Cliftons Location Survey Report

Location Location LocationCliftons Location Survey November 2011

Cliftons Location Survey Report | November 2011Executive Summary

Cliftons was the first company in Australia to build dedicated Computer Training Rooms to meet the needs of the industry. As the first to market there was no benchmark to compare ourselves to, or against. High on my list of questions was “where to build” the first facility? Having a commercial property background the city (CDB) really seemed like the only answer to me, so after looking at the best training companies of the day I decided that that was where we needed to be and the first Cliftons venue came to be in George Street, Sydney.

The rest is history, or is it? In 1999 there was a continued push to look at facilities outside the CBD with North Sydney, North Ryde and Chatswood all being pushed by various drivers and stakeholders. Oracle, one of our major clients was considering relocating their North Sydney training venue and they came to us and asked the same question we had in 1997. We undertook some research of existing training venues in Australia and the United States and found mixed results in terms of location. The American experience was especially confused with no real patterns emerging other than different cities had different dynamics; these were not readily applicable to Australia. We then decided to go to the student base and look at what they wanted.

On the way we visited the concept of journey to work and journey to a training venue, and specifically the concept of modal split, that is the number of transport modes a student had to employ to get from home to the venue. There is a large amount of data that indicates that more than two modal splits will deter most people from undertaking a journey on a regular basis.

Location PreferenceIn this follow up study, attendee location preferences were sought across Asia Pacific locations. While there are large differences between cities like Singapore and Melbourne the results are statistically valid and provide strong insights into location preferences, similarities and differences.

Overall there is a very strong preference of 75% for CBD locations. This preference ranges from 85% in Sydney down to 65% in Hong Kong. It is interesting to note that the CBD was also a consistently high second preference location at 25% ranging from 20% in Singapore to 29% in Hong Kong. Near CBD locations were usually the highest second pref-erence and second highest first preference.

There was no significant variation in location preference when analysing results from students compared to instructors, computer based training compared to seminar events or self funded attendees to company funded ones.

From this data there is little doubt that the primary location of a training venue across all the cities surveyed really has to be the CBD. The location theorists and CBD property developers and owners must be rubbing their hands together with glee!

SydneyThere were a few surprises with the Sydney data. The main one was the decline of North Sydney as a preferred location down from 8% in the 1999 survey to just 3% in 2011 and the strength of Darling Harbour locations. The strong dominance of the CBD with the highest score in the survey of 85% is consistent with the earlier survey.

The relatively poor demand for Chatswood and North Ryde are consistent with earlier findings and are interestingly low especially when considering the strong IT related industry bases they both boast.

It is likely that Sydney’s strong radial transport network centring on the CBD has resulted in such a strong preference.

MelbourneThe main surprise in the Melbourne data was the weak preference for St Kilda Road, with less than 1%, which is often touted as Melbourne’s second location to the CBD. The CBD scored 69% with good support from the surrounding areas of Docklands and Southbank, 9% and 4% respectively. Regional locations had the highest preference in the survey of 8% for Dandenong and Camberwell at 10%.Melbourne has a dominantly radial public transport network.

SingaporeSingapore had the second highest demand for the CBD within the survey of 82% with strong support from Marina Bay. Suntec scored particularly badly which may mirror the experience of Melbourne’s St Kilda Road and Sydney’s North Ryde and North Sydney. Hong Kong’s Quarry Bay performed slightly better in comparison to Suntec.

Singapore boasts a linear integrated Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system and the late opening of a station servicing Suntec may have influenced this result.

Hong KongInterestingly Hong Kong had the lowest preference for the CBD district of Central at 65%. There was strong support for the near CBD location of Admiralty as a second choice at 44% and there was little support for Kowloon side districts like Tsim Sha Tsui at 7.5%.

This could be a factor of Hong Kong’s advanced multi orbital Mass Transit Railway (MTR) system and supporting bus network. This however does not explain Wanchai’s poor showing at 2%.

I hope you find the following report as informative and useful as we have. As always, we look forward to your feedback.

Andrew CameronManaging Director and Founder, Cliftons

Cliftons Location Survey Report | November 2011

Brisbane | Sydney | Canberra | Melbourne | Adelaide | PerthAuckland | Wellington | Singapore | Hong Kong | Global Affiliates

www.cliftons.com | [email protected] | 1800 629 088

Contents

Cliftons Location Survey - November 2011.........................................................

