[Product Name] Marketing Planpeople.okanagan.bc.ca/arice/2008TTRAProceedings... · Title [Product...

B. Ritchie Slide 1 of 45

Assessing the Relative Impactof the 1988 and 2010

Olympic Winter Games on the Host City:

Calgary versus Vancouver

J.R. Brent RitchieUniversity of Calgary

Haskayne School of Business

Oct 17, 2008 Plenary Session Panel Discussion TTRA Conference Victoria, B.C.

B. Ritchie Slide 2 of 28B. Ritchie Slide 2 of 28

Overall Purpose

•To provide a framework for a

general assessment of the LIKELY

relative impact of the hosting of

an Olympic Winter Games on the

level of international awareness

and the image of the host city



Calgary in 1981 (when Games were

awarded) and in 1988•In international terms, small (less than 1 million population), relatively unknown Canadian city

•whose primary (perhaps only) claim to fame was the reputation of the Calgary Stampede

•and its growing, but still under-estimated impact on the international tourism scene



Vancouver in 2003 (when Games

were awarded) and in 2010

•In international terms, a relatively

small (approx 600,000 population ), but

significant Canadian “Gateway to

Asia” city





•While not yet recognized as a

GREAT international city, its

spectacular beauty, pleasant

climate, and attractive lifestyle,

have made it quite probably

Canada’s most desirable city…Oct 17, 2008 Plenary Session Panel Discussion TTRA Conference Victoria, B.C.




…possessing an established level of

international awareness and a

recognizable image as a desirable

place to live---almost on a level

with Los Angeles



CALGARYSome Research Facts

NATURE OF THE STUDYThe research reported had four very basic objectives: •To measure the impact of the 1988 Olympic Winter Games on the awareness levels and perceptions of the host city in international markets

•To examine how these awareness levels and perceptions changed over different points in time prior to and following the event



CALGARYSome Research Facts

•To compare changes in awareness levels to those of a control city that had not hosted such an event during the period of study

•To compare the nature and extent of possible image changes across major international market regions



DATA COLLECTIONFocused on 6 Main Points

1.General image of Canada2.Awareness of Canadian provinces3.Unaided awareness of 10 selected

Canadian cities4.Prompted recall of 10 selected

Canadian cities5.Free form images of 5 selected

Canadian cities6.Awareness of previous and future

Olympic Games sites (Summer & Winter)FOCUS TENDS TO BE ON ITEMS 3 THROUGH 6



CRITICAL ROLE OF COLLEGIAL ASSISTANCE STUDY

• While research was conceptually simple, data collection was complex & demanding

• Study only possible through generous assistance of colleagues in 22 universities located in the U.S. & Europe

• Every year from 1986-1989 each institution completed 100 interviews, in the city in which they were located, by telephone with individuals over 16 years of age



UNAIDED RECALL CITY RECOGNITION

Canadian City

Percentage of Respondents

1986a

(N=822)1987

(N=988)1988

(N=929)1989

(N=772)

Halifax 2.4% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3%

Quebec 46.8 40.9 25.8 22.0

Montreal 66.3 57.7 57.2 54.0

Ottawa 9.9 9.1 13.1 7.1

Toronto 47.8 40.9 43.6 46.5

Winnipeg 9.6 13.1 10.6 14.9

Regina 1.1 1.4 2.0 1.6

Calgary 19.5 22.4 43.3 33.8

Edmonton 12.3 13.5 18.6 18.1

Vancouver 38.0 38.1 32.8 26.3a Year of survey

United States Awareness Levels of Selected Canadian Cities (Unaided Recall)


European Awareness Levels of SelectedCanadian Cities (Unaided Recall)

Canadian City

Percentage of Respondents1986a

(N=857)1987

(N=741)1988

(N=927)1989

(N=562)Halifax 2.8% 3.1% 3.1% 4.3%Quebec 41.4 47.1 41.4 40.7Montreal 58.0 62.5 55.1 53.6Ottawa 28.9 35.2 27.4 31.5Toronto 46.6 49.8 41.6 48.9Winnipeg 8.1 7.0 7.1 4.4Regina 1.0 0.8 1.3 0.1Calgary 10.1 12.0 40.0 31.9Edmonton 5.3 5.0 6.6 5.3Vancouver 34.3 37.2 32.4 27.9

a Year of survey


AIDED RECALL CITY RECOGNITION

Canadian City


1986a

(N=822)1987

(N=988)1988

(N=929)1989

(N=772)

