Effects of Residency and Entertainment Events on Quality, Satisfaction and Future Intentions:

A Regional Visitor Survey in North Carolina

Kakyom Kim, Johnson & Wales University

Ann-Marie Weldon, Johnson & Wales University

Michael Applegate, Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority

Background• The arts and entertainment have been steadily growing

as a highly profitable revenue source for local communities.

• According to the US Census Bureau (2006), approximately 93 million adults attended classical music, opera or live theater performances during 2005, spending an estimated $12.7 billion.

• Americans for the Arts (2007), estimated that in 2006 Mecklenburg County’s nonprofit arts and culture organizations generated a $158 million annual economic impact and that 35% of attendees were non-residents.

Study Purposes

• To explore the significant differences in “show quality”, “service quality”, “quality of staff interaction”, “overall satisfaction” and “future intentions” between local and non-local visitors and across various event types.

• To better understand the extent to which Charlotte’s CRVA-managed public assembly facilities and events influence visitation to and the visitor experience in our destination.

• Evaluate effectiveness of various marketing & communications tools.

Bojangles’ Coliseum Ovens Auditorium

Bojangles’ Coliseum Ovens Auditorium

Methods• Research Instrument

– Captured respondents’ ratings on: quality of show, quality of services & facility areas, and quality of staff treatment/interaction

– Measured these elements using a five-point Likert-type scale (1=Poor to 5=Excellent)

– Respondents also rated Satisfaction using a five-point Likert-type scale (1=completely disagree to 5=completely agree)

– Future intentions were measured by asking respondents the likelihood that they would attend another event at these facilities or would recommend an event at these facilities to family or friends.

Methods

• Data Collection– Survey data came from the Charlotte Regional

Visitors Authority (CRVA) and included a variety of events at two different venues

– The survey covered the July 2006 to June 2007 timeframe (fiscal year 2007) and was administered to patrons who attended at least one event and provided an email address (TicketMaster purchase)

– Each month, event attendees were contacted via email and asked to participate by clicking on the web survey link provided

Methods

• Data Analysis– A total of 8,446 reliable responses were used for

analysis.

– Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was employed using SPSS 15.0 software.

Descriptive Results

Residency N %

Local Residents (NC) 6,430 76.1

Non Local Residents (Non-NC) 2,016 23.9

Show Type

Broadway 557 6.6

Comedy 638 7.6

Concert 3,868 45.8

Family 2,468 29.2

Other (sports, school, play, fine arts) 915 10.8

Information Resources Used

Email 2,184 25.9

Other (non venue) Websites 1,704 20.2

Radio 1,487 17.6

TV 1,191 14.1

Friend 997 11.8

Newspaper 821 9.7

Other 660 7.8

Print Brochure (mail) 389 4.6

Venue Website 315 3.7

Billboard 165 2.0

Posters/Flyers 133 1.6

Ticket Purchase Method

Internet 8,045 95.5

Box Office 337 4.0

Phone 42 0.5

Results: Mean Scores on Dimensions

Constructs/Indicators Mean Standard Deviation

Quality of the Show

Sound 4.39 0.93

Music 4.53 0.84

Lighting 4.36 0.89

Value 4.14 1.20

Overall Quality of the Show 4.27 1.11

Quality of the Services, Facility

Auditorium 4.17 0.95

Restrooms 3.99 0.95

Parking 3.97 1.01

Concessions 3.76 1.02

Ticket Services 4.23 0.85

Security 4.13 0.86

Quality of Staff Interaction

Ticket Takers 4.50 0.69

Ushers 4.43 0.83

Concessions 4.32 0.81

Overall Satisfaction

Overall Satisfaction with Venue Experience 4.38 0.99

Future Intentions

Attend Another Event 4.50 0.90

Recommend an Event to Friends/Relatives 4.44 0.94

Between Subject Effects: Quality Dimensions, Satisfaction & Future Intentions by ResidencyQuality of the Show by Residency Sum of

Squares dfMean

Squares F-Value p-value

Sound 34.705 1 34.705 38.347 0.000

Music 56.517 1 56.517 72.894 0.000

Lighting 44.670 1 44.670 52.749 0.000

Value 132.291 1 132.291 86.652 0.000

Overall Quality of the Show 131.339 1 131.339 96.782 0.000

Quality of the Services, Facility by Residency

Auditorium 17.461 1 17.461 18.612 0.000

Restrooms 20.422 1 20.422 22.182 0.000

Parking 51.045 1 51.045 50.245 0.000

Concessions 27.492 1 27.492 26.329 0.000

Ticket Services 13.770 1 13.770 18.646 0.000

Security 18.277 1 18.277 24.352 0.000

Quality of Staff Interaction by Residency

Ticket Takers 6.306 1 6.306 12.791 0.000

Ushers 1.996 1 1.996 3.005 0.083

Concessions 3.260 1 3.260 4.927 0.026

Overall Satisfaction by Residency

Overall Satisfaction with Venue Experience 32.209 1 32.209 39.234 0.000

Future Intentions by Residency

Attend Another Event 8.745 1 8.745 10.684 0.001

Recommend an Event to Friends/Relatives 10.260 1 10.260 11.255 0.001

Between Subject Effects: Quality Dimensions, Satisfaction & Future Intentions by Show TypeQuality of the Show by Show Type Sum of

