendix I. Profile from TravelsAmerica Syndicated Survey

16

5Appendix IIa. Opinions About Houston and Competitors from Follow-up Survey

42

6Appendix IIb. Media Choices from Follow-up Survey

66

7Appendix IIc. General Advertising Awareness from Follow-up Survey

70

8Appendix IId. Specific GHCVB Ad Awareness from Follow-up Survey

77

9Appendix IIe. Website Usage from Follow-up Survey

99

10Appendix IIf. Houston Visitors Choices and Characteristics from Follow-up Survey

111

11

Appendix IIg. Attitudes and Behaviors from Follow-up Survey

117

12Appendix IIh. Final Comments 120

13Appendix IIi. Research Purposes and Methods 122

2

©TNS 2012

TNS Growth Map

The Greater Houston Convention & Visitors Bureau (GHCVB) has two primary goals:

To attract more visitors to the city

Encourage longer stays, more repeat visits, and greater spending among those who do choose to visit Houston.

3

©TNS 2012

Growth Summary

Precise plans for growth

Maintain focus on large Texas markets within driving distance and add medium-sized Texas markets (such as Waco) and cities in bordering states, such as New Orleans, Shreveport, and Oklahoma City as advertising budgets allow

Continue to use the current commercials, which are strong enough to change people’s minds, but also be open to testing new ideas/enhancements and adding new media to build synergy within a campaign

In addition to the arts and cultural focus, consider adding some family-oriented advertising, since Houston has many attractions for children such as the zoo and the space center

Look for ways to get Houston lovers to act as advocates – testimonials, facebook incentives, etc.

Keep the website up-to-date and comprehensive; out-of-towners note that they would like more info on what locals probably already know, such as good, off-the-beaten-path restaurants

The somewhat younger core visitor is adopting new media, which warrants some attention by GHCVB to enhance digital advertising and to use mobile device-friendly websites and travel-planning applications.

A “Digital Life” component is being added to TravelsAmerica in 2012, which will help guide future online media decisions.

4

Growth insights

Metro areas in Texas represent critical markets for Houston. As shown by TNS’ Travels-America syndication, Houston heavily depends on those who live in the state (62% of visitors live in Texas)

Fortunately, the GHCVB ads appeal to potential visitors – deemed very likeable by viewers – and are strong enough make those who had rejected Houston to re-think visiting “after seeing these very interesting commercials about what Houston has to offer”

GHCVB advertising clearly helps Houston’s tourism – drawing about one visitor in nine (11%) last year with ads that largely focus on arts/culture; Houston lovers also point out that Houston has even broader benefits

About one past year overnight Houston leisure visitor in five has gone to a GHCVB website for one of four primary reasons – what to do, find savings, where to stay, and where to eat – but critics think the website information could be improved

The core visitor, who consistently praises Houston, does not allocate much time for reading, but has media habits that make them easy to reach in other ways – they watch TV comedies and use social media more than other groups; radio and the Internet reaches most of them as well.

The Houston Visitor and Brief Abstract

©TNS 2012

Age 47 Average Income for

travelers ($71,700) Married (60%) College Grad (35%) Caucasian (85%) Choose urban activities

at level similar to Houston visitors

Choose more outdoor activities more often than Houston visitors (rural sightseeing; state/national parks; beaches; wildlife viewing)

Travel with children (26%)

Typical US Traveler

The typical Houston visitor

6

Age 54 High Income ($75,700) Married (67%) College Grad (46%) Caucasian (85%) Family/roots in Houston Will pay more to visit

original places Buy on quality, not on

price Like to travel to exotic

places

Plan to Visit Houston (Next 2 Years)

Age 46 High Income ($73,400) Married (58%) College Grad (52%) Caucasian (84%) Love to shop markets/

specialty stores Seek lowest prices Like to shop before

purchasing Rather try something

new than enjoy familiar Willing to fly Unlikely to buy clothes

for comfort only More likely drive an

SUV than average Watch TV comedies Half use social media

daily

Target/Core Visitors

(Females 35-55)

Age 54 High Income ($77,100) Married (66%) College Grad (45%) Caucasian (84%) Family/friends ask for

travel advice Will pay more to visit

original places Income sufficient to

satisfy important desires Quality worth extra $$$;

buy for quality, not price Like to travel to exotic

places Unlikely to buy clothes

for comfort over style Shoppers, but not

bargain hunters Unlikely to seek lowest

prices

Prime (Lucrative) Houston Visitors(Past Year O/N Visitors)

©TNS 2012

Continue to nurture Texans as potential visitors – Houston tourism depends on them with nearly two-thirds (62%) of Houston visitors living in Texas

Although improving from last year, most Texas travelers still go somewhere else on their vacations (24% visited Houston from 32% in 2009)

With far more visitors preferring Houston because of ‘”family/roots there” than any of its competitors (Austin, San Antonio, DFW, and New Orleans), Houston should continue to punctuate advertising messaging with the strengths of the city – which it does.

Opportunities

“Houston is not one of my favorite places to visit, but that may change after seeing these very interesting commercials about what Houston has to offer.”

Brief abstract

7

Houston’s visitation in 2011 begins to recover (+21%) and exceeds the growth in Texas (stable) and the US (+4%)

Four out of five (81%) leisure visitors spend the night, similar to last year – the group that advertising can most encourage to stay longer and visit more attractions (and spend more $$$)

The lucrative business traveler component grows slightly as well (23% from 18%)

Both spending and length of stay climb in the past year Houston outscores its competitors (Austin, San Antonio,

DFW, and New Orleans) on two popular urban activities (dining and cultural/ performing arts) and wins acclaim for handicap accessibility

Of five key measures as a leisure destination, Houston meets or exceeds last year on all five, with a notable gain on “overall opinion” of the city

Overall awareness of the ad campaign continues to climb (36% from 29% - 2011 and 23% - 2010)

The new print ad “Houston is” gets even higher reviews than “My Houston”

The Target group of visitors (35-55 females) consistently assign top/near top ratings to features of the ads

Discover ways to showcase opinions of strong advocates

Positive Trends and Results

“I absolutely LOVE Houston

Executive Summary/Implications

©TNS 2012

9

Volume of Visitors: Houston’s visitation in 2011 begins to recover (+21%) and exceeds the change in Texas (stable) and the US (+4%)

Travel Spending in Houston. Visitors spend substantial amounts in Houston, averaging $498 per travel party (up from $432 last year):

Business travelers ($756) spend more than leisure travelers ($428)

Overnight leisure visitor spending ($498) more than doubles that of leisure day-trippers ($205)

With longer stays (lodging) and higher transportation costs, overnight non-Texas residents’ spending ($823) far exceeds Houston residents ($430) and non-Houston Texas residents ($451).

Source of Visitors. Texas supplies the majority (62%) of Houston visitors; Louisiana follows distantly (6%).

Trip Purpose. Most visitors to Houston are tourists (not business travelers); however, Houston attracts more of the lucrative (more hotels/motels) business travel than the national average (23% vs. 12%) and the level grows from last year (18%).

Leisure Overnighters. Even with the growth in business travel, leisure travelers still make up over two-thirds of all Houston travel (68%), most of whom spend the night (81%) and represents the group that advertising can most encourage to stay longer and visit more attractions (and spend more $$$).

Timing. The heaviest travel to Houston peaks in June – similar to prior years.

Importance of Tourism to Houston

Executive summary/implications

©TNS 2012

10

Demographics: Houston visitors resemble visitors elsewhere, with some variations:

Visitors from New York City/Chicago/Washington DC ($105,800) report higher earnings than others ($73,400 total Houston visitors), a gap similar to last year

Ethnic comparisons with total US travelers show a larger proportion of African American visitors (10% vs. 7%) and Spanish origin (11% vs. 5%).

Typical Travel Planning Horizons. Similar to overall US travelers, many (43%) Houston visitors decide to take the trip within two weeks of departure. As expected, leisure overnighters (37%) less frequently plan to visit on short notice (within two weeks) than leisure day-trippers (63%) or than Houston residents (69%).

Travelers Primarily Rely on “Offline” Information Sources. Houston visitors rely primarily on their own experience (24%) and friends/relatives (16%) to gather travel information, similar to other travelers.

Houston Visitors Most Often Book “Online.” Mirroring their US counterparts, half of Houston visitors book at least some component of their trip online (50%).

Most Visitors Drive. While most drive (71%), a slightly higher-than-average fly to Houston – aided by a somewhat larger share of business travelers.

Overnighters Spend More than Day-trippers. Because of extra time to see/do more things and because they incur lodging expenses, leisure overnight visitors spend more than twice as much as day-trippers ($498 vs. $205). Business overnighters spend the most ($933) and stay just a bit longer than leisure overnighters (4.0 vs. 3.5 nights). However, overall, Houston visitors spend both more time and more money than last year.

Profile: Trip and Travel Characteristics


©TNS 2012

11

Houston Relies on Texas Tourism. Since most Houston visitors live in Texas, proximity is critical for Houston tourism. The top eight city sources of visitors are in Texas (led by Houston, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and Austin).

Geography influences competitive market set. Dallas-Ft. Worth, Austin, and San Antonio residents prefer southern or western states for additional vacation travel while New York, Chicago, and Washington DC residents seek destinations clustered in the Northeast. Despite this polarization, both groups most often select Florida as a place they have visited and/or want to visit in the future.

San Antonio Generally Leads Competitors in Image and Attribute Rankings

Preference for Houston depends on visitation. Past year overnight leisure travelers prefer Houston on most destination attributes. However, travelers as a whole more often choose San Antonio when comparing Texas metropolitan areas. San Antonio excels (over Houston and other competitors) on attributes ranked as most important in a travel destination including good value for the money, friendly/welcoming, reasonable costs, explore/sightsee, good service, and lots to see/do. Travelers view Houston as stronger competitor for urban activities, notably variety of dining options and cultural/ performing arts. Houston also gets high marks for handicap accessibility.

Opinion ratings of Houston remain positive, but trail other Texas cities. The majority of visitors perceive Houston positively in most ratings, with consistently higher ratings than last year: overall opinion (56% from 49%), value for the money (63%; 60%), experience in Houston (72%; 69%), likely to return (71%; 69%), and a place to recommend (65%; 64%). However, San Antonio and Austin lead on all of these measures.

Competitive Standing


©TNS 2012

12

Advertising awareness directly relates to distance from Houston and past visitation

In Texas, Houston’s unaided ad awareness trails San Antonio. San Antonio leads in overall unaided ad awareness (26%), above all other Texas cities in the study (Houston 15%, DFW at 10%, and Austin 10%). Past year visitors (20%) and Houston residents (20%) most often remember a Houston ad.

Among the GHCVB ads, overall awareness increases from last year. Building on similar campaigns from prior years, ad recognition climbs from last year with both mediums gaining substantially: Print (20% from 12%) and TV (31% from 25%). Combined, more than one in three remembers at least one ad (36% from 29% in 2011, 23% in 2010, and 19% in 2009).

Print ads ratings climb. Not only does “My Houston” gain in awareness, but it gains on the impression of Houston and, especially, likeability.

“Houston is” pulls very strong ratings. Boding well for the next campaign, “Houston is,” gets even higher marks for likeability, ability to influence future vacations, and viewers consider it very believable. Members of all groups (consistently 4 out of 5) clearly associate the ad with cultural events and sites.

The three TV commercials generate very positive reactions. Although the Jim Parsons commercial leads the other two ads, the differences are small and the perceptions are strong, especially for likeability of the ads – which supports the steady increase in awareness noted above.

Advertising effectiveness for Houston. Advertising generates about one out nine (11%) visits to Houston – not counting the effect from any online advertising.

Advertising Awareness


©TNS 2012

13

GHCVB’s attention to the core visitor succeeds:

The core visitor/target market reacts to the ads similarly to all Houston visitors. Their recognition of the ads (37%) nearly matches that of all Houston visitors (36%) and they are about equally likely to visit because of the positive impact of the ads (12% vs. 11%).

However, they consistently, and often strongly, view GHCVB ads more positively than others. Regardless of ad campaign (“My Houston,” “Houston is,” Jim Parsons, ZZ Top, or Lyle Lovett), the core visitor ALWAYS views it more positively. Their impression of Houston places 5 to 15 points higher (depending upon ad), the likeability of the ad 4 to 12 points higher, and the ability to influence future visits 1 to 15 points higher.

Further, the impact of the ads on them, regarding Houston, improves more than others. Positive reactions to the ads (seeking more information, deciding to visit, lengthening stay/adding attractions) jumps by more than a third between the core visitor and non-core visitor (25% positive reaction vs. 18%).

TV builds the strongest effect. The core visitor’s awareness of Houston’s advertising (unaided) by TV dwarfs that of the non-core visitor (85% vs. 52%); however, the non-core visitor more often remembers print and online ads, but at a much lower level.

Almost everyone (core and non-core visitor) watches TV daily. The key differences are that more non-core visitors read (especially newspapers) while more core visitors connect to social media.

Comedies top the list among core visitors. Far fewer non-core visitors watch them (55% vs. 76%).

Target Market (Core Visitor: Females 35-55)


©TNS 2012

14

Greater Houston CVB Website – Value Still Key

Destination website users look for deals. Travelers choose savings/value as the top desired feature in a travel destination website while “save money” ranks 18th out of 22 statements about the GHCVB website evaluations by its users. Although it moves up a couple of places (from 20th last year), Houston still has an opportunity to improve already high satisfaction by making savings/value a stronger element.

Online connections compete with TV. Just as many people now connect to the Internet daily (82%) as watch TV (80%), underscoring a shift toward continuous connectivity; radio ranks third (62%). While daily contact via social media lags weekly magazine readership, it ranks very high (51% daily) for the target market/core group (female visitors 35-55).

Media: When. “Prime time” is still prime time –viewing peaks, by a wide margin, between 6 and 10 pm – whether broadcast or cable TV, and although not nearly as ubiquitous, YouTube and Internet broadcasts.

Media: What. News and dramas lead other viewing choices – except for the core market. That group prefers comedies to everything else – a topic that ranks much lower (fifth) among the non-core market.

Houston Generates Good and Improving Levels of Satisfaction

Partially recovering from last year’s dip, 60% (overall) claim satisfaction with their Houston visit. By group, Houston residents’ satisfaction drops from last year (67% from 82%), but still exceeds the level noted by other Texans (53%). Satisfied visitors help build strong word-of-mouth “advertising” that every destination needs to supplement their advertising campaigns.

The Website, Media Choices, and Satisfaction


©TNS 2012

15

Houston Draws The Business Traveler. As companies continue to find alternatives to face-to-face meetings, company travel budgets will continue to decrease. Houston will need to counter this trend by remaining attractive to business travelers, but also by spurring greater interest as a leisure destination as well. Key images to underscore in promoting Houston include its value (a key concern among travelers) and urban appeal. As noted by comments from respondents – the ads make some of them want to give Houston a try.

Houston Leisure Travel Potentially More Lucrative. With more than half (57%) of Houston overnighters currently opting to stay in a hotel, Houston already succeeds in encouraging guests to use paid accommodations. However, finding ways to encourage these travelers to stay more days in the city could add to tourism spending – especially if hotels can capture more of those visiting friends and family.

Tough Economy Impacts Tourism. In the past, Houston was slower to rebound than other areas, but posts a more robust recovery in 2011 than either the US or the state of Texas. Emphasis on Houston as a culturally diverse, family-friendly, cosmopolitan city near the gulf can attract more overnight leisure visitors and strong advertising (continuously improving) will help the city become more competitive.

Messaging. Promoting hotels’ affordability, relaxation value, avoidance of being an intrusive houseguest, and easy access to Houston’s cosmopolitan dining/entertainment could entice travelers to choose paid accommodations.

Media. Most people view television (80%) and Internet sites (82%) daily, with vast messaging potential and both of these can target the core market (females 35-55); the core market also has an affinity for social media that will likely continue to expand.