Presenters and Course Attendees.......................................................................

Length of Journey.................................................................................................

Mode of Travel to Cliftons....................................................................................

Mode of Travel to Work.......................................................................................

Time to Venue - Modes of Transport...................................................................

Venue Location Preferences.................................................................................

Sydney Location Preferences...............................................................................

Melbourne Location Preferences.........................................................................

Hong Kong Location Preferences.........................................................................

Singapore Location Preferences...........................................................................

External Influences on Location Preferences.......................................................

Location Conclusions............................................................................................

New Zealand Addendum......................................................................................

Auckland Location Preferences............................................................................

Wellington Location Preferences.........................................................................

Summary of the Findings......................................................................................

1

2

4

5

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

20

21


1. Cliftons Location Survey - November 2011The Cliftons Location Survey was undertaken in November 2011 to assess attendee location preferences for training, conference and event venues in Australia, Hong Kong and Singapore. Continuing research will be undertaken targeting additional cities and countries in the region.

Over 600 respondents attending courses or events at a Cliftons venue in Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore or New Zealand were surveyed.

The effects of:• travel methods;, • length of travel; • type of event or course;• length of event or course; • type of attendee; • home and work location;• habitual travel time; • travel methods to the workplace; • experience attending events and courses at other venues; and• other influencing factors were evaluated.

Trends and correlations between the factors mentioned and the respondents stated location preferences were analysed.

The overwhelming preference at each location was for central city venues. All factors analysed correlated to support CBD locations as the location of choice for an event, conference or training venue. Surprisingly, even the small percentage of respondents with multiple modal split transport methods and longer travel times to the city, predominantly elected the CBD as their location of choice.

Data Collection

614 responses were collected for the initial study. Phase one of the Location Survey focuses on the results from Australia, Hong Kong and Singapore. Further data will be collected from New Zealand and other locations.

Country of origin was found to have no statistical significance on location preference (city centre or other district).


www.cliftons.com | [email protected] | 1800 629 088 1


2. Presenters and Course AttendeesOf the 614 respondents, 18% were instructors and 82% course attendees. There was no statistical significance attributed to being an instructor or attendee for location preference.

Interestingly, instructors and presenters use significantly more buses than students and event attendees. Also event attendees catch significantly more trains than presenters. This applied both to travel to work and travel to the Cliftons venue that they were visiting that day.

How did you travel here today?




Presenters and Course Attendees Cont’d

How do you usually travel to work?

It took students slightly longer than instructors to travel to Cliftons. 54% of instructors took less than 30 minutes to reach their venue destination, compared to 44% of students taking less than 30 minutes. Over 90% of instructors and attendees travelled for less than one hour to reach a Cliftons venue.




3. Length of JourneyThe way people travel to work and to event and training venues was explored.

The length of journey to work directly correlated to length of journey to event and training venue. Similar travel times were reported for both normal travel to work, and travel to the Cliftons venue. 4% more respondents reached Cliftons within 15 minutes (20%), compared to place of work (16% within 15 minutes). No doubt this is a reflection of the Cliftons venue CBD locations and proximity to public transport.

Over 70% of respondents took less than 45 minutes to travel to work or Cliftons.

Travel time to Work

Travel time to Cliftons Venue





4. Mode of Travel to CliftonsWhen the mode of travel to Cliftons venues was analysed a significant majority (83%) of those travelling to a Cliftons venue used one mode of transport only. Further 14% of respondents used two modes of transport and only 3% used three or more modes of transport to reach the designated Cliftons venue. This reduced modal split to predominantly a single mode of transport and may be a reflection of Cliftons venues’ CBD locations and particularly the venues proximity to public transport.

Travel to Cliftons - modal split




Mode of Travel to Cliftons Cont’dCountry and city data showed no correlation to number of modes of travel with percentages replicating overall survey respondent location.

For those travelling by a single mode of transport to a Cliftons venue, the primary method of travel was train (40%), followed by bus and walking. These three modes of transport accounted for over 75% of travel. This was not statistically different to the full respondent survey.