Squares dfMean Squares

F-Value p-value

Sound 515.878 4 128.969 155.464 0.000

Music 865.573 4 216.393 333.864 0.000

Lighting 582.963 4 145.741 191.167 0.000

Value 2144.366 4 536.091 430.149 0.000

Overall Quality of the Show 1895.564 4 473.891 438.962 0.000

Quality of the Services, Facility by Show Type

Auditorium 626.852 4 156.713 186.006 0.000

Restrooms 289.700 4 72.425 82.423 0.000

Parking 39.046 4 9.761 9.586 0.000

Concessions 114.572 4 28.643 27.783 0.000

Ticket Services 105.092 4 26.273 36.265 0.000

Security 122.506 4 30.627 41.700 0.000

Quality of Staff Interaction by Show Type

Ticket Takers 93.794 4 23.448 48.908 0.000

Ushers 99.544 4 24.886 38.341 0.000

Concessions 87.674 4 21.919 33.791 0.000

Overall Satisfaction by Show Type

Overall Satisfaction with Venue Experience 693.523 4 173.381 193.358 0.000

Future Intentions by Show Type

Attend Another Event 331.018 4 82.755 107.620 0.000

Recommend an Event to Friends/Relatives 374.146 4 93.536 109.445 0.000

Mean Scores on Quality Dimensions, Satisfaction & Future Intentions by ResidencyQuality of the Show by Residency Mean

Mean DifferencesNC

(n=4,767)Non-NC

(n=1,581)

Sound 4.33 4.50 -0.17

Music 4.45 4.67 -0.22

Lighting 4.29 4.49 -0.20

Value 4.01 4.34 -0.33

Overall Quality of the Show 4.15 4.48 -0.33

Quality of the Services, Facility by Residency

Auditorium 4.13 4.25 -0.12

Restrooms 3.96 4.09 -0.13

Parking 3.94 4.14 -0.20

Concessions 3.74 3.89 -0.15

Ticket Services 4.20 4.31 -0.11

Security 4.10 4.23 -0.13

Quality of Staff Interaction by Residency

Ticket Takers 4.49 4.55 -0.07

Ushers 4.44 4.48 -0.04

Concessions 4.31 4.37 -0.06

Overall Satisfaction by Residency

Overall Satisfaction with Venue Experience 4.33 4.51 -0.18

Future Intentions by Residency

Attend Another Event 4.47 4.56 -0.09

Recommend an Event to Friends/Relatives 4.41 4.51 -0.10

Mean Scores on Quality Dimensions, Satisfaction & Future Intentions by Show Type

Quality of the Show by Show Type Mean Values

Broadway Comedy Concert Family Others

Sound 4.50 4.66 4.54 3.92 4.55

Music 4.71 4.56 4.81 3.94 4.51

Lighting 4.62 4.52 4.51 3.86 4.54

Value 4.39 4.49 4.47 3.16 4.41

Overall Quality of the Show 4.58 4.60 4.59 3.35 4.48

Quality of the Services, Facility by Show Type

Auditorium 4.30 4.41 4.34 3.66 4.44

Restrooms 4.00 4.30 4.11 3.66 4.15

Parking 3.89 3.80 4.04 3.94 4.08

Concessions 3.82 3.80 3.85 3.57 3.95

Ticket Services 4.26 4.40 4.28 4.03 4.37

Security 4.15 4.26 4.21 3.92 4.28

Quality of Staff Interaction by Show Type

Ticket Takers 4.55 4.59 4.58 4.31 4.58

Ushers 4.51 4.56 4.52 4.25 4.54

Concessions 4.35 4.37 4.41 4.14 4.40

Overall Satisfaction by Show Type

Overall Satisfaction with Venue Experience 4.54 4.60 4.57 3.85 4.62

Future Intentions by Show Type

Attend Another Event 4.64 4.61 4.62 4.13 4.68

Recommend an Event to Friends/Relatives 4.57 4.58 4.57 4.05 4.66

Conclusions

• There are considerable differences in all dimensions between local and non-local visitors and across different types of entertainment events.

• Quality of restrooms, parking and concessions need to be addressed to the extent possible (55 year old venues).

• Quality dimensions of show, service/facility areas, and staff treatment were found to be reliable and

can be used in future tests.

Conclusions

• Email has been an effective marketing device in informing patrons of upcoming events.

• Evaluations show where (local) visitors are least satisfied. Event & facility managers, promoters can improve these areas to maximize (local) attendance.

• Venues hosted patrons from at least 34 different states during FY07, showing they can draw visitors.

• The differences in the quality dimensions, satisfaction and future intentions between local and non-local visitors and across show types can be used to create targeted marketing strategies.

Limitations & Future Study

• Data from surveys does not contain other demographic information aside from residency (address).

• Data from other event centers is needed to generalize visitor, patron behavior.

• Events and ticket sales are often influenced by seasonality. Future study should identify differences in perceptions on a monthly or a quarterly basis.