Assessment


Appendix I. Profile From TravelsAmerica Syndicated Survey

©TNS 2012

Volume of visitorsMarket Overview (Person Trips): Compared to the prior year, 2011 person-trips gain in the overall US ( +4%), Texas (nearly stable),

and especially in Houston (+21%; to 11 million). Houston’s gain in Quarter 2 includes the recovery from 2010’s substantial dip, more in line (and

improving) with earlier years.

Q4a. Please indicate the US state(s) visited (Person Trips - proj.) (day or overnight trip)

Q4d. Please indicate the US cities(s) visited (Person Trips - proj.) (day or overnight trip)

US, Non-Texas 871,714,000 US, Non-Texas

506,332,000US, Non-Texas

344,539,000

Type of Person Trips (Visitors)

CY 2006 CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 CY 20112011 - 2010 % Change

Total US 1,084,344,000 1,233,242,000 938,563,000 852,967,000 913,318,000 951,419,000 +4%

Total Texas 80,625,000 76,424,000 66,849,000 60,409,000 63,318,000 63,593,000 +0.4%

Total Houston 12,087,000 12,661,000 9,488,000 9,812,000 9,010,0000 10,908,000 +21%

Q1 2,838,000 2,994,000 2,302,000 2,283,000 2,062,000 2,167,000 +5%

Q2 2,793,000 2,787,000 2,649,000 2,706,000 2,075,000 3,187,000 +54%

Q3 3,109,000 3,218,000 2,310,000 1,977,000 2,488,000 3,120,000 +25%

Q4 3,348,000 3,661,000 2,227,000 2,847,000 2,385,000 2,434,000 +2%

17

©TNS 2012

18

Visitor types

2009 2010 20115% 6% 6%5% 5% 3%

61% 60%55%

12% 12%13%

16% 16%18%

2% 2%4%

Bz Day

Bz O/N

Ls Day

LS O/N

PB* Day

PB* O/N

Houston VISITORS by TYPEBase: Houston Visitors

PB*: Personal Business/Other

Total: Day 20%; Overnight 80%Leisure: Day 19%; Overnight 81%

Q1b. Please select the primary purpose for trips . . . (demo wtd; trip level)

Leisure = 68%Leisure = 73% Leisure = 71%

Day/Overnight Varies by Type of Trip: Trips of 50+ miles typically involve an overnight stay for both Business and Leisure trips Houston hosts far more leisure than business visitors, but business climbs from last year.

©TNS 2012

19

Trip purpose/visitor source

Trip/Visitor Characteristics% of Visitors to State

TYPE OF TRIPBase: Visitors to Houston; Texas; US

LOCATION OF RESIDENCEBase: Visitors to Houston

Q1b. Which of the following was the PRIMARY purpose of trip to . . . (Household Trip Level – demo wtd, not adjusted for travel party size)

Panel: Residence of visitors (Household Level)

2009 All Trips

2009 Trips to Texas

2009 Trips to Houston

2010 All Trips

2010 Trips to Texas


2011 All Trips

2011 Trips to Texas


13%

16%

18%

13%

16%

18%

12%

16%

23%

8%

7%

10%

8%

10%

10%

9%

10%

9%

79%

76%

73%

79%

74%

71%

79%

74%

68%

Business Personal Business/Other Leisure

2009 2010 2011

42% 41%38%

58% 59%62%

Non-Texas Resident Texas Resident

Overall: Two-thirds (68%) of Houston visitors primarily travel there for leisure, but Houston hosts a larger

share of business travelers than average Texas or US cities More than half (62%) of Houston visitors live in Texas – consistent with the past.

©TNS 2012

Visitor source by state/DMAProximity Counts: Most visitors (62%) live in Texas Nearby states and Texas DMAs contribute heavily to Houston’s visitor count.

Source of Visitors: Top States (1%+)

Base: Visited Houston% of Visitors Residing in . . .

Panel: State/DMA residence of those who visited Houston (Household Level)

Source of Visitors: Top DMAs (2%+)

Base: Visited Houston% of Visitors Residing in . . .

Indiana

Colorado

Mississippi

Georgia

Arkansas

California

Oklahoma

Florida

Louisiana

Texas

1%

2%

2%

1%

2%

4%

2%

2%

9%

59%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

4%

6%

62%

1%

0%

0%

4%

2%

2%

8%

58%

CY 2011

CY 2010

CY 2009

Lafayette, LA

Oklahoma City

Shreveport

New Orleans

Tyler-Longview

Corpus Christi

Beaumont-Port Arthur

San Antonio

Waco-Temple-Bryan

Austin

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Houston

2%

1%

2%

1%

5%

5%

3%

8%

15%

16%

2%

1%

1%

3%

1%

1%

5%

6%

5%

9%

10%

17%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

4%

4%

5%

8%

14%

21%

20

©TNS 2012

21

Destinations: Houston visitation

NON-TEXAS RESIDENTNON-TEXAS RESIDENTTEXAS (Non-Houston) RESIDENTTEXAS (Non-Houston) RESIDENT

Visitation Patterns for Houston – Household Level, All Travelers

Q8a: Please indicate US cities visited for leisure in past three years. Q8b. Please indicate cities visited within the past 12 months. Q8c: Which US cities plan to visit within the next two years for leisure? (Household Level)

Plan to Visit Houston Within 24 Months

Visit Houston Past 12 Months

Visit Houston Past 3 Years

13%

20%

32%

10%

16%

22%

11%

18%

24%

CY 2011

CY 2010

CY 20092%

1%

4%

2%

1%

2%

2%

1%

2%

A Different Viewpoint – How Many Texans and Non-Texans Visit Houston: Slightly improved from last year, Texans (non-Houston residents) still tend to travel elsewhere

(other than Houston) for vacations Typical of most destinations, Houston draws over half of its visitors from within the state (62%,

shown earlier). Living farther away and having many destinations from which to choose, only a few Non-Texans (2%) visited Houston in the past three years.

©TNS 2012

22

Visitor demographicsHouston Visitors Resemble Visitors to Other Areas, With a Few Variations: Houston visitors report similar incomes to both overall US and Texas travelers; however, those living in

New York, Chicago, or Washington, DC continue to claim higher earnings

Overall household composition for Houston visitors often (45%) includes three or more people in the household – similar to overall US travelers – thus, the family market is important for Houston

Ethnicity comparisons continue to show a comparatively larger proportion of African-Americans among Houston’s visitors.

Panel: Age, Income, Children, Ethnicity. (Household Level – demo wtd)

CY 2011Demographics

All Travelers Texas VisitorsHouston Visitors

Houston Visitor & Houston Resident

Houston Visitor & DFW/Austin/San Antonio Resident

Houston Visitor & NY/Chicago/DC

Resident*

Average Age 47 46 44 41 44 45

Average Hhld Income $71,700 $70,700 $73,400 $74,600 $74,300 $105,800

% Male 36% 37% 36% 41% 30% 39%

% Married 60% 61% 63% 57% 64% 50%

Household Composition

% One Person 22% 20% 19% 24% 19% 28%

% Two People 35 37 36 24 32 37

% Three or More 44 43 45 52 49 34

Ethnicity

% Caucasian 85% 84% 76% 81% 73% 71%

% Spanish Origin 5 10 11 11 15 -

% African-American 7 7 10 8 10 22

*Very small sample (12); treat as qualitative only

©TNS 2012

23

Visitor demographics


CY 2010Demographics





Resident*

Average Age 47 46 45 45 44 50


% Male 38% 40% 36% 36% 39% 70%

% Married 58% 61% 60% 56% 60% 85%


% One Person 22% 21% 23% 19% 26% 7%

% Two People 35 34 33 37 29 59

% Three or More 43 45 44 44 45 34

Ethnicity

% Caucasian 86% 85% 81% 85% 76% 87%

% Spanish Origin 4 8 9 8 12 -


*Very small sample (12); treat as qualitative only

Prior year data provided for ease of comparison

©TNS 2012

Visitor demographics

CY 2009Demographics





Resident*

Average Age 46 46 44 46 43 48


% Male 39% 41% 39% 44% 39% 25%

% Married 59 63 60 47 69 46


% One Person 22% 19% 24% 31% 20% 37%

% Two People 35 36 34 30 33 34

% Three or More 44 45 43 39 47 30

Ethnicity

% Caucasian 85% 86% 79% 80% 73% 82%

% Spanish Origin 4 8 7 8 8 0


*Very small sample; treat as qualitative only

2009 data provided for ease of comparison


24

©TNS 2012

25

26% 31% 35% 40% 33% 40%

41% 36% 36% 39%39% 31%

33% 33% 28% 21% 28% 29%55+

35 - 54

Under 35

26% 30% 30% 32% 32% 23%

43% 40% 43% 35% 45% 50%

31% 30% 27% 33% 23% 27%55+

35 - 54

Under 35

Visitor age distribution

Houston consistently draws slightly fewer older visitors than other destinations.

Age of Visitor

QD. How old are you . . . (Respondent Level, demo weighted)

CY 2010CY 2010

CY 2009CY 2009

CY 2011CY 2011

25% 29% 29% 31% 29% 15%

42% 40% 41% 34% 44%46%

33% 32% 30% 36% 27% 39% 55+

35 - 54

Under 35

US Travelers Texas Visitors Houston Visitors Houston Visitor & Houston Resident

Houston Visitor & DFW/San

Antonio/Austin Resident


Resident*

*Very small sample (12 in CY 2011); treat as qualitative only

©TNS 2012

26

Trip planning: timingLogical Patterns Occur for Trip Planning: With fewer travel considerations (such as lodging or number of meals), day-trip visitors to

Houston as well as Houston residents have the freedom to be much more spontaneous – much more likely to consider and decide within two weeks of the trip than others

Overnight leisure travelers take more time to plan a trip than overnight business travelers.

Q4i. Please indicate how far in advance you considered traveling to . . . // Decided to visit . . . (State Level-demo wtd)

CY 2011Trip Planning (Time Before Visit)

All US Travelers

Houston Visitors

Total

Houston Visitors Ls Overnight

Houston Visitors Ls Day Trip

Houston Visitors Bz Overnight

Houston Visitors & Houston

Residents

Houston Visitor & DFW/Austin/

San Antonio Resident

Houston Visitor &

NY/Chicago/DC Resident*

Considered

Within Two Weeks 33% 33% 24% 52% 30% 58% 23% - -

2 – 4 Weeks 14 18 21 10 21 15 28 7

1 – 3 Months 20 19 18 18 29 11 26 20

3+ Months 34 30 38 20 20 16 22 73

Decided

Within Two Weeks 41% 43% 37% 63% 34% 69% 36% - -

2 – 4 Weeks 16 17 18 10 20 14 26 10

1 – 3 Months 19 20 20 16 31 6 23 34

3+ Months 25 20 25 11 16 11 16 57

* Very small sample; treat as qualitative only

©TNS 2012

27

Trip planning: timing



All Travelers

Houston Visitors

Total





Residents




Resident*

Considered

Within Two Weeks

32% 34% 23% 55% 38% 60% 30% 9%

2 – 4 Weeks 14 13 15 5 14 6 16 22

1 – 3 Months 20 22 24 19 25 15 26 15

3+ Months 34 31 39 22 23 20 28 55

Decided

Within Two Weeks

40% 43% 34% 63% 42% 67% 40% 9%

2 – 4 Weeks 15 16 18 11 15 14 17 22

1 – 3 Months 20 18 20 14 25 3 24 31

3+ Months 26 23 29 13 18 15 19 39



©TNS 2012

Trip planning: timing



All TravelersHouston Visitors

Total





Residents




Resident*

Considered

Within Two Weeks

32% 34% 24% 68% 35% 54% 35% 27%

2 – 4 Weeks 14 15 14 6 26 12 20 24

1 – 3 Months 20 24 28 12 19 17 23 13

3+ Months 34 27 35 15 20 17 23 37

Decided

Within Two Weeks

41% 42% 33% 74% 42% 62% 44% 27%

2 – 4 Weeks 15 17 17 9 25 13 19 24

1 – 3 Months 19 20 24 7 17 13 20 21

3+ Months 25 21 27 11 16 13 17 28



28

©TNS 2012

29

Trip Planning Sources:

Generally similar to overall US travelers, Houston visitors are less likely to rely on offline sources of information.

Trip planning: sources of information

Information Sources to Plan a TripRanked by All Sources (4%+)

Q4j. What sources did you use in planning your trip to . . . (State Level – demo wtd)

NET OFFLINE Own Experience Friends/ Relat-ives

NET ONLINE Destination Website

Travel Provider (airline etc.)

Online Full Ser-vice (Expedia et

al)

Social Comm'l Networking

NO PLANS MADE

SOMEONE ELSE MADE

PLANS

50%

28%19%

27%

10% 10% 8%

31%

8%

51%

29%20%

26%

9% 9% 7%

30%

9%

49%

28%19%

24%

9% 8% 7% 5%

32%

10%

All US Travelers - CY 2009 All US Travelers - CY 2010 All US Travelers - CY 2011

NET OFFLINE Own Experience Friends/ Relat-ives


Travel Provider (airline etc.)

Online Full Ser-vice (Expedia et

al)

Social Comm'l Networking

NO PLANS MADE

SOMEONE ELSE MADE

PLANS

45%

26%20%

30%

8%13% 9%

32%

8%

48%

27%21% 25%

7% 9% 8%

31%

11%

41%

24%18% 22%

5% 8% 7% 4%

35%

13%

Houston Visitors - CY 2009 Houston Visitors - CY 2010 Houston Visitors - CY 2011

©TNS 2012

30

Trip bookingTrip Booking Methods:

Travelers, including Houston visitors, place greater emphasis on online than offline channels, especially travel provider websites.

Method Used to Book Trip Components Ranked by All Sources (5%+)

Q4k. Please indicate the method(s) you used to book your trip . . . (State Level – demo wtd)

NET OFFLINE Direct w/ Dest./ Attraction

Direct w/ Travel Provider

Corporate Travel Dept.


Travel Provider Website

Online Full Service (Ex-pedia et al)

Someone Else Booked

No Bookings Made

38%

13% 11% 6%

52%

11%21%

15% 19%

53%

38%

13% 12%6%

49%

11%20% 15% 20%

53%

37%

13% 11% 6%

49%

11%19% 14%

21%

54%

All US Travelers - CY 2009 All US Travelers - CY 2010 All US Travelers - CY 2011

NET OFFLINE Direct w/ Dest./ Attraction

Direct w/ Travel Provider

Corporate Travel Dept.


Travel Provider Website

Online Full Service (Ex-pedia et al)

Someone Else Booked

No Bookings Made

25%

5% 8% 7%

65%

7%

28%21% 17%

52%

29%

7% 12% 6%

56%

8%19% 19% 22%

51%

32%

6% 9% 10%

50%

8%20% 15%

26%

56%

Houston Visitors - CY 2009 Houston Visitors - CY 2010 Houston Visitors - CY 2011

©TNS 2012

Trip characteristics: purpose & transportationMost Visitors Come to Houston to Play

Houston attracts fewer leisure visitors than average (68% vs. 79% all US travelers), with more of them there primarily to visit friends/relatives (49% vs. 42%) and fewer for entertainment or recreation than a year ago.