For the full respondent survey, the predominant means of transport to Cliftons venues was train (48%), followed by walking and bus both at 21%. The “means of transport” percentages below add up to more than 100% as some travelers took multiple forms of transport – e.g. drive and train or train and walk, to reach their destination.

How did you get to this Cliftons Venue today? (Single mode of transport)




5. Mode of Travel to WorkThe majority (80%) of those travelling to work used one mode of transport only, 16% used two modes of transport and only 4% used three or more modes of transport to reach their workplace.

It was found that respondents had a slightly higher level of acceptance for more than one mode of transport when travelling to their regular place of work compared to when travelling to a training, conference or event venue. The difference was not statistically significant with only an additional 3% using two or more modes of transport for travel to work as compared to travel to a training or event venue.

Travel to Work - modal split




6. Time to Venue - Modes of TransportThe majority of those travelling to Cliftons using a single mode of transport arrived in less than 30 minutes (52%) and by 45 minutes, 75% of single mode travelers had reached their destination. This shows some variance from the overall group (see earlier graph), where 48% had a travel time of 30 minutes or less.

Travel time to Cliftons - Single Mode

Those travelling by two or more means of transport (17%) predominantly took 30 – 60 minutes to reach their destination (60%), as compared to 40% of the single mode of transport group whose trips where generally shorter (52% less than 30 minutes).

Travel time to Cliftons - 2 or more modes




7. Venue Location PreferencesOverall there was a strong preference for CBD locations with 75% of the respondents preferring the CBD. This preference ranges from 85% in Sydney down to 65% in Hong Kong. CBD location preference was slightly higher for the single mode of transport group (76%).

Venue Location - 1st preference




Venue Location Preferences Cont’dThe second location preference was more diversely split than the clear CBD first preference. It is interesting to note that the CBD was also a consistently high second preference location at 25%, ranging from 20% in Singapore to 29% in Hong Kong. Near CBD locations were usually the highest second preference and second highest first preference.

Venue Location - 2nd preference




8. Sydney Location PreferencesSydney displayed a strong preference of 85% for a CBD first preference location. All other districts rated fewer than 5% as a first preference location. For second preference locations, Darling Harbour rated highest at 32% followed by Sydney CBD and North Sydney, both at 24%.

There was a 50% response rate for second preference venue location, however for subsequent preferences the response rate dropped to 20 – 30%. The significant drop in responses for a second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth preference location indicate little interest in alternative locations away from the CBD.

ChatswoodNorth Ryde

Parramatta

3%

Darling Harbour

North Sydney

First PreferenceSydney CBD 85%North Sydney 3%Chatswood 3%North Ryde 3%Parramatta 4%Darling Harbour 4%

Second PreferenceSydney CBD 24%North Sydney 24%Chatswood 8%North Ryde 5%Parramatta 6%Darling Harbour 32%

85%Sydney CBD

3%

4%

3%

4%




9. Melbourne Location PreferencesIn Melbourne the CBD rated 69% as a first preference location with some interest in Docklands, Dandenong and

Camberwell all at 8% to 10%.

For a second preference location, Docklands at 28% was closely followed by the CBD at 25%. For the third preference locations Docklands (36%) and Southbank (32%) where the clear favourites.

Again a significant drop in response rate for subsequent location preferences indicates lack of interest outside the strong first choice location of Melbourne CBD.

69%Melbourne CBD

1%

10%

St Kilda Road

9%

4%

DocklandsCamberwell

8%

Dandenong

Southbank

First PreferenceMelbourne CBD 69%St Kilda Road 1%Docklands 9%Southbank 4%Dandenong 8%Camberwell 10%

Second PreferenceMelbourne CBD 24%St Kilda Road 19%Docklands 20%Southbank 26%Dandenong 5%Camberwell 7%




10. Hong Kong Location PreferencesThe CBD of Central rated as the first preference at 65% with all other districts rating fewer than 8% as a first choice. Hong Kong was the only place to indicate potential interest for additional locations outside the Central business area as 2nd or 3rd venue locations.

Admiralty rated highly as a second choice location at 43%. Wanchai was the strongest third choice location rating over 30%.