Halifax 41.4% 49.1% 38.3% 30.8%

Quebec 41.4 46.3 41.5 43.5

Montreal 32.0 39.9 43.2 42.9

Ottawa 64.8 65.9 59.8 55.8

Toronto 48.8 53.9 51.5 49.6

Winnipeg 66.9 70.4 62.0 56.0

Regina 24.0 28.3 25.8 20.3

Calgary 52.9 54.6 45.5 51.6

Edmonton 53.2 57.7 49.0 44.6


United States Awareness Levels of Selected Canadian Cities (Incremental with Prompting)


European Awareness Levels of Selected Canadian Cities (Incremental with Prompting)

Canadian City


(N=857)1987

(N=741)1988

(N=927)1989


a Year of survey


TOTAL RECOGNITION (UNAIDED+ AIDED) OF CANADIAN CITIES

Canadian City


1986a

(N=822)1987

(N=988)1988

(N=929)1989

(N=772)

Halifax 43.6% 51.3% 40.5% 33.1%

Quebec 88.2 87.2 67.2 65.5

Montreal 98.3 97.6 95.9 96.9

Ottawa 74.7 75.0 73.0 62.9

Toronto 96.6 94.8 95.2 96.1

Winnipeg 76.5 83.5 72.5 70.9

Regina 25.1 29.7 27.8 21.9

Calgary 72.4 77.0 88.8 85.4

Edmonton 65.5 71.2 67.7 62.7


United States Awareness Levels of Selected Canadian Cities, Where Total Awareness is Defined as Aided Plus Prompted Recall


European Awareness Levels of Selected Canadian Cities, Where Total Awareness is Defined as Aided Plus Prompted Recall

Canadian City


(N=857)1987

(N=741)1988

(N=927)1989


a Year of survey


CHANGES IN AWARENESS LEVELS

CALGARY 1986-1989

A GRAPHICALSUMMARY OVERVIEW


Awareness of Calgary by U.S. Respondents (1986-1989)

72.477

88.8 85.4

52.9 54.646.5

51.6

19.5 22.4

43.3

33.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1986 1987 1988 1989

Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

Total RecallPrompted RecallUnaided Recall

Slide 27 of 28

48.3 50.1

87.6 85.6

38.2 38.1

47.653.7

10.1 12

4031.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1986 1987 1988 1989

Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

Total RecallPrompted RecallUnaided Recall

Awareness of Calgary by European Respondents (1986-1989)

Slide 26 of 28


LONGITUDINAL COMPARISON OF

CALGARY and EDMONTON

A GRAPHICAL SUMMARY OVERVIEW – Unaided Recall


Unaided Recall of Calgary and Edmonton by U.S. Respondents (1986-1989)

19.522.4

43.3

33.8

12.3 13.5

18.6 18.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

1986 1987 1988 1989

Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

CalgaryEdmonton

Slide 27 of 28

10.112

40

31.9

5.3 5 6.6 5.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

1986 1987 1988 1989

Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

CalgaryEdmonton

Unaided Recall of Calgary and Edmonton by European Respondents (1986-1989)

Slide 26 of 28


PROVINCE RECOGNITION

Province


Without Prompting

With Prompting Total

Newfoundland 7.4% 57.3% 64.7%

Nova Scotia 10.1 63.2 73.3

Prince Edward Island 3.4 42.7 46.1

New Brunswick 3.4 51.5 54.9

Ontario 36.6 45.1 81.7

Quebec 47.1 36.6 83.7

Manitoba 10.3 42.6 52.9

Saskatchewan 20.9 43.3 64.2

Alberta 27.8 45.5 73.3

British Columbia 29.1 48.1 77.2

Province Recognition from United States Respondents (1988)(N=929)



PROVINCE RECOGNITION

Province


Without Prompting

With Prompting Total

Newfoundland 9.1% 54.8% 63.9%

Nova Scotia 5.0 36.2a 41.2a

Prince Edward Island 3.2 25.9a 29.1a

New Brunswick 3.8 24.0a 27.8a

Ontario 32.4 50.4 82.8

Quebec 50.8 35.9a 86.7a

Manitoba 5.3 24.9a 34.7a

Saskatchewan 7.8 19.1a 26.9a

Alberta 17.2 39.9 57.1

British Columbia 13.3 47.2 60.5

Province Recognition from European Respondents (1988)(N=927)

a Does not include Berne, Switzerland.


IMAGES OF CANADA (U.S.)