Q1b: Which was the primary purpose of trip? Q2b: Which was the primary mode of transportation? (Trip Level – demo wtd)

CY 2011 All Travelers

Houston Visitors Total



Houston Visitors Bz Overnight*\


Residents



Houston Visitor & NY/Chi/DC

Resident*

PRIMARY TRIP PURPOSE

NET Leisure/Personal 79% 68% 100% 100% - - 70% 75% 47%

Visit Friends/ Relatives 42 49 76 58 - - 49 58 31

Entertainment/Sightsee 13 8 10 14 - - 5 6 15

Outdoor Recreation 7 2 3 6 - - 4 4 - -

NET Business 12 23 - - - - 100 19 20 37

Personal Bs/Other 9 9 - - - - - - 12 5 16

PRIMARY MODE

% Own Auto/Truck 74% 71% 75% 92% 41% 92% 83% 17%

% Air Travel 15 18 15 1 43 3 5 72

% Rental Car 4 4 4 3 7 0 6 8

% Other 3 3 1 2 8 2 5 -


31

©TNS 2012

32

Trip characteristics: purpose & transportation


CY 2010 All Travelers






Residents



Houston Visitor & NY/Chi/DC

Resident*


NET Leisure/Personal 79% 71% 100% 100% -- 75% 73% 52%

Visit Friends/ Relatives 41 52 77 51 -- 44 56 41

Entertainment/Sightsee 13 7 9 17 -- 13 4 12

Outdoor Recreation 7 2 2 5 -- 5 2 --

NET Business 13 18 -- -- 100 9 19 41

Personal Bs/Other 6 8 -- -- -- 14 5 --

PRIMARY MODE

% Own Auto/Truck 72% 67% 72% 89% 28% 89% 86% 15%

% Air Travel 17 23 20 3 57 4 4 80

% Rental Car 4 5 5 1 8 3 7 --

% Other 3 3 1 7 3 2 3 --



©TNS 2012

Trip characteristics: purpose & transportation


CY 2009All

TravelersHouston

Visitors Total





Residents


Houston Visitor &

NY/Chicago/ DC Resident*


NET Leisure/Personal 79% 73% 100% 100% -- 77% 76% 37%

Visit Friends/Relatives 42 51 73 60 -- 49 54 31

Entertainment/Sightsee 13 8 9 20 -- 11 5 4

Outdoor Recreation 7 2 3 1 -- 1 4 --

NET Business 13 18 -- -- 100% 6 16 56

Personal Bs/Other 8 10 -- -- -- 17 7 7

PRIMARY MODE

% Own Auto/Truck 71% 65% 65% 97% 27% 90% 87% 11%

% Air Travel 18 24 23 1 57 4 6 72

% Rental Car 4 5 5 -- 9 2 3 9

% Other 8 6 7 2 7 4 4 9



33

©TNS 2012

34

Most Trips Include an Overnight Stay:

Houston continues to draw a larger share overnight visitors than other US or Texas visitors.

Trip characteristics: day/overnight

DAY/OVERNIGHT TRIPS% of Trips to Area

Base: Trips to Houston; Texas; Total US

Q4e. Please specify which visits included at least one overnight stay . . . (State/Area Level-demo wtd)

CY 2011CY 2011

CY 2009CY 2009

CY 2010CY 2010

All US Trips LEISURE Trips - US

BUSINESS Trips - US

Total Trips to Texas

LEISURE Trips to Texas

BUSINESS Trips to Texas

Total Trips to Houston

LEISURE Trips to Hous-

ton

BUSINESS Trips to Hous-

ton

31% 30% 28% 29% 26% 28% 24% 24% 24%

69% 70% 72% 71% 74% 72% 76% 76% 77%

Overnight Trip

Day Trip

29% 28% 25% 28% 26% 21% 23% 20% 19%

71% 72% 75% 72% 74% 79% 77% 80% 81%

Overnight Trip

Day Trip

29% 28% 25% 25% 25% 20% 22% 20% 14%

71% 72% 76% 75% 75% 80% 78% 80% 86%Overnight Trip

Day Trip

©TNS 2012

Trip characteristics: lodging and length of stay

Q4f: Please specify the number of nights stayed at each listed accommodation. (State Level – demo wtd)

LODGING All

Travelers

Houston Visitors

Total





Residents



Resident*

CY 2011AVG # NIGHTS (if any) 3.3 3.8 3.5 -- 4.0 2.7 2.6 4.1

Private Home 1.5 2.0 2.4 -- 0.6 2.0 1.7 1.8

Hotel/Motel 1.2 1.3 0.8 -- 2.9 0.6 0.7 1.4

All Other 0.6 0.5 0.3 -- 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.9


Private Home 1.5 1.7 2.0 -- 0.4 0.9 1.5 2.2

Hotel/Motel 1.2 1.3 0.9 -- 2.8 1.1 1.0 2.9

All Other 0.7 0.4 0.4 -- 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0


Private Home 1.6 2.1 2.6 -- 0.6 2.2 1.4 2.3

Hotel/Motel 1.2 1.2 0.8 -- 2.7 0.6 0.7 1.5

All Other 0.6 0.3 0.3 -- 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2

** Very small sample; treat as qualitative only

Most Visitors Spend a Few Days in Houston: Business travelers stay in hotels (73% of nights) at three times the rate of leisure travelers (23%) Houston residents have the shortest stays (2.7 nights) – many probably opting for short getaways Reversing last year’s dip, length of stay climbs for overall Houston visitors.

35

©TNS 2012

36

Trip characteristics: travel partyTravel companions vary by purpose of the trip: Over a third of Houston’s leisure visitors travel with children (33%) Most arrive in pairs, both day (38%) and overnight (40%) Business travelers usually travel solo (64%, not shown), seldom with children (3%).

Q3a/b: Please indicate number of travel party members (including yourself) under 18 and 18+. (Trip Level-demo wtd)

Trip Characteristics (Trip Level)

All US Travelers


Houston Ls Visitors

Houston Ls Visitors –Overnight

Houston Ls Visitors – Day

Trip

Houston Bz Visitors – Total

CY 2011AVERAGE # IN TRAVEL PARTY (Q3a) 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.9 2.3

% Travel in Pairs 39% 36% 40% 40% 38% 21%

% Traveling with Children 26 25 33 33 36 3

Avg. # of Children on Trip (if any) 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 4.2

Average # in Travel Party in Household 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.3 1.2

CY 2010

AVERAGE # IN TRAVEL PARTY (Q3a) 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.8 3.1

% Travel in Pairs 38% 34% 37% 37% 38% 14%




CY 2009AVERAGE # IN TRAVEL PARTY (Q3a) 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.6

% Travel in Pairs 38% 35% 38% 37% 41% 15%




©TNS 2012

Trip characteristics: vacation activities/attractions

Activities Participated/Attractions Visited% Participated/Visited – Ranked by Houston Visitors (Activities with 2% or fewer for Houston not shown)

Q4h. When you visited (state) during trip/month, please check all of the following activities did/attractions visited. (State Level-demo wtd)

Top Vacation Activities/Attractions:Compared to total US travelers, Houston visitors more often visit for social engagements -- visiting relatives and friends capture two of the top three spots. Urban highlights such as shopping, fine dining, and urban sightseeing round out the most popular activities while more outdoorsy options (rural sightseeing, beaches, and State/National Park) lag the national average.

UrbanSightseeing

Museums

FineDining

Shopping

VisitingFriends

VisitingRelatives

9%

7%

13%

18%

16%

28%

9%

7%

13%

18%

16%

27%

9%

7%

13%

18%

16%

27%

9%

7%

12%

19%

21%

39%

10%

7%

12%

17%

21%

34%

7%

7%

10%

14%

18%

34%

Nightclubs/ Dancing

Theme Park

Family Reunion

Zoos

Historic Sites/ Churches

RuralSightseeing

Beach

4%

4%

3%

2%

8%

12%

10%

4%

4%

3%

2%

7%

12%

11%

4%

4%

3%

2%

7%

11%

11%

4%

4%

3%

4%

5%

6%

8%

6%

3%

4%

4%

5%

7%

6%

3%

4%

4%

5%

5%

6%

7%

Gardens

State/ National Park

Major Sports Event

Art Galleries

Wildlife Viewing

Fishing (fresh or saltwater)

Old Homes/ Mansions

3%

7%

2%

3%

5%

0%

0%

3%

7%

2%

3%

5%

3%

3%

3%

6%

2%

3%

5%

3%

3%

2%

4%

3%

1%

2%

0%

0%

3%

4%

2%

2%

3%

1%

2%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

37

Series1

Houston Visitors - CY 2011



All Travelers - CY 2011



©TNS 2012

Trip characteristics: expenditures by type of travel

Note: Transportation includes parking/tolls. Food includes food/beverage/dining/groceries. Entertainment includes gaming. Other includes amenities/other.

Average Spending in Houston by Trip Type Total Spending by Travel Party (Total Spending, including 0)

Total VisitorsTotal Visitors

Q4g. Please indicate the total dollar amount spent by your travel party (all) in Texas (Houston) for . . . (State Level-demo wtd)

Leisure TotalLeisure Total

Business TotalBusiness Total

Leisure OvernightLeisure Overnight

Leisure DayLeisure Day

Business OvernightBusiness Overnight

SpendingCY 2009 CY 2010

$492 $432

$398 $368

$821 $713

$448 $435

$196 $110

$932 $843

Value of Visitors by Type of Trip: Overnight LEISURE visitors spend 2½ times as much as day-trip visitors ($498 vs. $205) Usually staying in hotels, business travelers spend much more than leisure visitors ($756 vs. $428) Recovering from last year’s dip, all Houston visitor groups spend more than last year.

CY 2011 ($933)

CY 2011 ($205)

CY 2011 ($498)

CY 2011 ($756)

CY 2011 ($428)

CY 2011 ($498)

36%

45%

39%

39%

40%

39%

17%

39%

21%

16%

23%

22%

4%

8%

9%

4%

9%

6%

0.415862808145768

0.15863453815261

0.392857142857144

0.14018691588785

0.234939759036145

1%

7%

9%

1%

8%

6%

1%

6%

1%

5%

4%

Transportation Food Entertainment Lodging Shopping Other

38

©TNS 2012

Destinations: competitive statesSouthern State Destinations Compete with Houston:

Houston visitors who live in Texas usually choose other southern or western states for additional vacation travel; conversely, Houston visitors who live in New York, Chicago, or Washington DC tend to travel further North or to Florida.

Other States Visited/Planned by Houston Visitors (Key Competitors)% Visiting State/DMA Past Three Years (Ranking), Past Year, Planned Next Two Years

Top States: DFW/Austin/San Antonio Residents Base: Visited Houston

Top States: NY/Chicago/DC Residents* Base: Visited Houston

Q7a: Please indicate US states visited for leisure in past three years. Q7b. Please indicate states visited within the past 12 months. Q7c: Which US states plan to visit within the next two years for leisure? (Household Level) *Caution: Very small base

Georgia

Missouri

Tennessee

Colorado

Illinois

Arkansas

New York

California

Oklahoma

Louisiana

Florida

6%

5%

6%

15%

6%

7%

13%

21%

8%

13%

16%

5%

7%

2%

6%

7%

5%

9%

9%

10%

17%

15%

11%

11%

12%

12%

14%

14%

16%

19%

21%

24%

28%

Past 3 Years

Past Year

Plan Next 2 Years

Illinois

Virginia

California

Colorado

Missouri

Michigan

Washington D.C

Massachusetts

New Jersey

New York

Florida

0%

0%

20%

11%

0%

13%

0%

24%

8%

22%

17%

18%

19%

20%

8%

13%

18%

19%

6%

32%

22%

36%

18%

19%

20%

20%

22%

25%

26%

30%

43%

43%

53%

39

©TNS 2012

Destinations: competitive citiesOther Texas Cities Attract Houston Visitors: Houston visitors within Texas often visit other Texas destinations (Dallas/Ft. Worth and San Antonio).

Other Areas Visited/Planned by Houston Visitors (Key Competitors)% Visiting State/DMA Past Three Years (Ranking), Past Year, Planned Next Two Years

Q8a: Please indicate US cities visited for leisure in past three years. Q8b. Please indicate cities visited within the past 12 months (too few to show on NY/Chicago/DC chart) Q8c: Which US cities plan to visit within the next two years for leisure? (Household Level)

Top Cities: DFW/Austin/San Antonio Residents Base: Visited Houston

Top Cities: NY/Chicago/DC Residents* Base: Visited Houston

*Caution: Very small base

Atlanta

Phoenix

San Diego

Las Vegas

Chicago

Miami Area

New York City

Los Angeles Area

Orlando Area

New Orleans

San Antonio

Dallas/Ft. Worth

8%

9%

8%

10%

6%

5%

11%

8%

9%

7%

24%

16%

4%

1%

7%

6%

9%

6%

10%

8%

4%

9%

22%

29%

3%

4%

9%

11%

11%

12%

12%

12%

14%

16%

38%

38%

Past 3 Years

Past Year

Plan Next 2 Years

St. Louis

Kansas City, MO

Chicago

Washington, DC

Tampa

Los Angeles Area

Denver Area

Miami Area

Atlantic City

Orlando Area

Boston Area

New York City

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

20%

11%

0%

0%

11%

24%

22%

13%

13%

13%

13%

16%

20%

8%

21%

11%

29%

16%

43%

13%

13%

13%

13%

16%

20%

20%

21%

22%

29%

30%

43%

40

©TNS 2012

Satisfaction: Houston by residenceOverall Satisfaction with Houston: Houston satisfies more than four out of five (85%) visitors, similar to the prior two years In total, few visitors (2% - 4%) express displeasure with Houston, but NY/Chicago/DC residents seem

stingier with higher levels of praise (extremely/very satisfied), especially in CY 2010.

Satisfaction with Houston Visit By Group (Base)

Q4l: Using a scale of 1-5 (5=extremely satisfied), please indicate satisfaction with Houston. (State Level-demo wtd.)

SomewhatNot Pleased Very Extremely

* Very small sample; treat as qualitative onlyNote: Not pleased includes Not At All and Not Very Pleased

NET Top Two

85%

87%

75%

84%

87%

69%

86%

88%

86%

Total Houston Visitors

DFW/Austin/San Antonio Residents

NY/Chicago/DC Residents*







CY 2011

CY 2009

CY 2010

10%

9%

12%

31%

10%

14%

25%

10%

13%

4%

3%

2%

3%

2%

4%

2%

56%

47%

42%

41%

46%

41%

56%

41%

39%

30%

41%

44%

28%

42%

43%

20%

46%

46%

41

Appendix IIa. Opinions About Houston and Competitors from Follow-up Survey

©TNS 2012

43

DemographicsCharacteristics vary slightly by residence:

Non-Texas residents continue to report higher income and education levels than Texas residents

Houston residents continue to have a slightly higher share of African-Americans while slightly more non-Houston Texas residents claim Spanish heritage, especially in 2009 and 2010.

QA. What is your age? // QB. Are you . . . (male/female) // Panel: Income, Education, Marital Status, Ethnicity.

2011 SurveyAverage Age 53 52 53 53 51 52Average Hhld Income $67,800 $71,200 $72,800 $64,900 $77,000 $66,800% Male 34% 34% 32% 34% 35% 34%% Married 65 65 66 65 64 65% College Grads+ (Males) 32 37 33 31 41 35Ethnicity

% Caucasian 86% 81% 82% 87% 84% 74%% Spanish Origin 6 5 6 7 5 4% African-American 8 11 11 6 9 17

2010 SurveyAverage Age 53 52 52 53 52 50Average Hhld Income $68,300 $73,000 $72,600 $63,100 $81,700 $72,800% Male 34% 38% 34% 33% 38% 35%% Married 64 66 64 64 66 66% College Grads+ (Males) 35 39 36 32 46 38Ethnicity

% Caucasian 86 82 82 87 87 75% Spanish Origin 6 8 5 8 3 11% African-American 8 9 10 7 8 17

2012 SurveyDemographics

All Travelers

Past Yr. O/N Leisure Visitors

Houston Residents

Other Texas Residents

Non-Texas Residents

Website Visitor

Average Age 55 54 55 55 54 52Average Hhld Income $72,258 $77,111 $73,077 $68,910 $83,100 $69,238

% Male 34% 38% 34% 33% 36% 37%

% Married 64 66 61 65 69 56

% College Grads+ (Males) 35 45 32 34 51 33Ethnicity

% Caucasian 87% 84% 85% 89% 83% 77%

% Spanish Origin 5 6 6 6 1 10


©TNS 2012

44

38%

20%

6%7%

2%

28%32%

24%8%

8%

2%

27%

ResidenceCity of residency:

The majority of respondents (70%) live in one of the major Texas DMAs, similar to last year

More closely aligned with 2010 than 2011, more than a third live in Houston (38%)

The proportion outside of Texas remains relatively stable.