8%

2%

7%

65%Central

Admiralty

WanChai

CausewayBay

QuarryBay

Tsim Sha Tsui

6%

6%6%

Sha TinFirst PreferenceCentral 65%Admiralty 8%Wan Chai 2%Causeway Bay 6%Tsim Sha Tsui 7%Sha Tin 6%Quarry Bay 6%

Second PreferenceCentral 23%Admiralty 43%Wan Chai 4%Causeway Bay 14%Tsim Sha Tsui 11%Sha Tin 1%Quarry Bay 5%




11. Singapore Location PreferencesSingapore had the second highest demand for CBD location at 82%. The second preference was less clear with Riverside and Orchard Road both rating 28% and the CBD close behind at 20%. The third preference location was fairly evenly split between Suntech, Marina Bay and Orchard Road all around 25%.

Singapore also demonstrated a significant drop in response rate for subsequent location preferences indicating a lack of interest for locations away from the strong first choice of Singapore CBD.

Riverside(Civic)

Marina Bay

SuntecEast CoastOrchard Rd

82%

SingaporeCBD

0%

0%

12%

3%3%

First PreferenceSingapore CBD 82%Riverside (Civic) 0%Orchard Road 3%Marina Bay 12%Suntec 0%East Coast 3%

Second PreferenceSingapore CBD 20%Riverside (Civic) 28%Orchard Road 28%Marina Bay 12%Suntec 12%East Coast 0%




12. External Influences on Location PreferencesRespondents were asked about the importance of “convenience” and what other factors where important to them in their choice of preferred venue location. Convenience was rated as extremely or very important by 87% of respondents, indicating this is a primary criterion for choice of venue. Selection of a location not considered “convenient” could lead to loses of up to 87% of a potential audience.

How important is convenience?

Respondents rated a range of external factors relating to convenience. 71% selected easily accessible by public transport as extremely important and 51% indicated that a safe secure area was extremely important. Other factors rated as fairly to extremely important including familiarity with a location and access to shops and commercial amenities. Car parking rated lowest in importance to venue location.

When asked to list “What do you like most about this venue?” 58% of respondents listed location and ease of access as the most important features. This was followed by staff and facilities at 21%.




Other Factors

Some of the factors analysed were found not to correlate specifically to venue location choice. The type and length of an event or course and whether it was company sponsored or personal choice did not impact CBD location preference.

How long is the event you are attending at Cliftons?

Are you attending a computer based course or seminar event?




Are you attending a course run by your company or a third party?

Location ConclusionsThis study provides a clear direction for event and training venue location in Melbourne, Sydney, Hong Kong and Singapore. All results indicate a strong preference (75% of respondents) for a central city location. All factors analysed correlate to support CBD city locations as the location of choice for an event, conference or training venue. Factors significantly impacting the preference for a CBD location are convenience, ease of access by public transport networks, shorter travel time and modal split of two or less forms of transport.

It can be concluded that the Cliftons Location Survey, November 2011 findings strongly suggest central city locations are the best choice for attracting the most attendees to an event or training course.




New Zealand AddendumThe survey commenced in Wellington and Auckland at the same time as the survey in the body of the report, during phase one. However the recovery of the data and the subsequent analysis of that data were not completed in time for inclusion in the original report.

This addendum briefly outlines the results of the survey principally re-enforcing the findings of the original report. The graph below summerises the updated sample split which highlights an increase in sample size for New Zealand to 16% and a proportionate reduction for the other locations.

Data Collection Location




1. Auckland Location PreferencesAuckland showed a much broader split of location preferences than the other locations. CBD was still the strongest preference with 59%, slightly below the average for the other locations. North Shore rated strongly as first preference at 17% and Viaduct scored strongly at 10%.

Almost 80% of respondents nominated a second preference with the majority of second preferences for the CBD with 34%. Viaduct with 29% scored strongly as a second preference in excess of the second preferences for Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong.



First PreferenceAuckland CBD 59%Viaduct 10%Newmarket 5%Mt Wellington 6%North Shore 17%Manukau 3%

Second PreferenceAuckland CBD 34%Viaduct 29%Newmarket 8%Mt Wellington 5%North Shore 8%Manukau 3%

17%

5%

6%

10%

North Shore

Newmarket

Mt Wellington

Viaduct

59%Auckland CBD

3%

Manukau


2. Wellington Location PreferencesWellington showed an 82% first preference for the CBD comparable with Singapore and Sydney. Porirua at 9% was the strongest other location with the remaining districts at 3% each.