ResponseFrequencya

Percentage of

RespondentsColdFrenchMountainsBeautifulSnowOlympicsFriendlyHockeyForests/treesLakesFishingSkiingWildernessLargeOpenGood neighbours/alliesRCMPGood peopleScenerySimilar to USA

2581671451401401139987837668616055504746453837

28.9%18.716.215.715.712.711.19.79.38.57.66.86.76.25.65.35.25.04.34.1

Images of Canada from United States Respondents (1988)(N=893)

a Total number of responses = 2,972; average number of responses per person = 3.33.


IMAGES OF CANADA (U.S.) con’t

ResponseFrequencya

Percentage of

RespondentsNiagara FallsGreenNice to visitCanadian beerUnder populatedEnglishFriends/family thereBritish tiesGoodPeacefulGreatExpoLike the country

31302928252523232221202020

3.5%3.43.23.12.82.82.62.62.52.42.22.22.2

Images of Canada from United States Respondents (1988)(N=893)

a Total number of responses = 2,972; average number of responses per person = 3.33.



IMAGES OF CANADA (Europe) Images of Canada from European Respondents

• In Europe, it seems that Canada is known for its beautiful natural scenery and its size

• “Forests and trees” were among the top three impressions for nine out of ten reporting centers

• Half of the reporting centers made reference to Canada as being “vast,” “big, wide open,” in the top three images

• “Snow” and “the Olympics” were each among the top three images mentioned by four of the ten centers



IMAGES OF CALGARY



IMAGES OF CALGARY

Image Expression


1987(N=448)

1988(N=636)

1989(N=467)

Olympics 17.2% 77.4% 66.4%

Stampede 25.7 10.8 8.4

Hockey 16.7 7.1 15.6

Cowboys, horses 5.6 4.7 3.2

Rodeo 11.4 4.4 6.2

Skiing --- 4.1 5.4

Mountains 2.2 3.5 6.0

Cold, snow 3.6 3.3 5.1

Western 4.2 3.2 3.0

Friendly --- 1.9 ---

Oil 4.0 1.7 ---

Beautiful 2.2 1.7 ---

Football 2.2 --- ---

Cattle ranching 2.0 --- ---

American city 2.0 --- ---

Total number of responses 626 929 652

Average number of responses per person 1.40 1.47 1.40

U.S. Respondents’ Images of Calgary


IMAGES OF EDMONTON



IMAGES OF EDMONTON

Image Expression


1987(N=448)

1988(N=636)

1989(N=467)

Hockey 52.1% 53.0% 65.1%

Gretzky 16.9 17.3 10.3

Large Mall 7.1 5.7 8.1

Oil 5.5 4.0 2.6

Cold, snow 4.9 4.0 7.4

Large --- 3.3 ---

Football 3.4 3.3 8.1

North 1.8 1.8 ---

Small 1.8 1.8 ---

Universities 1.5 1.5 ---

Beautiful 1.5 1.5 ---

Prairies 2.5 --- ---

Agriculture --- --- 2.6

Mountains --- --- 1.5

Rodeo --- --- 1.5

North of Calgary --- --- 1.5

Total number of responses 432 408 365

Average number of responses per person 1.33 1.36 1.56

U.S. Respondents’ Images of Edmonton


Awareness of Previous/Future Winter Games Sites(1986 through 1989)

Year and Site

Percentage of Respondents1986 1987 1988 1989

U.S.(N=857)

Europe(N=857)

U.S.(N=988)

Europe(N=807)

U.S.(N=888)

Europe(N=927)

U.S.(N=772)

Europe(N=562)

1976 Innsbruck 14.6% 21.4% 10.6% 17.1% 17.4% 18.8% 9.1% 17.8%1980 Lake Placid 44.5 36.5 38.3 22.6 38.5 22.3 28.0 24.21984 Sarajevo 32.8 36.2 23.5 38.7 31.4 39.8 22.4 40.21988 Calgary 18.5 13.5 29.3 30.2 76.3 82.5 53.8 66.41992 Albertville n/a n/a 1.5 9.4 14.1 39.3 11.3 34.3

HOST CITY AWARENESS –Past & Future (WINTER GAMES)



Awareness of Previous/Future Summer Games Sites(1986 through 1989)

Year and Site

Percentage of Respondents1986 1987 1988 1989

U.S.(N=857)

Europe(N=857)

U.S.(N=988)

Europe(N=807)

U.S.(N=888)

Europe(N=927)

U.S.(N=772)

Europe(N=562)