City of residence comes from TNS panel.

2010 Survey

24%

29%10%

9%

1%

27%

2011 Survey

HoustonDFWAustinSan AntonioNew York/ Chicago/ DC

Other

2012 Survey

©TNS 2012

45

Good Value for Money

Friendly/ Welcoming

Reasonable Costs of Hotels/

Meals

Explore/ Sight-see by Car

Good Service Lots to See/ Do Weather/ Climate

Access (Time/ Transp.)

Dining Variety Something for Everyone

History/ Culture Accurate Website

87%82% 82% 82% 81% 79% 77% 77% 73%

65% 62%55%

89%82% 81%

67%

81% 82% 78% 78% 76%

62% 62% 59%

90%85% 84%

68%

85% 86% 83% 80% 79%

67% 65%59%

90%83% 83% 84% 82% 84% 80% 81% 77%

66% 69%

56%

Attribute importanceImportant attributes when choosing a destination:Houston overnight leisure visitors rank destination attributes similar to other travelers; however: They give an edge to cosmopolitan features (culture/performing arts, diversity, and nightlife) Family/roots there also ranks higher for Houston overnight leisure visitors than others Explore/Sightsee by car posts the largest jump from a year ago.

Attribute Importance (% Top 2 Box)Ranked by Total

Q1a/b. Abridged: Using a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important) please rate the importance of each of the following attributes when selecting a destination.

Total 2012 PY O/N Leisure HV 2010* PY O/N Leisure HV 2011* PY O/N Leisure HV 2012*

Prefer for O/N Leisure

Family/ Children

Culture/ Per-forming Arts

Easy-to-Use Website

Culturally Diverse

Friend/ Relat-ive Recom-

mend

Good Reviews on Travel Websites

Nightlife/ Enter-tainment

Family/ Roots There

Access for Disabled

Alternate Lifestyles OK

Hip/ Fash-ionable

51% 45% 43% 41% 37% 36% 36% 33% 29% 26% 24% 19%

59%48% 44% 44% 41% 39% 38% 32% 28%

20% 24%17%

61%50% 45%

51%42% 42% 37% 35% 31%

22% 27%18%

59%47% 51% 47% 44% 43% 42% 42% 37%

25% 26% 24%

*PY O/N Leisure HV = Past Year Overnight Leisure Houston Visitor

©TNS 2012

46

Attribute importanceImportant attributes when choosing a destination:Regardless of geography, travelers tend to agree on the important aspects of a travel destination.

Attribute Importance (% Top 2 Box)Ranked by Total

Q1a/b. Abridged: Using a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important) please rate the importance of each of the following attributes when selecting a destination.


Friendly/ Welcoming

Reasonable Costs of Hotels/

Meals


Good Service Lots to See/ Do Weather/ Climate


Dining Variety Something for Everyone

History/ Culture Accurate Website

87% 82% 82% 80% 81% 77% 77% 79% 77%64% 62% 58%

87% 83% 82% 82% 80% 79% 77% 76% 70% 65% 62%54%

88%81% 80% 85% 84% 83%

76% 74% 74%64% 66%

50%

0% 0% 0%

Houston Residents Other TX Residents Non-TX Residents

Prefer for O/N Leisure

Family/ Children

Culture/ Per-forming Arts

Easy-to-Use Website

Culturally Diverse

Friend/ Relat-ive Recom-

mend


Nightlife/ Enter-tainment

Family/ Roots There

Access for Disabled


Hip/ Fash-ionable

51% 44% 44% 44% 37% 37% 36% 34%25% 29% 25% 22%

52% 46% 41% 41% 36% 35% 35% 32% 30% 25% 23% 17%

50% 48% 47%37% 42% 42% 43% 36% 38%

23% 22% 17%

©TNS 2012

Preference for Houston Ranked by Total Importance (top 2 box)

Q2a/b. For each of the attributes mentioned below, please select the destinations you prefer . . . % selecting each city.

Houston tends to place equal to or slightly above last year Houston receives the highest

marks on variety of dining options, lots to see/do, easy accessibility, and something for everyone

Travelers also recognize Houston for its culture/ performing arts and cultural diversity

The weakest scores occur for: the preferred place for overnight leisure vacations, friendliness to alternative lifestyles, and hip/fashionable.

Good Value for Money (87%)

Friendly/Welcoming (82%)

Reasonable Hotel/Meal Costs (82%)

Explore/Sight-see by Car (82%)

Good Service (81%)

Lots to See/Do (79%)

Whether/Climate (77%)

Easily Accessible (77%)

Variety of Dining Options (73%)

Something for Everyone (65%)

Experience History/Culture (62%)

Accurate Website (55%)

Prefer for O/N Leisure (51%)

Good for Family/Children (45%)

Culture/Performing Arts (43%)

Easy to Use Website (41%)

Culturally Diverse (37%)

Friends/Relatives Recommend (36%)

Good Reviews on Travel Websites (36%)

Good Nightlife/Entertainment (33%)

Family/Roots There (29%)

Accessible for Disabled (26%)

Friendly to Alternate Lifestyles (24%)

Hip/Fashionable (19%)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Houston 2012

Houston 2011

Houston 2010

47

©TNS 2012

48

Preference for each Texas city Ranked by Total Importance (top 2 box)


San Antonio excels on most attributes, including the most important ones, while travelers generally view Houston as comparable to other major Texas cities: Travelers rate Houston as the

leader among these five cities on variety of dining options, cultural/performing arts, family/roots there, and accessibility for disabled

Houston never ranks last.





Good Service (81%)



















Hip/Fashionable (19%) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Houston

DFW

Austin

San Antonio

New Orleans

©TNS 2012

Preference for Houston Ranked by Total Importance (top 2 box)


As expected, since a visit indicates strong interest almost by definition, those who visited Houston overnight for leisure in the past year tend to rank Houston very high on most attributes; Houston residents usually join them in the accolades:

In contrast, and consistent with results from last year, Non-Houston Texas residents tend to rank Houston lower than other groups

Houston residents make good advocates – consistently preferring Houston, especially for dining, accessibility, a place with something for everyone, friendly/welcoming, culture and performing arts, cultural diversity, and as a place good for family/children.





Good Service (81%)



















Hip/Fashionable (19%)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

All Travelers

Past Yr. O/N Ls Visitors

Houston Residents


Non-Texas Residents

49

©TNS 2012

50

Cities “good to visit” for non-resident visitorsEvaluating city of residence:A destination’s own residents can be its best ambassadors. Houston’s populace knows the city best, often scoring Houston above the average of other cities by their residents: Houston residents see their city as an active urban playground with strikingly above average scores for cultural

diversity, something for everyone, shopping, lots to see/do, culture/ performing arts, nightlife/entertainment, and hip/fashionable.

In contrast, Houston residents would not be as quick to recommend the city for a relaxing vacation or weather/climate.

Attribute Description of City by Residents (% Top 2 Box)Ranked by Houston Residents

Q3. Now, please think about the city where you live. Please rate how well each statement describes your city as a leisure destination for those who do not live there.

Dining Variety Friendly/ Welcoming

Family/ Children

Culturally Diverse

Good Service Something for Everyone

Shopping Summer Sports/ Activi-

ties


Access for Disabled

Lots to See/ Do

73% 71% 68% 65% 64% 63% 62% 62% 61% 60% 60%64%70% 66%

54%61%

50% 51% 55% 60%50% 49%

69% 73%64%

46%56%

49% 46%57% 52%

43% 42%

Houston Residents Other TX Residents Non-TX Residents

Relaxing Culture/ Per-forming

Arts

Reasonable Costs of Ho-tels/ Meals


Nightlife/ En-tertainment

History/ Cul-ture



Weather/ Climate

Hip/ Fash-ionable


59% 58% 58% 58% 54% 51% 51% 49% 47% 43% 40%

66%

41%

58% 64%

47% 47% 47%35%

60%

34% 37%

70%

39%

56%65%

30%

55% 55%41% 46%

26%35%

©TNS 2012

51

Houston “good to visit” trendsCompared to prior years, a few trends appear: Houston residents see their city as increasingly family friendly and accessible for the disabled Although only a minor gain, both cost attributes improve (good value for the money and reasonable

costs of hotels/meals) No attribute trends steadily downward.

Attribute Description of Houston (% Top 2 Box)Ranked by Houston Residents

Q3. Now, please think about the city where you live. Please rate how well each statement describes your city as a leisure destination for those who do not live there.

Dining Variety Friendly/ Welcoming

Family/ Children

Culturally Diverse

Good Service Something for Everyone

Shopping Summer Sports/ Activit-

ies


Access for Disabled

Lots to See/ Do

73%65% 64% 67%

60% 62% 64% 61% 58%52% 56%

77%71% 66% 69% 67% 66% 68% 65% 60% 56%

65%73% 71% 68% 65% 64% 63% 62% 62% 61% 60% 60%

Houston Residents - 2010 Houston Residents - 2011 Houston Residents - 2012

Relaxing Culture/ Per-forming

Arts

Reasonable Costs of Ho-tels/ Meals


Nightlife/ En-tertainment

History/ Cul-ture



Weather/ Climate

Hip/ Fash-ionable


57% 57% 54% 58%50% 49% 49% 43% 43%

35% 34%

61% 61% 56%63% 60%

53% 58%51% 52% 46% 41%

59% 58% 58% 58% 54% 51% 51% 49% 47% 43% 40%

©TNS 2012

52

Quality of cities as destinations

Q4. Now, we would like you to rate each of the listed cities, whether or not you live there or have visited them, on a 10-point scale (10=perfect; 1=terrible). Taking into account everything you look for in a leisure destination, how would you rate each city?

Similar to attribute rankings, travelers generally rate San Antonio higher than other cities when thinking of “everything you look for in a leisure destination”: Houston and Dallas trail the other three cities Residents of Texas cities outside Houston rate Houston lower than other groups (46%).

Perfect

Good

Average

Poor

Opinion of Each City Opinion of Houston

NET Perfect + Good:

56% 56% 70% 78% 65% 56% 66% 66% 46% 62%

Houston Dallas Austin San Antonio New Orleans Total Past Yr. O/N Leisure Vis-

itors

Houston Res-idents


Non-Texas Resident

30% 34% 26% 19% 23% 30% 26% 24%35% 31%

14% 10%

4%3%

13%14%

7% 10%

19%7%

35% 35% 39% 39% 35% 35% 38% 39% 32% 34%

21% 21%31% 39%

30% 21%28% 27%

15%28%

©TNS 2012

Quality of cities as destinations - trends

Q4. Now, we would like you to rate each of the listed cities, whether or not you live there or have visited them, on a 10-point scale (10=perfect; 1=terrible). Taking into account everything you look for in a leisure destination, how would you rate each city?

Compared to last year, when thinking of “everything that is wanted in a leisure destination,” travelers: Continue to praise San Antonio above other cities Rate Houston more strongly than in the past and now matches Dallas Texans outside of Houston find the greatest fault with Houston (only 46% perfect/good), similar to prior

years.

Opinion of Each City (Top Scores: Perfect/Good) Opinion of Houston (Top Scores)

Houston Dallas Austin San Antonio New Orleans Total Past Yr. O/N Leisure Visitors

Houston Res-idents


Non-Texas Res-ident

51%54%

67%

75%

58%

51%

66%

59%

43%

67%

49%

58%

69%

80%

59%

49%

65% 64%

42%

64%

56% 56%

70%

78%

65%

56%

66% 66%

46%

62%

2010 2011 2012

53

©TNS 2012

Houston DFW San Antonio, TX Austin New Orleans

76%65% 63% 58%

30%

89%

52%68%

58%

39%

64%77%

66% 65%

23%

100%

39% 33%26%

43%

100%

66% 68% 62%

38%

Competitive cities visitedCompetitors:In a pattern similar to last year, Houston visitors show interest in these other cities:

San Antonio attracts many, reigning as the most popular (after Houston) among Houston residents

Dallas-Fort Worth claims the lead for non-Houston Texas residents and non-Texans who visit other Texas cities besides Houston.

Cities VisitedRanked by Total

Q5. Which of the following cities have you visited in the past 5 years?

2010

2011

2012

Houston DFW San Antonio Austin New Orleans

75%61% 60% 54%

29%

90%

51%60% 56%

37%

58%72%

65% 59%

21%

100%

44% 38%24%

38%

100%

68% 67%60%

41%

Houston DFW San Antonio, TX Austin New Orleans

68% 68% 63% 58%

28%

92%

54%

71%59%

40%

56%

77%66% 64%

23%

100%

39%

23%16%

31%

100%

70% 70% 67%

36%

Total Houston Residents Other TX Residents Non-TX Residents Houston Visitors (O/N Past Year)

54

©TNS 2012

55

Value for the money - cities as destinations

Q6. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=excellent value; 1=terrible value) overall, how would you rate the value for the money of each city?

Overall, visitors view Texas cities as destinations with good value for the money: San Antonio takes the lead in the value for the money image Houston, Dallas, Austin, and New Orleans all vie for second, but

Dallas trails in share of very high (9/10) ratings Non-Houston Texans assign lower ratings to Houston than other segments.

Each City Houston

9 – 10 Ratings

7 - 8

4 - 6

1 - 3

NET Excellent + Good:

63% 56% 67% 75% 62% 63% 67% 66% 56% 68%

Houston (n=597)

Dallas (484) Austin (426) San Antonio (476)

New Orleans (234)

Total (597) Past Yr. O/N Ls Visitors

(270)

Houston Res-idents (268)


(229)

Non-Texas Resident (100)

33% 38%28% 22% 31% 33% 30% 29% 38% 31%

4%6%

5%3%

7% 4%3% 5%

5%1%

38% 37% 41% 41% 37% 38% 36% 37% 37% 44%

25% 20%26% 34%

25% 25% 31% 29% 20%24%

©TNS 2012

56

Value for the money - cities as destinations

Q6. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=excellent value; 1=terrible value) overall, how would you rate the value for the money of each city?

Compared to last year: Cities’ value for the money image remains fairly stable, although New Orleans steadily improves while

Dallas slips.

Each City (Top Scores: Excellent/Good) Houston (Top Scores)

Houston Dallas Austin San Antonio New Orleans Total Past Yr. O/N Ls Visitors

Houston Res-idents


Non-Texas Res-idents

61% 61% 63%

72%

55%61%

68% 70%

53%

63%60% 58%

63%

75%

60% 60%

68% 70%

51%

67%63%

56%

67%

75%

62% 63%67% 66%

56%

68%

2010 2011 2012

©TNS 2012

Experience in each destination city

Q7. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=excellent value; 1=terrible value) overall, how would you rate the experience you had in each city?

San Antonio claims the lead as the city with the best overall experience for visitors: Houston and Dallas trail other cities Houston’s past-year overnight visitors, and non-Texans praise

Houston more highly.

Each City Houston

9 – 10 Ratings

7 - 8

4 - 6

1 - 3

NET Excellent + Good:

72% 70% 83% 87% 80% 72% 79% 72% 71% 75%

Houston (n=597)


New Orleans (234)


(270)



(229)


23% 25%14% 12% 13% 23% 17% 23% 21% 24%

5% 5%

4% 1%6%

5%5%

5% 8% 1%

36% 35% 38% 36% 34% 36% 36% 31% 39% 41%

36% 36%44% 51% 47% 36% 43%

41% 32% 34%

57

©TNS 2012

Experience in each destination city

Q7. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=excellent value; 1=terrible value) overall, how would you rate the experience you had in each city?

Compared to last year: Overall experience slightly improves for Houston and Austin Non-Houston Texas residents soften their criticism of Houston.