There was a response rate of over 50% for the second preference with City Fringe having the strongest response rate at 38.89%, substantially in excess of the other leading second preferences. CBD scored strongly with 27.78% and Petone and Lower Hutt recording 11.11% and 16.67% of second preferences but with the smaller sample size slightly exaggerating the percentages.

First PreferenceWellington CBD 82%City Fringe 3%Petone 3%Lower Hutt 3%Porirua 9%

82%Wellington CBD

3%City Fringe

3%Petone

3%Lower Hutt

9%Porirua




Summary of the FindingsThe New Zealand survey did not define whether a respondent was a presenter or an attendee.

The statistics for transport to work were different from the rest of the survey. More people drove to work and the venue (58.8% and 42.5% respectively). A significant number walked to the venues (40%) with Wellington showing that 50% of respondents walked to the venues. Bus was the dominant form of public transport with 20% of respondents overall. These results are consistent with the general views that Wellington has better public transport than Auckland and the car is by far and away the preferred mode of transport generally.

Again the significant majority, 69% utilised a single mode of transport to get to work and for travel Cliftons venues. As was similar to the Australian results.

The results for location preference were very similar to the rest of the results with in excess of 67% expressing the CBD as their first preference. Wellington was 82%, significantly higher than Auckland at 59% where North Shore scored strongly as first preference at 17%. Auckland CBD was also a strong second preference as was Viaduct with 34% and 29% respectively. Wellington’s strongest second preference was City Fringe at 38.89%.

Convenience as a factor was consistent with the results for the sample in phase 1 and security was once more a key consideration.



:


The survey data and results were compiled by:Vanessa Green, Managing Director at Crimson Cartwheel.

Vanessa is an experienced Regional Senior Executive with an established record of business growth and pro-active management across Asia Pacific. She has a bachelor of Arts in Communication & Media Studies as well as a Bachelor of Science, Psychology.

For more information on this survey, please contact [email protected]

Cliftons Location Survey Report | November 2011Executive Summary

Cliftons was the first company in Australia to build dedicated Computer Training Rooms to meet the needs of the industry. As the first to market there was no benchmark to compare ourselves to, or against. High on my list of questions was “where to build” the first facility? Having a commercial property background the city (CBD) really seemed like the only answer to me, so after looking at the best training companies of the day I decided that that was where we needed to be and the first Cliftons venue came to be in George Street, Sydney.

The rest is history, or is it? In 1999 there was a continued push to look at facilities outside the CBD with North Sydney, North Ryde and Chatswood all being pushed by various drivers and stakeholders. Oracle, one of our major clients was considering relocating their North Sydney training venue and they came to us and asked the same question we had in 1997. We undertook some research of existing training venues in Australia and the United States and found mixed results in terms of location. The American experience was especially confused with no real patterns emerging other than different cities had different dynamics; these were not readily applicable to Australia. We then decided to go to the student base and look at what they wanted.

On the way we visited the concept of journey to work and journey to a training venue, and specifically the concept of modal split, that is the number of transport modes a student had to employ to get from home to the venue. There is a large amount of data that indicates that more than two modal splits will deter most people from undertaking a journey on a regular basis.

Location PreferenceIn this follow up study, attendee location preferences were sought across Asia Pacific locations. While there are large differences between cities like Singapore and Melbourne the results are statistically valid and provide strong insights into location preferences, similarities and differences.

Overall there is a very strong preference of 75% for CBD locations. This preference ranges from 85% in Sydney down to 65% in Hong Kong. It is interesting to note that the CBD was also a consistently high second preference location at 25% ranging from 20% in Singapore to 29% in Hong Kong. Near CBD locations were usually the highest second pref-erence and second highest first preference.

There was no significant variation in location preference when analysing results from students compared to instructors, computer based training compared to seminar events or self funded attendees to company funded ones.

From this data there is little doubt that the primary location of a training venue across all the cities surveyed really has to be the CBD. The location theorists and CBD property developers and owners must be rubbing their hands together with glee!

SydneyThere were a few surprises with the Sydney data. The main one was the decline of North Sydney as a preferred location down from 8% in the 1999 survey to just 3% in 2011 and the strength of Darling Harbour locations. The strong dominance of the CBD with the highest score in the survey of 85% is consistent with the earlier survey.