1976 Montreal 33.8% 39.6% 31.8% 46.3% 32.5% 38.3% 21.9% 44.0%1980 Moscow 30.0 30.8 22.5 33.8 29.3 28.4 25.5 32.61984 Los Angeles 69.0 44.1 59.9 49.1 57.2 45.7 50.6 47.51988 Seoul 32.7 36.2 39.5 50.6 63.0 67.4 58.5 67.81992 Barcelona n/a n/a 3.9 18.5 12.5 35.7 16.1 51.6

HOST CITY AWARENESS –Past & Future (SUMMER GAMES)



APPENDIX AList of Individuals and Institutionswho made this Research possible

• The research reported on the proceeding pages was made possible by the volunteer efforts of many individuals

• The contributions of the following colleagues toward this report is gratefully acknowledged

• Without their cooperation this project would not have been possible



Europe• VIENNA, AUSTRIA – Dr. Josef Mazanec, Institut fur Fremdenverkehr• BERNE, SWITZERLAND – Dr. Hansrudi Muller, Tourism Research Institute,

University of Berne• ANTWERP, BELGIUM – Dr. Didier Van Houts, Universite de l’Etat• BORDEAUX, FRANCE – Dr. Josette Mesplier-Pinet, Faculte des Sciences

Economiques, Universite Bourdeau 1• BREDA, NETHERLANDS – Dr. M.J. Kosters, Nederlands Wetenschappelijk,

Instituut voor Toerisme en Rekreatie• PARIS, FRANCE – Prof. Jean-Claude Croize, l’ENSBA• DUBROVNIK, YUGOSLAVIA – Prof. Antun Kobasic, Faculte de tourism et

commerce, exterieur a Dubrovnik• ZAGREB, YUGOSLAVIA – Dr. Boris Vukonic, Faculty of Foreign Trade• LONDON, ENGLAND – Dr. Dennis Anderson, Cranfield School of

Management• CEDEX, FRANCE – Dr. M. Gerard Tocquer, Institut Ceram-Glion de

Gestion du Tourisme Ceram• ZURICH, SWITZERLAND – Dr. Hans Pieter Schmidhauser, Instituts fur

Fermdenverkehr und Verkehrswirtschaft an der Hochshule



United States• TEMPE, ARIZONA – Dr. David Gourley / Dr. Mary Jo Bitner, Arizona State

University• BOULDER, COLORADO – Dr. C.R. Goeldner, University of Colorado• DENVER, COLORADO – Dr. Bob Mill, University of Denver• HATTIESBURG, MISSISSIPPI – Dr. D.C. Williams, Jr., University of Southern

Mississippi• NEW YORK, NEW YORK – Dr. Allan K. Hogenauer / Mr. Cord Hansen-

Sturm, New School of Social Research• LAS VEGAS, NEVADA – Dr. David Christianson, University of Nevada –

Las Vegas• SEATTLE, WASHINGTON – Dr. Bernard H. Booms / Dr. Mary Jo Bitner,

Washington State University• MENOMONIE, WISCONSIN – Dr. Jafar Jafari, University of Wisconsin-

Stout• COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS – Dr. John Crompton, Texas A&M University• CLEMSON, SOUTH CAROLINA – Dr. Bob McLelland, Clemson University• LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA – Dr. Chris Lucas, PLOG Research Inc.



What is Current Awareness & Image of Vancouver?


Awareness is Critical in Tourism

as theFirst Decision Factor



If you are unawareof a destination,

it is highly unlikelyyou will visit it



How is Vancouver likely to be impacted by the

2010 Games?



Unaided Awareness of Calgary vs. Vancouver in my Study

City - Respondents Percentage of Respondents1986 1987 1988 1989

Vancouver - USA 38.0% 38.1% 32.8% 26.3%Calgary - USA 19.8 22.4 43.3 33.8Vancouver - EUROPE 34.3 37.2 32.4 27.9Calgary - EUROPE 10.1 12.0 40.0 31.9



Between 1986 & 1988, the “BUMP” was

• In U.S. – Calgary went from

19.5 to 43.3 = 2.2x

• In Europe – Calgary went from

10.1 to 40.0 = 4.0x



What kind of Awareness “BUMP”

is likely for Vancouver?



“To what extent does a given level of awareness translate into increased visitation & enhanced resident well-being as a result of any increased visitation...”

Of course, we must ask:



Questions / Comments?!


[Product Name] Marketing Planpeople.okanagan.bc.ca/arice/2008TTRAProceedings... · Title [Product...

Documents

Transcript of [Product Name] Marketing Planpeople.okanagan.bc.ca/arice/2008TTRAProceedings... · Title [Product...