Each City (Top Scores: Excellent/Good) Houston (Top Scores)


Houston Res-idents


Non-Texas Res-ident

68%71%

79%

85%

71%68%

77%

71%

64%

74%69%

73%78%

87%

80%

69%

77% 78%

62%

77%72% 70%

83%87%

80%

72%

79%

72% 71%75%

2010 2011 2012

58

©TNS 2012

Likely to return to destination city

Q8. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=very likely; 1=not at all likely), please indicate how likely you are to return to each city for an overnight, leisure trip?

Visitors’ expected repeat visitation varies substantially by city: San Antonio and Austin visitors have the highest expectations to return Houston closely competes with Dallas and New Orleans Non-Houston Texans show the lowest interest in returning to Houston.

Each City Houston

9 – 10 Ratings

7 - 8

4 - 6

1 - 3

NET Very + Probably

71% 70% 80% 81% 74% 71% 81% 72% 67% 76%

Houston (n=597)


New Orleans (234)


(270)



(229)


19% 22% 14% 13% 13% 19% 13% 19% 22%13%

10% 8%6% 6%

14% 10%6%

10% 11%11%

20% 22% 27% 25% 24% 20% 20% 18% 22% 21%

51% 48%53% 56% 50% 51%

61%53% 45% 55%

59

©TNS 2012

Likely to return to destination city

Q8. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=very likely; 1=not at all likely), please indicate how likely you are to return to each city for an overnight, leisure trip?

Compared to last year, most cities lure about the same level of expected repeaters.

Each City (Top Scores: Very/Probably) Houston (Top Scores)


Houston Res-idents


Non-Texas Res-ident

70% 72%

78%83%

71% 70%

82%

74%

65%

78%

69%72%

79%

86%

75%

69%

81%76%

64%

72%71% 70%

80% 81%

74%71%

81%

72%67%

76%

2010 2011 2012

60

©TNS 2012

Likely to recommend city as destinationBy city: Visitors to San Antonio and Austin would be most likely to recommend the city to friends and family Houston ranks behind all competitors, including Dallas Recent leisure visitors and Houston residents most often recommend the city to others.

Each City Houston

Q9. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=very likely; 1=not at all likely), please indicate how likely you are to recommend traveling to each city to friends/family.

9 – 10 Ratings

7 - 8

4 - 6

1 - 3

NET Very + Probably

65% 68% 81% 83% 80% 65% 73% 68% 61% 65%

Houston (n=597)


New Orleans (234)


(270)



(229)


23% 24%13% 13% 11%

23% 19% 21% 24% 26%

12% 9%

7% 4%9%

12%9% 11% 14% 9%

25% 28% 29% 25% 25% 25% 26% 23% 25% 29%

40% 40%52% 58% 55%

40%47% 45% 37% 36%

61

©TNS 2012

Likely to recommend city as destinationRecommendations hover near prior year levels, except for a continuing improvement for New Orleans.

Each City (Top Scores: Very/Probably) Houston (Top Scores)

Q9. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=very likely; 1=not at all likely), please indicate how likely you are to recommend traveling to each city to friends/family.


Houston Res-idents


Non-Texas Res-ident

65% 67%

78%

84%

71%

65%

74% 72%

59%

68%64%

70%

78%

88%

78%

64%

74% 75%

58%

66%65%68%

81%83%

80%

65%

73%68%

61%65%

2010 2011 2012

62

©TNS 2012

NET Top Four Ratings:2012 61% 63% 72% 71% 65%

20112010

49%51%

60%61%

69%68%

69%70%

64%65%

NET Top Two Ratings:2012 24% 25% 36% 51% 40%20112010

17%22%

22%22%

35%33%

47%49%

40%40%

Summary of opinions/ratings about HoustonOver half (61%- 72%) of Houston visitors assign high ratings on each measure: Houston consistently exceeds last year with the same two measures, positive experience in Houston

(72%) and likelihood to return (71%), leading all others Overall opinion of Houston climbs notably in 2012.

Q4. Now, we would like you to rate each of the listed cities, whether or not you live there or have visited them, on a 10-point scale (10=perfect; 1=terrible). Taking into account everything you look for in a leisure destination, how would you rate each city?Q6. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=excellent; 1=terrible) overall, how would you rate the value for the money of each city? Q7. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=excellent; 1=terrible) overall, how would you rate the experience you had in each city? Q8. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=very; 1=not at all), how likely you are to return to each city for an overnight, leisure trip? Q9. Abridged: On a 10-point scale (10=very; 1=not at all), how likely you are to recommend traveling to each city to friends/family.

Houston (Visited in Past 5 Years)

9 – 10 Ratings

7 - 8

4 - 6

1 - 3

Overall Opinion (n=597) Value for the Money (597)

Experience in Houston (597)

Likely to Return (597) Would Recommend (597)

29% 33%23% 19% 23%

10% 4%5% 10%

12%

38% 38% 36%20% 25%

24% 25% 36%51% 40%

63

©TNS 2012

Next future visit to cityHouston overtakes Dallas as a city to visit within the next year, with three-quarters of recent visitors expecting to return.

Each City Houston

Q10. Please indicate the next time you plan to visit each of the following cities?

< 6 Months

6 Mos. – 1 Year

1 – 2 Years

Over 2 YearsNo Plans to Visit

NET Within a Year:2012 51% 40% 37% 36% 13% 51% 76% 70% 35% 61%2011 44% 49% 43% 43% 14% 44% 75% 78% 31% 50%2010 54% 46% 40% 42% 15% 54% 76% 82% 37% 63%

Houston (n=796)


New Orleans (796)


(270)



(397)


11% 16% 16% 22% 19% 11% 12% 7% 14% 15%8% 11% 14% 16% 20%

8% 6%3%

11% 11%29%

33% 33% 26%48%

29%6% 20%

41%13%

10% 13% 17% 18% 9% 10% 17%3% 13%

21%

41% 27% 20% 18% 5%41%

59%67%

21%

40%

64

©TNS 2012

Next future visit to city

Compared to the last year, Houston improves in interest, aided by a gain among non-Houston residents.

Each City (Plan to Visit Within a Year) Houston (Plan to Visit Within a Year)

Q10. Please indicate the next time you plan to visit each of the following cities?


Houston Res-idents


Non-Texas Res-ident

54%

46%

40% 42%

15%

54%

76%

82%

37%

63%

44%49%

43% 43%

14%

44%

75%78%

31%

50%51%

40%37% 36%

13%

51%

76%

70%

35%

61%

2010 2011 2012

65

Appendix IIb. Media Choices From Follow-up Survey

©TNS 2012

Media used

Q38. How often would you say you do each of these activities?

Choosing the right media affects the success of any ad campaign: TV: Nearly universal – almost everyone (98%) watches television – and four out of five watch it daily Radio: Two-thirds (62%) listen to the radio at least 4 times per week, likely many listen while driving Newspapers: Few (31%) read a daily newspaper, and it sinks further among the target (15%) group Magazines: Not designed for daily use, fewer than half read magazines weekly, the proportion rises

among past year overnight Houston leisure visitor (54%) Internet: Most connect for reasons other than Social Media/YouTube to the Internet , usually daily Social Media: Two in five use social media, especially the Target group (51%) YouTube: Few watch it daily (5%, not shown), but most watch it occasionally (65%; 78% Target; 61%

non-Target).

Media Consumption (n=796)

Watch TV Daily Listen to Radio 4+ Times Weeky

Read Newspaper Daily

Read Magazine Weekly

Connect to In-ternet Daily

Social Media Daily YouTube Weekly

80%

62%

31%

43%

82%

39%

28%

80%

70%

37%

54%

93%

77%68%

36%

53%

81%

39%32%

81%

70%

15%

43%

80%

51%

35%

78%

62%

38%46%

86%

33%28%

Total Past Year O/N Leisure HV* 2011 Past Year O/N Leisure HV* 2012 HV* Target Female 35-55 HV* Non-Target

HV* = Houston Visitor

67

Never 2% 0% 2% 1% 2% 10% 6% 6% 5% 10% 24%21%17%25%22% 18%11% 9% 14%16% 1% 0% 1% 2% 1% 29% na 26% 21% 30% 35% na 31% 22% 39%

©TNS 2012

Viewing Habits Regardless of medium,

people more likely watch TV and online media in the evening (from 6 – 10 pm)

Television (and Cable) accounts for most viewing choices

However, about one in four (23% total; 25% past year Houston overnight leisure visitor) watches YouTube in the evening

Watching Broadcasts online lags other choices.

Timing for watching mediaTotal

Past Year Houston Overnight Leisure Visitor

Q39. When do you watch TV or Online Broadcasts?

Early Morning (3-8)

Morning (8-12)

Afternoon (12 to 4)

Late After-noon (4 to 6)

Evening (6-10)

Late Night (10 to 12)

Overnight (12-3)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Watch TV

Watch Cable

Watch YouTube Links

Watch Broadcasts Online

Early Morning (3-8)

Morning (8-12)

Afternoon (12 to 4)

Late After-noon (4 to 6)

Evening (6-10)

Late Night (10 to 12)

Overnight (12-3)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Watch TV

Watch Cable

Watch YouTube Links

Watch Broadcasts Online

68

©TNS 2012

Viewing choices

Q40. What do you watch?

Various types of shows have similar appeal except that the Target visitor place much higher preference on comedies (the most-selected choice) than non-target visitors (comedies rank fifth).

Viewing Choices (n=794)

News Dramas Comedies Cable Network TV Reality TV Game Shows News Mag-azines

Premium Channels

73%67%

59% 56% 56%

31%27% 21%

28%

74%

66% 62% 61% 59%

34%30% 28% 28%

74% 71%76%

54% 52%43%

28% 25% 27%

74%66%

55% 58% 59%

27% 28%23%

28%

Total Past Year O/N Leisure HV* HV* Target Female 35-55 HV* Non-Target


69

Appendix IIc. General Advertising Awareness From Follow-up Survey

©TNS 2012

City advertising awareness (unaided)

Q11. In the past 3 months, for which of the following cities have you seen advertising?

Advertising plays an important role in building interest in destination selection: All travelers: Not quite half (42%) of all travelers recall advertising for at least one of the featured

cities (Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Austin, San Antonio, or New Orleans), with San Antonio (26%) and New Orleans (28%) generating, by far, the greatest recall

Houston ranks third (15%), remaining relatively stable with last year while all competitors dip.

Any Ad Awareness (n=796)

Note: in 2009 and 2010, Atlanta and Denver were included, so seven cities could have been noticed rather than just these five

ANY of 5 Cities Houston Dallas/ Ft. Worth Austin San Antonio New Orleans

48%

13% 15% 13%

31% 31%

47%

16% 15% 13%

32% 29%

42%

15%10% 10%

26% 28%

2010 2011 2012

71

©TNS 2012

Houston advertising awareness (unaided)

Q11. In the past 3 months, for which of the following cities have you seen advertising?

Advertising can directly influence who visits a destination and when: Past year overnight leisure visitors to Houston are more likely to recall advertising for Houston,

demonstrating a relationship between advertising exposure and visitation The closer a traveler lives to Houston the more likely they are to be aware of advertising – Houston

residents recall advertising at almost twice the rate of non-Texans The Target group notices less advertising for Houston than the non-Target group – but this measure

includes all Houston advertising, not just that placed by the Greater Houston CVB.

Any Ad Awareness of Houston (n=796)

Any Ad Awareness

Past Year O/N Leisure HV*

Houston Res-idents

Other TX Res-idents

Non-TX Res-idents

HV* Target Female 35-55

HV* Non-Target

13% 16% 16%12%

7%16%

21% 21%15%

10%15%

20% 18%14%

10% 14%19%

2010 2011 2012


72

©TNS 2012

City advertising awareness by media - unaidedAdvertising recall varies by medium: Electronic Media: Television leads as a source of ad awareness, especially for New Orleans (74%) Houston steadily gains in TV and E-mail recall Print Media: Houston lags most of these competitive destinations for magazine awareness but leads in

newspapers.

Each City (2012 unless labeled otherwise)

ELECTRONIC

PRINT

Q12. Abridged: For each of the cities, please indicate what type of media you recall seeing/hearing advertising.

TV Internet/ Banner E-mail Radio

47%

9% 7%19%

56%

12% 9% 11%

62%

11% 12% 15%

68%

15% 14% 15%

60%

10% 12% 13%

69%

12% 9% 9%

74%

9% 8% 7%

Houston 2010 (n=151) Houston 2011 (n=195) Houston 2012 (n=122) DFW (81) Austin (77) San Antonio (206) New Orleans (223)

73

Magazines Newspapers Direct Mail

38%48%

7%

28% 33%

9%

37% 35%

8%

42%32%

11%

56%

31%

10%

41%31%

12%

33%

20%7%

©TNS 2012

Magazines Newspapers Direct Mail

37% 35%

8%

47%36%

8%

35%

49%

13%

37%

23%

4%

50%

30%

10%20%

30%

10%

43% 43%

10%

Houston advertising awareness by media (unaided)Advertising recall within groups stays fairly consistent with a few exceptions: Electronic Media: TV advertising generates the greatest recall – especially among Texas residents

(Houston or other Texas) and the Target group Print Media: Those most likely to recall Magazine ads include past visitors and non-Texas residents;

newspapers work best among Houston residents.

Houston

ELECTRONIC

PRINT

Q12. Abridged: For each of the cities, please indicate what type of media you recall seeing/hearing advertising.* Very small sample; treat as qualitative only

TV Internet/ Banner E-mail Radio

62%

11% 12% 15%

53%

6%13% 15%

60%

16% 18% 20%

65%

5% 5% 11%

50%

10% 10% 10%

85%

5% 10% 15%

52%

13% 14% 17%

Total Houston (n=122) Past Yr O/N Ls HV* (n=53) Houston Residents (n=55) Other TX Residents (n=57) Non-TX Residents (n=10)*HV* Target Female 35-55 (n=20)* HV* Non-Target (n=84)


74

©TNS 2012

General Advertising – By CityTravelers may positively react to destination advertising in one of three listed ways: be motivated to seek more information, convinced to book a trip, or encouraged to stay longer/visit additional attractions: In overall positive impact, Austin (36%) leads while Houston (21%) and New Orleans (19%) trail All ads are most likely to inspire gathering of more information, especially Austin ads, but San

Antonio’s advertising convinces more viewers to visit (10%) Ads do not affect everyone positively; potential visitors may decide not to visit (1% for Houston, not

shown) or simply believe that ads do not influence them at all (79%, similar to other TNS studies).

Each City (2012 unless labeled otherwise)

Perceived impact of (unaided) advertising – each city

Q13. Abridged: How has the advertising you have seen affected your leisure travel plans?

NET POSITIVE IMPACT Sought More Information Convinced to Go Lengthen Stay/ Add Attractions

21%

11%6%

9%

20%

14%

5% 6%

21%

13%9% 7%

25%

15%

5%10%

36%

26%

7%

13%

26%

16%

10% 8%

20%

12%

3% 4%

Houston 2010 (n=151) Houston 2011 (n=195) Houston 2012 (n=122) DFW (81) Austin (77) San Antonio (206) New Orleans (223)

75

©TNS 2012

General Advertising – By Group:Houston reaps the largest benefits from advertising among: Past year overnight leisure visitors (25%) Target group (25%) .