The relatively poor demand for Chatswood and North Ryde are consistent with earlier findings and are interestingly low especially when considering the strong IT related industry bases they both boast.

It is likely that Sydney’s strong radial transport network centring on the CBD has resulted in such a strong preference.

MelbourneThe main surprise in the Melbourne data was the weak preference for St Kilda Road, with less than 1%, which is often touted as Melbourne’s second location to the CBD. The CBD scored 69% with good support from the surrounding areas of Docklands and Southbank, 9% and 4% respectively. Regional locations had the highest preference in the survey of 8% for Dandenong and Camberwell at 10%.Melbourne has a dominantly radial public transport network.

SingaporeSingapore had the second highest demand for the CBD within the survey of 82% with strong support from Marina Bay. Suntec scored particularly badly which may mirror the experience of Melbourne’s St Kilda Road and Sydney’s North Ryde and North Sydney. Hong Kong’s Quarry Bay performed slightly better in comparison to Suntec.

Singapore boasts a linear integrated Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system and the late opening of a station servicing Suntec may have influenced this result.

Hong KongInterestingly Hong Kong had the lowest preference for the CBD district of Central at 65%. There was strong support for the near CBD location of Admiralty as a second choice at 44% and there was little support for Kowloon side districts like Tsim Sha Tsui at 7.5%.

This could be a factor of Hong Kong’s advanced multi orbital Mass Transit Railway (MTR) system and supporting bus network. This however does not explain Wanchai’s poor showing at 2%.

I hope you find the following report as informative and useful as we have. As always, we look forward to your feedback.

Andrew CameronManaging Director and Founder, Cliftons



www.cliftons.com | [email protected] | 1800 629 088

Contents

Cliftons Location Survey - November 2011.........................................................

Presenters and Course Attendees.......................................................................

Length of Journey.................................................................................................

Mode of Travel to Cliftons....................................................................................

Mode of Travel to Work.......................................................................................

Time to Venue - Modes of Transport...................................................................

Venue Location Preferences.................................................................................

Sydney Location Preferences...............................................................................

Melbourne Location Preferences.........................................................................

Hong Kong Location Preferences.........................................................................

Singapore Location Preferences...........................................................................

External Influences on Location Preferences.......................................................

Location Conclusions............................................................................................

New Zealand Addendum......................................................................................

Auckland Location Preferences............................................................................

Wellington Location Preferences.........................................................................

Summary of the Findings......................................................................................

1

2

4

5

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

20

21


1. Cliftons Location Survey - November 2011The Cliftons Location Survey was undertaken in November 2011 to assess attendee location preferences for training, conference and event venues in Australia, Hong Kong and Singapore. Continuing research will be undertaken targeting additional cities and countries in the region.

Over 600 respondents attending courses or events at a Cliftons venue in Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore or New Zealand were surveyed.

The effects of:• travel methods;, • length of travel; • type of event or course;• length of event or course; • type of attendee; • home and work location;• habitual travel time; • travel methods to the workplace; • experience attending events and courses at other venues; and• other influencing factors were evaluated.

Trends and correlations between the factors mentioned and the respondents stated location preferences were analysed.

The overwhelming preference at each location was for central city venues. All factors analysed correlated to support CBD locations as the location of choice for an event, conference or training venue. Surprisingly, even the small percentage of respondents with multiple modal split transport methods and longer travel times to the city, predominantly elected the CBD as their location of choice.

Data Collection

614 responses were collected for the initial study. Phase one of the Location Survey focuses on the results from Australia, Hong Kong and Singapore. Further data will be collected from New Zealand and other locations.

Country of origin was found to have no statistical significance on location preference (city centre or other district).




2. Presenters and Course AttendeesOf the 614 respondents, 18% were instructors and 82% course attendees. There was no statistical significance attributed to being an instructor or attendee for location preference.

Interestingly, instructors and presenters use significantly more buses than students and event attendees. Also event attendees catch significantly more trains than presenters. This applied both to travel to work and travel to the Cliftons venue that they were visiting that day.

How did you travel here today?




Presenters and Course Attendees Cont’d

How do you usually travel to work?