(Note: too few to cite non-Texas residents)

Perceived impact of (unaided) Houston advertising

Houston

Q13. Abridged: How has the advertising you have seen affected your leisure travel plans?* Very small sample; treat as qualitative only


21%13% 9% 7%

25%15% 11% 11%16%

9% 7% 6%

23%16% 11% 9%

30%20%

10% 10%

25% 20%10% 15%18%

11% 10% 6%

Houston (n=122) Past Year O/N Ls HV* (53) Houston Resident (55) Other TX Resident (57) Non-TX Resident (10)*

HV* Target Female 35-55 (20)* HV* Non-Target (84)


76

Appendix IId. Specific GHCVB Ad Awareness From Follow-up Survey

©TNS 2012

“My Houston” print ad

“My Houston” Spread

78

©TNS 2012

79

My Houston Spread

13% 12%20%

23% 24%17% 18% 18%

24%

Total Houston 2010Total Houston 2011Total Houston 2012Past Year O/N Ls HV*Houston ResidentsOther TX ResidentsNon-TX ResidentsHV* Target Female 35-55HV* Non-Target

Houston print advertising: “My Houston” Spread

Q27. Please indicate if you have seen this ad campaign before.Q28a. Based on this print campaign, how has your impression of Houston changed? Much more positive (5) to much more negative (1)Q28b. Overall, how much did you like this campaign? Like it very much (5) to dislike very much (1)Q28c. Based on this print campaign, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future?

(Extremely (5) to not at all likely (1).

More travelers recall and praise the Houston CVB print ad than last year: Aided awareness places above last year (20% from 12%), especially residents and recent visitors The likeability of the ad notably exceeds last year, with a positive gain also appearing in viewers’

impression of Houston.

Opinion Summary

HV* = Houston VisitorImpression Likeability Future Visitation

79%

49%28%

4%

11% 57%

13%28%

10%

4%

13%

5%

Top Rating

Second

Neutral

Bottom 2 Ratings

NET Top Two Ratings2012: 17% 41% 15%2011: 13% 28% 15%

2010: 15% 35% 21%

Awareness

“My Houston” Spread Print Campaign (2012 unless labeled otherwise)

©TNS 2012

Impression of “My Houston” spread print campaignThose most familiar with the city tend to be most influenced by the advertising: The print ads most improve the impression of Houston for past year overnight leisure visitors (24%) Those in the Target group (25%) respond more positively than the Non-Target group Non-Houston residents (Texans or not) are the least affected by the ads (88% neutral).

Much More Positive

Somewhat More

Neutral

More Negative

Reaction to “My Houston” Print Campaign - Impression

Q28a. Based on this print campaign, how has your impression of Houston changed? Much more positive (5) to much more negative (1).

Total 2010 (1180)

Total 2011 (1234)

Total 2012 (796)

Past Year O/N Ls HV*

(270)

Houston Res-ident (299)

Other TX Resident

(397)

Non-TX Res-ident (100)

HV* Target Female 35-

55 (147)

HV* Non-Target (450)

84% 86%79% 73% 78% 77%

88%75% 78%

1% 1%4%

3%

4% 5%3%

1%4%

12% 9% 13% 17% 13% 15%5%

18% 13%

3% 4%4% 8% 5%

4%

4%6%

5%


80

NET Positive:2012: na na 17% 24% 18% 18% 9% 25% 18%2011: na 13% na 18% 19% 11% 11% na na2010: 15% na na 20% 16% 15% 12% na na

©TNS 2012

Likeability of “My Houston” spread print campaignTravelers who have visited or live in Houston find the ads the most likable:

The Target group assigns the highest likeability of all – significantly stronger than the Non-Target group

Houston residents and past year overnight leisure visitors rate likeability higher than others.

Like Very Much

Somewhat

Neutral

Dislike Ads

Reaction to “My Houston” Print Campaign - Likeability

Q28b. Overall, how much did you like this campaign? Like it very much (5) to dislike very much (1).

Total 2010 (1180)

Total 2011 (1234)

Total 2012 (796)


(270)


Other TX Resident

(397)



55 (147)


63% 70%49%

37% 44% 53% 45% 39% 46%

2%3%

11%11%

9%11%

16%7%

11%

25% 20% 28% 32% 33% 25% 27% 36% 29%

10%8%

13%20% 15%

11% 12%

18%14%


81


©TNS 2012

“My Houston” spread impact on future Houston vacationsOverall, the print ads do not strongly influence future visitation for most travelers: Only one in seven (15%) believes that the ads will encourage them to visit Houston, matching last year As with other ad measures, past year overnight leisure visitors to Houston continue to be the most

influenced by print advertising The Target group reacts more positively than the Non-Target group.

Extremely Likely

Very

Somewhat

Not Likely

Reaction to “My Houston” Print Campaign – Influence on Future Vacation

Q28c. Based on this print campaign, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future? (Extremely (5) to not at all likely (1).

Total 2010 (1180)

Total 2011 (1234)

Total 2012 (796)


(270)


Other TX Resident

(397)



55 (147)


31% 31% 28% 34% 28% 28% 29% 33% 29%

49% 54% 57%38%

56% 61%51% 46% 54%

14% 10% 10%19%

10% 8%18% 16% 11%

6%5% 5%

9%6% 4%

2% 5%6%


82


©TNS 2012

“Houston is” print ads

Artsy Ballerina

Artsy Menil

Savvy Hermann Park

Funky Art Car

Diverse Downtown

Savvy Space

83

©TNS 2012

“Houston is” print ads continued

84

Strip

Unique HMNS

Unique Rodeo

Tasty Hugo

Tasty Monica

©TNS 2012

Opinions/reaction to “Houston is” print campaignOverall, viewers of the ad react quite positively to the campaign: Two-thirds (64%) find the ads believable

Over half (55%) like the ads – compared to 41% of the current “My Houston” campaign

More than one in five (22%) feel the ads would motivate them to visit Houston in the future (vs. 15% in the “My Houston” spread).

Top Rating

Second

Neutral

Bottom 2 Ratings

Summary of Opinion/Reaction to “Houston is” Print Campaign Base: All (796)

Q28d. Based on this print campaign, how believable do you find this campaign? Extremely believable (5) to not at all (1)Q28e. Overall, how much did you like this campaign? Like it very much (5) to dislike very much (1)Q28g. Based on this print campaign, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future? (extremely (5) to not at all likely (1).

Believability Likeability Future Visitation

31% 34% 29%

6%11%

49%

36% 30%14%

28% 25%

8%

NET Positive: 64% 55% 22%

85

©TNS 2012

Believability of “Houston is” print campaign

With generally strong believability, non-Texas residents, past year overnight leisure visitors, and the Target group react most positively.

Much More Positive

Somewhat More

Neutral

More Negative

Reaction to “Houston Is” Print Campaign - BelievabilityNET Positive:2012: 64% 74% 65% 59% 78% 72% 66%

Q28d. Based on this print campaign, how believable do you find this campaign? Extremely believable (5) to not at all (1).

Total 2012 (796) Past Year O/N Ls HV* (270)

Houston Resident (299)

Other TX Res-ident (397)

Non-TX Resident (100)

HV* Target Fe-male 35-55 (147)


31% 22% 29% 35%18% 25% 27%

6%4%

6% 6%4%

3% 7%

36% 38% 34% 33%55%

35% 37%

28%36%

31%26%

23%37%

28%


86

©TNS 2012

Likeability of “Houston is” print campaign

Like Very Much

Somewhat

Neutral

Dislike Ads

Reaction to “Houston Is” Print Campaign - Likeability

Q28e. Overall, how much did you like this campaign? Like it very much (5) to dislike very much (1).


Houston Resident (299)





34%23% 31% 38%

27% 25% 32%

11%

10%11%

12%9% 8%

13%

30% 33% 32% 26%40% 39%

29%

25%35%

25%24%

24% 29%26%


87

NET Positive:2012: 55% 68% 58% 51% 64% 68% 56%

Outperforming the “My Houston” print campaign (41% positive), past year overnight leisure visitors and the Target group react most positively, with non-Texas residents not far behind.

©TNS 2012

“Houston is” impact of taking vacations to HoustonThe new campaign more strongly influences visitation intent than “My Houston”: Climbing from one in seven (15%) for “My Houston” to more than one in five (22%), “Houston is”

entices more people to take a vacation to Houston

The most positive reactions occur among past year overnight leisure visitors (39%) to Houston and non-Texas residents (38%), with minimal difference between the Target and Non-Target group.

Extremely Likely

Very

Somewhat

Not Likely

Reaction to “Houston Is” Print Campaign – Influence on Future Vacation

Q28g. Based on this print campaign, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future? (Extremely (5) to not at all likely (1).







29% 33% 28% 30% 27%40%

26%

49%28%

48% 53%35%

34%48%

14% 22% 15% 10%29%

14% 17%

8%17%

9% 8%

9%

12% 9%


88

NET Positive:2012: 22% 39% 24% 17% 38% 27% 26%

©TNS 2012

Associations made with “Houston is” print campaignThe print ads builds very favorable associations with cultural events/sites: Secondarily, the ads fit with very active people

More of those in the Target group associate the campaign with each attribute than the Non-Target group, especially for “people like me” (which means that the ads are a good fit) and “romantic.”

Associations Made With “Houston Is” Print Campaign: Houston is …

Q28f. What associations do you make with this campaign?

For People Like Me For Very Active People” For Attending Cultural Events/ Sites

For Families Romantic

30%

43%

79%

31%

12%

43%49%

74%

36%

17%

36%45%

78%

36%

17%24%

41%

80%

27%

9%

36%44%

77%

34%

10%

42% 45%

81%

35%

19%

32%43%

78%

32%

12%

Houston (n=796) Past Year O/N Ls HV* (270) Houston Resident (299) Other TX Resident (397) Non-TX Resident (100)

HV* Target Female 35-55 (147) HV* Non-Target (450)


89

©TNS 2012

90

Houston TV commercial awareness

Q30j/30z/30l. Have you seen this commercial before on TV?

Continuing to climb from prior years, almost a third now recognize the 2012 commercials: Non-Houston Texas residents (34%) most often notice the commercial; only non-Texans lag by much Continuing the upward trend, the commercials build greater recognition than last year, which doubled

from the year before, and had doubled before that (31% from 25% from 13% from 5%) Awareness of the ZZ Top and Lyle Lovett commercials place slightly above Jim Parsons.

Awareness of Specific Houston CVB TV Commercials (2012 unless labeled otherwise)

Any 2010 TV Ad Awareness



Aware Jim Parsons Aware ZZ Top Aware Lyle Lovett

13%

25%31%

16%21% 20%

15%

27% 30%

15%22% 20%

16%22%

32%

13%20%

24%

11%

26%34%

22% 23% 20%15%

20%15%

3%12%

8%

0.299

0.150.197 0.211

0.320000000000001

0.150.22 0.22

Total Houston Past Year O/N Ls HV* Houston Residents Other TX Residents Non-TX ResidentsHV* Target Female 35-55 HV* Non-Target


©TNS 2012

91

Opinions/reaction to Houston CVB TV commercialsOverall opinions of the TV commercials markedly outpace the “My Houston” print ads: Houston’s TV ads improve perceptions much more often than the print ads, especially Jim Parsons

(42%) Most travelers like the ads (61% to 66%), about 50 percent stronger than the “My Houston” (41%) Roughly a quarter of travelers believe the ads cause them to be more likely to visit Houston – notably

exceeding print (15%).

NET Top Two Ratings: 2012: 42% 66% 26% 36% 63% 24% 35% 61% 22%2011: 43% 65% 25% 36% 64% 24% 31% 56% 20%2010: na na na 42% 73% 27% 33% 63% 23%

Top Rating

Second

Neutral

Bottom 2 Ratings

Summary of Opinion/Reaction to Houston CVB TV Commercials Base: 789 for Lyle Lovett; 792 for ZZ Top

Q31aj/az/al. Based on this commercial, how has your impression of Houston changed? Much more positive (5) to much more negative (1)Q31bj/bz/bl. Overall, how much did you like this commercial? Like them very much (5) to dislike very much (1)Q31cj/cz/cl. Based on this commercial, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future?

(Extremely (5) to not at all likely (1).

Jim Parsons ZZ Top Lyle Lovett

Im-pres-sion

Likeability Future Vis-itation

Im-pres-sion


Im-pres-sion


56%

29% 27%

59%

28% 26%

63%

32% 28%

2%

5%

47%

5%

9%

51%2%

7%

49%

24% 33%15% 21% 29%

13% 22%35%

13%

17%

32%

11%15%

34%

11%13%

26%

10%

©TNS 2012

Total (789)

Past Year O/N Ls

HV* (265)

Houston Resident

(297)

Other TX Resident

(394)

Non-TX Resident

(98)

Total (792)

Past Year O/N Ls

HV* (268)

Houston Resident

(297)

Other TX Resident

(396)

Non-TX Resident

(99)

Total (789)

Past Year O/N Ls

HV* (266)

Houston Resident

(297)

Other TX Resident

(393)

Non-TX Resident

(99)

56% 49% 56% 58% 50% 59%47%

58% 60% 60% 63% 55% 62% 64% 65%

2%2%

3% 2%0%

5%7%

4% 6% 7% 2%3%

2% 2% 4%

24% 25% 22% 24% 32%21% 23% 21% 21% 23% 22% 22% 21% 22% 21%

17% 25%19% 16%

18%15%

24%17% 14% 10% 13% 21% 15% 12% 10%

Impression of Houston based on TV commercialThe commercials’ impact on impressions of Houston vary by ad: The Jim Parsons ad (42%) builds a somewhat more positive impression of Houston than the other two Regardless of commercial, past year overnight Houston visitors generally react more

positively than other groups. Much More Positive

Somewhat More

Neutral

More NegativeReaction to Houston CVB TV Commercial - Impression

NET Positive: 2012: 42% 50% 40% 40% 50% 36% 47% 38% 34% 33% 35% 43% 36% 34% 31%2011: 43% 51% 44% 41% 49% 36% 42% 40% 35% 38% 31% 36% 34% 29% 34%2010: na na na na na 42% 47% 42% 43% 38% 33% 39% 32% 34% 30%

Q31aj/az/al. Based on this commercial, how has your impression of Houston changed? Much more positive (5) to much more negative (1).



92

©TNS 2012







50% 55% 48%60% 56% 62%

2%3%

3%

6%1%

2%

26% 25% 27% 21% 27% 22%

22% 18% 23%14%

16%13%

Impression of Houston based on TV commercial

The ads work better for the Target group than the Non-Target group, especially ZZ Top.

Much More Positive

Somewhat More

Neutral

More Negative

Reaction to Houston CVB TV Commercial - Impression

NET Positive: 2012: 48% 43% 50% 35%43% 35%

Q31aj/az/al. Based on this commercial, how has your impression of Houston changed? Much more positive (5) to much more negative (1).



93

©TNS 2012

Likeability of Houston CVB TV commercial

Roughly two-thirds “like” the ads, with past year overnight Houston visitors reacting most favorably.

Like Very Much

Somewhat

Neutral

Dislike AdsReaction to Houston CVB TV Commercial - Likeability

Q31bj/bz/bl. Overall, how much did you like this commercial? Like them very much (5) to dislike very much (1).



Total (789)

Past Year O/N Ls HV* (265)

Houston Resident

(297)

Other TX Resident

(394)

Non-TX Resident

(98)

Total (792)


Houston Resident

(297)

Other TX Resident

(396)

Non-TX Resident

(99)

Total (789)


Houston Resident

(297)

Other TX Resident

(393)

Non-TX Resident

(99)

29% 23% 27% 32% 26% 28% 20% 23% 31% 33% 32% 26% 28% 35% 33%

5%5% 7% 5% 4% 9%

11% 8%9% 10% 7%

6% 6%8% 8%

33% 34% 30% 35% 37% 29% 27% 29% 28% 33% 35% 36% 36% 34% 37%

32% 39% 37% 29% 34%34% 42% 40% 33% 23% 26% 32% 30% 24% 21%


94

©TNS 2012

Likeability of Houston CVB TV commercial

Like Very Much

Somewhat

Neutral

Dislike Ads

Reaction to Houston CVB TV Commercial - Likeability

Q31bj/bz/bl. Overall, how much did you like this commercial? Like them very much (5) to dislike very much (1).








22% 27% 22% 26% 25% 29%5%

7%4%

10%6% 7%

34% 33% 27% 30% 39% 38%

40% 33% 48% 34%30% 27%


95

NET Positive: 2012: 74% 66% 74% 64% 69% 65%

The ads appeal to the Target group more strongly than the Non-Target group, especially ZZ Top.

©TNS 2012

Total (789)


Houston Resident

(297)

Other TX Resident

(394)

Non-TX Resident

(98)

Total (792)


Houston Resident

(297)

Other TX Resident

(396)

Non-TX Resident

(99)

Total (789)


Houston Resident

(297)

Other TX Resident

(393)

Non-TX Resident

(99)

27% 30% 26% 28% 29% 26% 30% 26% 25% 30% 28% 32% 29% 28% 29%

47%29% 47% 51% 31% 51% 33% 47% 55% 43% 49% 31%

48% 54%37%

15% 22% 14% 13%30%

13% 18% 14% 11% 17% 13% 20% 12% 10%26%

11%19%

14% 8%

11%

11%19%

13% 9%9% 10%

17%12% 8%

7%

TV commercial impact of taking vacation to HoustonAbout one in four expects to visit Houston, based on the commercial: Overall results close mirror last year Past year overnight leisure Houston visitors view the ads most positively; non-Houston Texas residents

generally lag the other groups. Extremely Likely

Very

Somewhat

Not Likely Reaction to Houston CVB TV Commercial – Influence on Future Vacation

Q31cj/cz/cl. Based on this commercial, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future?




96

©TNS 2012

TV commercial impact of taking vacation to Houston

Extremely Likely

Very

Somewhat

Not Likely

Reaction to Houston CVB TV Commercial – Influence on Future Vacation

Q31cj/cz/cl. Based on this commercial, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future?








32% 26% 29% 27% 36% 29%

33% 46%33%

50% 36% 46%

20% 16% 22% 12% 13% 15%

15%12%

16%11% 14% 10%


97

NET Positive: 2012: 35% 28% 38% 23% 27% 25%

The ads build greater intent to visit among the Target group than the Non-Target group, especially ZZ Top.

©TNS 2012

Total 2010 (1,180)

Total 2011 (1,234)

Total 2012 (796)

Past Year Houston Vis-

itors (404)


Other TX Residents

(829)

Non-TX Res-idents (109)


(147)

10% 10% 11%

32%

7% 12% 17% 12%

8% 11% 13% 18% 12% 4% 18%5%9%

12%5% 15% 12%

2%

7%Series4

Aware Only

Aware and Positive Impact

Visited, Aware, and Pos. Imp.

Since the primary goal of advertising is to convert potential travelers to visitors, looking beyond simple awareness becomes important: Advertising appears very effective – encouraging roughly one out of 10 to visit Compared to last year, Houston advertising awareness rises among most groups, especially Houston

residents; however, non-Texas resident awareness remains nearly the same Two caveats – this measure combines the features of current advertising with past travel – so it

really measures Houston’s ongoing awareness and effectiveness, rather than these specific ads and two of the measures, by definition, includes Houston visitors, so the effectiveness looks much stronger than would be expected (Past Year Houston Visitors and Non-Texas Residents).

Total advertising impact on Houston visitation

NET Aware: 2012: na na 36% 37% 40% 37% 23% 37%2011: na 29% na 34% 28% 30% 25% na2010:23% na na 29% 27% 21% 20% na

Q14. Please indicate the total number of overnight leisure trips you have made to the Houston area in the past 12 months.Q27. Pease indicate if you have seen this ad campaign (My Houston) before.Q30j/Q30z/Q30l. Have you seen this commercial before on TV (Jim Parsons/ZZ Top/Lyle Lovett)?Q28c/Q31cj/Q31cz/Q31cl. Based on these ads, how likely are you to take an overnight vacation or pleasure trip to Houston in the future?


98

Appendix IIe. Website Usage from Follow-up Survey

©TNS 2012

100

General Website FeaturesMany travelers find it important to research their travel destination, especially those with which they are unfamiliar. The primary topics vary little over time: Ranked as 1-3: Travelers consistently rank where to stay, what to do, and savings/value as the most

important destination website features Top Rank Only: The top ranking mimics the importance of features ranked 1-3 with saving/value

clearly leading other reasons, as travelers search for the best values.

Most important features on website

% Rank in Importance (2012 unless labeled otherwise)

Ranked as 1-3

Top Rank (#1) Only

Q13a. Abridged: Now, we would like you to consider travel destination websites. Please choose the 7 most important features on a travel destination website and rank them in order of importance (1=most important; 7 least important)?

Where to Stay Where to Eat What to Do Recommend Local/ Insider

Tips

Savings/ Value Events Tours/ Itineraries

61%

41%60%

27%

61%

29%21%

64%

41%

62%

24%

63%

29%17%

64%47%

58%

22%

63%

28%17%

Total 2010 (n = 1,180) Total 2011 (n = 1,234) Total 2012 (n = 796)

Where to Stay Where to Eat What to Do Recommend Local/ Insider Tips


21%5%

23%7%

31%

7% 6%21%

5%

22%6%

34%

8% 4%

21%6%

23%

5%

34%

7% 4%

©TNS 2012

101

Where to Stay Where to Eat What to Do Recommend Local/ Insider

Tips


58%44%

62%

22%

59%

33%20%

64%49%

57%

22%

61%

30%16%

63%46%

57%

23%

65%

26%18%

63%47%

67%

22%

60%

23% 18%

Past Year O/N Ls Visitors (270) Houston Resident (299) Other TX Resident (397) Non-TX Resident (100)

Where to Stay Where to Eat What to Do Recommend Local/ Insider Tips


20%

3%

24%

6%

30%

10% 4%

23%

6%

24%

4%

32%

6% 4%

21%6%

22%

5%

34%

7% 5%14%

5%

25%

6%

39%

8% 3%

General Website: Regardless of group, the same items place at the top (where to stay, what to do, savings/value).

Most important features on website continued

% Rank in Importance (2012)

Q13a. Abridged: Now, we would like you to consider travel destination websites. Please choose the 7 most important features on a travel destination website and rank them in order of importance (1=most important; 7 least important)?

Ranked as 1-3

Top Rank (#1) Only

©TNS 2012

Other important features on WebsitesGeneral Website Features

Only a few travelers have website features to add to those already listed. These vary widely, but often include a desire for specific information on things to do in 2012:

Q13b. What other feature is important on travel destination websites?102

Things to see/do (6): Outdoor adventures Theatre/concerts History Region wide attractions Local cultural information and helpful hints Nightlife

Best way to get there; maps/directions; interactive map with roads and satellite options; traffic (5)

Weather (4) Prices; total costs; coupons (4) Local transportation; transportation options (3) Food; restaurant reviews (2) Guest reviews; reviews in general (2) User friendliness; navigation and coherence (2) Safety Place to relax Handicap accessibility :Where the Gay bars are and their accessibility

Number of mentions = 1 unless in parens (#)

Other Features Cited as Important: 2012

Pricing/costs/correct pricing/packages/discounts/ coupons/free “stuff” (9)

Transportation - air/ground/parking (5) Weather at different times of year – when pleasant (4) Hotels – selection/prices/bedbugs/book on web (4) Sightseeing/sights/new sights/fun event schedule (4) Maps/directions/distance to attractions (4) Historical sites/gardens (4) Shopping (3) Safety (2) User/visitor reviews (2) Pictures/scenic descriptions (2) Nightlife (2) Entertainment RCI/II Timeshare location Birding info Fitness/Health options Where the locals go Good restaurants Fishing Believability Most popular destinations Access for physically disabilities Pet friendliness


Other Features Cited as Important: 2011

©TNS 2012

MyGayHouston HoustonCulinaryTours Unsure

0% 1%4%1% 1%

6%0% 1%

4%0% 0% 3%

0% 1%5%5% 5%

Houston websites visited

About one in 10 have visited a Houston website – and that level doubles among past year overnight Houston visitors.

Houston (.com) Websites

Q19. Which of the following websites for the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau, if any, have you visited in the past 12 months?

Any Website Visited VisitHouston / VisitHouston Texas VisitaHouston Texas Houston Reunions

10%3% 0% 1%

9%2% 1% 1%

10%6%

1% 1%

20%12%

2% 2%

11%6%

0% 1%

9%5% 2% 1%

13%7%

1% 0%

Total 2010 (1180) Total 2011 (1234) Total 2012 (796) Past Yr O/N Ls Visitors (270) Houston Residents (299) Other TX Residents (397) Non-TX Residents (100)

103

©TNS 2012

Houston website discovery

Most travelers find the Greater Houston CVB website via an Internet search.

Website Visitors’ Source of Information(2012 unless labeled otherwise)

Q20. Please indicate how you found out about the Houston websites?* Very small sample; treat as qualitative only

Friends/ Family TV Commercial Magazine/Newspaper Ad Looked Via Search Engine

Browsing the Internet Other

18%

7% 6%

46%37%

3%

18%8%

15%

43% 41%

5%15%

7% 9%

48%42%

10%14%

9% 10%

44% 46%

10%15%

0% 0%

69%

15%8%

Total 2010 Website Visitors (114) Total 2011 Website Visitors (108) Total 2012 Website Visitors (82) TX Resident (69) Non-TX Resident (13)*

104

©TNS 2012

Detailed Enough

Makes Me Want to Visit

Houston

Homepage Understand-

able

Good Con-tact Info

Helps Plan To/Fro Hous-

ton

Helps Choose Lodg-

ing

Save Money Easy to For-ward Website Info to Oth-

ers

Easy/ Convenient to Book on This Site

Confident Purchasing on This Site

Easy Feedback

From Web-site Reps

21% 26% 17% 20% 18% 28% 27% 18% 17% 18% 18%

43% 38% 45% 43% 42% 31% 29% 35% 33% 29% 28%

Easy to Use Helps Choose At-tractions,

Events, etc.

Sensibly Organized

Communi-cates Hous-ton's Quali-

ties

Shows My Interests

Helpful Sugges-

tions & Tips

Good Im-pression of

Houston

Useful Maps Effectively Describes

Attractions, etc.

Good Balance

Helps Choose

Restaurants

28% 26% 24% 34%22% 22% 32% 26% 24% 21% 26%

46% 49% 48% 38%49% 49% 38% 43% 44% 45% 39%

Agree Completely Agree Somewhat

Characteristics/features of Houston’s websiteWebsite users agree with most statements about GHCVB’s website’s, particularly ease of use, promoting local attractions, and communicating Houston’s qualities Areas with the most room for improvement continue to center around functionality: getting feedback

from website representatives and ability to book/purchase.

NET Agree:2012:74% 74% 72% 72% 71% 71% 70% 68% 68% 66% 65%2011:72% 75% 71% 73% 71% 70% 72% 66% 71% 60% 65%2010:68% 68% 63% 74% 63% 65% 73% 68% 74% 59% 58%

NET Agree:2012:63% 63% 62% 62% 60% 59% 56% 54% 50% 48% 46%2011:67% 62% 69% 68% 64% 65% 53% 57% 53% 56% 52%2010:61% 62% 67% 62% 51% 55% 55% 47% 47% 49% 41%

Website Characteristics/Features

Q21. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding the VisitHouston.com characteristics or features? 105

©TNS 2012

Something for Everyone Lots to See/Do Culturally Diverse Exciting Urban Expe-riences

Family Activities & Museums

Culture/ Performing Arts

59%

70%

51% 47%56%

47%

62% 62% 58% 58% 60% 57%59% 57% 55% 55% 54%48%

2010 2011 2012

Fun Good Value for Money

Is Unique Friendly People Easy to Access for Disabled

Hip/ Fashionable Big City/ Small Town Atmosphere

46%40%

8%

47%

21% 17%25%

57% 58%

14%

51%

27%32% 34%

48% 45% 42% 38% 34% 33% 32%

What the website says about HoustonFrom the website, most users “take away” the variety of activities available in Houston: Travelers perceive lots to see/do with something for everyone, cultural diversity, exciting urban

experiences, and family activities/museums as the leading website messages

More people sense the uniqueness of Houston now than in the past.

Website’s MessageBase: 82 VisitHouston.com Visitors

Q22. What does VisitHouston.com tell you about Houston?

106

©TNS 2012

Satisfaction with Houston websiteSatisfaction levels of the website remains very high: Although four out of five (79%) website users are somewhat to very satisfied with the

website, it slips slightly, but steadily, from two years ago (84%)

None claims dissatisfaction.

NET Satisfied:2012: na na 79% 83% 62%2011: na 82% na 81% 86%2010: 84% na na 86% 78%


Very Satisfied

Somewhat

Neutral

Somewhat Not

Very Dissatisfied

Satisfaction with Houston Website

Q23. What is your overall satisfaction with the Greater Houston CVB website?

Total 2010 Website Visitors (114)



Website Visitors from TX (69)

Website Visitors Non-TX (13)*

16% 19% 21% 17%39%

37% 29% 34% 35% 31%

47% 53% 45% 48%31%

107

©TNS 2012

Houston’s website competitive comparisonImproving from 2011, more than half (55%) of Houston’s website visitors deem it as much better or somewhat better than similar websites for city destinations; no one in 2011 or 2012 rates others better. So, despite a minor slippage in satisfaction, the Houston website gains competitive advantage.

NET Better:2012: na na 55% 57% 46%2011: na 49% na 48% 57%2010: 51% na na 51% 52%


Much Better

Somewhat

Comparable

Somewhat Worse

Much Worse

Houston Website’s Competition

Q24. How well does the Greater Houston CVB’s website compare to similar websites for city destinations?




Website Visitors from TX (69)

Website Visitors Non-TX (13)*

45% 44% 43% 41%54%

1%

37% 32%42% 41% 46%

14% 17%13% 16%

108

©TNS 2012

Website features to improve In general, most website users express overall satisfaction with the site, even when reflecting on

possible improvements. While suggestions vary, posting restaurant choices and various activities available in the area seem to be the strongest themes. A few encountered technical problems.

Q25. What features or sections should the website improve?

109

None/nothing to improve, OK as it is, everything is fine, no complaints, can’t think of anything to improve (26)

Several mention information that they would like to see: (12) Info on food, ethnic food, small, out-of-the-way

specialty restaurants where locals eat (3) Better maps Distances to attractions Expand selection is surrounding areas of Houston Be able to filter specific interests, such as free fairs More info on historical places More cultural information Local, small business venues Locate stations with best gasoline prices Where to go for emergency medical attention Show specials More content in general

Some encountered problems: (4) Broken and circular links on site Some info outdated (perhaps update routinely?) Seems to load somewhat slowly Some links I clicked did not work

We are Texans; where are the dancehalls?


Website Features to Improve: 2012

Great/comprehensive website/complete/good as is (11) Easier/more user friendly/navigation/hyperlinks (hard to get

back to home page)/chat support/Twitter link (8) Current/up-to-date/Seasonal activities and events/ things to

do/graphics showing activities (7) Coupon/discount offers/more savings/discounts (4) Cost-related: Cost estimates/hotel prices/prices of

admissions/ affordable suggestions for family (4) Transportation: options, ease of getting around without

car/pictures of freeways (3) Night activities/nightlife (3) Museums, landmarks, and history (2) Maps: show what else is in area/downloadable maps (2) Sightseeing/things to do (2) Make family entertainment places easy to find Pictures More info on restaurants and shopping More realism – such as the heavy smog Fewer graphics Clubs Options for disabled people


Website Features to Improve: 2011

©TNS 2012

Perceived impact of Houston’s websiteWebsite users may positively react to Houston’s website in one of three listed ways: content may motivate them to seek more information, convince them to book a trip, or encourage them to stay longer/visit additional attractions: The website causes users to seek more information twice as often as convincing them to go or

lengthening stay/adding attractions, similar to last year The website does not affect everyone positively; potential visitors may decide not to visit (1% for total

website visitors, not shown) or simply believe that the website did not influence them at all (37%).

Impact of Houston’s Website (2012 unless labeled otherwise)


Q26. How did your visit to the Greater Houston CVB website affect your leisure plans?


59%

42%

14% 11%

56%

39%

19% 13%

62%

42%

20% 16%

65%

42%

19% 16%

46%39%

23%15%

Total 2010 Website Visitors (n=114) Total 2011 Website Visitors (n=108) Total 2012 Website Visitors (n=82) TX Residents (n=69) Non-TX Resident (n=13)*

110

Appendix IIf: Houston Visitors Choices and Characteristics from Follow-up Survey

©TNS 2012

112

Trips to HoustonLogical Patterns Occur for Types of Trips to Houston: Of course, living within close proximity to city events and attractions, Houston residents take far more

day trips than residents outside of Houston

Visitation climbs slightly from last year – both day (36%) and overnight trips (34%)

While most Texans do not spend the night, they usually (57%) opt for a hotel if they do spend the night

Hotel guests from Houston – who visit more often – spend 5.1 nights a year in a hotel – and average 1.9 nights per trip; other visitors come less often, but stay longer per trip.

Total 2010

(n=1,180)

Total 2011(n=1,234)

Total 2012(n=796)

Past Yr. O/N Leisure Visitors

(n=270)

Houston Residents

(n=299)


(n=397)

Non-Texas Residents

(n=100)

Day TripsNET Any 40% 34% 36% 52% 58% 23% 26%Mean (Inc. 0) 2.7 1.9 2.5 3.6 5.3 0.7 1.0Mean (Excl. 0) 6.7 5.5 6.8 6.9 9.3 2.8 4.0Overnight (O/N) Trips

NET Any 40% 33% 34% 100% 23% 32% 73%Mean (Inc. 0) 1.4 1.3 1.4 4.2 1.9 0.9 2.2Mean (Excl. 0) 3.5 3.9 4.2 4.2 8.4 2.7 3.1Hotel Nights in Houston

% With a Hotel Stay in Houston na 21% 19% 57% 13% 18% 41%

% of Houston O/Ns w/ Hotel Stay na 63% 57% 57% 57% 57% 56%Average Total Hotel Nights (if any) na 3.6 4.6 4.6 5.1 2.9 7.0Average Hotel Nights/Trip (if any) na 2.2 3.0 3.0 1.9 2.9 4.1

Q14. Please indicate the total number of leisure trips you have made to the Houston area in the past 12 months. Q14a. Of all your overnight trips to Houston in the past 12 months, how many total nights did you stay in a hotel?Q14b. On your last overnight trip to Houston, how many total nights did you stay in a hotel?

©TNS 2012

Recency of last overnight leisure trip to Houston

About half have visited Houston in the past 2 years, similar to prior waves.

NET: Within Past 2 Years: 2012: na na 47% 100% 43% 41% 88% 2011: na 44% na 100% 53% 37% 66% 2010: 51% na na 100% 49% 46% 84%

Within Past 12 Months

1 – 2 Years Ago

3 – 5 Years Ago

6+ Years Ago

Never

Elapsed Time Since Last Houston Overnight Visit (2012 unless labeled otherwise)

Q15. When was your last overnight leisure trip to the Houston area?

Total 2010(1,180)

Total 2011(1,234)

Total 2012(796)

Past Yr. O/N Ls

Visitors(270)

HoustonResidents

(299)

Other TexasResidents

(397)

Non-TexasResident

(100)

9% 10% 8% 7% 10% 5%

18% 24% 20% 15% 29%

2%

21% 23% 24% 36%

20%

5%

11% 11% 13% 19% 9% 15%

40% 33% 34%

100%

23%32%

73%

113

By definition: Must have visited Houston in past 5 years, business or leisure, overnight not required

©TNS 2012

Historically, a gradual increase in Houston visitation occurs throughout the spring and peaks in the summer months (notably June), followed by a sharp drop.

Timing of last visit to HoustonMonth of Last Houston Overnight Visit - History

Month of Last Houston Overnight Visit - Group

Q16. What was the month of your last overnight leisure trip to the Houston area?

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Total Houston Visitors 2010 (929)



Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Total Houston Visitors (605)Past Year Visitors (270)Houston Residents (193)Other Texas Residents (317)Non-Texas Residents (95)

114

©TNS 2012

Houston Visitor2010(929)



Past YearVisitor(270)

HoustonResident

(193)

Other TXResident

(317)

Non-TXResident

(95)

$18 $20 $22 $22 $17 $25 $23 $14 $15 $21 $33 $13 $28 $15 $25 $20 $21 $23 $17 $16 $43 $42 $34 $39 $41 $51 $33 $33

$80 $71 $78 $99 $86 $67 $94

$120 $114 $118 $145

$66 $94

$303 $99 $100 $100

$123

$89 $93

$147

$109 $122 $105

$119

$91 $95

$166 Lodging

Meals

Transport. TO/FRO Houston

Shopping

Entertainment

Transport. IN Houston

Outdoor Recreation

Other

Overnight spending amounts to visit HoustonImportant points from the overnight spending categories for the group include: Non-Texas residents almost double the spending level of their Texas resident counterparts and remains

much higher, even when excluding transportation to and from Houston Overnight visitors living in Texas spend about the same, whether they live in Houston or not Total spending exceeds the level noted in the past two waves ($503 in 2012).

Total Travel Party Overnight Spending on Last Trip to Houston(Column Height Impacted by Expenditure)

2012: na na $503 $606 $430 $451 $823 Average Total Spendingna na $385 $461 $364 $358 $520 Average exc. Travel To/Fro Houston

2011: na $485 na $515 $476 $421 $936 Average Total Spendingna $371 na $401 $392 $329 $608 Average exc. Travel To/Fro Houston

2010: $496 na na $580 $453 $420 $888 Average Total Spending $376 na na $435 $383 $338 $520 Average exc. Travel To/Fro Houston

Q17. Please estimate the dollars your travel party spent for each of the categories below on your last overnight leisure trip to Houston?

115

©TNS 2012

Satisfaction with Houston visitHouston satisfies a majority of its overnight leisure visitors: Past year leisure visitors remain happy with Houston, rebounding from last year’s dip (75%) As seen consistently in prior image and preference measures, Texas residents outside of Houston also

rate satisfaction with Houston below other groups Houston residents satisfaction slips from the recent past.

NET Top Four Ratings (7-10): 2012: na na 60% 75% 67% 53% 70% 2011: na 57% na 71% 82% 48% 69%2010: 62% na na 75% 71% 55% 74%

Extremely

Very

Somewhat

Not Pleased

Houston

Q18. Overall, how pleased were you with your last overnight leisure trip to the Houston area?

Total Houston Visitors 2010

(929)


(952)


(605)

Past Year Hous-ton Visitors

(270)

Houston Res-idents(193)

Other TX Res-idents(317)

Non-TX Res-idents(95)

30% 33% 31%22% 28% 34% 27%

8% 10% 9%

3%5%

13%

3%

42% 38% 39% 45% 39% 37% 43%

21% 19% 22%30%

28%16%

26%

116

Appendix IIg: Attitudes and Behaviors from Follow-up Survey

©TNS 2012

Search for Travel Info

Family/ Friends Seek My Travel

Advice

Label Reader; Read Small

Print

Pay More to Visit Original

Places

Time Savings Worth Extra $$

$

Love to Shop Mkts & Spe-cialty Stores

Income Enough to Sat-isfy Important

Desires

Uncomfortable w/o Confirmed Reservations

Buy Fashion; Doesn't Matter

if Pay More

Buy Clothes for Comfort, Not

Style

9% 7%16%

9% 5%12% 8%

21%

3%

26%13% 12%

19% 13%6%

15% 12%21%

4%

22%12% 9%

16% 12%6%

15% 10%22%

4%

24%12%

5%17%

10%4%

19%

4%

20%

3%14%

Total Travelers

Past Year O/N Leisure HV*

Plan to Visit Next 2 Yrs


Seek Lowest Possible Prices

Quality Goods Worth More $$

$

I Buy Quality, Not Price

I Like to Shop Before Pur-

chase

Rather Do What I Know I

Will Enjoy Than Do New

Like to Travel to Exotic Places

Prefer to Travel within Driving

Distance

Drive a Prac-tical Car

Drive a Luxury Car

Drive an SUV

21%14% 10%

23%10% 12% 9%

28%

7%17%15% 19% 15%

23%

9%19%

7%

28%

9%20%21% 16% 13%

24%

10% 15%8%

29%

7%

20%25%15% 12%

27%

3%15%

5%

27%

5%

26%

General description/feelings of traveler

Often sharing similar attitudes, Houston visitors sometimes differ from other travelers.

Traveler Descriptions/Feelings% Strongly Agree

Q37. For each statement below, can you please tell me how much you agree or disagree that the statement describes you or your feelings.

118


©TNS 2012

General description/feelings of traveler

Q37. For each statement below, can you please tell me how much you agree or disagree that the statement describes you or your feelings.

119

Prepared to pay more to visit places that offer something really original

Buy quality, not price Like to travel to exotic places Slightly higher incomes

Characteristics of Travelers More Likely to Visit Houston in Next 2 Years

Love to shop at markets/specialty stores Seek lowest prices Like to shop before purchasing Rather try something new than enjoy something known Willing to fly Drive an SUV Unlikely to buy clothes for comfort rather than style Average income Younger

Characteristics of Target (Female Houston Visitors 35-55)

Family and friends ask advice on travel matters Prepared to pay more to visit places that offer

something really original Incomes sufficient to satisfy important desires Quality is worth the extra money/ Buy quality, not price Like to travel to exotic places Unlikely to buy clothes for comfort over style Unlikely to seek the lowest prices Higher incomes

Characteristics of Recent Houston Leisure Visitors

Houston Visitor groups vary from other travelers in these ways:

Appendix IIh: Final Comments

©TNS 2012

Comments regarding HoustonGeneral CommentsTravelers often commend Houston as a travel destination, but adamantly complain about the weather. Comments center around its diversity, food, and a place to visit family: “Houston is a great place to go, but save it for the winter months … summers are grueling.” “I love Houston’s museums, attractions, and shops. Food is excellent and people are friendly.” “I absolutely LOVE Houston; I highly recommend it as a travel destination.” “Very diverse, interesting, great restaurants, a myriad of things to do, see, experience.” “GREAT PLACE … never enough hours in the day or days in the week to experience it all.” “We have family there and love the Houston area … it’s a great place to visit.”

Common comments regarding Houston: 2011

Q32. Please share below any additional comments you may have regarding Houston, TX as a travel destination?

121

“Houston is a nightmare for driving and the humidity”“Houston literally stinks; it and Galveston smell of dead fish” “I like Houston, but there is too much traffic and you really need to know what parts are safe and what to avoid”“I lived there, didn’t like it, but the ad campaign is great”“Traffic is brutal”“Hot, humid, people are unfriendly and stupid”“Too hot, too many mosquitoes, horrible traffic, it stinks”“It’s dirty and crime-ridden”“Driving is not for the faint of heart”“Houston is a scary place … rapists, thieves, etc.” “Sorry, but I hate Houston; ugly, horrible weather, & in-laws” “Too hot from May to September”“Need more advertising that appeals to families/children”

Negative

“Totally underestimated…has everything a city could offer”“Great place for Mexican food!”“Great museums, food, race track (car and horse), lots to do”“Many museums, plays, sports teams/games, fantastic zoo”“Great sports venues, comfortable/appealing, natural history museum, outstanding golf, top-notch aquarium, great parks” “Great place; deserves much better press as a destination”“Born/raised here – wonderful city, you name it, Houston has it. Something for everyone…arts, nightlife, shopping, sports”“Near the coast/gulf, museums, shopping, zoo”“Love it!!! Y’all come on down!!!”“The annual international quilt festival is awesome!”“The medical center has some of the best doctors in the world – that should be mentioned in the ads”

Positive

Appendix IIi: Research Purposes and Methods

©TNS 2012

Introduction and purposes of research

TNS is pleased to present the fourth TravelsAmerica report for the Greater Houston Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB). Conducted continuously throughout the year as a nationwide syndication by TNS, this online (data collection) project enables the Greater Houston CVB to assess visitor volumes and build a profile of leisure visitors to the area, specifically: Volume and source of visitors Basic demographics: age, number of people in household, average household income Trip characteristics: day vs. overnight, business travel, travel expenditures, length of stay,

activities selected Mode of transportation: air, own auto/truck, and other choices Visitor residence by state and selected DMAs.

In addition, a separate follow-up survey of Houston visitors measures the “whys behind visitation,” advertising effectiveness/ROI, and web usability such as: Important aspects of choosing a destination and travel planning and booking Perceptions, motivators, and interest in Houston vs. competitors Media usage Awareness, recall, and influence of ads Impact of website on brand, affinity, and purchase intent.

The report continues with a description of the research methods, an Executive Summary, and an Appendix with detailed research results.

123

©TNS 2012

GlossaryTerm Definition

DMA Designated Market Area: Counties that share the same primary TV broadcast signals (210 DMAs in US)

Calendar Year (CY) January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011

In-State Texas

Person-Trip Total person-trips are all trips taken by all people; i.e. a couple taking three trips counts as six (two people, each taking three trips)

Respondent/Household Level Respondent information – one count per respondent

Source of Visitors Residence of visitors

State/Region Level Information about all trips taken to a particular state/region (each trip to an area counts)

State Volume All trips taken to/within the state

Travel Party Traveler plus all companions, including children

Trip Travel 50 miles or more (one-way) away from home or stayed overnight. Excludes commuters or commercial travel (flight attendants, commercial vehicle operator). This eliminates some leisure day trips, such as some visitors from Galveston, since the distance is about 50 miles

Trip Level Information about all trips – each trip counts

Trip Volume All trips summed together

Visitor Person who has visited Houston in the past month; all are US residents, thus, travel is domestic travel only (domestic consumer).

124

©TNS 2012

Research methods

The syndicated TravelsAmerica study collects data via a web based methodology. Sample is selected from the TNS USA Panel with e-mail invitations sent monthly to representative households. TNS targets a response rate of 45%. The field period runs for two weeks each month, usually starting in the middle of the first week.

To enhance relevance, the data are weighted two ways:

Demographic weights adjust respondents by demographic factors such as region, age, income, household size, and marital status to closely represent the characteristics of US households

Trip and state projection calculations collects detailed information for up to three trips in the past month to project the actual number of trips taken. In the case of city level calculations, each trip taken to that city counts. A few tables represent person-trips – these take into account the immediate travel party size for each trip as well. For projections, the counts are weighted to reflect the actual number of US households and total trips.

TNS supervises all fieldwork, editing, coding, and tabulation of the results.

This special report focuses on results for Greater Houston. For the calendar years 2008 through 2011, respondents (does not include others in travel party) for Houston and total are shown below.

CY 2008#of Travelers (Unweighted)

CY 2008# of Travelers

(Weighted)



(Weighted)



(Weighted)



(Weighted)Region

713 715 760 784 666 721 654 822 Houston Visitors

75,001 73,382 74,203 73,910 74,413 75,741 64,155 75,168 Total for TravelsAmerica

125

©TNS 2012

126

Research methods continued

For the follow up survey, three groups who had completed the TravelsAmerica study in 2008-2012 were re-contacted to participate in the follow-up study. Those groups include: Texas residents Houston residents Houston overnight leisure visitors

The field period ran June 28-July 5, 2012, similar to prior years (May 16-26, 2011, June 16-28 in 2010, and August 11-24, 2009).

# of Respondents

2009

# of Respondents

2010

# of Respondents

2011

# of Respondents

2012Sample Group

326 471 404 270 Past Year Overnight Leisure Visitors (subset of total)

309 373 296 299 Houston Residents

259 664 829 397 Texas Residents Outside Of Houston

124 143 109 100 Non-Texas Residents Who Have Visited Houston

692 1,180 1,234 796 Total

August 2012 TNS 212 229202 Houston Visitor Profile Calendar Year 2011.

Documents

Transcript of August 2012 TNS 212 229202 Houston Visitor Profile Calendar Year 2011.